Washignton - the Senate Democratic caucus PUBLICLY REBUKES Washington Post "conventional wisdom" overpaid pundit DAVID BRODER for his column that comes pretty close to -SMEARING- Dem. Sentate Leader Harry Reid for being (our words) beyond the pale in criticizing President Bush's atrocious leadership and conduct of the Iraq war & occupation (much less lies-to-war and gross dereliction of duty leading up to the 9-11 attacks).
All we can say is, it is a SHAME that Mr. Border, and his collegues at the Washington 'conventional wisdom" post, don't have more lives to give for their country, so they could ship off to Iraq and show the rest of us American citizens how we, too, can sacrifice our lives and limbs for Mr. Bush's war of lies and gross corruption.
-----------------------------------------------------
Broder Tells 'E&P' That He Stands by His Blast at Harry Reid
By Dave Astor
April 30, 2007 12:30 PM ET
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003578260
NEW YORK David Broder said he wouldn't change anything in his April 26 column, which angered many readers and caused 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to write a letter criticizing Broder in Friday's Washington Post.
In that Thursday piece, Broder criticized Harry Reid for saying the Iraq War is lost militarily, compared Reid to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and concluded: "The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader."
"I still think the Democrats can do better, and should do better," said Broder, when reached today by E&P.
The Senate Democratic Caucus letter -- covered in a Friday E&P story -- stated, among other things: "(I)n this age of scripted politicians speaking only to their base or claiming that they 'don't recall' anything, the fact that Mr. Reid speaks his mind should be applauded, not derided."
Broder told E&P that he was "astonished and delighted" that 50 Democratic senators "spontaneously" came up with the letter (adding that he was being "tongue-in-cheek").
The columnist also said he was "not surprised" that his Thursday piece drew such a negative reaction from the 50 senators and most of the many readers who flooded washingtonpost.com with comments. "This war is so unpopular and for very good reason," said Broder. "I've written many columns critical of this administration's actions in Iraq, and most of the response of readers to those columns has been: 'Right on.'"
The latest opinion polls show that at least 60% of the public agrees with Reid's position that the U.S. has little hope of winning the war.
Actually, Broder may not be that optimistic about the war, either. MediaMatters.org reported that the columnist, during an XM Radio interview today, told Bob Edwards he's "really doubtful" that President Bush can "salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq." Broder added that "public opinion in this country says the Democrats are right" in their efforts to end the war.
Broder's April 26 piece was also criticized by columnist Frank Rich yesterday and political commentator Paul Begala last Thursday.
Rich, of The New York Times and New York Times News Service, wrote that Broder "is leading the charge in ridiculing Harry Reid for saying the obvious -- that 'this war is lost' (as it is militarily, unless we stay in perpetuity and draft many more troops)."
And, as E&P reported last Thursday Begala wondered on HuffingtonPost.com why Broder seemed more upset with Reid than with the way the Bush administration "continues to lie" about the Iraq War; "neglected our wounded warriors"; "ignored the victims of Katrina"; "potentially obstructed justice by firing U.S. Attorneys who were pursuing GOP wrongdoing"; and more.
Broder, who's syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group, isn't sure if he'll use a future column to address the reaction his April 26 piece stirred up. Rather than looking back, he said, "I try to keep dealing with new topics."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Astor (dastor@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.
Monday, April 30, 2007
CIA officers (retired) condemn former CIA Director George Tenet of cowardice and Dereliction of Duty in the run-up to Iraq war....
An Open Letter to George Tenet
The attached letter, written by a group of former CIA intelligence officers, was sent today to George Tenet to protest his upcoming book tour. We specifically call on him to return the Medal of Freedom he received from George Bush and to donate part of the royalties from his book proceeds to the soldiers (and their families) who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.
29 April 2007
Mr. George Tenet
c/o Harper Collins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street
8th Floor
New York City, New York 10022
ATTN: Ms. Tina Andredis
Dear Mr. Tenet:
We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the "damage to your reputation". In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.
We agree with you that Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials took the United States to war for flimsy reasons. We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership. You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq.
You are not alone in failing to speak up and protest the twisting and shading of intelligence. Those who remained silent when they could have made a difference also share the blame for not protesting the abuse and misuse of intelligence that occurred under your watch. But ultimately you were in charge and you signed off on the CIA products and you briefed the President.
This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. You helped send very mixed signals to the American people and their legislators in the fall of 2002. CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq. This intelligence was ignored and later misused. On October 1 you signed and gave to President Bush and senior policy makers a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)--which dovetailed with unsupported threats presented by Vice President Dick Cheney in an alarmist speech on August 26, 2002.
You were well aware that the White House tried to present as fact intelligence you knew was unreliable. And yet you tried to have it both ways. On October 7, just hours before the president gave a major speech in Cincinnati, you were successful in preventing him from using the fable about Iraq purchasing uranium in Africa, although that same claim appeared in the NIE you signed only six days before.
Although CIA officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to Al Qaeda.
You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush Administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium. You signed off on Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA's most precious asset--credibility."
You may now feel you were bullied and victimized but you were also one of the bullies. In the end you allowed suspect sources, like Curveball, to be used based on very limited reporting and evidence. Yet you were informed in no uncertain terms that Curveball was not reliable. You broke with CIA standard practice and insisted on voluminous evidence to refute this reporting rather than treat the information as suspect. You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president.
It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community--a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality. Decisions were made, you were in charge, but you have no idea how decisions were made even though you were in charge. Curiously, you focus your anger on the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, but you decline to criticize the President.
Mr. Tenet, as head of the intelligence community, you failed to use your position of power and influence to protect the intelligence process and, more importantly, the country. What should you have done? What could you have done?
For starters, during the critical summer and fall of 2002, you could have gone to key Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and warned them of the pressure. But you remained silent. Your candor during your one-on-one with Sir Richard Dearlove, then-head of British Intelligence, of July 20, 2002" provides documentary evidence that you knew exactly what you were doing; namely, "fixing" the intelligence to the policy.
By your silence you helped build the case for war. You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States. Instead of resigning in protest, when it could have made a difference in the public debate, you remained silent and allowed the Bush Administration to cite your participation in these deliberations to justify their decision to go to war. Your silence contributed to the willingness of the public to support the disastrous war in Iraq, which has killed more than 3300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
If you are committed to correcting the record about your past failings then you should start by returning the Medal of Freedom you willingly received from President Bush in December 2004. You claim it was given only because of the war on terror, but you were standing next to General Tommy Franks and L. Paul Bremer, who also contributed to the disaster in Iraq. President Bush said that you:
played pivotal roles in great events, and [your] efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty.
The reality of Iraq, however, has not made our nation more secure nor has the cause of human liberty been advanced. In fact, your tenure as head of the CIA has helped create a world that is more dangerous. The damage to the credibility of the CIA is serious but can eventually be repaired. Many of the U.S. soldiers maimed in the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad cannot be fixed. Many will live the rest of their lives missing limbs, blinded, mentally disabled, or physically disfigured. And the dead have passed into history.
Mr. Tenet, you cannot undo what has been done. It is doubly sad that you seem still to lack an adequate appreciation of the enormous amount of death and carnage you have facilitated. If reflection on these matters serves to prick your conscience we encourage you to donate at least half of the royalties from your book sales to the veterans and their families, who have paid and are paying the price for your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent and honorable thing to do.
Sincerely yours,
Phil Giraldi
Ray McGovern
Larry Johnson
Jim Marcinkowski
Vince Cannistraro
David MacMichael
The attached letter, written by a group of former CIA intelligence officers, was sent today to George Tenet to protest his upcoming book tour. We specifically call on him to return the Medal of Freedom he received from George Bush and to donate part of the royalties from his book proceeds to the soldiers (and their families) who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.
29 April 2007
Mr. George Tenet
c/o Harper Collins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street
8th Floor
New York City, New York 10022
ATTN: Ms. Tina Andredis
Dear Mr. Tenet:
We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the "damage to your reputation". In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.
We agree with you that Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials took the United States to war for flimsy reasons. We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership. You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq.
You are not alone in failing to speak up and protest the twisting and shading of intelligence. Those who remained silent when they could have made a difference also share the blame for not protesting the abuse and misuse of intelligence that occurred under your watch. But ultimately you were in charge and you signed off on the CIA products and you briefed the President.
This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. You helped send very mixed signals to the American people and their legislators in the fall of 2002. CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq. This intelligence was ignored and later misused. On October 1 you signed and gave to President Bush and senior policy makers a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)--which dovetailed with unsupported threats presented by Vice President Dick Cheney in an alarmist speech on August 26, 2002.
You were well aware that the White House tried to present as fact intelligence you knew was unreliable. And yet you tried to have it both ways. On October 7, just hours before the president gave a major speech in Cincinnati, you were successful in preventing him from using the fable about Iraq purchasing uranium in Africa, although that same claim appeared in the NIE you signed only six days before.
Although CIA officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to Al Qaeda.
You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush Administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium. You signed off on Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA's most precious asset--credibility."
You may now feel you were bullied and victimized but you were also one of the bullies. In the end you allowed suspect sources, like Curveball, to be used based on very limited reporting and evidence. Yet you were informed in no uncertain terms that Curveball was not reliable. You broke with CIA standard practice and insisted on voluminous evidence to refute this reporting rather than treat the information as suspect. You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president.
It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community--a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality. Decisions were made, you were in charge, but you have no idea how decisions were made even though you were in charge. Curiously, you focus your anger on the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, but you decline to criticize the President.
Mr. Tenet, as head of the intelligence community, you failed to use your position of power and influence to protect the intelligence process and, more importantly, the country. What should you have done? What could you have done?
For starters, during the critical summer and fall of 2002, you could have gone to key Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and warned them of the pressure. But you remained silent. Your candor during your one-on-one with Sir Richard Dearlove, then-head of British Intelligence, of July 20, 2002" provides documentary evidence that you knew exactly what you were doing; namely, "fixing" the intelligence to the policy.
By your silence you helped build the case for war. You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States. Instead of resigning in protest, when it could have made a difference in the public debate, you remained silent and allowed the Bush Administration to cite your participation in these deliberations to justify their decision to go to war. Your silence contributed to the willingness of the public to support the disastrous war in Iraq, which has killed more than 3300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
If you are committed to correcting the record about your past failings then you should start by returning the Medal of Freedom you willingly received from President Bush in December 2004. You claim it was given only because of the war on terror, but you were standing next to General Tommy Franks and L. Paul Bremer, who also contributed to the disaster in Iraq. President Bush said that you:
played pivotal roles in great events, and [your] efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty.
The reality of Iraq, however, has not made our nation more secure nor has the cause of human liberty been advanced. In fact, your tenure as head of the CIA has helped create a world that is more dangerous. The damage to the credibility of the CIA is serious but can eventually be repaired. Many of the U.S. soldiers maimed in the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad cannot be fixed. Many will live the rest of their lives missing limbs, blinded, mentally disabled, or physically disfigured. And the dead have passed into history.
Mr. Tenet, you cannot undo what has been done. It is doubly sad that you seem still to lack an adequate appreciation of the enormous amount of death and carnage you have facilitated. If reflection on these matters serves to prick your conscience we encourage you to donate at least half of the royalties from your book sales to the veterans and their families, who have paid and are paying the price for your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent and honorable thing to do.
Sincerely yours,
Phil Giraldi
Ray McGovern
Larry Johnson
Jim Marcinkowski
Vince Cannistraro
David MacMichael
Cowardice, Corruption, and Criminality define the Bush administration- WHEN will Dems PROTECT AMERICANS from the ROGUE govt? CIA Director pleads "I w
Cowardice, Corruption, and Criminality define the Bush administration- WHEN will the Democrats PROTECT AMERICANS from this rogue, criminal governmentt?
In this particular case, former CIA Director George Tenet pleads "I was used!" by the President and Vice President in the run up to the war, in Tenet's media appearances promoting his new tell-all book.
But as the six former CIA officers who have written a letter to Mr. Tenet explain, the DIRECTOR of the CIA pleading "I was used by the president and vice president!" is the lamest excuse for official DERELICTION OF DUTY we Americans have seen, since shortly after 9-11-2001, when it was first revealed that the Vice President (Dick Cheney), Secretary of Defense (then Donald Rumsfeld), Attorney General (then John Ashcroft), and National Security Advisor (Condoleeza Rice) had all been informed - by CIA Director Tenet and 'Counter-Terror Czar' Richard Clarke - IN PERSON, that "AL QAIDA WAS DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN AMERICA," probably by hijacking or attacking US airliners - the above four most senior officials of President Bush's cabinet DID EXACTLY NOTHING to protect American passengers, aircrews, or citizens of possible urban targets (as the Twin Towers had been attacked by a terrorist truck-bomb in 1993).
DERELICTION OF DUTY, and COWARDICE in the face of telling the president news that he doesn't want to hear, ARE THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS of the Bush-Cheney administration - and therefore, of the entire US government under them.
As these CIA ex-officers mention, former CIA Director George Tenet was the "ALBERTO GONZALES" - personification of toadying and incompetence - to George W. Bush's maniacal obssession to bomb, attack, invade, and occupy, as some 51st state, the prostate nation of Iraq, in which UN inspectors WERE ACTIVELY SEARCHING EVERY SUSPECT SITE that US intel. could point out, until the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq as the US ordered them out before Mr. Bush's "shock and awe" attacks.
-----------------------------------------------
Officers: Ex-CIA chief Tenet a 'failed' leader
April 29, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/tenet.letter/index.html
CN) -- In a letter written Saturday to former CIA Director George Tenet, six former CIA officers described their former boss as "the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community," and called his book "an admission of failed leadership."
The writers said Tenet has "a moral obligation" to return the Medal of Freedom he received from President Bush.
They also called on him to give more than half the royalties he gets from book, "At the Center of the Storm," to U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq and families of the dead. (Watch Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice talk about Tenet's book)
The letter, signed by Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael, said Tenet should have resigned in protest rather than take part in the administration's buildup to the war. (Read the full letter)
Johnson is a former CIA intelligence official and registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. McGovern is a former CIA analyst.
Cannistraro is former head of the CIA's counterterrorism division and was head of intelligence for the National Security Council in the late 1980s.
The writers said they agree that Bush administration officials took the nation to war "for flimsy reasons," and that it has proved "ill-advised and wrong-headed."
But, they added, "your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership.
"You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq."
Tenet's 'lack of courage'
The writers accused Tenet of having helped send "very mixed signals" to Americans and their legislators prior to the war.
"CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq.
"This intelligence was ignored and later misused."
The letter said CIA officers learned later that month Iraq had no contact with Osama bin Laden and that then-President Saddam Hussein considered the al Qaeda leader to be an enemy. Still, Tenet "went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to al Qaeda.
"You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium.
"You signed off on Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA's most precious asset - credibility."
The letter described Tenet as "one of the bullies."
"You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president.
"It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community -- a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality."
The letter said Tenet's failure to resist pressures from Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld helped build public support for a war that has cost more than 3,000 American lives and many times that among Iraqis.
"You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
"Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States."
Tenet's memoir, to be published Monday, covers his tenure as director from July 1997 to July 2004.
In an interview to air Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," Tenet expressed outrage that senior officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have used his "slam dunk" reference in discussing Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq over its weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. (Read full story)
"They never let it go. I mean, I became campaign talk. I was a talking point. 'Look at the idiot who told us and we decided to go to war.' Well, let's not be so disingenuous ... Let's everybody just get up and tell the truth.
Tell the American people what really happened."
In this particular case, former CIA Director George Tenet pleads "I was used!" by the President and Vice President in the run up to the war, in Tenet's media appearances promoting his new tell-all book.
But as the six former CIA officers who have written a letter to Mr. Tenet explain, the DIRECTOR of the CIA pleading "I was used by the president and vice president!" is the lamest excuse for official DERELICTION OF DUTY we Americans have seen, since shortly after 9-11-2001, when it was first revealed that the Vice President (Dick Cheney), Secretary of Defense (then Donald Rumsfeld), Attorney General (then John Ashcroft), and National Security Advisor (Condoleeza Rice) had all been informed - by CIA Director Tenet and 'Counter-Terror Czar' Richard Clarke - IN PERSON, that "AL QAIDA WAS DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN AMERICA," probably by hijacking or attacking US airliners - the above four most senior officials of President Bush's cabinet DID EXACTLY NOTHING to protect American passengers, aircrews, or citizens of possible urban targets (as the Twin Towers had been attacked by a terrorist truck-bomb in 1993).
DERELICTION OF DUTY, and COWARDICE in the face of telling the president news that he doesn't want to hear, ARE THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS of the Bush-Cheney administration - and therefore, of the entire US government under them.
As these CIA ex-officers mention, former CIA Director George Tenet was the "ALBERTO GONZALES" - personification of toadying and incompetence - to George W. Bush's maniacal obssession to bomb, attack, invade, and occupy, as some 51st state, the prostate nation of Iraq, in which UN inspectors WERE ACTIVELY SEARCHING EVERY SUSPECT SITE that US intel. could point out, until the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq as the US ordered them out before Mr. Bush's "shock and awe" attacks.
-----------------------------------------------
Officers: Ex-CIA chief Tenet a 'failed' leader
April 29, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/tenet.letter/index.html
CN) -- In a letter written Saturday to former CIA Director George Tenet, six former CIA officers described their former boss as "the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community," and called his book "an admission of failed leadership."
The writers said Tenet has "a moral obligation" to return the Medal of Freedom he received from President Bush.
They also called on him to give more than half the royalties he gets from book, "At the Center of the Storm," to U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq and families of the dead. (Watch Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice talk about Tenet's book)
The letter, signed by Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael, said Tenet should have resigned in protest rather than take part in the administration's buildup to the war. (Read the full letter)
Johnson is a former CIA intelligence official and registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. McGovern is a former CIA analyst.
Cannistraro is former head of the CIA's counterterrorism division and was head of intelligence for the National Security Council in the late 1980s.
The writers said they agree that Bush administration officials took the nation to war "for flimsy reasons," and that it has proved "ill-advised and wrong-headed."
But, they added, "your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership.
"You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq."
Tenet's 'lack of courage'
The writers accused Tenet of having helped send "very mixed signals" to Americans and their legislators prior to the war.
"CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq.
"This intelligence was ignored and later misused."
The letter said CIA officers learned later that month Iraq had no contact with Osama bin Laden and that then-President Saddam Hussein considered the al Qaeda leader to be an enemy. Still, Tenet "went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to al Qaeda.
"You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium.
"You signed off on Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA's most precious asset - credibility."
The letter described Tenet as "one of the bullies."
"You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president.
"It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community -- a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality."
The letter said Tenet's failure to resist pressures from Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld helped build public support for a war that has cost more than 3,000 American lives and many times that among Iraqis.
"You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
"Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States."
Tenet's memoir, to be published Monday, covers his tenure as director from July 1997 to July 2004.
In an interview to air Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," Tenet expressed outrage that senior officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have used his "slam dunk" reference in discussing Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq over its weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. (Read full story)
"They never let it go. I mean, I became campaign talk. I was a talking point. 'Look at the idiot who told us and we decided to go to war.' Well, let's not be so disingenuous ... Let's everybody just get up and tell the truth.
Tell the American people what really happened."
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: Gonzales' US Atty. PURGE was DESIGNED TO IMPEDE prosecution of Republican corruption cases, and INVENT charges against Dems!
This article - by the Republican-loyalist WALL ST. JOURNAL no less! - says all that Americans need to know about the "PURGE" of US Attorneys by the Bush-Gonzales Justice Department in the weeks leading up to and after election 2006.
Even Congressmen (women)on the Judiciary Committee are DOWNPLAYING the significane of the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE angle of Attorney General Gonzales' role in the purging of US Attorneys - in a radio talk show call-in today, Represenative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) stated that the US Attorneys operate "at the pleasure of the President" and may be fired for ANY REASON - "ANY REASON," that is, EXCEPT TO OBSTRUCT AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
<< As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona FACED UNEXPECTED OBSTACLES in getting needed Justice Department approvals TO ADVANCE A CORRUPTOIN INVESTIGATION of REPUBLICAN Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.
The DELAYS, which POSTPONED KEY APPROVALS IN [bring] THE CASE UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION [of November 2006], raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations. The Arizona U.S. attorney then overseeing the case, Paul Charlton, was told he WAS BEING FIRED in December, one of eight federal prosecutors dismissed in the past year. The dismissals have triggered a wave of criticism and calls from Congress for Mr. Gonzales to resign. >>
=====================================
Delays in Renzi Case Raise
More Gonzales Questions
By JOHN R. WILKE and EVAN PEREZ
April 25, 2007; Page A2
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117746770608481484-srrsK50Cy6ieok4EIJGcFSnMnek_20070502.html?mod=blogs
WASHINGTON -- As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona faced unexpected obstacles in getting needed Justice Department approvals to advance a corruption investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.
The delays, which postponed key approvals in the case until after the election, raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations. The Arizona U.S. attorney then overseeing the case, Paul Charlton, was told he was being fired in December, one of eight federal prosecutors dismissed in the past year. The dismissals have triggered a wave of criticism and calls from Congress for Mr. Gonzales to resign.
Investigators pursuing the Renzi case had been seeking clearance from senior Justice Department officials on search warrants, subpoenas and other legal tools for a year before the election, people close to the case said.
The Justice Department denied any foot-dragging in the Renzi case. "There was no such delay," said Bryan Sierra, a spokesman. Mr. Gonzales has said none of the firings of U.S. attorneys was related to corruption cases, and that the department is committed to pursuing such cases. Public-corruption staffing and prosecutions nationwide have increased during his tenure.
IN SUMMARY
• The Issue: Whether a congressional corruption case was delayed last year before the November election.
• The Background: Since 2005, Arizona Rep. Renzi has been under federal investigation for land deals linked to legislation.
• The Outlook: The case could raise new questions about whether Bush administration officials weighed political concerns in their pursuit of politically sensitive cases.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), a Judiciary Committee member who has called for Mr. Gonzales's resignation, said his panel is planning to pursue whether the Renzi case was a factor in Mr. Charlton's firing. "I'm not saying there's evidence and I'm not making allegations," Mr. Schumer told reporters Monday. "But it's something we should look into."
Complex investigations commonly take a year or more, and it isn't known what issues figured in the Renzi case. Many details remain shrouded in the secrecy of a Tucson grand jury that has been at work since last year. Court filings remain under seal. The precise sequence of events likely won't become public unless formal charges are filed.
But the investigation clearly moved slowly: Federal agents opened the case no later than June 2005, yet key witnesses didn't get subpoenas until early this year, those close to the case said. The first publicly known search -- a raid of a Renzi family business by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- was carried out just last week.
Mr. Renzi is the subject of a criminal inquiry into land deals, among other things. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that federal agents are focusing on a $200,000 cash payment Mr. Renzi received from a former business partner in 2005 following a land sale that was to be part of a proposed government land-exchange bill.
A lawyer for Mr. Renzi, Grant Woods, has denied any impropriety and said that the money was repayment of a debt, not a kickback. In a statement last night, Mr. Renzi denied wrongdoing, calling recent stories about the investigation "conjecture and false attacks" and saying that "none of them bear any resemblance to the truth." But he said he intends to "take a leave of absence" from all of his committee posts, including the natural-resources committee and House intelligence panel.
Normally, local U.S. attorneys may seek court approval for warrants and wiretaps without Washington's approval. But the Renzi case -- like many that involve members of Congress -- is being handled jointly by the local U.S. attorney and the department's public-integrity section. In such cases, a senior department official must approve requests for wiretaps and warrants and other formal legal steps.
People briefed on the case said investigators in Arizona asked Washington for clearance -- among other tools -- for a wiretap of Mr. Renzi's telephones, a highly unusual step against a sitting member of Congress, months before Election Day. The wiretap eventually was approved, and was in place by late October, these people said.
On Oct. 26, just days before the election, two political Web sites carried the first public word of the probe. In subsequent news accounts, an unidentified Washington law-enforcement official described the matter as "preliminary." Few details emerged, but the leak disrupted prosecutors' wiretap.
Meanwhile, Mr. Renzi, first elected to Congress in 2002, was fighting to hold on to his seat. In September, President Bush hosted a fund-raiser in Scottsdale on his behalf. About the same time Mr. Charlton was added to a list of prosecutors "we should now consider pushing out," wrote Mr. Gonzales's then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, in a Sept. 13, 2006, email to then-White House counsel Harriet Miers. The email is among thousands that the Justice Department has released in response to congressional inquiries into the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.
In November, Mr. Renzi won re-election to a third term, beating his challenger by 51% to 44%. A month later, on Dec. 7, Mr. Charlton was told he was being dismissed. Two weeks later, he emailed William Mercer, a senior Justice Department official: "Media now asking if I was asked to resign over leak in Congressman Renzi investigation." He asked for advice, but never got a response, according to the emails released by the Justice Department.
Mr. Sierra, the department spokesman, said it would be inappropriate to comment on any ongoing case. Generally, though, cases move along on their own pace, he said. "We don't operate under artificial deadlines," he said. "To artificially put deadlines or to rush the time could damage the integrity of the investigation."
Brian Roehrkasse, another Justice Department official, said the department under Mr. Gonzales "has never retaliated against a United States attorney for conducting or failing to pursue a public corruption investigation."
Mr. Charlton, a Republican with 16 years as a federal prosecutor, was named by President Bush in 2001 to lead the Phoenix office. Now in private practice in Phoenix, he has refused to discuss any details of the Renzi investigation -- even when asked about it at a March 6 hearing of the House judiciary committee.
Write to Evan Perez at evan.perez@wsj.com
Even Congressmen (women)on the Judiciary Committee are DOWNPLAYING the significane of the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE angle of Attorney General Gonzales' role in the purging of US Attorneys - in a radio talk show call-in today, Represenative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) stated that the US Attorneys operate "at the pleasure of the President" and may be fired for ANY REASON - "ANY REASON," that is, EXCEPT TO OBSTRUCT AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
<< As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona FACED UNEXPECTED OBSTACLES in getting needed Justice Department approvals TO ADVANCE A CORRUPTOIN INVESTIGATION of REPUBLICAN Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.
The DELAYS, which POSTPONED KEY APPROVALS IN [bring] THE CASE UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION [of November 2006], raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations. The Arizona U.S. attorney then overseeing the case, Paul Charlton, was told he WAS BEING FIRED in December, one of eight federal prosecutors dismissed in the past year. The dismissals have triggered a wave of criticism and calls from Congress for Mr. Gonzales to resign. >>
=====================================
Delays in Renzi Case Raise
More Gonzales Questions
By JOHN R. WILKE and EVAN PEREZ
April 25, 2007; Page A2
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117746770608481484-srrsK50Cy6ieok4EIJGcFSnMnek_20070502.html?mod=blogs
WASHINGTON -- As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona faced unexpected obstacles in getting needed Justice Department approvals to advance a corruption investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.
The delays, which postponed key approvals in the case until after the election, raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations. The Arizona U.S. attorney then overseeing the case, Paul Charlton, was told he was being fired in December, one of eight federal prosecutors dismissed in the past year. The dismissals have triggered a wave of criticism and calls from Congress for Mr. Gonzales to resign.
Investigators pursuing the Renzi case had been seeking clearance from senior Justice Department officials on search warrants, subpoenas and other legal tools for a year before the election, people close to the case said.
The Justice Department denied any foot-dragging in the Renzi case. "There was no such delay," said Bryan Sierra, a spokesman. Mr. Gonzales has said none of the firings of U.S. attorneys was related to corruption cases, and that the department is committed to pursuing such cases. Public-corruption staffing and prosecutions nationwide have increased during his tenure.
IN SUMMARY
• The Issue: Whether a congressional corruption case was delayed last year before the November election.
• The Background: Since 2005, Arizona Rep. Renzi has been under federal investigation for land deals linked to legislation.
• The Outlook: The case could raise new questions about whether Bush administration officials weighed political concerns in their pursuit of politically sensitive cases.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), a Judiciary Committee member who has called for Mr. Gonzales's resignation, said his panel is planning to pursue whether the Renzi case was a factor in Mr. Charlton's firing. "I'm not saying there's evidence and I'm not making allegations," Mr. Schumer told reporters Monday. "But it's something we should look into."
Complex investigations commonly take a year or more, and it isn't known what issues figured in the Renzi case. Many details remain shrouded in the secrecy of a Tucson grand jury that has been at work since last year. Court filings remain under seal. The precise sequence of events likely won't become public unless formal charges are filed.
But the investigation clearly moved slowly: Federal agents opened the case no later than June 2005, yet key witnesses didn't get subpoenas until early this year, those close to the case said. The first publicly known search -- a raid of a Renzi family business by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- was carried out just last week.
Mr. Renzi is the subject of a criminal inquiry into land deals, among other things. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that federal agents are focusing on a $200,000 cash payment Mr. Renzi received from a former business partner in 2005 following a land sale that was to be part of a proposed government land-exchange bill.
A lawyer for Mr. Renzi, Grant Woods, has denied any impropriety and said that the money was repayment of a debt, not a kickback. In a statement last night, Mr. Renzi denied wrongdoing, calling recent stories about the investigation "conjecture and false attacks" and saying that "none of them bear any resemblance to the truth." But he said he intends to "take a leave of absence" from all of his committee posts, including the natural-resources committee and House intelligence panel.
Normally, local U.S. attorneys may seek court approval for warrants and wiretaps without Washington's approval. But the Renzi case -- like many that involve members of Congress -- is being handled jointly by the local U.S. attorney and the department's public-integrity section. In such cases, a senior department official must approve requests for wiretaps and warrants and other formal legal steps.
People briefed on the case said investigators in Arizona asked Washington for clearance -- among other tools -- for a wiretap of Mr. Renzi's telephones, a highly unusual step against a sitting member of Congress, months before Election Day. The wiretap eventually was approved, and was in place by late October, these people said.
On Oct. 26, just days before the election, two political Web sites carried the first public word of the probe. In subsequent news accounts, an unidentified Washington law-enforcement official described the matter as "preliminary." Few details emerged, but the leak disrupted prosecutors' wiretap.
Meanwhile, Mr. Renzi, first elected to Congress in 2002, was fighting to hold on to his seat. In September, President Bush hosted a fund-raiser in Scottsdale on his behalf. About the same time Mr. Charlton was added to a list of prosecutors "we should now consider pushing out," wrote Mr. Gonzales's then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, in a Sept. 13, 2006, email to then-White House counsel Harriet Miers. The email is among thousands that the Justice Department has released in response to congressional inquiries into the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.
In November, Mr. Renzi won re-election to a third term, beating his challenger by 51% to 44%. A month later, on Dec. 7, Mr. Charlton was told he was being dismissed. Two weeks later, he emailed William Mercer, a senior Justice Department official: "Media now asking if I was asked to resign over leak in Congressman Renzi investigation." He asked for advice, but never got a response, according to the emails released by the Justice Department.
Mr. Sierra, the department spokesman, said it would be inappropriate to comment on any ongoing case. Generally, though, cases move along on their own pace, he said. "We don't operate under artificial deadlines," he said. "To artificially put deadlines or to rush the time could damage the integrity of the investigation."
Brian Roehrkasse, another Justice Department official, said the department under Mr. Gonzales "has never retaliated against a United States attorney for conducting or failing to pursue a public corruption investigation."
Mr. Charlton, a Republican with 16 years as a federal prosecutor, was named by President Bush in 2001 to lead the Phoenix office. Now in private practice in Phoenix, he has refused to discuss any details of the Renzi investigation -- even when asked about it at a March 6 hearing of the House judiciary committee.
Write to Evan Perez at evan.perez@wsj.com
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Rove under investigation for being at the nexus of voter-disenfranchisement PURGE & politicization of US Attorneys....
Low-key office launches high-profile inquiry
The Office of Special Counsel will investigate U.S. attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
April 24, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-probe24apr24,0,5629429,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
WASHINGTON — Most of the time, an obscure federal investigative unit known as the Office of Special Counsel confines itself to monitoring the activities of relatively low-level government employees, stepping in with reprimands and other routine administrative actions for such offenses as discriminating against military personnel or engaging in prohibited political activities.
But the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.
The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.
First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part.
"We will take the evidence where it leads us," Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee, said in an interview Monday. "We will not leave any stone unturned."
Bloch declined to comment on who his investigators would interview, but he said the probe would be independent and uncoordinated with any other agency or government entity.
The decision by Bloch's office is the latest evidence that Rove's once-vaunted operations inside the government, which helped the GOP hold the White House and Congress for six years, now threaten to mire the administration in investigations.
The question of improper political influence over government decision-making is at the heart of the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys and the ongoing congressional investigation of the special e-mail system installed in the White House and other government offices by the Republican National Committee.
All administrations are political, but this White House has systematically brought electoral concerns to Cabinet agencies in a way unseen previously.
For example, Rove and his top aides met each year with presidential appointees throughout the government, using PowerPoint presentations to review polling data and describe high-priority congressional and other campaigns around the country.
Some officials have said they understood that they were expected to seek opportunities to help Republicans in these races, through federal grants, policy decisions or in other ways.
A former Interior Department official, Wayne R. Smith, who sat through briefings from Rove and his then-deputy Ken Mehlman, said that during President Bush's first term, he and other appointees were frequently briefed on political priorities.
"We were constantly being reminded about how our decisions could affect electoral results," Smith said.
"This is a big deal," Paul C. Light, a New York University expert on the executive branch, said of Bloch's plan. "It is a significant moment for the administration and Karl Rove. It speaks to the growing sense that there is a nexus at the White House that explains what's going on in these disparate investigations."
The 106-person Office of Special Counsel has never conducted such a broad and high-profile inquiry in its history. One of its primary missions has been to enforce the Hatch Act, a law enacted in 1939 to preserve the integrity of the civil service.
Bloch said the new investigation grew from two narrower inquiries his staff had begun in recent weeks.
One involved the fired U.S. attorney from New Mexico, David C. Iglesias.
The other centered on a PowerPoint presentation that a Rove aide, J. Scott Jennings, made at the General Services Administration this year.
That presentation listed recent polls and the outlook for battleground House and Senate races in 2008. After the presentation, GSA Administrator Lorita Doan encouraged agency managers to "support our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses. Doan said she could not recall making such comments.
The Los Angeles Times has learned that similar presentations were made by other White House staff members, including Rove, to other Cabinet agencies. During such presentations, employees said they got a not-so-subtle message about helping endangered Republicans.
White House spokesman Scott M. Stanzel said the Hatch Act did not prohibit providing informational briefings to government employees.
Responding to a letter of complaint to the White House from 25 Democratic senators, Stanzel said: "It is entirely appropriate for the president's staff to provide informational briefings to appointees throughout the federal government about the political landscape in which they implement the president's policies and priorities."
However, questions have emerged about the PowerPoint presentations, including whether Doan's comments crossed the line and whether the presentations violated rules limiting political activity on federal property.
Whether legal or not, the multiple presentations revealed how widely and systematically the White House sought to deliver its list of electoral priorities.
In the course of investigating the U.S. attorney matter and the PowerPoint presentations, Democratic congressional investigators discovered e-mails written by White House personnel using accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee.
For example, they discovered that Jennings, a special assistant to the president and deputy director of political affairs in the White House, was using an e-mail with the domain name of "gwb43.com" that the RNC maintained.
That domain name showed up in e-mail communications from Jennings about how to replace U.S. Atty. H.E. "Bud" Cummins III of Arkansas to make room for Timothy Griffin, a Rove protege, in such a way as to "alleviate pressure/implication that Tim forced Bud out."
Another Jennings e-mail using the RNC account requested that department officials meet with a former New Mexico campaign advisor who wanted to "discuss the U.S. Atty situation there."
The growing controversy inspired him to act, Bloch said.
"We are acting with dispatch and trying to deal with this because people are concerned about it … and it is not a subject that should be left to endless speculation," he said.
The Office of Special Counsel will investigate U.S. attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
April 24, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-probe24apr24,0,5629429,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
WASHINGTON — Most of the time, an obscure federal investigative unit known as the Office of Special Counsel confines itself to monitoring the activities of relatively low-level government employees, stepping in with reprimands and other routine administrative actions for such offenses as discriminating against military personnel or engaging in prohibited political activities.
But the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.
The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.
First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part.
"We will take the evidence where it leads us," Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee, said in an interview Monday. "We will not leave any stone unturned."
Bloch declined to comment on who his investigators would interview, but he said the probe would be independent and uncoordinated with any other agency or government entity.
The decision by Bloch's office is the latest evidence that Rove's once-vaunted operations inside the government, which helped the GOP hold the White House and Congress for six years, now threaten to mire the administration in investigations.
The question of improper political influence over government decision-making is at the heart of the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys and the ongoing congressional investigation of the special e-mail system installed in the White House and other government offices by the Republican National Committee.
All administrations are political, but this White House has systematically brought electoral concerns to Cabinet agencies in a way unseen previously.
For example, Rove and his top aides met each year with presidential appointees throughout the government, using PowerPoint presentations to review polling data and describe high-priority congressional and other campaigns around the country.
Some officials have said they understood that they were expected to seek opportunities to help Republicans in these races, through federal grants, policy decisions or in other ways.
A former Interior Department official, Wayne R. Smith, who sat through briefings from Rove and his then-deputy Ken Mehlman, said that during President Bush's first term, he and other appointees were frequently briefed on political priorities.
"We were constantly being reminded about how our decisions could affect electoral results," Smith said.
"This is a big deal," Paul C. Light, a New York University expert on the executive branch, said of Bloch's plan. "It is a significant moment for the administration and Karl Rove. It speaks to the growing sense that there is a nexus at the White House that explains what's going on in these disparate investigations."
The 106-person Office of Special Counsel has never conducted such a broad and high-profile inquiry in its history. One of its primary missions has been to enforce the Hatch Act, a law enacted in 1939 to preserve the integrity of the civil service.
Bloch said the new investigation grew from two narrower inquiries his staff had begun in recent weeks.
One involved the fired U.S. attorney from New Mexico, David C. Iglesias.
The other centered on a PowerPoint presentation that a Rove aide, J. Scott Jennings, made at the General Services Administration this year.
That presentation listed recent polls and the outlook for battleground House and Senate races in 2008. After the presentation, GSA Administrator Lorita Doan encouraged agency managers to "support our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses. Doan said she could not recall making such comments.
The Los Angeles Times has learned that similar presentations were made by other White House staff members, including Rove, to other Cabinet agencies. During such presentations, employees said they got a not-so-subtle message about helping endangered Republicans.
White House spokesman Scott M. Stanzel said the Hatch Act did not prohibit providing informational briefings to government employees.
Responding to a letter of complaint to the White House from 25 Democratic senators, Stanzel said: "It is entirely appropriate for the president's staff to provide informational briefings to appointees throughout the federal government about the political landscape in which they implement the president's policies and priorities."
However, questions have emerged about the PowerPoint presentations, including whether Doan's comments crossed the line and whether the presentations violated rules limiting political activity on federal property.
Whether legal or not, the multiple presentations revealed how widely and systematically the White House sought to deliver its list of electoral priorities.
In the course of investigating the U.S. attorney matter and the PowerPoint presentations, Democratic congressional investigators discovered e-mails written by White House personnel using accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee.
For example, they discovered that Jennings, a special assistant to the president and deputy director of political affairs in the White House, was using an e-mail with the domain name of "gwb43.com" that the RNC maintained.
That domain name showed up in e-mail communications from Jennings about how to replace U.S. Atty. H.E. "Bud" Cummins III of Arkansas to make room for Timothy Griffin, a Rove protege, in such a way as to "alleviate pressure/implication that Tim forced Bud out."
Another Jennings e-mail using the RNC account requested that department officials meet with a former New Mexico campaign advisor who wanted to "discuss the U.S. Atty situation there."
The growing controversy inspired him to act, Bloch said.
"We are acting with dispatch and trying to deal with this because people are concerned about it … and it is not a subject that should be left to endless speculation," he said.
If the Democratic Congress does not CONFRONT and REVERSE the Rove-GOP DISENFRANCHISEMENT machine, it will be a dismal failure....
A terrific editorial by BuzzFlash.com sums up 6 years of Republican misrule and criminal electioneering in one page: Reactionary, party-first Republicans target and then systematically DISENFRANCHISE LEGAL VOTERS by illegal 'purge' campaign tactics, and then use criminal corruption, and million-dollar tax cuts for major media corporations, to sustain a narrative that it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who are engaged in massive, systematic VOTE FRAUD. Or, in shorter form yet, the Republicans are back to the old conservative SEGREGATION and disenfranchisement of legal voters, in violation of the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution, and can maintain the illegal DISENFRANCHISEMENT by sheer, overwhelming control of the media-narrative and US government machinery.
---------------------------------------------------------
Once again, the Democratic Party leadership is FALLING INTO THE TRAP laid by the Republican Party: the Democrats are DEFINING THEMSELVES as the party that wants to exit Iraq - while not being nearly aggressive enough in CONFRONTING the misdemeanors and high- and low-crimes of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration here in America, or with regards to mercenaries, torture, fruadulent contracts, and other illegal conduct in Iraq.
This allows the Republicans to continue THEY MYTH that Democrats are "Soft on terror" and that the Democrats are "the party of "bleeding-heart tax-and-spend liberals" - even though it is the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that gives a FREE PASS to SAUDI FUNDING OF AL QAIDA TERRORIST groups (aka "Sunni insurgents"), and even though the Bush administration has done NOTHING to bring the ANTHRAX-TERRORIST murder to justice, and even though the Bush administration's signature mode of "leadership" in the Iraq occupation is MASSIVE CONTRACTOR CORRUPTION and chronic underestimation of insurgent capabilities.
We hate to 'unload' on the Democratic leadership, but they are falling into the mode of Al Gore in 2000, Tom Daschle in 2002, and John Kerry in 2004 - ALLOWING THE REPUBLICAN MEDIA MACHINE to DICTATE the media narrative, thereby putting Democratic candidates on the defensive - and above all, ALLOWING the media to serve up a "CONVENTIONAL WISDOM" narrative that is, in the case of the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and Fox 'news', usually indistinguishable from RNC talking points faxed from Karl Rove's WH office.
It is true that the Democrats won the majority in the 2006 midterm elections - BUT - beyond DSCC and DCCC fundraising, the heavy-lifting of Campaign 2006 was OUTSIDER candidates vocally and forcefully challenging Republican incumbents. In addition, a serials of trials, criminal convictions, and breaking scandals crashed over the Republicans in the weeks and months leading up to election '06, boosting Democratic challengers. But make no mistake: THOSE CONVICTIONS of Republican lobbyists (Abramoff), fundraisers (Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling), and leaders (Bob Ney, Randy 'Duke' Cunningham) were THE LAST GASP of an independent, non-partisan, professional justice system. Karl Rove, the embodiment of Republican sense of entitlement and beyond-the-law arrogance, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican Party have set out to SUBVERT the entire US government criminal system to an entirely partisan organization - as the Ken Starr "INDEPENDENT" prosecution of the Clinton's Whitewater real-estate losses eventually led to Starr's graphic portrayal of Bill Clinton's infamous affair with Monica Lewinsky, leading to the impeachment of President Clinton.
As of April 2007, it looks like the Republican CRIMINAL, unconstitutional DISENFRANCHISEMENT MACHINE is in place and is now GEARING UP to steal elections, smear Democratic candidates, and hamstring those Democrats who do win elections.
------------------------------------
Karl Rove's Jim Crow Voter Suppression Machine is Humming Along Just Fine, All Ready for 2008
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 04/24/2007
Buzzflash.com
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/134
It was an April 21st article that could easily escape your notice: "Ruling lets Arizona require proof of citizenship from voters." The first paragraph of the Associated Press story reads, "A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt to halt enforcement of Arizona's first-in-the-nation requirement that all residents prove they are U.S. citizens when they first register to vote."
Not that the one article in itself should set off alarm bells. But when you put together evidence from the Bush Administration in regards to voter suppression tactics, the partisan U.S. of prosecutors, and other indicators, it becomes clear --as Greg Palast has been warning us – that the Bush Republican Party plans to hold onto the White House for the GOP in 2008 through whatever means possible.
The key electoral strategy, beginning with the infamous "felon purge" in Florida in 2000, has been minority voter suppression. And when they can’t suppress enough votes, they just steal the election, as Scalia and the Supreme Court felonious five did to put Bush in office. (Remember that Gore beat Bush in the popular count by more than half a million votes.)
ProsecutorGate has revealed the missing link that tied the Rovian "Jim Crow" game plan together in one neat package.
It goes something like this. First, use every means possible to suppress minority and other Democractic votes. This includes passing "Jim Crow" style voting laws in the states. Secondly, employ tactics like the Florida felon purge to deny voting rights to Democrats. Thirdly, use U.S. prosecutors to magnify minor voting irregularities in Democratic areas and make it appear as if the Dems are engaging in widespread voter fraud. Fourthly, use the legal action brought by partisan GOP U.S. Attorneys to have loyalist Republicans cite them as justification for "Jim Crow" laws at the state level.
Actually, the U.S. Attorney component is vital to the overall Rove electoral strategy for several reasons. One, it is most often employed before elections (in relation to voter registration, etc.) to try and influence electoral outcomes in favor of Republicans by muddying up the Democrats. Two, it helps to cover up widespread and orchestrated Republican voter fraud. (Remember the New Hampshire phone jamming case that was tied directly to the RNC. The RNC paid more than a million dollars in legal fees to defend the perpetrators of the illegal effort to interfere with a Union voter turnout effort. And who was doing political work through the RNC e-mail system? Karl Rove and other White House staffers, including his "opposition research" protégé who was just appointed U.S. Attorney in Little Rock.) Three, it gives Republican state legislators "evidence" to "demand" tough voter registration and voter identification requirements.
Of course, Rove’s long-term voter suppression strategy doesn’t include Rove’s long-term vote theft strategy, which is an additional story related to electronic voting and packing the courts with right wing hacks.
What is clear is that the Bush Administration is not continuing to try to expand totalitarian "Unitary Executive" authority so that the Bush Republicans can hand over a virtually unchallengeable presidency to a Democrat. They are steam rolling a dictatorial presidency forward with the expectation that they will be handing over unprecedented powers to a Republican.
As BuzzFlash has written before, remember that after all of the hullabaloo about the replacement of U.S. Attorneys with GOP hit men and women who will do Rove’s bidding, those loyalists are still in place and gearing up for carrying out the political dirty work that will help defeat a Democrat for president in 2008.
Furthermore, the U.S. Attorneys who weren’t fired and have cooperated with Rove’s grand scheme to deny minorities the right to vote, those U.S. Attorneys who conducted partisan prosecutions are also still in place.
Gonzales may or may not stay in office. But whether he leaves or not, you can be sure that his replacement -- an Orrin Hatch or Ted Olsen, for example – will make sure that the Department of Justice’s role in voter suppression keeps humming along.
The RNC and Rove e-mails that the White House claims are "lost" no doubt would reveal the grand scheme behind the effort for the Bush Republicans to control the U.S. government for 100 years, as Rove has bragged.
It won’t be because they received the most votes. It will be because they suppressed the most votes.
And Rove is smiling because the machine he built is not being dismantled.
To the contrary, it is just being fine-tuned.
--------------------------------------------
Additional BuzzFlash Note: William Rehnquist, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and was one of the felonious five at the time of the theft of the 2000 election, cut his GOP teeth aggressively challenging minority voters at polling places in Arizona. Ain't it ironic?
---------------------------------------------------------
Once again, the Democratic Party leadership is FALLING INTO THE TRAP laid by the Republican Party: the Democrats are DEFINING THEMSELVES as the party that wants to exit Iraq - while not being nearly aggressive enough in CONFRONTING the misdemeanors and high- and low-crimes of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration here in America, or with regards to mercenaries, torture, fruadulent contracts, and other illegal conduct in Iraq.
This allows the Republicans to continue THEY MYTH that Democrats are "Soft on terror" and that the Democrats are "the party of "bleeding-heart tax-and-spend liberals" - even though it is the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that gives a FREE PASS to SAUDI FUNDING OF AL QAIDA TERRORIST groups (aka "Sunni insurgents"), and even though the Bush administration has done NOTHING to bring the ANTHRAX-TERRORIST murder to justice, and even though the Bush administration's signature mode of "leadership" in the Iraq occupation is MASSIVE CONTRACTOR CORRUPTION and chronic underestimation of insurgent capabilities.
We hate to 'unload' on the Democratic leadership, but they are falling into the mode of Al Gore in 2000, Tom Daschle in 2002, and John Kerry in 2004 - ALLOWING THE REPUBLICAN MEDIA MACHINE to DICTATE the media narrative, thereby putting Democratic candidates on the defensive - and above all, ALLOWING the media to serve up a "CONVENTIONAL WISDOM" narrative that is, in the case of the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and Fox 'news', usually indistinguishable from RNC talking points faxed from Karl Rove's WH office.
It is true that the Democrats won the majority in the 2006 midterm elections - BUT - beyond DSCC and DCCC fundraising, the heavy-lifting of Campaign 2006 was OUTSIDER candidates vocally and forcefully challenging Republican incumbents. In addition, a serials of trials, criminal convictions, and breaking scandals crashed over the Republicans in the weeks and months leading up to election '06, boosting Democratic challengers. But make no mistake: THOSE CONVICTIONS of Republican lobbyists (Abramoff), fundraisers (Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling), and leaders (Bob Ney, Randy 'Duke' Cunningham) were THE LAST GASP of an independent, non-partisan, professional justice system. Karl Rove, the embodiment of Republican sense of entitlement and beyond-the-law arrogance, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican Party have set out to SUBVERT the entire US government criminal system to an entirely partisan organization - as the Ken Starr "INDEPENDENT" prosecution of the Clinton's Whitewater real-estate losses eventually led to Starr's graphic portrayal of Bill Clinton's infamous affair with Monica Lewinsky, leading to the impeachment of President Clinton.
As of April 2007, it looks like the Republican CRIMINAL, unconstitutional DISENFRANCHISEMENT MACHINE is in place and is now GEARING UP to steal elections, smear Democratic candidates, and hamstring those Democrats who do win elections.
------------------------------------
Karl Rove's Jim Crow Voter Suppression Machine is Humming Along Just Fine, All Ready for 2008
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 04/24/2007
Buzzflash.com
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/134
It was an April 21st article that could easily escape your notice: "Ruling lets Arizona require proof of citizenship from voters." The first paragraph of the Associated Press story reads, "A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt to halt enforcement of Arizona's first-in-the-nation requirement that all residents prove they are U.S. citizens when they first register to vote."
Not that the one article in itself should set off alarm bells. But when you put together evidence from the Bush Administration in regards to voter suppression tactics, the partisan U.S. of prosecutors, and other indicators, it becomes clear --as Greg Palast has been warning us – that the Bush Republican Party plans to hold onto the White House for the GOP in 2008 through whatever means possible.
The key electoral strategy, beginning with the infamous "felon purge" in Florida in 2000, has been minority voter suppression. And when they can’t suppress enough votes, they just steal the election, as Scalia and the Supreme Court felonious five did to put Bush in office. (Remember that Gore beat Bush in the popular count by more than half a million votes.)
ProsecutorGate has revealed the missing link that tied the Rovian "Jim Crow" game plan together in one neat package.
It goes something like this. First, use every means possible to suppress minority and other Democractic votes. This includes passing "Jim Crow" style voting laws in the states. Secondly, employ tactics like the Florida felon purge to deny voting rights to Democrats. Thirdly, use U.S. prosecutors to magnify minor voting irregularities in Democratic areas and make it appear as if the Dems are engaging in widespread voter fraud. Fourthly, use the legal action brought by partisan GOP U.S. Attorneys to have loyalist Republicans cite them as justification for "Jim Crow" laws at the state level.
Actually, the U.S. Attorney component is vital to the overall Rove electoral strategy for several reasons. One, it is most often employed before elections (in relation to voter registration, etc.) to try and influence electoral outcomes in favor of Republicans by muddying up the Democrats. Two, it helps to cover up widespread and orchestrated Republican voter fraud. (Remember the New Hampshire phone jamming case that was tied directly to the RNC. The RNC paid more than a million dollars in legal fees to defend the perpetrators of the illegal effort to interfere with a Union voter turnout effort. And who was doing political work through the RNC e-mail system? Karl Rove and other White House staffers, including his "opposition research" protégé who was just appointed U.S. Attorney in Little Rock.) Three, it gives Republican state legislators "evidence" to "demand" tough voter registration and voter identification requirements.
Of course, Rove’s long-term voter suppression strategy doesn’t include Rove’s long-term vote theft strategy, which is an additional story related to electronic voting and packing the courts with right wing hacks.
What is clear is that the Bush Administration is not continuing to try to expand totalitarian "Unitary Executive" authority so that the Bush Republicans can hand over a virtually unchallengeable presidency to a Democrat. They are steam rolling a dictatorial presidency forward with the expectation that they will be handing over unprecedented powers to a Republican.
As BuzzFlash has written before, remember that after all of the hullabaloo about the replacement of U.S. Attorneys with GOP hit men and women who will do Rove’s bidding, those loyalists are still in place and gearing up for carrying out the political dirty work that will help defeat a Democrat for president in 2008.
Furthermore, the U.S. Attorneys who weren’t fired and have cooperated with Rove’s grand scheme to deny minorities the right to vote, those U.S. Attorneys who conducted partisan prosecutions are also still in place.
Gonzales may or may not stay in office. But whether he leaves or not, you can be sure that his replacement -- an Orrin Hatch or Ted Olsen, for example – will make sure that the Department of Justice’s role in voter suppression keeps humming along.
The RNC and Rove e-mails that the White House claims are "lost" no doubt would reveal the grand scheme behind the effort for the Bush Republicans to control the U.S. government for 100 years, as Rove has bragged.
It won’t be because they received the most votes. It will be because they suppressed the most votes.
And Rove is smiling because the machine he built is not being dismantled.
To the contrary, it is just being fine-tuned.
--------------------------------------------
Additional BuzzFlash Note: William Rehnquist, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and was one of the felonious five at the time of the theft of the 2000 election, cut his GOP teeth aggressively challenging minority voters at polling places in Arizona. Ain't it ironic?
"Breck girl" Edwards and "Take 'em for granted" Hillary: Dems in 07 fielding a WEAK slate of candidates...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/us/politics/23web-nagourney.html
Below is a great article by ADAM NAGOURNEY of the NEW YORK TIMES, in which Nagourney details how his own column from four years ago this week, in which at the end of a column on prospective Democratic candidates Nagourney and co-writer Richard Stevens casually dropped the line "White House staffers referred to North Carolina Senator John Edwards as "the Breck Girl":
<>
This article is indeed confessional - Nagourney asks rhetorically if he not only previewed to slow-burn smearing of Edwards and Kerry by the Republican campaign, but helped it along in his NYT column:
<< Our story may have had the result of not only previewing what the Bush campaign intended to do, but, by introducing such memorably biting characterizations into the political dialogue, helping it. >>
Unfortunately, as far as our desire to tar the Republicans as the party of negative conotations (smears) and the press-media as their willing dupes, it turns out that - THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES THEMSELVES joined in the slow-burn portrayal of Senator Edwards as "a pretty-boy empty suit":
<>
This demonstrates what the Republican smear-attack hired-guns and media specialists (read: Karl Rove & his accolytes) well know: that not only does SMOKE usually indicate some degree of FIRE, but in modern politics, as well as ancient politics, for that matter, MYTH often trumps "reality."
IF Democrat candidates can't deflect or derail images of "pretty-boy/empty suit" or "mandarin pooh-bah whose wife is a foreign billionaire" easily - THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Kerry PROVED the Republican smear-mongers 'right', by not only making the entire Democratic nominating convention (in effect a coronation ceremony) ABOUT HIS OWN Vietnam record - but Kerry then ALLOWED the Republicans to turn that record - or at least the public perception of it - INTO MUSH! Republican operatives handed out cutsey band-aids with purple-hearts drawn on them with permanent markers - and Kerry had to run to veteran organizations for a defense against the smear that casually demeaned ALL who earned the medal given only to those wounded under fire in combat!
For his part, former Senator Edwards was recently grilled by - KATIE COURIC of CBS 'news' - and the impression was left across America that Edwards, if not his wife, WAS REDUCED TO A BADGERED FIGURE!
Americans DO NOT WANT A PRESIDENT - who looks like he (or she) has been beaten and bloodied by - KATIE COURIC ???!
WHAT has the Democratic Party come to, that ALL of its candidates are AFRAID of the press-media, AFRAID of the Bush-Cheney corruption-saturated White House, AFRAID of the Karl Rove SMEAR machine, and CAN NOT present a VOCAL AND COMPELLING INDICTMENT of the crimes and follies of the Bush-Cheney administration???!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/us/politics/23web-nagourney.html
Below is a great article by ADAM NAGOURNEY of the NEW YORK TIMES, in which Nagourney details how his own column from four years ago this week, in which at the end of a column on prospective Democratic candidates Nagourney and co-writer Richard Stevens casually dropped the line "White House staffers referred to North Carolina Senator John Edwards as "the Breck Girl":
<
This article is indeed confessional - Nagourney asks rhetorically if he not only previewed to slow-burn smearing of Edwards and Kerry by the Republican campaign, but helped it along in his NYT column:
<< Our story may have had the result of not only previewing what the Bush campaign intended to do, but, by introducing such memorably biting characterizations into the political dialogue, helping it. >>
Unfortunately, as far as our desire to tar the Republicans as the party of negative conotations (smears) and the press-media as their willing dupes, it turns out that - THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES THEMSELVES joined in the slow-burn portrayal of Senator Edwards as "a pretty-boy empty suit":
<
This demonstrates what the Republican smear-attack hired-guns and media specialists (read: Karl Rove & his accolytes) well know: that not only does SMOKE usually indicate some degree of FIRE, but in modern politics, as well as ancient politics, for that matter, MYTH often trumps "reality."
IF Democrat candidates can't deflect or derail images of "pretty-boy/empty suit" or "mandarin pooh-bah whose wife is a foreign billionaire" easily - THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Kerry PROVED the Republican smear-mongers 'right', by not only making the entire Democratic nominating convention (in effect a coronation ceremony) ABOUT HIS OWN Vietnam record - but Kerry then ALLOWED the Republicans to turn that record - or at least the public perception of it - INTO MUSH! Republican operatives handed out cutsey band-aids with purple-hearts drawn on them with permanent markers - and Kerry had to run to veteran organizations for a defense against the smear that casually demeaned ALL who earned the medal given only to those wounded under fire in combat!
For his part, former Senator Edwards was recently grilled by - KATIE COURIC of CBS 'news' - and the impression was left across America that Edwards, if not his wife, WAS REDUCED TO A BADGERED FIGURE!
Americans DO NOT WANT A PRESIDENT - who looks like he (or she) has been beaten and bloodied by - KATIE COURIC ???!
WHAT has the Democratic Party come to, that ALL of its candidates are AFRAID of the press-media, AFRAID of the Bush-Cheney corruption-saturated White House, AFRAID of the Karl Rove SMEAR machine, and CAN NOT present a VOCAL AND COMPELLING INDICTMENT of the crimes and follies of the Bush-Cheney administration???!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/us/politics/23web-nagourney.html
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Bush WH "Purge" of US Attorneys a Karl Rove scheme to bring back voting Segregation...
Voter Fraud and Fired U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton
http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/4/21/10359/8263
While political junkies and media everywhere have been fixated on "I don't Recall" Gonzales and his testimony last week, a late Friday (4-20-07) A.P. story, Court Rejects Blocking Ariz. Voter Law, reports interesting developments in fired U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton's Arizona District...and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Friday's ruling adds to ePluribus Media's earlier rumblings about the Politicization of the Civil Rights Division and the two engines of subverting its original agenda and mandate.
The ruling is one more in a growing body of circumstantial evidence that supports what 35-year veteran and once head of the Voting Rights Section Joe Rich alleges is a well-orchestrated partisan program to disenfranchise minority voters, who, as a general rule, tend to vote Democratic.
And indeed, A.P. reporter Paul Davenport tells us that, with the recent ruling, Arizona can now proceed with refusing voting rights to anyone who doesn't produce government-issued picture ID or two pieces of other non-photo identification as specified by the new law -- the very legislation recently struck down in Georgia. According to Davenport:
Critics said that the law would disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities and the elderly, and that requiring voters to acquire and produce identification would be burdensome in time, money and effort.
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court said the law doesn't appear at first blush to severely burden the right to vote, violate a federal law on voter registration, place a disproportionate burden on naturalized citizens or require what would be an unconstitutional poll tax.
But how do those voter ID laws actually play out in reality? Here's what happened to Roxy's elderly mother in the 2004 presidential election:
My mother ... bless her heart ... turns 98 years young today. To the best of my knowledge she has never missed voting in an election. I grew up with the mantra -- "if you don't vote, don't bitch." She has lived in the same district for the last 82 years, and in the 2004 election she ran afoul of the Montana's new voter ID law.
Mom has never had a driver's license -- or any state issued photo ID -- and when she got to the polls they asked her for ID. She didn't have ID, but determined to vote, she made the person that drove her to the polls take her home to get a piece of mail. (The elections folks would accept her social security card, but would not accept her medical insurance ID or her baptismal certificate). There are only 753 (maybe less now) people in the little town where she lives. The poll workers all knew her, her name was on the voting register ... yet, the "two men in suits" insisted she provide ID to vote.
Additionally, in Rich's Los Angeles Times opinion editorial, Bush's long history of tilting Justice, he writes that the Bush Administration's Department of Justice:
has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
It has been strongly suggested that two of the U.S. Attorneys who were fired (Mckay and Inglesias), were so in part because they refused to use their office to further the Bush/Rove/Gonzales policy of using the faux issue of voter fraud to politicize Justice investigations prior to national elections -- and we are not talking about the long lines, the too few machines, the lock down on voter recounts because of terrorist threats in Ohio. Instead, we are talking about a systematic, planned process of shutting out the poor and middleclass.
One place to start looking seems to be who in the Civil Rights Division are pushing for the Voter ID Laws...in Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Missouri. We should become familar with names such as Robert Popper, the new Special Counsel in the Voting Section, acting/interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schlozman, and Hans von Spakovsky, of whom Digby says
He was hired by the Bush Justice Department's civil right's division shortly after his stint down in Florida during the recount. Anyway, Von Spakovsky is not just another Atlanta lawyer. He had for years been involved with a GOP front group called the "Voter Integrity Project" (VIP) which was run by none other than Helen Blackwell, wife of notorious conservative operative Morton Blackwell. (Many of you will remember him as the guy who handed out the "purple heart" bandages at the 2004 GOP convention but he's actually much better known for years of running the dirty tricks school "The Leadership Institute" and is even credited with coining the name "Moral Majority." Let's just say he's been a playah in GOP circles for a long time --- and the VIP is one of his projects.)
Wanderindiana provided a link to Real Nightmare.org for a map of the states where these Voter ID laws are in effect or winding their way through the courts.
Many in the blogs recognized a pattern of the fired U.S. Attorneys being predominantly in the western border states. This pattern led many to speculate that enforcement of immigration or perhaps control of the 8th and 9th Circuit of Appeals might be contributing reasons for the firings.
Perhaps the refusal to participate in faux Voter Fraud litigation should be added to the list.
http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/4/21/10359/8263
While political junkies and media everywhere have been fixated on "I don't Recall" Gonzales and his testimony last week, a late Friday (4-20-07) A.P. story, Court Rejects Blocking Ariz. Voter Law, reports interesting developments in fired U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton's Arizona District...and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Friday's ruling adds to ePluribus Media's earlier rumblings about the Politicization of the Civil Rights Division and the two engines of subverting its original agenda and mandate.
The ruling is one more in a growing body of circumstantial evidence that supports what 35-year veteran and once head of the Voting Rights Section Joe Rich alleges is a well-orchestrated partisan program to disenfranchise minority voters, who, as a general rule, tend to vote Democratic.
And indeed, A.P. reporter Paul Davenport tells us that, with the recent ruling, Arizona can now proceed with refusing voting rights to anyone who doesn't produce government-issued picture ID or two pieces of other non-photo identification as specified by the new law -- the very legislation recently struck down in Georgia. According to Davenport:
Critics said that the law would disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities and the elderly, and that requiring voters to acquire and produce identification would be burdensome in time, money and effort.
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court said the law doesn't appear at first blush to severely burden the right to vote, violate a federal law on voter registration, place a disproportionate burden on naturalized citizens or require what would be an unconstitutional poll tax.
But how do those voter ID laws actually play out in reality? Here's what happened to Roxy's elderly mother in the 2004 presidential election:
My mother ... bless her heart ... turns 98 years young today. To the best of my knowledge she has never missed voting in an election. I grew up with the mantra -- "if you don't vote, don't bitch." She has lived in the same district for the last 82 years, and in the 2004 election she ran afoul of the Montana's new voter ID law.
Mom has never had a driver's license -- or any state issued photo ID -- and when she got to the polls they asked her for ID. She didn't have ID, but determined to vote, she made the person that drove her to the polls take her home to get a piece of mail. (The elections folks would accept her social security card, but would not accept her medical insurance ID or her baptismal certificate). There are only 753 (maybe less now) people in the little town where she lives. The poll workers all knew her, her name was on the voting register ... yet, the "two men in suits" insisted she provide ID to vote.
Additionally, in Rich's Los Angeles Times opinion editorial, Bush's long history of tilting Justice, he writes that the Bush Administration's Department of Justice:
has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
It has been strongly suggested that two of the U.S. Attorneys who were fired (Mckay and Inglesias), were so in part because they refused to use their office to further the Bush/Rove/Gonzales policy of using the faux issue of voter fraud to politicize Justice investigations prior to national elections -- and we are not talking about the long lines, the too few machines, the lock down on voter recounts because of terrorist threats in Ohio. Instead, we are talking about a systematic, planned process of shutting out the poor and middleclass.
One place to start looking seems to be who in the Civil Rights Division are pushing for the Voter ID Laws...in Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Missouri. We should become familar with names such as Robert Popper, the new Special Counsel in the Voting Section, acting/interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schlozman, and Hans von Spakovsky, of whom Digby says
He was hired by the Bush Justice Department's civil right's division shortly after his stint down in Florida during the recount. Anyway, Von Spakovsky is not just another Atlanta lawyer. He had for years been involved with a GOP front group called the "Voter Integrity Project" (VIP) which was run by none other than Helen Blackwell, wife of notorious conservative operative Morton Blackwell. (Many of you will remember him as the guy who handed out the "purple heart" bandages at the 2004 GOP convention but he's actually much better known for years of running the dirty tricks school "The Leadership Institute" and is even credited with coining the name "Moral Majority." Let's just say he's been a playah in GOP circles for a long time --- and the VIP is one of his projects.)
Wanderindiana provided a link to Real Nightmare.org for a map of the states where these Voter ID laws are in effect or winding their way through the courts.
Many in the blogs recognized a pattern of the fired U.S. Attorneys being predominantly in the western border states. This pattern led many to speculate that enforcement of immigration or perhaps control of the 8th and 9th Circuit of Appeals might be contributing reasons for the firings.
Perhaps the refusal to participate in faux Voter Fraud litigation should be added to the list.
Barak Obama receives "THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE" for his "Out of Iraq" pledge, while AIPAC Hillary deaf to desires of Democratic voters....
By playing it cute and coy in her opposition to the Iraq war (in political science terms, by trying to run her campaign on meaningless, distraction, 'valence issues' such as "I support the flag!") Hillary Clinton has forfeited her right to lead the Democratic Party - much less the nation and world.
Not only has Hillary played it coy about opposing the horrific monstrosity that is the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq.... Not only has she given tepid support to vocal anti-war Democrats (including HOARDING her Senate campaign funds in the last critical week of Election 2006, when a few thousands dollars sprinkled in a few tight races might have won a few more victories for up-hill, anti-incumbent, outside-the-beltway Democratic candidates) - but Hillary is in fact just barely to "the left" of pro-war, pro-administration Senator Joe Lieberman.
The message of Joe Lieberman IS NOT what Democratic voters want to hear. Both Lieberman and Hillary are EMPOWERING the Bush administration's awful claims of dictatorial, indefinite, unlimited state-of-emergency powers.
Hillary Clinton has been leadership-AWOL on the TORTURE issue (including the administration's use of kangaroo courts for female volunteer privates charged with "abuse" - while the Bush-Cheney administration publicly asserts the right to TORTURE prisoners, TO DEATH if need be, in their open-ended unlimited 'war on terror'). Hillary has been AWOL on the lies-to-war scandal; she has been TEPID at best at confronting the administration's gross, rank corruption, including the Abramoff convictions, the Ken Lay convctions, the Scooter Libby convictions, and the fraudulent vote counts in each of the past 4 major elections; and Hillary has been AWOL re the PURGING of qualified, competent and successful US Attorneys - all part of an administration tactic to achieve the means to enable Karl Rove's illegal and despicable assault on Democratic voters.
For these and more reasons, it is heartening to hear that an audience at a Barak Obama campaign rally gave that candidate a "THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE" when he vocally and with measured insistence declared himself opposed to the grotesque failure that is the Bush-Cheney war; which in itself is only one facet of the corruption, lies, and outright crimes of the Bush-Cheney administration.
=====================================================
Obama Hears Tearful Plea to End Iraq War
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer
Published April 21, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-obama-iraq,1,3641626.story?coll=chi-news-hed
NASHUA, N.H. -- A woman's tearful plea to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to end the Iraq war momentarily caught him off guard Friday at a New Hampshire town hall meeting.
The Illinois senator vowed to end the unpopular conflict if elected, a position that later earned him thunderous applause during a 5,800-person rally in Boston.
Obama fielded questions about health care, gun control and energy during a midday appearance before some 200 people at a Nashua senior center. The residents politely applauded, and then Jean Serino of Hudson told the candidate her nephew was heading to Iraq to serve.
"I can't breathe," she said, her voice breaking with sobs. "I want to know, when am I going to be able to breathe? Are you going to get us the hell out of there? Promise us you will get us out of there. That's the most important thing."
The crowd's applause as she finished gave Obama time to compose an answer.
"I can only imagine how you feel, as a father and as a parent," he said. "I don't go to a single town-hall meeting where I don't meet a mother or father who either is seeing a loved one go over there or has already lost someone, or has a loved one who has come back injured.
"So I make a solemn pledge to you, as president we will be out of Iraq," Obama said to loud applause.
Democratic presidential contenders have repeatedly faced questions from voters about the four-year-old war during stops in New Hampshire. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has dealt with pointed questions about why she won't apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to use military force to oust Saddam Hussein.
A recent poll showed that ending the war is the top priority for New Hampshire voters when considering presidential candidates.
Obama reiterated his plan to remove troops by March 31, 2008, similar to a plan passed by Congress that President Bush has vowed to veto.
Democrats don't have enough votes to override the veto. Without mentioning them by name, Obama criticized New Hampshire Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu, both Republicans who voted against the troop withdrawal deadline.
"There are two New Hampshire senators who have not made a commitment," he said, "and the power is in their hands."
Obama also reiterated his criticism of the system for background checks for gun purchases after the massacre at Virginia Tech.
"We're still selling handguns to crazy people," Obama said. "We're supposed to have a system that these people are screened out. What's clear is the background check system in this case failed entirely."
Seung-Hui Cho, the gunman who shot 32 people at Virginia Tech on Monday before killing himself, had a history of mental health problems but still was able to buy two guns.
At a campaign rally at Boston University on Friday night, Obama challenged a sold-out crowd to abandon doubt and get involved in the campaign.
"Too much is at stake not to overcome that cynicism," he told a rowdy crowd of mostly college students who donated $23 to attend the New England campaign launch. "If all of you decide this is your campaign and not my campaign, this cannot be stopped."
Copyright © 2007, The Associated Press
Not only has Hillary played it coy about opposing the horrific monstrosity that is the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq.... Not only has she given tepid support to vocal anti-war Democrats (including HOARDING her Senate campaign funds in the last critical week of Election 2006, when a few thousands dollars sprinkled in a few tight races might have won a few more victories for up-hill, anti-incumbent, outside-the-beltway Democratic candidates) - but Hillary is in fact just barely to "the left" of pro-war, pro-administration Senator Joe Lieberman.
The message of Joe Lieberman IS NOT what Democratic voters want to hear. Both Lieberman and Hillary are EMPOWERING the Bush administration's awful claims of dictatorial, indefinite, unlimited state-of-emergency powers.
Hillary Clinton has been leadership-AWOL on the TORTURE issue (including the administration's use of kangaroo courts for female volunteer privates charged with "abuse" - while the Bush-Cheney administration publicly asserts the right to TORTURE prisoners, TO DEATH if need be, in their open-ended unlimited 'war on terror'). Hillary has been AWOL on the lies-to-war scandal; she has been TEPID at best at confronting the administration's gross, rank corruption, including the Abramoff convictions, the Ken Lay convctions, the Scooter Libby convictions, and the fraudulent vote counts in each of the past 4 major elections; and Hillary has been AWOL re the PURGING of qualified, competent and successful US Attorneys - all part of an administration tactic to achieve the means to enable Karl Rove's illegal and despicable assault on Democratic voters.
For these and more reasons, it is heartening to hear that an audience at a Barak Obama campaign rally gave that candidate a "THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE" when he vocally and with measured insistence declared himself opposed to the grotesque failure that is the Bush-Cheney war; which in itself is only one facet of the corruption, lies, and outright crimes of the Bush-Cheney administration.
=====================================================
Obama Hears Tearful Plea to End Iraq War
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer
Published April 21, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-obama-iraq,1,3641626.story?coll=chi-news-hed
NASHUA, N.H. -- A woman's tearful plea to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to end the Iraq war momentarily caught him off guard Friday at a New Hampshire town hall meeting.
The Illinois senator vowed to end the unpopular conflict if elected, a position that later earned him thunderous applause during a 5,800-person rally in Boston.
Obama fielded questions about health care, gun control and energy during a midday appearance before some 200 people at a Nashua senior center. The residents politely applauded, and then Jean Serino of Hudson told the candidate her nephew was heading to Iraq to serve.
"I can't breathe," she said, her voice breaking with sobs. "I want to know, when am I going to be able to breathe? Are you going to get us the hell out of there? Promise us you will get us out of there. That's the most important thing."
The crowd's applause as she finished gave Obama time to compose an answer.
"I can only imagine how you feel, as a father and as a parent," he said. "I don't go to a single town-hall meeting where I don't meet a mother or father who either is seeing a loved one go over there or has already lost someone, or has a loved one who has come back injured.
"So I make a solemn pledge to you, as president we will be out of Iraq," Obama said to loud applause.
Democratic presidential contenders have repeatedly faced questions from voters about the four-year-old war during stops in New Hampshire. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has dealt with pointed questions about why she won't apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to use military force to oust Saddam Hussein.
A recent poll showed that ending the war is the top priority for New Hampshire voters when considering presidential candidates.
Obama reiterated his plan to remove troops by March 31, 2008, similar to a plan passed by Congress that President Bush has vowed to veto.
Democrats don't have enough votes to override the veto. Without mentioning them by name, Obama criticized New Hampshire Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu, both Republicans who voted against the troop withdrawal deadline.
"There are two New Hampshire senators who have not made a commitment," he said, "and the power is in their hands."
Obama also reiterated his criticism of the system for background checks for gun purchases after the massacre at Virginia Tech.
"We're still selling handguns to crazy people," Obama said. "We're supposed to have a system that these people are screened out. What's clear is the background check system in this case failed entirely."
Seung-Hui Cho, the gunman who shot 32 people at Virginia Tech on Monday before killing himself, had a history of mental health problems but still was able to buy two guns.
At a campaign rally at Boston University on Friday night, Obama challenged a sold-out crowd to abandon doubt and get involved in the campaign.
"Too much is at stake not to overcome that cynicism," he told a rowdy crowd of mostly college students who donated $23 to attend the New England campaign launch. "If all of you decide this is your campaign and not my campaign, this cannot be stopped."
Copyright © 2007, The Associated Press
Friday, April 20, 2007
The nation's chief law enforcement officer is a liar... Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied under oath to the US Senate....
click here for on-line video of Senator Schumer grilling Attorney General Gonzales:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/19/gonzales-pryor/
Transcript of Gonzales’s testimony to Senate Committee today:
Senator Schumer, in Committee: I’ll get it to you.
As everyone here knows, Senator Pryor is one of the most temperate members of the Senate. He’s mild-mannered, and his words are all the more striking for that reason. He said, quote, The attorney general not only lied to me as a person but, when he lied to me, he lied to the Senate and he lied to the people I represent.
I spoke to Senator Pryor yesterday. He stands by those words.
Now, Kyle Sampson wrote that — wrote to Harriet Miers last September — that’s what he wrote — he wrote that they wanted to do this plan of getting around the Senate and appointing interim U.S. attorneys.
And he also told Congress that the White House never rejected the idea of evading the Senate confirmation in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
According to Kyle Sampson, you became aware of this idea or plan in early December of 2006. He told you about it; you did not reject it.
Then on December 19th, Kyle Sampson is promoting this astonishingly perverse plan. He’s going forward with it.
And this poster which we have here — and I’ll get you a copy of what it says — shows it. Sampson’s advice to the White House is, quote, We — we, meaning the department — should gum this to death, to run out the clock.
He lays out a specific plan for running out the clock: The Department of Justice should ask Arkansas senators to meet Tim Griffin, give him a chance; after that, the administration to pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney and so forth.
The plan was to use these tactics of delay so Griffin could stay in, without Senate confirmation, until the end of the president’s term.
But now, four days before Kyle Sampson sends that plan, you personally talked with Senator Pryor. Kyle Sampson testifies that he was in the room — you talked to him twice, he was in the room on one of those occasions — about Tim Griffin.
Kyle Sampson says you talked with Senator Pryor two times. He was in the room. And you said to Senator Pryor that you wanted to go through a Senate confirmation. This is in December.
GONZALES: Yes.
SCHUMER: Well, what would you think if you’re in Senator Pryor’s shoes? There’s a plan to circumvent U.S. attorneys early in December. You go along with that.
GONZALES: I didn’t go along with it.
SCHUMER: On December 19th, a memo was sent to implement it. Yet, on December 15th, you’re on the phone with Senator Pryor saying oh, no, no, you’re going to get confirmation.
So, which is it? Again, did Kyle Sampson put out this memo completely on his own?
GONZALES: Senator…
SCHUMER: And if he did — I mean, you can’t have it both ways. If your chief of staff is implementing a major plan that contradicts what you just told the U.S. senator from that state, in my view, you shouldn’t be attorney general.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/19/gonzales-pryor/
Transcript of Gonzales’s testimony to Senate Committee today:
Senator Schumer, in Committee: I’ll get it to you.
As everyone here knows, Senator Pryor is one of the most temperate members of the Senate. He’s mild-mannered, and his words are all the more striking for that reason. He said, quote, The attorney general not only lied to me as a person but, when he lied to me, he lied to the Senate and he lied to the people I represent.
I spoke to Senator Pryor yesterday. He stands by those words.
Now, Kyle Sampson wrote that — wrote to Harriet Miers last September — that’s what he wrote — he wrote that they wanted to do this plan of getting around the Senate and appointing interim U.S. attorneys.
And he also told Congress that the White House never rejected the idea of evading the Senate confirmation in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
According to Kyle Sampson, you became aware of this idea or plan in early December of 2006. He told you about it; you did not reject it.
Then on December 19th, Kyle Sampson is promoting this astonishingly perverse plan. He’s going forward with it.
And this poster which we have here — and I’ll get you a copy of what it says — shows it. Sampson’s advice to the White House is, quote, We — we, meaning the department — should gum this to death, to run out the clock.
He lays out a specific plan for running out the clock: The Department of Justice should ask Arkansas senators to meet Tim Griffin, give him a chance; after that, the administration to pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney and so forth.
The plan was to use these tactics of delay so Griffin could stay in, without Senate confirmation, until the end of the president’s term.
But now, four days before Kyle Sampson sends that plan, you personally talked with Senator Pryor. Kyle Sampson testifies that he was in the room — you talked to him twice, he was in the room on one of those occasions — about Tim Griffin.
Kyle Sampson says you talked with Senator Pryor two times. He was in the room. And you said to Senator Pryor that you wanted to go through a Senate confirmation. This is in December.
GONZALES: Yes.
SCHUMER: Well, what would you think if you’re in Senator Pryor’s shoes? There’s a plan to circumvent U.S. attorneys early in December. You go along with that.
GONZALES: I didn’t go along with it.
SCHUMER: On December 19th, a memo was sent to implement it. Yet, on December 15th, you’re on the phone with Senator Pryor saying oh, no, no, you’re going to get confirmation.
So, which is it? Again, did Kyle Sampson put out this memo completely on his own?
GONZALES: Senator…
SCHUMER: And if he did — I mean, you can’t have it both ways. If your chief of staff is implementing a major plan that contradicts what you just told the U.S. senator from that state, in my view, you shouldn’t be attorney general.
Alberto Gonzales' truckling, toadying loyalty to Bush will demand courage by Congress if we are to sustain our Constitution.....
<< Perhaps the best one can say about Alberto Gonzales is that he sees himself as a steward of the president's excellence. Cast such a man as attorney general, the highest officer of the law of the United States, and _the visible touch of servility will naturally expose him to ridicule as a toady._ The sadder truth is that Gonzales underrated the dignity of his job. >>
It seems highly improbable that Gonzales will now come into the courage and clarity that would allow him to press his resignation into the president's hand with conviction. He will try to stay on, because the president wants him to. In the days to come, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE ACTS of CIVIC COURAGE by others; actions like those of Senators Byrd and Feingold in earlier moments of constitutional resistance to this anti-constitutional administration. And some of that courage will have to be shown by lawyers. >>
[That is, to remove the injurious, incompetent, and most probably perjurous Alberto Gonzales from office as Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer of the land.]
----------------------------------------
The Honor of Alberto Gonzales
by David Bromwich
04.19.2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/the-honor-of-alberto-gonz_b_46322.html
The fundamental character of George W. Bush is that of a serious prankster: the backslapping good fellow who gives, not receives, the slaps. One saw this confirmed once more in the slight slump of the shoulders of the man who has been on the other end of so much of the president's fraternal good will over so many years.
Perhaps the best one can say about Alberto Gonzales is that he sees himself as a steward of the president's excellence. Cast such a man as attorney general, the highest officer of the law of the United States, and the visible touch of servility will naturally expose him to ridicule as a toady. The sadder truth is that Gonzales underrated the dignity of his job.
As he understands his position, he is essentially an emanation of the will of the president. And our boyish president never developed morally (he developed religiously, but that is not the same thing) beyond the aristocratic reprobate who divides the world into friends and enemies and who thinks the rules don't apply to him. But laws, too, are rules. The doctrine that the chief executive is above the law, that everything he says becomes law as soon as he says it, was hammered out by Gonzales with the help of ingenious assistants recently out of law school. There is no transgression, provided only that the president be the transgressor, which this doctrine will not lower itself to justify.
Exposed today, and in disgrace, with the personal marks of George W. Bush and Karl Rove visible all over his conduct and in the design of his discovered and probable actions -- casual contempt for professional merit, indifference to proved ability, and the belief that genuine competence may be punished when not leavened by performances of truckling loyalty -- Gonzales pleaded for a second chance. (He meant a third or a fourth chance.) The note of insistence was plangent, almost pitiable, but it meant less than it said. All honor has been unreal to Gonzales except the honor of serving the person and will of George Bush.
As Senator Schumer brought out plainly, the attorney general now finds himself trapped by a pair of excuses which effectively prevent his emergence with credit. If he didn't take part in the decisions to fire the U.S. attorneys, the Justice Department is out of control and he shouldn't be attorney general. If he did know about and actually supervised the firings, he has been lying about his ignorance for weeks and he shouldn't be attorney general.
It seems highly improbable that Gonzales will now come into the courage and clarity that would allow him to press his resignation into the president's hand with conviction. He will try to stay on, because the president wants him to. In the days to come, there will have to be acts of civic courage by others; actions like those of Senators Byrd and Feingold in earlier moments of constitutional resistance to this anti-constitutional administration. And some of that courage will have to be shown by lawyers.
It seems highly improbable that Gonzales will now come into the courage and clarity that would allow him to press his resignation into the president's hand with conviction. He will try to stay on, because the president wants him to. In the days to come, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE ACTS of CIVIC COURAGE by others; actions like those of Senators Byrd and Feingold in earlier moments of constitutional resistance to this anti-constitutional administration. And some of that courage will have to be shown by lawyers. >>
[That is, to remove the injurious, incompetent, and most probably perjurous Alberto Gonzales from office as Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer of the land.]
----------------------------------------
The Honor of Alberto Gonzales
by David Bromwich
04.19.2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/the-honor-of-alberto-gonz_b_46322.html
The fundamental character of George W. Bush is that of a serious prankster: the backslapping good fellow who gives, not receives, the slaps. One saw this confirmed once more in the slight slump of the shoulders of the man who has been on the other end of so much of the president's fraternal good will over so many years.
Perhaps the best one can say about Alberto Gonzales is that he sees himself as a steward of the president's excellence. Cast such a man as attorney general, the highest officer of the law of the United States, and the visible touch of servility will naturally expose him to ridicule as a toady. The sadder truth is that Gonzales underrated the dignity of his job.
As he understands his position, he is essentially an emanation of the will of the president. And our boyish president never developed morally (he developed religiously, but that is not the same thing) beyond the aristocratic reprobate who divides the world into friends and enemies and who thinks the rules don't apply to him. But laws, too, are rules. The doctrine that the chief executive is above the law, that everything he says becomes law as soon as he says it, was hammered out by Gonzales with the help of ingenious assistants recently out of law school. There is no transgression, provided only that the president be the transgressor, which this doctrine will not lower itself to justify.
Exposed today, and in disgrace, with the personal marks of George W. Bush and Karl Rove visible all over his conduct and in the design of his discovered and probable actions -- casual contempt for professional merit, indifference to proved ability, and the belief that genuine competence may be punished when not leavened by performances of truckling loyalty -- Gonzales pleaded for a second chance. (He meant a third or a fourth chance.) The note of insistence was plangent, almost pitiable, but it meant less than it said. All honor has been unreal to Gonzales except the honor of serving the person and will of George Bush.
As Senator Schumer brought out plainly, the attorney general now finds himself trapped by a pair of excuses which effectively prevent his emergence with credit. If he didn't take part in the decisions to fire the U.S. attorneys, the Justice Department is out of control and he shouldn't be attorney general. If he did know about and actually supervised the firings, he has been lying about his ignorance for weeks and he shouldn't be attorney general.
It seems highly improbable that Gonzales will now come into the courage and clarity that would allow him to press his resignation into the president's hand with conviction. He will try to stay on, because the president wants him to. In the days to come, there will have to be acts of civic courage by others; actions like those of Senators Byrd and Feingold in earlier moments of constitutional resistance to this anti-constitutional administration. And some of that courage will have to be shown by lawyers.
Senator Byrd pledges to CONFRONT President Bush's juvenile veto threat....
We Welcome Senator Byrd's comments, and that fact that he considers the reading community of HuffingtonPost.com (an important and growing "blog") worthy of going to the Senate floor to make a speech detailing his stand against President Bush's childish use of the veto threat.
CONFRONTING the illegal, immoral, incompetent, and often criminal activities of the George Bush administration is the most pressing crisis facing this nation - of which the Iraq war is only one part. Just this week, the Assistant ARMY SECRETARY and KBR corporation are under investigation for WHOLESALE FRAUD in Iraq reconstruction contracts - the President's own SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, being questioned about rank corruption and war profiteering, in a war that Mr. Bush tells us is vital to the future security of the United States! What kind of INCOMPETENT officers would the president choose, who allow such ABJECT FAILURE AND CORRUPTION to be the hallmark of his war in Iraq?
----------------------------------------------
The President's Veto Threat DOES NOT DICTATE LAW in America.
By Senator Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia
April 20, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-robert-byrd/the-presidents-veto-thre_b_46268.html
Thank you for the overwhelming response to the blog I posted on Monday. I have enjoyed reading your comments, especially those encouraging Congress not to back away from the supplemental legislation despite the president's repeated veto threats. On Tuesday afternoon I decided to go down to the Senate floor and respond to your comments.
I will continue to defend Congress's Constitutional obligation to legislate for the people and act independently from the White House.
Here is a portion of my remarks:
"The 110th Congress will consider legislation this session that raises passions and excites partisan fervor. It is likely that much of what the Congress considers this year and next will be subject to presidential veto threats, because the president's political party no longer controls the Congress.
Members of Congress and the people understand that when the president submits a bill to Congress, and then asks that it be passed without any amendments or conditions, the president is treating the Congress like a subordinate branch, capable of only saying "Yes" or "No," and never expected to alter a presidential proposal in any way. It is an argument that contradicts the most basic Constitutional principles on which our Republic is founded. The Congress was envisioned as a check on an overzealous or unwise president, and we do our duty to the Constitution when we vigorously utilize our enumerated powers.
Members of Congress are elected to make laws based on sound public policy, not to capitulate to presidential threats. The Senate must never become a rubberstamp for any president. Certainly, the Congress should carefully consider the announced reasons for a presidential veto, but the Congress has a duty, if the president's reasons are not credible or do not reflect the will of the people, to overturn presidential vetoes. The vote on the override is a healthy public opportunity for Members of Congress to consider the reasons offered by the president for his veto. Just as the president is held accountable for his veto, Senators are held accountable for their votes on bills that are sent to the president, and, if applicable, a subsequent veto override vote.
So let us hear no more about measures that the president has threatened to veto being not worthy of the Senate's consideration. Let the president issue his veto threats, but also let the Congress dutifully represent the will of the people.
I have been chagrined of late to hear the repeated falsehoods and scare tactics emanating from the Oval Office. President Bush has falsely stated that the supplemental as written would cause death and destruction in America. The president has also said that the bill does not fund the troops, which is false. In fact, the Senate bill provides $2 billion more than the president requested for the troops and provides $1.8 billion more for veterans' health care. Congress and the American people support our troops and the supplemental bill we shall shortly take to conference robustly funds their needs in the field and cares for their needs after they return home.
I shall hope for a more reasonable and more realistic tone from our president in the coming days. More light and less heat on this matter would truly be in the best interests of our troops of our sorely divided country."
CONFRONTING the illegal, immoral, incompetent, and often criminal activities of the George Bush administration is the most pressing crisis facing this nation - of which the Iraq war is only one part. Just this week, the Assistant ARMY SECRETARY and KBR corporation are under investigation for WHOLESALE FRAUD in Iraq reconstruction contracts - the President's own SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, being questioned about rank corruption and war profiteering, in a war that Mr. Bush tells us is vital to the future security of the United States! What kind of INCOMPETENT officers would the president choose, who allow such ABJECT FAILURE AND CORRUPTION to be the hallmark of his war in Iraq?
----------------------------------------------
The President's Veto Threat DOES NOT DICTATE LAW in America.
By Senator Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia
April 20, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-robert-byrd/the-presidents-veto-thre_b_46268.html
Thank you for the overwhelming response to the blog I posted on Monday. I have enjoyed reading your comments, especially those encouraging Congress not to back away from the supplemental legislation despite the president's repeated veto threats. On Tuesday afternoon I decided to go down to the Senate floor and respond to your comments.
I will continue to defend Congress's Constitutional obligation to legislate for the people and act independently from the White House.
Here is a portion of my remarks:
"The 110th Congress will consider legislation this session that raises passions and excites partisan fervor. It is likely that much of what the Congress considers this year and next will be subject to presidential veto threats, because the president's political party no longer controls the Congress.
Members of Congress and the people understand that when the president submits a bill to Congress, and then asks that it be passed without any amendments or conditions, the president is treating the Congress like a subordinate branch, capable of only saying "Yes" or "No," and never expected to alter a presidential proposal in any way. It is an argument that contradicts the most basic Constitutional principles on which our Republic is founded. The Congress was envisioned as a check on an overzealous or unwise president, and we do our duty to the Constitution when we vigorously utilize our enumerated powers.
Members of Congress are elected to make laws based on sound public policy, not to capitulate to presidential threats. The Senate must never become a rubberstamp for any president. Certainly, the Congress should carefully consider the announced reasons for a presidential veto, but the Congress has a duty, if the president's reasons are not credible or do not reflect the will of the people, to overturn presidential vetoes. The vote on the override is a healthy public opportunity for Members of Congress to consider the reasons offered by the president for his veto. Just as the president is held accountable for his veto, Senators are held accountable for their votes on bills that are sent to the president, and, if applicable, a subsequent veto override vote.
So let us hear no more about measures that the president has threatened to veto being not worthy of the Senate's consideration. Let the president issue his veto threats, but also let the Congress dutifully represent the will of the people.
I have been chagrined of late to hear the repeated falsehoods and scare tactics emanating from the Oval Office. President Bush has falsely stated that the supplemental as written would cause death and destruction in America. The president has also said that the bill does not fund the troops, which is false. In fact, the Senate bill provides $2 billion more than the president requested for the troops and provides $1.8 billion more for veterans' health care. Congress and the American people support our troops and the supplemental bill we shall shortly take to conference robustly funds their needs in the field and cares for their needs after they return home.
I shall hope for a more reasonable and more realistic tone from our president in the coming days. More light and less heat on this matter would truly be in the best interests of our troops of our sorely divided country."
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Voter Harassment, Intimidation, an integral part of Karl Rove's 2006 strategy and Bush WH policy...
Bush Administration tried to curb election turnout in key states
Campaign against alleged voter fraud sought to bolster the GOP
By Greg Gordon
Mcclatchy-tribune
Originally published April 19, 2007
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.attorneys19apr19,0,94678.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines
WASHINGTON // For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates, according to former department lawyers and a review of written records.
The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.
Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association.
Questions about the administration's campaign against alleged voter fraud have helped fuel the political tempest over the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys, several of whom were ousted in part because they failed to bring voter fraud cases important to Republican politicians. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales could shed more light on the reasons for those firings when he appears today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Civil rights advocates contend that the administration's policies were intended to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor and minority voters who tend to support Democrats, and by filing state and federal lawsuits, civil rights groups have won court rulings blocking some of its actions.
Justice Department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson called any allegation that the department has rolled back minority voting rights "fundamentally flawed."
She said the department has "a completely robust record when it comes to enforcing federal voting rights laws," citing its support last year for reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the filing of at least 20 suits to ensure that language services are available to non-English-speaking voters.
The administration, however, has repeatedly invoked allegations of widespread voter fraud to justify tougher voter ID measures and other steps to restrict access to the ballot, even though research suggests that voter fraud is rare.
Since President Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, a former Republican senator from Missouri, launched a "Ballot Access and Voter Integrity Initiative" in 2001, Justice Department political appointees have exhorted U.S. attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases, and the department's Civil Rights Division has sought to roll back policies to protect minority voting rights.
On virtually every significant decision affecting election balloting since 2001, the division's Voting Rights Section has come down on the side of Republicans, notably in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington and other states where recent elections have been decided by narrow margins.
Joseph Rich, who left his job as chief of the section in 2005, said these events formed an unmistakable pattern.
"As more information becomes available about the administration's priority on combating alleged, but not well substantiated, voter fraud, the more apparent it is that its actions concerning voter ID laws are part of a partisan strategy to suppress the votes of poor and minority citizens," he said.
Former department lawyers, public records and other documents show that since Bush took office, political appointees in the Civil Rights Division have:
• Approved Georgia and Arizona laws that tightened voter ID requirements. A federal judge tossed out the Georgia law as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of poor voters, and a federal appeals court signaled its objections to the Arizona law on similar grounds last fall, but that litigation was delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until after the election.
• Issued advisory opinions that overstated a 2002 federal election law by asserting that it required states to disqualify new voting registrants if their identification didn't match that in computer databases, prompting at least three states to reject tens of thousands of applicants mistakenly.
• Done little to enforce a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires state public assistance agencies to register voters. The inaction has contributed to a 50 percent decline in annual registrations at those agencies, to 1 million from 2 million.
• Sued at least six states on grounds that they had too many people on their voter rolls. Some eligible voters were removed in the resulting purges.
Campaign against alleged voter fraud sought to bolster the GOP
By Greg Gordon
Mcclatchy-tribune
Originally published April 19, 2007
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.attorneys19apr19,0,94678.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines
WASHINGTON // For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates, according to former department lawyers and a review of written records.
The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.
Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association.
Questions about the administration's campaign against alleged voter fraud have helped fuel the political tempest over the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys, several of whom were ousted in part because they failed to bring voter fraud cases important to Republican politicians. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales could shed more light on the reasons for those firings when he appears today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Civil rights advocates contend that the administration's policies were intended to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor and minority voters who tend to support Democrats, and by filing state and federal lawsuits, civil rights groups have won court rulings blocking some of its actions.
Justice Department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson called any allegation that the department has rolled back minority voting rights "fundamentally flawed."
She said the department has "a completely robust record when it comes to enforcing federal voting rights laws," citing its support last year for reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the filing of at least 20 suits to ensure that language services are available to non-English-speaking voters.
The administration, however, has repeatedly invoked allegations of widespread voter fraud to justify tougher voter ID measures and other steps to restrict access to the ballot, even though research suggests that voter fraud is rare.
Since President Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, a former Republican senator from Missouri, launched a "Ballot Access and Voter Integrity Initiative" in 2001, Justice Department political appointees have exhorted U.S. attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases, and the department's Civil Rights Division has sought to roll back policies to protect minority voting rights.
On virtually every significant decision affecting election balloting since 2001, the division's Voting Rights Section has come down on the side of Republicans, notably in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington and other states where recent elections have been decided by narrow margins.
Joseph Rich, who left his job as chief of the section in 2005, said these events formed an unmistakable pattern.
"As more information becomes available about the administration's priority on combating alleged, but not well substantiated, voter fraud, the more apparent it is that its actions concerning voter ID laws are part of a partisan strategy to suppress the votes of poor and minority citizens," he said.
Former department lawyers, public records and other documents show that since Bush took office, political appointees in the Civil Rights Division have:
• Approved Georgia and Arizona laws that tightened voter ID requirements. A federal judge tossed out the Georgia law as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of poor voters, and a federal appeals court signaled its objections to the Arizona law on similar grounds last fall, but that litigation was delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until after the election.
• Issued advisory opinions that overstated a 2002 federal election law by asserting that it required states to disqualify new voting registrants if their identification didn't match that in computer databases, prompting at least three states to reject tens of thousands of applicants mistakenly.
• Done little to enforce a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires state public assistance agencies to register voters. The inaction has contributed to a 50 percent decline in annual registrations at those agencies, to 1 million from 2 million.
• Sued at least six states on grounds that they had too many people on their voter rolls. Some eligible voters were removed in the resulting purges.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Dem Leaders Reid, Pelosi hold firm vs Bush's blank-check war...
Democrats meet with Bush at White House: No give on Iraq positions by either side
David Espo, AP
April 18, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070418/us-iraq
WASHINGTON — President Bush sparred across the table with Democratic congressional leaders opposed to the Iraq war on Wednesday in a prelude to a veto showdown over a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
During an hourlong meeting at the White House, the president told lawmakers directly he will not sign any bill that includes a timetable for a troop withdrawal, and they made it clear Congress will send him one anyway.
"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience and find out what is the right thing for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, told reporters after the session. "I believe signing this bill will do that."
But Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, said, "It appears that they are determined to send a bill to the president that he won't accept. They fundamentally disagree."
Several officials said the session was polite but turned pointed when Reid recounted a conversation with generals who likened Iraq to Vietnam and described it as a war in which the president refused to change course despite knowing victory was impossible. Bush seemed to bristle at the comparison, and said it didn't apply, according to one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.
It was the first time Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California have met with Bush to discuss the war since the House and Senate approved bills to provide funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with conditions that he has vowed to reject.
Top GOP congressional leaders, who support Bush's position, also attended.
Democrats hope to complete work on a House-Senate compromise in time to send it to the White House by the end of next week, with Bush's veto a certainty.
The House-passed bill requires the withdrawal of combat troops by Sept. 1, 2008. The Senate measure is weaker, requiring the beginning of a withdrawal within 120 days and setting a nonbinding goal of March 2008 for completion.
Given the narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, it appears unlikely the compromise will include the mandatory date for a complete withdrawal, although several Democratic aides cautioned that Reid and Pelosi have yet to make that decision.
Several officials described a meeting at the White House in which the president and congressional leaders discussed the establishment of standards for the Iraqi government to meet. The topic could assume a central role in war funding legislation that Congress must pass after the president vetoes the first bill.
Republicans in Congress advocate the establishment of so-called benchmarks but without a requirement for a troop withdrawal if the Iraqis fail to meet them. That sets them apart from Democrats, who tend to want to link continued U.S. participation in the war to the ability of the Iraqi government to create a fully democratic government, allocate oil resources and provide for its own security.
Outside the White House, Republicans followed Democrats to the microphones to say there was no hope Bush would sign a bill resembling the Democrats' legislation.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said nothing had changed as a result of the meeting "except that people were polite, people were open, they were honest.
"The real issue ... is whether we're going to agree to a surrender date, and that's not going to happen," he said. Back in the Capitol, he said he would force a nonbinding vote within days on the troop withdrawal deadline.
Democrats said they were determined to press Bush for a change in policy.
"We came here in a spirit of hope, recognizing that this is a historic opportunity for the executive branch, the president and the Congress to work together to wind down this war and ensure the security of our country and the stability of the region," said Pelosi.
Sitting down with lawmakers, Bush acknowledged there were strong differences of opinion about how to proceed in Iraq.
"People have strong opinions around the table. I'm looking forward to listening to them," the president said. "I've got my own opinion, which I'm more than willing to share."
The meeting occurred on the same day that four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad, killing nearly 200 people and wounding scores _ the deadliest day in the city since the start of the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital two months ago.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, traveling in the Mideast, called it "horrifying."
David Espo, AP
April 18, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070418/us-iraq
WASHINGTON — President Bush sparred across the table with Democratic congressional leaders opposed to the Iraq war on Wednesday in a prelude to a veto showdown over a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
During an hourlong meeting at the White House, the president told lawmakers directly he will not sign any bill that includes a timetable for a troop withdrawal, and they made it clear Congress will send him one anyway.
"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience and find out what is the right thing for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, told reporters after the session. "I believe signing this bill will do that."
But Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, said, "It appears that they are determined to send a bill to the president that he won't accept. They fundamentally disagree."
Several officials said the session was polite but turned pointed when Reid recounted a conversation with generals who likened Iraq to Vietnam and described it as a war in which the president refused to change course despite knowing victory was impossible. Bush seemed to bristle at the comparison, and said it didn't apply, according to one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.
It was the first time Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California have met with Bush to discuss the war since the House and Senate approved bills to provide funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with conditions that he has vowed to reject.
Top GOP congressional leaders, who support Bush's position, also attended.
Democrats hope to complete work on a House-Senate compromise in time to send it to the White House by the end of next week, with Bush's veto a certainty.
The House-passed bill requires the withdrawal of combat troops by Sept. 1, 2008. The Senate measure is weaker, requiring the beginning of a withdrawal within 120 days and setting a nonbinding goal of March 2008 for completion.
Given the narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, it appears unlikely the compromise will include the mandatory date for a complete withdrawal, although several Democratic aides cautioned that Reid and Pelosi have yet to make that decision.
Several officials described a meeting at the White House in which the president and congressional leaders discussed the establishment of standards for the Iraqi government to meet. The topic could assume a central role in war funding legislation that Congress must pass after the president vetoes the first bill.
Republicans in Congress advocate the establishment of so-called benchmarks but without a requirement for a troop withdrawal if the Iraqis fail to meet them. That sets them apart from Democrats, who tend to want to link continued U.S. participation in the war to the ability of the Iraqi government to create a fully democratic government, allocate oil resources and provide for its own security.
Outside the White House, Republicans followed Democrats to the microphones to say there was no hope Bush would sign a bill resembling the Democrats' legislation.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said nothing had changed as a result of the meeting "except that people were polite, people were open, they were honest.
"The real issue ... is whether we're going to agree to a surrender date, and that's not going to happen," he said. Back in the Capitol, he said he would force a nonbinding vote within days on the troop withdrawal deadline.
Democrats said they were determined to press Bush for a change in policy.
"We came here in a spirit of hope, recognizing that this is a historic opportunity for the executive branch, the president and the Congress to work together to wind down this war and ensure the security of our country and the stability of the region," said Pelosi.
Sitting down with lawmakers, Bush acknowledged there were strong differences of opinion about how to proceed in Iraq.
"People have strong opinions around the table. I'm looking forward to listening to them," the president said. "I've got my own opinion, which I'm more than willing to share."
The meeting occurred on the same day that four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad, killing nearly 200 people and wounding scores _ the deadliest day in the city since the start of the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital two months ago.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, traveling in the Mideast, called it "horrifying."
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Lee Iacocca re Bush admin. CRIMINALITY: "WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?"
"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening?" Iacocca writes. "WHERE THE HELL IS THE OUTRAGE? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.' "
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/POLITICS/704120383
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/POLITICS/704120383
It is long past time for the Democratic Party and leaders to HIGHLIGHT the LIES, and chronic LYING, of Bush and Cheney....
Al Gore 'lost' election 2000 because he shelved the First Commandment of modern politics: "expose your opponent's weakness, and exploit those weaknesses in your campaign strategy."
Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney campaign team, in typical Karl Rove fashion, could not only exploit their opponent's weaknesses, but could MAKE UP shortcomings out of thin air when needed, as for example the Rove-inspired South Carolina "push polls" that portrayed John McCain as "fathering a black baby" (when in fact McCain and his wife had adopted a Bangladeshi baby) in the Republican primary which with finallity ended McCain's presidential hopes that year.
But in Al Gore's defense, he was being attacked on the left as being "too negative," first by the Bill Bradley campaign, and then by the Ralph Nader campaign. (Make no mistake about it: the "left" wing of the Democratic Party and American politics worked very energetically to put the Right-Wing Bush-Cheney-Scalia-Roberts administration in the White House.)
John Kerry took all of Al Gore's mistakes - and DOUBLED them! Kerry, like Gore, gave Bush's "MORE BIPARTISAN TONE IN WASHINGTON" pledge a FREE PASS - even though PARTISAN ATTACK ADS and 'bash Democrats!" campaign photo-ops were the bread and butter of Bush's 2000 campaign and first four years of office, the very signature of the Bush-Cheney White House!
Kerry likewise stood there like a stupid punching bag as the Bush-Rove-Cheney team portrayed him (Kerry) as a "FLIP-FLOPPER!" Kerry was too stupid and clueless to reply the obvious - that the President who did nothing to prevent 9-11, then pledged to get Osama bin Laden "DEAD OR ALIVE!" - then, at a White House press conference, told the American people "I'm NOT THAT CONCERNED WITH bin Laden anymore" - that president has a hell of a lot of nerve accusing anyone of being a "FLIP-FLOPPER"!
The facts are that John Kerry realized that if he won the election of 2004, he would OWN the Iraq war for all eternity. We believe it is for these reasons that Kerry "pulled" his campaign punches in the long summer of 2004, not waging even a minimally competent campaign. Certainly, Kerry's wife and VP running mate were far more outspoken in their comments than the reasoned, senatorial "leader" of the Democrats ever was.
But there is an element of FRAUD to this analysis, if indeed our assesment is correct. To fight energetically and aggressively for the Democratic presidential nomination, then immediately go into "VACATION MODE", is ROBBING Democratic voters and activists of a FIGHTING candidacy. In boxing the terminology is "taking a fall."
WE HOPE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP will not REPEAT the shortcomings and mistakes of the Kerry and Gore campaigns in this vital year between the 2006 campaign and the 2008 campaign.
Unfortunately the Democratic presidential front-runners ARE, INDEED, ALREADY REPEATING the lame tactics of Kerry and Gore - neither Hillary nor Obama nor even Edwards are exactly outspoken in calling the President and his Vice President LIARS - as they (Bush and Cheney) feel so free to call Democrats "OBSTRUCTIONISTS" and even impugn their patriotism.
WE AMERICANS DESERVE FIGHTING CANDIDATES and leadership - and WE DESERVE to have SOME OPPOSITION to the hubris and incompetence (if not criminal corruption) of the Republican administration!
The Democrats do indeed have FIGHTING candidates in this Congress - most of the freshmen Congressmen, Congreswomen, and Senators were far more outspoken in their individual 2006 campaigns as OUTSIDERS, than they now are as part of the Democratic congressional establishment. It is past time for the Democratic Party to ENCOURAGE, and not smoother, outspoken opposition to the Bush-Cheney-Rove White House!
-----------------------------------------
President Bush's infamous "I'm NOT THAT CONCERNED about bin Laden" comment, from the official White House (WhiteHouse.gov) website (slightly more than 1/3rd down)that John Kerry REFUSED TO USE in his pathetically lame 2004 campaign:
<< I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. >>
<< Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. >>
NOTE: IF, as President Bush said, bin Laden's NETWORK HAS BEEN DESTROYED" in this MARCH 2002 White House press conference - then why is the President today in 2007 blaming Democrats for Al Qaida attacks in Iraq - a country that had almost zero Al Qaida presence before this president's invasion of that hapless country?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Note 2: Sure enough, FRESHMAN Senator JAMES WEBB takes exception to Republican Senator John McCain's attempts to PORTRAY DEMOCRATS as UNPATRIOTIC.
THIS SHOULD BE THE _STANDARD_ RESPONSE of Democratic Leaders EVERY TIME Republicans or the Bush White House try to impugn Democratic leadership!
---------------------------------------
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/14/webb-mccain/
During his major Iraq speech last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) SMEARED congressional leaders who won the passage of legislation setting a timeline for withdrawal. “What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering,” McCain intoned.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), a former Marine and decorated combat veteran, responded aggressively to McCain’s comments during an interview with Bloomberg television:
WEBB: I, you know, I think that John McCain has been impugning people’s patriotism and I really regret that he’s doing that.
I’m disappointed in John McCain. I’ve known him for many years. The day before we begin the debate on the Iraq bills, he pulled me aside on the Senate floor and said, Jim, we do not want the situation we had in the Vietnam War. We do not want one side impugning the patriotism of the other side, and John McCain has been doing this consistently since that time. I don’t believe that it is in anybody’s interest for members of the Senate to be impugning the other side’s patriotism, or by the way, to be hiding behind the troops as political justification for what we’re doing.
=======================================
It's Time to Name It: Dems Should Now Call the Bushites the Liars That They Are
by Andrew Bard Schmookler
April 15, 2007
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andrew_b_070411_it_s_time_to_name_it.htm
On Countdown (on Tuesday, April 10), President Bush was shown fully engaged in the dishonest game his regime is playing in Iraq. Bush was trying to pin on the Democrats the blame for the situation he himself has created. More specifically, he was saying that it is because the Democratic Congress hasn't agreed to give him the blank check he demands for his war that some troops will have to stay in Iraq longer, and some other troops will have to go to Iraq sooner, than they'd expected.
The message here was: If the troops and their families are suffering, it's because the Democrats are trying to influence policy. The overall message the Bushites are working to sell to the American people is: whatever is wrong in Iraq is the fault of the Democrats.
It is, I believe, the fear of this phony propagandistic move by the Bushites that most inhibits the Democrats from putting their fingerprints on this disaster in Iraq. Understandably so. But the time has come for the Democrats to be bolder, not more cautious, in approaching the Bushite propaganda. Not, perhaps --at least at this stage-- by taking greater ownership of the Iraqi debacle. That might play into the Bushites hands. But by counteracting the propaganda itself.
It is time for the lies to be boldly named as such and --thus discredited-- to be robbed of their power.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS LIED TO AMERICA AT EVERY TURN
It is time for the Democrats to call the attention of the American people, by strong statements made through the mainstream media, to the whole pattern of dishonesty plain to see in the Bushites records.
"The president is lying here, when he claims that the way he's stretching our military to the breaking point has anything to do with what Congress has done. This is what they've been doing right along. And so also is the lying.
"This is the same president who "fixed the intelligence" to deceive the Congress and the American people to support a war, concocting a threat to justify what they wanted to do for other reasons they kept to themselves."
And this bold indictment should lay out some of the pattern of deceit on issues that go beyond Iraq as well.
"This is the same administration whose memoranda surrounding the firing of the U.S. Attorneys talked about stringing Congress along, making efforts in 'good faith' --with 'good faith' put in quotation marks.
"This is the same administration that has pressured its scientists not to speak the scientific truth when it runs counter to the political agenda of the White House."
The sooner the American people --or at least the 2/3 who are not under the Bushite trance-- stop giving any credence whatever to what this Bush White House says, the sooner American policy --not just on Iraq but generally-- can become sane.
BRING ON THE DESIGNATED HITTER
It would be good for the Congressional leadership to work toward naming this persistent LYING by the Bushites and toward thus discrediting --in the eyes of the public-- whatever the White House says. But it might be good for this perception to be given a secure beachhead in the American consciousness by being delivered by someone not directly in the partisan fray, and in a better position therefore to speak boldly.
This would be one excellent occasion for Al Gore to play that role as "designated hitter" about which I wrote not long ago (at www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=537).
If not he, then perhaps Jimmy Carter who has some moral authority, and has shown himself willing to speak plainly about the disreputable nature of this regime.
And then perhaps there are the presidential candidates. In particular, perhaps Barrack Obama could be the one who delivers this message in a powerful way. This would require him to get beyond his stance as the man of hope and add to it a more prophetic dimension-- an addition that might carry some risk but that could also make him a more full-bodied spokesman for the opposition to these Bushites.
IN CONCLUSION
"To the American people, then, I say: Do not allow this administration to deceive us further. It's time for us to ignore the smoke-screen this administration creates to obscure our real situation and its real purposes.
"And to the president, who is trying to put the blame for his own failures and blunders onto others, who continues to insist on playing politics when American lives are at stake, I ask: At long last, sir, have you no decency?
"When will you --who spoke so glibly about bringing integrity to the Oval Office-- start taking responsibility for what you have wrought?"
Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney campaign team, in typical Karl Rove fashion, could not only exploit their opponent's weaknesses, but could MAKE UP shortcomings out of thin air when needed, as for example the Rove-inspired South Carolina "push polls" that portrayed John McCain as "fathering a black baby" (when in fact McCain and his wife had adopted a Bangladeshi baby) in the Republican primary which with finallity ended McCain's presidential hopes that year.
But in Al Gore's defense, he was being attacked on the left as being "too negative," first by the Bill Bradley campaign, and then by the Ralph Nader campaign. (Make no mistake about it: the "left" wing of the Democratic Party and American politics worked very energetically to put the Right-Wing Bush-Cheney-Scalia-Roberts administration in the White House.)
John Kerry took all of Al Gore's mistakes - and DOUBLED them! Kerry, like Gore, gave Bush's "MORE BIPARTISAN TONE IN WASHINGTON" pledge a FREE PASS - even though PARTISAN ATTACK ADS and 'bash Democrats!" campaign photo-ops were the bread and butter of Bush's 2000 campaign and first four years of office, the very signature of the Bush-Cheney White House!
Kerry likewise stood there like a stupid punching bag as the Bush-Rove-Cheney team portrayed him (Kerry) as a "FLIP-FLOPPER!" Kerry was too stupid and clueless to reply the obvious - that the President who did nothing to prevent 9-11, then pledged to get Osama bin Laden "DEAD OR ALIVE!" - then, at a White House press conference, told the American people "I'm NOT THAT CONCERNED WITH bin Laden anymore" - that president has a hell of a lot of nerve accusing anyone of being a "FLIP-FLOPPER"!
The facts are that John Kerry realized that if he won the election of 2004, he would OWN the Iraq war for all eternity. We believe it is for these reasons that Kerry "pulled" his campaign punches in the long summer of 2004, not waging even a minimally competent campaign. Certainly, Kerry's wife and VP running mate were far more outspoken in their comments than the reasoned, senatorial "leader" of the Democrats ever was.
But there is an element of FRAUD to this analysis, if indeed our assesment is correct. To fight energetically and aggressively for the Democratic presidential nomination, then immediately go into "VACATION MODE", is ROBBING Democratic voters and activists of a FIGHTING candidacy. In boxing the terminology is "taking a fall."
WE HOPE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP will not REPEAT the shortcomings and mistakes of the Kerry and Gore campaigns in this vital year between the 2006 campaign and the 2008 campaign.
Unfortunately the Democratic presidential front-runners ARE, INDEED, ALREADY REPEATING the lame tactics of Kerry and Gore - neither Hillary nor Obama nor even Edwards are exactly outspoken in calling the President and his Vice President LIARS - as they (Bush and Cheney) feel so free to call Democrats "OBSTRUCTIONISTS" and even impugn their patriotism.
WE AMERICANS DESERVE FIGHTING CANDIDATES and leadership - and WE DESERVE to have SOME OPPOSITION to the hubris and incompetence (if not criminal corruption) of the Republican administration!
The Democrats do indeed have FIGHTING candidates in this Congress - most of the freshmen Congressmen, Congreswomen, and Senators were far more outspoken in their individual 2006 campaigns as OUTSIDERS, than they now are as part of the Democratic congressional establishment. It is past time for the Democratic Party to ENCOURAGE, and not smoother, outspoken opposition to the Bush-Cheney-Rove White House!
-----------------------------------------
President Bush's infamous "I'm NOT THAT CONCERNED about bin Laden" comment, from the official White House (WhiteHouse.gov) website (slightly more than 1/3rd down)that John Kerry REFUSED TO USE in his pathetically lame 2004 campaign:
<< I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. >>
<< Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. >>
NOTE: IF, as President Bush said, bin Laden's NETWORK HAS BEEN DESTROYED" in this MARCH 2002 White House press conference - then why is the President today in 2007 blaming Democrats for Al Qaida attacks in Iraq - a country that had almost zero Al Qaida presence before this president's invasion of that hapless country?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Note 2: Sure enough, FRESHMAN Senator JAMES WEBB takes exception to Republican Senator John McCain's attempts to PORTRAY DEMOCRATS as UNPATRIOTIC.
THIS SHOULD BE THE _STANDARD_ RESPONSE of Democratic Leaders EVERY TIME Republicans or the Bush White House try to impugn Democratic leadership!
---------------------------------------
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/14/webb-mccain/
During his major Iraq speech last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) SMEARED congressional leaders who won the passage of legislation setting a timeline for withdrawal. “What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering,” McCain intoned.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), a former Marine and decorated combat veteran, responded aggressively to McCain’s comments during an interview with Bloomberg television:
WEBB: I, you know, I think that John McCain has been impugning people’s patriotism and I really regret that he’s doing that.
I’m disappointed in John McCain. I’ve known him for many years. The day before we begin the debate on the Iraq bills, he pulled me aside on the Senate floor and said, Jim, we do not want the situation we had in the Vietnam War. We do not want one side impugning the patriotism of the other side, and John McCain has been doing this consistently since that time. I don’t believe that it is in anybody’s interest for members of the Senate to be impugning the other side’s patriotism, or by the way, to be hiding behind the troops as political justification for what we’re doing.
=======================================
It's Time to Name It: Dems Should Now Call the Bushites the Liars That They Are
by Andrew Bard Schmookler
April 15, 2007
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andrew_b_070411_it_s_time_to_name_it.htm
On Countdown (on Tuesday, April 10), President Bush was shown fully engaged in the dishonest game his regime is playing in Iraq. Bush was trying to pin on the Democrats the blame for the situation he himself has created. More specifically, he was saying that it is because the Democratic Congress hasn't agreed to give him the blank check he demands for his war that some troops will have to stay in Iraq longer, and some other troops will have to go to Iraq sooner, than they'd expected.
The message here was: If the troops and their families are suffering, it's because the Democrats are trying to influence policy. The overall message the Bushites are working to sell to the American people is: whatever is wrong in Iraq is the fault of the Democrats.
It is, I believe, the fear of this phony propagandistic move by the Bushites that most inhibits the Democrats from putting their fingerprints on this disaster in Iraq. Understandably so. But the time has come for the Democrats to be bolder, not more cautious, in approaching the Bushite propaganda. Not, perhaps --at least at this stage-- by taking greater ownership of the Iraqi debacle. That might play into the Bushites hands. But by counteracting the propaganda itself.
It is time for the lies to be boldly named as such and --thus discredited-- to be robbed of their power.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS LIED TO AMERICA AT EVERY TURN
It is time for the Democrats to call the attention of the American people, by strong statements made through the mainstream media, to the whole pattern of dishonesty plain to see in the Bushites records.
"The president is lying here, when he claims that the way he's stretching our military to the breaking point has anything to do with what Congress has done. This is what they've been doing right along. And so also is the lying.
"This is the same president who "fixed the intelligence" to deceive the Congress and the American people to support a war, concocting a threat to justify what they wanted to do for other reasons they kept to themselves."
And this bold indictment should lay out some of the pattern of deceit on issues that go beyond Iraq as well.
"This is the same administration whose memoranda surrounding the firing of the U.S. Attorneys talked about stringing Congress along, making efforts in 'good faith' --with 'good faith' put in quotation marks.
"This is the same administration that has pressured its scientists not to speak the scientific truth when it runs counter to the political agenda of the White House."
The sooner the American people --or at least the 2/3 who are not under the Bushite trance-- stop giving any credence whatever to what this Bush White House says, the sooner American policy --not just on Iraq but generally-- can become sane.
BRING ON THE DESIGNATED HITTER
It would be good for the Congressional leadership to work toward naming this persistent LYING by the Bushites and toward thus discrediting --in the eyes of the public-- whatever the White House says. But it might be good for this perception to be given a secure beachhead in the American consciousness by being delivered by someone not directly in the partisan fray, and in a better position therefore to speak boldly.
This would be one excellent occasion for Al Gore to play that role as "designated hitter" about which I wrote not long ago (at www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=537).
If not he, then perhaps Jimmy Carter who has some moral authority, and has shown himself willing to speak plainly about the disreputable nature of this regime.
And then perhaps there are the presidential candidates. In particular, perhaps Barrack Obama could be the one who delivers this message in a powerful way. This would require him to get beyond his stance as the man of hope and add to it a more prophetic dimension-- an addition that might carry some risk but that could also make him a more full-bodied spokesman for the opposition to these Bushites.
IN CONCLUSION
"To the American people, then, I say: Do not allow this administration to deceive us further. It's time for us to ignore the smoke-screen this administration creates to obscure our real situation and its real purposes.
"And to the president, who is trying to put the blame for his own failures and blunders onto others, who continues to insist on playing politics when American lives are at stake, I ask: At long last, sir, have you no decency?
"When will you --who spoke so glibly about bringing integrity to the Oval Office-- start taking responsibility for what you have wrought?"
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Impeach Bush and Cheney... or get out of the way.
note: every word in this short op-ed by the Vermont Reformer newspaper is a journalisic and historical gem.
<< There will be a time when future generations will look at us and wonder why President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not removed from office.
They will look at us and question why, when confronted by the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever witnessed in the United States, nothing was done to stop Bush and Cheney. >>
<< When the story of our time is written by future historians, there will be but one question asked: When confronted with the MALEVOLENCE and MENDACITY of the Bush administration, how did the people in positions to do something about it react? >>
---------------------------------------
Impeach Bush, Or Get Out of The Way
Friday, April 13 2007
Reformer.com
http://www.reformer.com/ci_5657073
There will be a time when future generations will look at us and wonder why President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not removed from office.
They will look at us and question why, when confronted by the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever witnessed in the United States, nothing was done to stop Bush and Cheney.
They will look at the craven behavior of the Democrats, too afraid to take on the president when it mattered. They will look at the Republicans, so intoxicated with power that they backed their president to the hilt, even as he ran this country off a cliff. They will look at the press, and how too many journalists were cowed into parroting the words of the administration. They will look at the voters, and shake their heads in disbelief that a number of Americans voted for all this -- the electoral equivalent of the chickens voting Colonel Sanders president.
And they will look at Vermont, and how a bottom-up impeachment effort with broad support ran into a brick wall of indifference in Montpelier as well as Washington.
History will not look kindly on House Speaker Gaye Symington for her insistence that her chamber must focus on "important matters" and that the House "does not have the time" to deal with impeachment.
History will not look kindly on Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, who has talked loudly about impeaching Bush and Cheney, but won't pursue the issue as long Symington says no.
Even though an impeachment resolution, like any other Vermont law, can start in either chamber, Shumlin is using decorum and the "we don't have time" argument as an excuse to duck this important issue.
History will not look kindly on Sen. Bernard Sanders, and his successor in the House, Peter Welch, as well as Sen. Patrick Leahy, for treating impeachment as if it were a barrel of toxic waste. Short-term political considerations apparently are more important than the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold and defend.
Nearly 40 towns voted for impeachment at their town meetings this year. There is little support for Bush, Cheney and the war in Iraq that they lied us into. The list of the administration's failures at home and abroad is long and embarrassing. Yet Symington, Shumlin, Welch, Sanders and Leahy feel no sense of urgency to hold Bush and Cheney accountable.
We believe this is unacceptable and that both the Vermont Legislature and Congress are shirking their responsibilities. There is time to deal with impeachment and we believe nothing is more important.
When the story of our time is written by future historians, there will be but one question asked: When confronted with the malevolence and mendacity of the Bush administration, how did the people in positions to do something about it react?
Does Vermont want to go down in the history books as standing up to the worst president ever? We, the people of Vermont, have the chance to affect the outcome of this story. We must seize this opportunity.
<< There will be a time when future generations will look at us and wonder why President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not removed from office.
They will look at us and question why, when confronted by the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever witnessed in the United States, nothing was done to stop Bush and Cheney. >>
<< When the story of our time is written by future historians, there will be but one question asked: When confronted with the MALEVOLENCE and MENDACITY of the Bush administration, how did the people in positions to do something about it react? >>
---------------------------------------
Impeach Bush, Or Get Out of The Way
Friday, April 13 2007
Reformer.com
http://www.reformer.com/ci_5657073
There will be a time when future generations will look at us and wonder why President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not removed from office.
They will look at us and question why, when confronted by the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever witnessed in the United States, nothing was done to stop Bush and Cheney.
They will look at the craven behavior of the Democrats, too afraid to take on the president when it mattered. They will look at the Republicans, so intoxicated with power that they backed their president to the hilt, even as he ran this country off a cliff. They will look at the press, and how too many journalists were cowed into parroting the words of the administration. They will look at the voters, and shake their heads in disbelief that a number of Americans voted for all this -- the electoral equivalent of the chickens voting Colonel Sanders president.
And they will look at Vermont, and how a bottom-up impeachment effort with broad support ran into a brick wall of indifference in Montpelier as well as Washington.
History will not look kindly on House Speaker Gaye Symington for her insistence that her chamber must focus on "important matters" and that the House "does not have the time" to deal with impeachment.
History will not look kindly on Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, who has talked loudly about impeaching Bush and Cheney, but won't pursue the issue as long Symington says no.
Even though an impeachment resolution, like any other Vermont law, can start in either chamber, Shumlin is using decorum and the "we don't have time" argument as an excuse to duck this important issue.
History will not look kindly on Sen. Bernard Sanders, and his successor in the House, Peter Welch, as well as Sen. Patrick Leahy, for treating impeachment as if it were a barrel of toxic waste. Short-term political considerations apparently are more important than the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold and defend.
Nearly 40 towns voted for impeachment at their town meetings this year. There is little support for Bush, Cheney and the war in Iraq that they lied us into. The list of the administration's failures at home and abroad is long and embarrassing. Yet Symington, Shumlin, Welch, Sanders and Leahy feel no sense of urgency to hold Bush and Cheney accountable.
We believe this is unacceptable and that both the Vermont Legislature and Congress are shirking their responsibilities. There is time to deal with impeachment and we believe nothing is more important.
When the story of our time is written by future historians, there will be but one question asked: When confronted with the malevolence and mendacity of the Bush administration, how did the people in positions to do something about it react?
Does Vermont want to go down in the history books as standing up to the worst president ever? We, the people of Vermont, have the chance to affect the outcome of this story. We must seize this opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)