Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus
Wednesday May 9, 2007
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/09/habeas_corpus/index.html
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is, without question, the single worst law enacted during the Bush presidency, and is one of the most destructive laws passed in the last several decades. It is not merely a bad law. It vests in the President the power to detain people indefinitely with no meaningful opportunity to contest the government's accusations. That is the very power the Founders sought first and foremost to prohibit.
More significantly, whether a country permits its political leaders to imprison people arbitrarily and with no process is one of the few defining attributes dividing free and civilized countries from lawless tyrannies. Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his 1789 letter to Thomas Paine: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." To vest the President with the power to imprison people indefinitely with no charges is fundamentally to transform the type of country we are.
House Democrats are apparently now debating whether to vote on a bill to restore habeas corpus. Matt Stoller provides some of the legislative details and information needed to pressure them to do so, and he explains why quick action is required. This morning, The New York Times and even The Washington Post editorialized in favor of habeas restoration. It would be a profound -- and truly inexcusable -- abdication of Democrats' responsibilities for them to do anything other then devote full-scale efforts to restoring habeas corpus.
It is worthwhile to review briefly the history of how this legislative atrocity came to be. When the White House proposed this bill, Democrats were as meek and as silent as could be. They literally disappeared from the debate, allowing the illusion of "negotiations" between the White House on the one hand, and a handful of allegedly principled and independent Republican Senators (McCain, Warner and Graham) on the other.
When -- as was both painfully predictable and predicted -- those Republican Senators capitulated almost in full to the White House, "winning" only the most meaninglessly symbolic linguistic changes to the bill while acquiescing to its most Draconian provisions, the fate of the bill was sealed because Democrats had ceded their authority to those "rebel" GOP Senators.
On the most important bill of the Bush presidency, Congressional Democrats chose to remain absent from the debate -- and allow the fate of habeas corpus to rest on the obvious delusion that Congressional Republicans would protect it -- because they were petrified that Karl Rove, in the imminent midterm elections, would call them "pro-terrorist" if they protected habeas corpus. Of course, just as Rove insinuated that they were "pro-Saddam" in 2002 despite half of them voting to wage war against Iraq, Rove suggested they were "pro-terrorist" in 2006 despite Democrats allowing the MCA to pass.
It is true that most Democrats in both the House and Senate ultimately voted against this law (though 12 Democratic Senators out of 44 voted in favor). But even among the Senate Democrats who did vote against its enactment, many of them did not even reveal how they would vote until -- literally -- the very day before the vote occurred, and many such Democratic Senators announced their opposition only once it became clear that it would pass.
Just to remind ourselves of the behavior of the Democrats during the "debate," here are a few illustrative paragraphs from The New York Times article reporting on the "negotiations" over the bill that continued even after the grand McCain-Warner-Graham "compromise" was reached, whereby the "rebel GOP Senators" continued to make concessions to the White House which broadened even further the new powers vested in the President:
But Republicans were optimistic about eliminating last-minute concerns over a separate measure laying out rules for interrogating terrorism suspects and trying them before military tribunals. They said they were hoping to send the bill to Mr. Bush by the end of the week for a signing ceremony that could help them kick off the home stretch of the campaign with a message that Republicans were taking strong steps to protect the nation from terror attacks.
"I think we are good to go," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of three Republican senators who last week forced the administration into negotiations over the detainee measure.
Democrats, while being careful to say that they had made no decision to block the detainee bill, expressed rising concerns about changes to the proposal that they said went beyond what Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, had described Monday as merely "technical changes" . . . .
"These are significant changes, not technical changes," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, where the original bill backed by Senators Warner, McCain and Graham was approved. "It's hard to know how to vote on a bill that's this much in motion."
It's hard to know how to vote on a bill that's this much in motion. Outside of a handful of Democratic lawmakers, that whiny procedural complaint was the sum total of the Democrats' "opposition" to the MCA until the day before, when its fate was sealed.
Far worse, many Democrats -- led by Harry Reid (who at the last minute announced his opposition) -- even spoke favorably of the MCA in the days immediately preceding the vote:
Democrats, who have found themselves on the losing end of the national security debate the past two national elections, said the changes to the bill had not yet reached a level that would cause them to try to block it altogether.
"We want to do this," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. "And we want to do it in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court. We want to do it in compliance with the Constitution."
Full-scale (and consciously chosen) Democratic capitulation -- along with, in some cases, actual support for this bill -- is what placed them in that predicament, as the Times article from several days earlier made clear:
Democrats have allowed three Republican senators with strong military credentials -- John W. Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- to take the lead in resisting the president on the issue. Democratic leaders were largely positive about the agreement reached Thursday, signaling that they would continue to cooperate, rather than risk looking obstructionist heading into the midterms.
"A handful of principled Republican Senators have forced the White House to back down from the worst elements of its extreme proposal for new interrogation rules," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.
It was a disgraceful performance by Democratic Congressional leaders all the way around -- driven by all of the worst elements plaguing our Beltway system -- and it resulted in the abolition of one of the most defining and long-standing American liberties: the right not to be imprisoned without charges, due process, and a determination of guilt in a real judicial proceeding.
As but one of the countless heinous examples of what this law authorizes, review the plight of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar who, in 2001, was living with his wife and five children in the U.S. legally -- as a computer science graduate student at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois -- when he was detained and then charged with making false statements when he was questioned as part of the 9/11 investigation.
Al-Marri vehemently denied the accusations, and his criminal trial was scheduled for July, 2003. But the trial never happened, because President Bush, one month before it was to begin, declared him an "enemy combatant," leading to the dismissal of the charges in court and his transfer to a military prison, where he has remained ever since -- indefinitely -- with no opportunity to contest the charges or to prove his innocence.
That is what the MCA has legalized. That is the system of American justice which the 2006 Congress imposed -- people swept off the streets of America and imprisoned indefinitely, with no charges and no venue to prove one's innocence. And while it was the Bush White House which initiated this practice and it was Republicans in Congress who voted for it, Democrats -- who calculated that meaningfully opposing this bill would be too politically costly and would jeopardize their election victory -- bear significant culpability for its enactment. And that means that they now bear principal responsibility for its repeal.
Needless to say, fear of appearing "soft on terrorism" is the primary impediment to habeas restoration. That fear is absurd. The Republicans' principal weapon in 2006 was the fear-mongering claim that Democrats were weak on terrorism because they oppose warrantless eavesdropping, "coercive interrogations," and lawless detentions. And yet Republicans were crushed in that election. It's not 2002 any more; the country has tuned out those sorts of scare tactics and that manipulative weapon has been overused and is impotent.
Moreover, this is not a hard argument to make, but in order for it to be understood, the argument needs to be made. Americans understand instinctively that to allow someone to contest accusations against them is not tantamount to allowing them to go free. It is easily conveyed that a critical aspect for punishing terrorists is to ensure that we only punish actual terrorists but provide a process whereby innocent people are not wrongfully imprisoned for life. If Democrats engage that debate, rather than run from it again, it is not difficult to make that case.
But none of that even matters. The right to be free of arbitrary executive imprisonment is -- and, since the founding of America, always has been -- a defining and distinguishing attribute of our country (notwithstanding shameful instances in our past where that right has been denied). All citizens -- including, actually especially, those sent to represent the people in Congress -- have an obligation to protect that right from government officials who seek to abolish it.
Having disgracefully abdicated that responsibility back in September because they wanted to win the midterm elections, Democrats -- now that they have won -- can cleanse their historic sin only by committing themselves, not symbolically but in actuality, to the restoration of habeas corpus. Whether they are willing to do so will speak volumes about their true character and about whether their November victory will result in anything other than some televised hearings. If Democrats are too afraid even to take a stand against the Bush administration in defense of this centuries-old core American liberty, it is impossible to imagine any even minimally risky stands they are willing to take.
UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left has printed an e-mail from a reader which reports the following:
FYI-- Congresswoman, Rep. Kathy Castor, (D-FL-11th) who serves on both the Armed Services Comm. AND is the only freshman on the powerful Rules Committee which makes decisions about moving bills forward, met with Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton early this morning and they have decided to file a stand alone bill to restore habeas corpus rather than put it in the Defense Authorization Bill.
I spoke to her Chief of Staff personally, and he said she promises to work to move the bill along, so everyone will have to vote up or down on restoring habeas, and we'll all know by their vote where exactly everyone in Congress stands on restoring habeas.
I don't know enough about the legislative mechanics involved to know all of the implications, but I would think -- though it is purely speculative absent more knowledge -- that this is a good development, and a clean vote on whether to restore habeas corpus should be able to pass both houses (though not with a veto-proof majority).
UPDATE II: I'm hearing anecdotally that an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill would have been the easiest and quickest way to ensure a vote on habeas corpus, and that a stand-alone bill is a much lengthier and more difficult process, which would make the development reported by Talk Left bad news.
But without knowing the real legislative details (and I don't), it is hard to say, and there is clearly some confusion about what House Democrats are willing to do (see here, for instance). It sounds as though the House leadership is attempting to block efforts that would ensure a quick and certain vote, though I'm going to refrain from speculating further on that until there is clearer information and until people with a real knowledge of the process write about this.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Gonzales continuing as Attorney General illustrates that Dems are TOOTHLESS at confronting Bush-Cheney corruption, criminality....
The Democratic Leadership needs to watch the opening segway of George C. Scott playing PATTON! in the award-winning movie. Scott, as WWII General Patton, intones "Americans LOVE A WINNER, and WILL NOT TOLERATE A LOSER."
Yet the Democratic leadership CONTINUES to DODGE these main issues, in their continuing "nibble around the edges" strategy of appeasement and conforming to the "Conventional Wisdom." Patton's advice may be an important lesson for Democrats - with Bush in the 28% approval ratings, Americans may expect SOMEONE to show some LEADERSHIP against the serial flaws and shortcomings of the Bush-Cheney-Rove White House.
Newt Gingrich is out there talking about Democrats "UNDERMINNING THE MORAL OF US TROOPS" - and the Democrats RESPOND WITH SILENCE, REFUSING to make the case that it is the AWFUL, ATROCIOUS, INCOMPETENT, and CORRUPT (bordering on treasonous) BUSH-CHENEY-ROVE White House that is not only "underminning" the US military - but DRIVING the entire US military INTO A DITCH, as the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration drove the entire US defense/intel/national-security establishment INTO A DITCH in the long summer before 9-11, when even the ITALIAN POLICE took steps to protect the G-8 presidents at the Genoa summit from a hijacked airliner being used as a bomb, by stationing surface-to-air missiles around that city in July of 2001.
WHERE is the Democratic answer to NEWT GINGRICH?
WHERE isthe Democratic media machine to confront RUSH LIMBAUGH?
WHERE is the Democratic rebuttal of FOX 'news' talking points?
WHERE are the Democrats to PROTECT American voters FROM Alberto Gonzales PURGE-GATE corruption of the US Justice department?
WHERE is the Democratic OUTRAGE - are they doing NOTHING to protect their own constituents and American voters from Mr. Gonzales' perjurous administration?
Are the Democrats STILL SO AFRAID of the Bush-Rove-Republican media machine, that they will SELL THEIR OWN VOTERS DOWN THE RIVER, rather than CONFRONT the lies of Mr. Gonzales and demand his resignation?
As George C. Scott's Patton said, "AMERICANS LOVE A WINNER, and WILL NOT TOLERATE losers."
=================================================
Gonzales Is a Survivor as Bush Seeks to Minimize Political Risk
By Robert Schmidt
May 10 (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aK5zU.km7YoY&refer=us
- By most accounts, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be ``Dead Man Walking'' -- not the winner of a high-stakes political game of ``Survivor.''
Defying conventional wisdom, Gonzales has kept his job as lawmakers in both parties, commentators and former Justice Department officials clamor for his resignation for mishandling the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. There are greater risks for President George W. Bush in cutting Gonzales loose than keeping him, say some Washington insiders and political strategists.
``He's still around because they wouldn't dream of having a confirmation hearing or appointing someone very independent of the White House,'' said Philip Heymann, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who is now a professor at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ``And those would be the conditions for having anybody new.''
Heymann and others predict Gonzales will leave office in January 2009 at the end of Bush's term unless evidence of criminal wrongdoing emerges. That could include firing a prosecutor to block a corruption investigation of Republicans or removing a prosecutor who refused to bring a groundless case against Democrats.
In a confirmation battle over Gonzales's successor, the Democratic-controlled Senate would gain new leverage to obtain confidential memos from the Republican administration. That could mean more embarrassment for Bush and possibly more serious jeopardy for such aides as Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser.
Further Risk
A further risk for Bush would be finding an acting attorney general with unquestioned loyalty and not someone who might cooperate in congressional investigations.
Gonzales's deputy, Paul McNulty, and the current associate attorney general, William Mercer, played important roles in the U.S. attorney firings. That means Solicitor General Paul Clement could be placed in charge of running the department. His current job -- representing the administration before the Supreme Court -- is supposed to transcend politics.
Republicans agree about the risks for Bush in ousting Gonzales, though for different reasons.
``They've made a political judgment that it is much better for him to stay than go,'' said Noel Francisco, a partner at the Jones Day law firm in Washington who worked for Gonzales in the White House counsel's office. ``If you give the Democrats a scalp, it's not going to appease them. It's going to embolden them.''
`Circus'
``If Al Gonzales were to leave,'' Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said recently, Bush ``would have to nominate someone else to serve for a year and a half and they would have to go through a confirmation process. And this circus would never end.''
The U.S. attorney firings last year sparked congressional probes into whether the prosecutors were removed for political reasons. Gonzales's truthfulness and competence were challenged by senators of both parties during more than six hours of testimony last month before the Judiciary Committee.
Gonzales, appearing today before the House Judiciary Committee, in prepared testimony apologizes again for not properly supervising the firings and says he hopes a ``clearing of the air'' will settle the matter.
Bush has been steadfast in supporting his attorney general. The president said Gonzales's Senate testimony ``increased my confidence in his ability to do his job.'' Last week, in what sounded like a Freudian slip, Bush referred to Gonzales, 51, as the ``eternal general.''
While Bush has praised other cabinet members before they were shown the door, notably Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Gonzales case may be different.
No Alternative
``The reason why Gonzales is still there has more to do with the lack of an alternative than the president's loyalty,'' said Representative Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat and chairwoman of the House Judiciary subcommittee investigating the firings. ``The most comfortable thing'' for Bush ``is the status quo,'' she said.
Sanchez said an attorney general without close ties to the president may also be more cooperative in other congressional investigations.
Democrats have said the administration is stonewalling their probes into wiretapping of suspected American terrorists without court orders, possible politicization of the Justice Department's civil rights division and FBI abuses in administering the anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act.
`Can't Get Much Worse'
Administration officials are ``saying to themselves: `Well, it can't get much worse than this, so why should we cave in,''' said Joseph diGenova, a U.S. attorney in Washington under President Ronald Reagan.
Congressional investigators are demanding that Rove and ex- White House Counsel Harriet Miers give sworn testimony about their roles in the dismissals. The administration will only agree to unsworn testimony behind closed doors without a transcript.
The administration has made numerous Justice Department officials available for private interviews and also gave Congress 6,000 pages of internal e-mails and other documents.
Democrats still aren't satisfied and say they would delay confirming a replacement for Gonzales. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, has said he might not hold a hearing for a new attorney general until the Democrats get answers to all their questions.
``Until we have enough of the investigation done, there is no need going forward with a confirmation,'' Leahy said. Meanwhile, he said he suspects Bush is supporting Gonzales ``because they're allowing Karl Rove and others to run the department.''
In a reversal from a month ago, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is now more likely to resign than Gonzales, according to contracts traded on Intrade, an online electronic exchange based in Dublin. The chances of Wolfowitz quitting by June 30 were 79 percent as of 5:30 p.m. yesterday in New York and the odds Gonzales will leave were 45 percent.
To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net .
Yet the Democratic leadership CONTINUES to DODGE these main issues, in their continuing "nibble around the edges" strategy of appeasement and conforming to the "Conventional Wisdom." Patton's advice may be an important lesson for Democrats - with Bush in the 28% approval ratings, Americans may expect SOMEONE to show some LEADERSHIP against the serial flaws and shortcomings of the Bush-Cheney-Rove White House.
Newt Gingrich is out there talking about Democrats "UNDERMINNING THE MORAL OF US TROOPS" - and the Democrats RESPOND WITH SILENCE, REFUSING to make the case that it is the AWFUL, ATROCIOUS, INCOMPETENT, and CORRUPT (bordering on treasonous) BUSH-CHENEY-ROVE White House that is not only "underminning" the US military - but DRIVING the entire US military INTO A DITCH, as the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration drove the entire US defense/intel/national-security establishment INTO A DITCH in the long summer before 9-11, when even the ITALIAN POLICE took steps to protect the G-8 presidents at the Genoa summit from a hijacked airliner being used as a bomb, by stationing surface-to-air missiles around that city in July of 2001.
WHERE is the Democratic answer to NEWT GINGRICH?
WHERE isthe Democratic media machine to confront RUSH LIMBAUGH?
WHERE is the Democratic rebuttal of FOX 'news' talking points?
WHERE are the Democrats to PROTECT American voters FROM Alberto Gonzales PURGE-GATE corruption of the US Justice department?
WHERE is the Democratic OUTRAGE - are they doing NOTHING to protect their own constituents and American voters from Mr. Gonzales' perjurous administration?
Are the Democrats STILL SO AFRAID of the Bush-Rove-Republican media machine, that they will SELL THEIR OWN VOTERS DOWN THE RIVER, rather than CONFRONT the lies of Mr. Gonzales and demand his resignation?
As George C. Scott's Patton said, "AMERICANS LOVE A WINNER, and WILL NOT TOLERATE losers."
=================================================
Gonzales Is a Survivor as Bush Seeks to Minimize Political Risk
By Robert Schmidt
May 10 (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aK5zU.km7YoY&refer=us
- By most accounts, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be ``Dead Man Walking'' -- not the winner of a high-stakes political game of ``Survivor.''
Defying conventional wisdom, Gonzales has kept his job as lawmakers in both parties, commentators and former Justice Department officials clamor for his resignation for mishandling the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. There are greater risks for President George W. Bush in cutting Gonzales loose than keeping him, say some Washington insiders and political strategists.
``He's still around because they wouldn't dream of having a confirmation hearing or appointing someone very independent of the White House,'' said Philip Heymann, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who is now a professor at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ``And those would be the conditions for having anybody new.''
Heymann and others predict Gonzales will leave office in January 2009 at the end of Bush's term unless evidence of criminal wrongdoing emerges. That could include firing a prosecutor to block a corruption investigation of Republicans or removing a prosecutor who refused to bring a groundless case against Democrats.
In a confirmation battle over Gonzales's successor, the Democratic-controlled Senate would gain new leverage to obtain confidential memos from the Republican administration. That could mean more embarrassment for Bush and possibly more serious jeopardy for such aides as Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser.
Further Risk
A further risk for Bush would be finding an acting attorney general with unquestioned loyalty and not someone who might cooperate in congressional investigations.
Gonzales's deputy, Paul McNulty, and the current associate attorney general, William Mercer, played important roles in the U.S. attorney firings. That means Solicitor General Paul Clement could be placed in charge of running the department. His current job -- representing the administration before the Supreme Court -- is supposed to transcend politics.
Republicans agree about the risks for Bush in ousting Gonzales, though for different reasons.
``They've made a political judgment that it is much better for him to stay than go,'' said Noel Francisco, a partner at the Jones Day law firm in Washington who worked for Gonzales in the White House counsel's office. ``If you give the Democrats a scalp, it's not going to appease them. It's going to embolden them.''
`Circus'
``If Al Gonzales were to leave,'' Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said recently, Bush ``would have to nominate someone else to serve for a year and a half and they would have to go through a confirmation process. And this circus would never end.''
The U.S. attorney firings last year sparked congressional probes into whether the prosecutors were removed for political reasons. Gonzales's truthfulness and competence were challenged by senators of both parties during more than six hours of testimony last month before the Judiciary Committee.
Gonzales, appearing today before the House Judiciary Committee, in prepared testimony apologizes again for not properly supervising the firings and says he hopes a ``clearing of the air'' will settle the matter.
Bush has been steadfast in supporting his attorney general. The president said Gonzales's Senate testimony ``increased my confidence in his ability to do his job.'' Last week, in what sounded like a Freudian slip, Bush referred to Gonzales, 51, as the ``eternal general.''
While Bush has praised other cabinet members before they were shown the door, notably Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Gonzales case may be different.
No Alternative
``The reason why Gonzales is still there has more to do with the lack of an alternative than the president's loyalty,'' said Representative Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat and chairwoman of the House Judiciary subcommittee investigating the firings. ``The most comfortable thing'' for Bush ``is the status quo,'' she said.
Sanchez said an attorney general without close ties to the president may also be more cooperative in other congressional investigations.
Democrats have said the administration is stonewalling their probes into wiretapping of suspected American terrorists without court orders, possible politicization of the Justice Department's civil rights division and FBI abuses in administering the anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act.
`Can't Get Much Worse'
Administration officials are ``saying to themselves: `Well, it can't get much worse than this, so why should we cave in,''' said Joseph diGenova, a U.S. attorney in Washington under President Ronald Reagan.
Congressional investigators are demanding that Rove and ex- White House Counsel Harriet Miers give sworn testimony about their roles in the dismissals. The administration will only agree to unsworn testimony behind closed doors without a transcript.
The administration has made numerous Justice Department officials available for private interviews and also gave Congress 6,000 pages of internal e-mails and other documents.
Democrats still aren't satisfied and say they would delay confirming a replacement for Gonzales. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, has said he might not hold a hearing for a new attorney general until the Democrats get answers to all their questions.
``Until we have enough of the investigation done, there is no need going forward with a confirmation,'' Leahy said. Meanwhile, he said he suspects Bush is supporting Gonzales ``because they're allowing Karl Rove and others to run the department.''
In a reversal from a month ago, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is now more likely to resign than Gonzales, according to contracts traded on Intrade, an online electronic exchange based in Dublin. The chances of Wolfowitz quitting by June 30 were 79 percent as of 5:30 p.m. yesterday in New York and the odds Gonzales will leave were 45 percent.
To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net .
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Purge-gate Investigations could well lead to CRIMINAL CHARGES against Bush White House advisors.....
Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys
By David Bowermaster
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html?syndication=rss
Former U.S. Attorney John McKay, right, accompanied by fellow former prosecutor David Iglesias, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 6, 2007, before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys.
Two former U.S. attorneys said today they believe ongoing investigations into the dismissals last year of eight federal prosecutors could result in criminal charges against senior Justice Department officials.
John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington, and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, also said they believe White House political operative Karl Rove and his aides instigated the dismissals and ultimately decided who among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys should be fired. But the White House on Wednesday flatly denied the firings were instigated by the White House.
McKay and Iglesias, who were among those fired, made their assertions during a meeting this morning with Seattle Times editors and reporters. The two appeared this afternoon along with Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney for Arizona, during a public-policy forum on the dismissals at Seattle University's School of Law.
"I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of this," McKay said during his meeting with Times journalists. "This is going to get worse, not better."
McKay cited ongoing investigations into the dismissals by the Senate and House Judiciary committees, and inquiries now under way by the Justice Department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility.
McKay said he believes obstruction-of-justice charges will be filed if investigators conclude that the dismissal of any of the eight prosecutors was motivated by an attempt to influence ongoing public-corruption or voter-fraud investigations.
McKay said he believes the strongest evidence of obstruction is related to the dismissals of Iglesias and Carol Lam, the former U.S. Attorney in San Diego.
Last fall, Iglesias received calls from U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., inquiring whether public-corruption charges would be filed against prominent Democrats in the state prior to the November elections. Former New Mexico state Senate President Manny Aragon, a Democrat, and three others were eventually charged in April in what prosecutors say was a kickback scheme during construction of a new courthouse in Albuquerque.
Lam was investigating former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the former third-highest-ranking CIA official, when senior Justice Department officials targeted her for dismissal. Bribery charges were ultimately filed against both men.
Additionally, McKay and Iglesias said they believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty lied under oath when they testified before Congress that the eight prosecutors were fired for performance-related reasons and because of policy disputes with Justice Department headquarters.
Last week, a senior Justice Department official suggested to a House Judiciary Committee that McKay was fired because he had criticized the way superiors were handling the investigation into the slaying of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wales, gunned down in his Seattle home on Oct. 11, 2001.
Democrats have suggested McKay was fired because Republican activists were upset that he did not convene a grand jury and file charges related to the 2004 Washington state governor's election, narrowly won by Democrat Christine Gregoire.
Responding to the charges by McKay and Iglesias, Department of Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse issued a statement this afternoon that read, in part: "After several hours of testimony by the Attorney General, over 6,000 pages of documents released to Congress and hours of interviews with other senior DOJ officials, it is clear that the Attorney General did not ask for the resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain."
The statement added: "The Attorney General himself has stated that this process was not as rigorous as it should have been and he has since taken steps to institute better management practices with respect to U.S. Attorneys. He has taken full responsibility for his actions and in recent weeks has taken steps to leave the Department in a stronger and better place from the lessons learned from this matter."
McKay and Iglesias also have both concluded that the White House was behind the firings.
They based their conclusions on thousands of pages of documents released by the Justice Department in recent weeks, as well as hours of public testimony by senior Justice Department officials and press reports of private depositions those officials gave to congressional investigators.
"It seems that given that no one takes credit at the Justice Department, that it can only be coming from one place, and that very strongly means the White House," McKay said.
The White House has so far refused to turn over e-mails related to the firings, and has said it may no longer have access to millions of e-mails sent through Republican National Committee servers. Consequently, Iglesias said, "it's hard for us to know who in the White House said what, on what date."
"The people that would have a voice in this would be Karl Rove, [Rove aide] Scott Jennings, [former White House counsel] Harriet Miers, probably, yes," he said. "But it's hard for me to say 'yes,' [without] looking at those e-mails and memos that are probably out there and missing that this is what they said on this date about John and me and my colleagues.
"But that would explain why the wagons are so tightly circled," Iglesias added.
Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, insisted Wednesday that the White House played no role in the firings and merely "signed off " on a list of attorneys to be dismissed provided by the Department of Justice.
"The Attorney General made the right decision," Bartlett said. "We support the Attorney General in his decision. "
In testimony last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said McKay was fired because there were "serious concerns about his judgment." The chief complaint, he said, was the manner in which McKay pushed an information-sharing project.
McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.
"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.' "
McKay said he thought at the time, "He couldn't have meant that speech," given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. "It turns out he did."
He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."
Iglesias said the silver lining of the prosecutor firings is that they have triggered a public and congressional recognition of the need to reassert the Justice Department's independence.
"There was an attempt to inject the virus of partisan politics into the prosecutorial process," Iglesias said. "That's been stopped because of Congressional oversight and because of media scrutiny."
David Bowermaster: 206-464-2724 or dbowermaster@seattletimes.com
By David Bowermaster
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html?syndication=rss
Former U.S. Attorney John McKay, right, accompanied by fellow former prosecutor David Iglesias, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 6, 2007, before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys.
Two former U.S. attorneys said today they believe ongoing investigations into the dismissals last year of eight federal prosecutors could result in criminal charges against senior Justice Department officials.
John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington, and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, also said they believe White House political operative Karl Rove and his aides instigated the dismissals and ultimately decided who among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys should be fired. But the White House on Wednesday flatly denied the firings were instigated by the White House.
McKay and Iglesias, who were among those fired, made their assertions during a meeting this morning with Seattle Times editors and reporters. The two appeared this afternoon along with Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney for Arizona, during a public-policy forum on the dismissals at Seattle University's School of Law.
"I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of this," McKay said during his meeting with Times journalists. "This is going to get worse, not better."
McKay cited ongoing investigations into the dismissals by the Senate and House Judiciary committees, and inquiries now under way by the Justice Department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility.
McKay said he believes obstruction-of-justice charges will be filed if investigators conclude that the dismissal of any of the eight prosecutors was motivated by an attempt to influence ongoing public-corruption or voter-fraud investigations.
McKay said he believes the strongest evidence of obstruction is related to the dismissals of Iglesias and Carol Lam, the former U.S. Attorney in San Diego.
Last fall, Iglesias received calls from U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., inquiring whether public-corruption charges would be filed against prominent Democrats in the state prior to the November elections. Former New Mexico state Senate President Manny Aragon, a Democrat, and three others were eventually charged in April in what prosecutors say was a kickback scheme during construction of a new courthouse in Albuquerque.
Lam was investigating former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the former third-highest-ranking CIA official, when senior Justice Department officials targeted her for dismissal. Bribery charges were ultimately filed against both men.
Additionally, McKay and Iglesias said they believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty lied under oath when they testified before Congress that the eight prosecutors were fired for performance-related reasons and because of policy disputes with Justice Department headquarters.
Last week, a senior Justice Department official suggested to a House Judiciary Committee that McKay was fired because he had criticized the way superiors were handling the investigation into the slaying of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wales, gunned down in his Seattle home on Oct. 11, 2001.
Democrats have suggested McKay was fired because Republican activists were upset that he did not convene a grand jury and file charges related to the 2004 Washington state governor's election, narrowly won by Democrat Christine Gregoire.
Responding to the charges by McKay and Iglesias, Department of Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse issued a statement this afternoon that read, in part: "After several hours of testimony by the Attorney General, over 6,000 pages of documents released to Congress and hours of interviews with other senior DOJ officials, it is clear that the Attorney General did not ask for the resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain."
The statement added: "The Attorney General himself has stated that this process was not as rigorous as it should have been and he has since taken steps to institute better management practices with respect to U.S. Attorneys. He has taken full responsibility for his actions and in recent weeks has taken steps to leave the Department in a stronger and better place from the lessons learned from this matter."
McKay and Iglesias also have both concluded that the White House was behind the firings.
They based their conclusions on thousands of pages of documents released by the Justice Department in recent weeks, as well as hours of public testimony by senior Justice Department officials and press reports of private depositions those officials gave to congressional investigators.
"It seems that given that no one takes credit at the Justice Department, that it can only be coming from one place, and that very strongly means the White House," McKay said.
The White House has so far refused to turn over e-mails related to the firings, and has said it may no longer have access to millions of e-mails sent through Republican National Committee servers. Consequently, Iglesias said, "it's hard for us to know who in the White House said what, on what date."
"The people that would have a voice in this would be Karl Rove, [Rove aide] Scott Jennings, [former White House counsel] Harriet Miers, probably, yes," he said. "But it's hard for me to say 'yes,' [without] looking at those e-mails and memos that are probably out there and missing that this is what they said on this date about John and me and my colleagues.
"But that would explain why the wagons are so tightly circled," Iglesias added.
Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, insisted Wednesday that the White House played no role in the firings and merely "signed off " on a list of attorneys to be dismissed provided by the Department of Justice.
"The Attorney General made the right decision," Bartlett said. "We support the Attorney General in his decision. "
In testimony last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said McKay was fired because there were "serious concerns about his judgment." The chief complaint, he said, was the manner in which McKay pushed an information-sharing project.
McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.
"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.' "
McKay said he thought at the time, "He couldn't have meant that speech," given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. "It turns out he did."
He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."
Iglesias said the silver lining of the prosecutor firings is that they have triggered a public and congressional recognition of the need to reassert the Justice Department's independence.
"There was an attempt to inject the virus of partisan politics into the prosecutorial process," Iglesias said. "That's been stopped because of Congressional oversight and because of media scrutiny."
David Bowermaster: 206-464-2724 or dbowermaster@seattletimes.com
Saturday, May 5, 2007
An Open letter to Speaker Pelosi: "Defend America! Save the World! Protect your grandchildren! And have fun doing it...!"
Dear Speaker Pelosi: An Open Letter to the Speaker of the House of this 110th US Congress.
Dear Madam Speaker:
In the "may you live in interesting times" school of history and politics, we certainly live in interesting times. All across America an entire class of professional politicians, an entire party (the Democrats) that should represent well over one-half of the American public, find themselves MUTED by the coordinated and forceful PR spin - propaganda - that is the Republican Party under the control of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration.
Democrats, who should represent the BEST CHARACTERISTICS of our modern American society - the willingness of society to educate _all_ of our children; the desire to protect our environment and children from toxins such as lead which can overnight create lifetime mental and physical disabilities; the desire to embrace humanity's "wretched masses" and lead them, too, to economic self-sufficiency if not the "promised land" - all these impulses and many thousands more stem from the progressive, democratic, and freedom-loving desires that we Americans have come to regard as our birthright, and that we celebrate every July 4th: the RIGHT and ABILITY to CONFRONT any wrongful, injurious, or ABUSIVE use of authority, and to demand that OUR rights - "WE THE PEOPLE" - be heard over the coordinated efforts of those (the autocracy/aristocracy) that would seek to quell the voices of the public so as to further concentrate wealth and power, as barons and nobles once treated the populace as serfs and peasants during the feudal age.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG TODAY with the Democratic Party that some FORCEFUL PR would not correct.
And the good news is - Democrats COULD HAVE FUN doing so - if they just stop taking orders from the CW "CONVENTIONAL WISDOM" of the DC press corps and corporate-owned press-media!
Quite simply, Republican arch-conservitives ("reactionaries" or "right-wingers") WANT TO TAKE AMERICA BACK to the days and society of THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Ten, even five years ago, it would have been impolitic - even daft - to say so, but almost seven years into the Bush administration, we know that the Bush Republicans have as much respect for American voters and taxpayers as they do for minimum-wage illegal immigrants - "You may provide cheap labor, but DON'T EVEN THINK of asserting your rights!"
Even before anyone in America (outside of Texas) had heard of Karl Rove, Right-Wing leaders, reporters, and think-tank writers, and above all HATE RADIO DJs had made the words "LIBERAL DEMOCRAT" into a pejorative.
i.e. "Tax and Spend Liberals!" with all the sneering contempt that a Right-Wing hate-radio DJ could muster. Karl Rove, using the wealth and influence of the Republican Party's alliance with corporate America (i.e. Bush Sr's rolodex, including such industry executives such as Halliburton Chairman and CEO Dick Cheney), merely took the "Librul Democrats!" pejorative to new levels - especially once 9-11 shocked America's sense of security, and allowed the GOP to bind their pejorative smears of "tax and spend libruls" to FEAR, to every American's very desire to survive in a dangerous world.
Madam Speaker, when George W. Bush talks of "DEFENDING AMERICA" and "PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" - HE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME, or millions of other fellow Americans who voted against him in two or three or four elections.
HE is the president who, when warned in person, "Al Qaida is DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN AMERICA" did - EXACTLY NOTHING!
Nothing, that is, except to give his Attorney General the authority to stop flying on public airliners in July of 2001, leaving AIRLINE CREWS and PASSENGERS EXPOSED, like sitting ducks while the Attorney General flew in the security of a private chartered jet - two full months, 8 long weeks, before the 9-11 terrorists made good on their well known efforts to bring the Africa embassies- and USS Cole-style suicide-bomb attacks to America.
George W. Bush CLAIMS to want "to protect the American people" but his actions speak louder than his words. HE preferred STAYING ON VACATION as the most powerful hurricane in decades swirled ominously towards American towns and cities... (Katrina set the all-time meteorological low-pressure record for the Atlantic basin, before it stalled and weakened, then regained strength and resumed heading north towards the Mississippi-Louisiana coastline)- then he TOPPED that DISMAL, callous, GROSS NEGLECT - BY ATTENDING REPUBLICAN PHOTO-OP FUNDRAISERS as American citizens in New Orleans drowned - after the FEDERAL dikes and levees failed, as had BEEN PREDICTED THEY WOULD!
Mr. Bush looked at beleaguered citizens of New Orleans in the same way that a military commander orders the relocation and deportation of enemy civilians after a victorious military conquest - with SCORN and CONTEMPT!
It is scarcely possible to compile all of President Bush's "war on terror" failures and instance of gross incompetence in a single book, much less in a single letter, but any such compilation would have to include SELLING US PORTS (and port security) to DUBAI firms owned by dictators who answer to no one - in a region that was the nexus of the BCCI "bank of terrorists international" money-laundering and fraud (and possibly 9-11 funding as well)! To top THAT gross, in-your-face contempt of the American people, the President and Vice President have clearly approved of Halliburton corporation's desire to move its headquarters from - Houston, USA, to Dubai, UAE, presumably taking its billion-dollar US government contracts and military secrets with it!
And finally, how can any discussion of the Bush-Cheney administration's 'leadership' fail to mention that the conservative Republicans have had, for at least a decade since the 'end of the Cold War,' a JIHAD against - nuclear non-proliferation talks and treaties! The 'conservatives' of the Right-Wing of the Republican party have been ENCOURAGING nuclear proliferation! (Including a $5 billion deal to sell India GE's latest nuclear technology, with the "understanding" that India's SEVENTEEN 'secret' military reactors will be able to produce more weapons-grade material - unsupervised and with the blessings of the US government!)
In a word, the Republican Party agenda, as exhibited by the Bush-Cheney-Rove White House, is one of unadulterated GREED and CORRUPTION - greed and corruption that puts American citizens, even our very American way of life, at great risk!
HOW can such transparent 'leaders,' and such a grossly corrupt agenda, fail to provoke more OUTRAGE from more of the American citizenry?
The answer is - control of the media and PR spin machine. As Leslie Stahl explained in a Bill Moyers documentary from the Reagan administration days, President Reagan was able to SLASH funding for health-care facilities for senior programs - but merely by attending the grand-opening of one of the last such facilities to survive his budget cuts, he garnered public approval for "being compassionate" in a skillfully executed photo-op!
The Republican agenda under the Bush Republicans is quite simple - to take America, and Americans, as closely back to the days of the Great Depressionas politically possible. Before the Bush administration came to power, it would have been quite impossible for Democratic leaders and commentators to make this bold assertion - but today we have the wreckage of New Orleans to point to, much less the carnage in Iraq that the Bush administration points to as "PROGRESS"!
Without even going into whether Bush administration zealots sees open-ended, on-going, never ending wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere as "progress" (they most certainly do, and only need another major terror "incident" to justify the draft and even more draconian police-state powers), just here in America, and exclusive of the war-on-terror, they have openly signaled their desire to subordinate American law and jurisprudence to "fundamental religious values" - the same values that Bible-thumping preachers in the slave-states once used to justify slavery! The Bush-Republicans seek to destroy (and many have said so) ALL the layers of the social safety net built up since the New Deal administration. They have openly sought to destroy Social Security, and indeed want to keep the mandatory "WITHHOLDING" in place, but instead of having a GUARANTEED retirment account at the end of one's working life, want to turn those withholdings into a gian ponzi scheme at the mercy of brokers and fund-managers - in effect turning what is a form of SAVINGS into a form of TAXATION. (IF Social Security returns MORE money to retired workers than they put in, then it has become A FORM OF SAVINGS. Righties ignore this point, Democrats seem to be oblivious of it, and economist rarely credit Social Security with being a FORM OF SAVINGS.)
Across the board, Right-Wing Republicans are unapologetic (if not proud) about their dsire to DISMANTLE the New Deal - which is to say, TO TAKE AMERICA BACK TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION ERA!
WHY can not Democrats come out and forcefully make this assertion? That "LIBRUL" policies have brought America almost all the things that we take for granted about our America since the Great Depression - protections of our civil rights and property rights and voting rights and our right to breath clean air and consume food untainted by corporate production of toxins and poisons?
These points should be, to steal an recently abused notion, "A SLAM DUNK" of Demoratic PR, spin, and media savy!
WHENEVER a Republican is caught in public talking about DISMANTLING Social Security or other New Deal programs, the Democrats should FORCEFULLY, ENERGETICALLY, and HAPPILY counter "SO - you Republicans want to take us back to the Depression era?"!!
Madam Speaker, whether you realize it or not, you are matched in a high-stakes battle of wits with Karl Rove. He still controls the DC press corps (and thereby the NY/Chicago/LA national press-media). IF he is still the president's Chief Political Counsel by the end of this presidential term, that will mean Republicans will have WON the battle to portray the War in Iraq as a _DEMOCRATIC_ FAILURE, and the Democrats as being weak and unable to PROTECT American citizens.
And, quite honestly, Madam Speaker, IF the Democrats CAN NOT PROTECT THEIR CONSTITUENTS (from Mr. Rove's blatant voter suppression and voter intimidation schemes and outright computerized vote-THEFT ballot rigging)... IF the Democrats can NOT PROTECT American taxpayers from Mr. Cheney's wholesale HALLIBURTON billion-dollar FRAUDS.... IF the Democrats can not PROTECT American citizens from wholesale corporate corruption, of the kind that such as ENRON used to DEFRAUD workers, investors, and pensioners, that Mr. Bush used to ride to power (1) in the first place -
- IF the Democrats CAN NOT PROTECT American citizens from such clear and present CORRUPTION, FRAUD, ABUSE, and outright criminal conduct (2) from the highest levels of this government - then they DESERVE the caulumny that Mr. Rove is so ardently hoping and planning to heap on them starting in January 2009.
(1) - (Enron was Mr. Bush's NUMBER ONE CAMPAIGN DONOR in TWO Texas gubernatorial campaigns, the 2000 Republican presidential primary campaign, the 2000 presidential campaign, the 2000 Florida recount battle, and the 2001 inauguration balls)
(2) - (Lewis "Scooter" Libby was concurrently a SENIOR PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR - at the SAME TIME that he was the Vice President's CHIEF OF STAFF - during the time for which he was CONVICTED of FELONY PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE that put the "CIA outing scandal" safely past the 2004 election)
The good news is, IT SHOULD BE FUN AND EASY to portray the Republican Party, and Bush-Rove-Cheney administration, in this light!
Just imagine poor Karl Rove - having to CREATE the "WHITE HOUSE TRASHING SCANDAL" out of THIN AIR! - so as to smear and disgrace the departing Clinton-Gore White House staffers, and drive popular vote-winner of the 2000 presidential race (Vice President) Al Gore out of town, tarred-and-feathered in abject DISGRACE by Mr. Rove's "they VANDALIZED sacred White House property" SMEAR.
Poor Mr. Rove- having to CREATE SCANDALS out of thin air, while, were he working for the Democrats, he would have to compile an entire encyclopedia of Republican GENUINE SCANDALS of the first order, just to decide which atrocious frauds and derelictions-of-duty he would select and focus on to raise public outrage to "IMPEACH YESTERDAY!" levels!
Madam Speaker, DON'T be an Al Gore or John Kerry, to have victory and your good name SNATCHED from you because you were afraid of that very possibility, and thereby (they) were to afraid to confront the GOP smear machine! DON'T be a Tom Daschle or Joe Lieberman, SITTING IDLY as ENRON- with the BLESSINGS of the Bush-Cheney White House, DEFRAUDS American investors and pensioners, and extorts California ratepayers. DONT pretend ignorance, as the DC press corps does, as Dick Cheney and George W. Bush turn New Orleans into Blackwater and Halliburton's Happy Hunting Grounds, at the expense of American citizens.
HAVE SOME FUN! DEMAND that your party stay ON MESSAGE, to DEFINE the Bush-Cheney administration, and Republican Party, as the party of those frauds and abuses and outrages!
IF Karl Rove can SMEAR Max Cleland, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, (all three Vietnam combat veterans)and popular-vote winner VICE PRESIDENT Al Gore - he can certainly SMEAR YOU.
DON'T go down without a good fight! Defend America, protect your grandchildren, AND HAVE FUN DOING IT!
-----------------------------------------
(PS: In the recent televised Democratic Presidential debate, the swarmy NBC anchor Brian Williams aked to one of the candidates "A recent letter-to-editor in the USA Today newspaper said that Senate Majority Leader HARRY REID is guilty of "TREASON" for saying that the war in Iraq is lost, and that he should be exiled from the Senate, if not punished. First thing, would the swarmy Mr. Williams ask of a Jewish candidate, or African-American candidate, a racist letter written by a Skin-head reader? Let's give Mr. Williams "a pass" for using a HATE-RADIO TALKING POINT as a question in the primary debate (for, indeed, that portrayal is the essence of Campaign 2008) - his choice of question merely points out that indeed Senate Majority Leader Read and Speaker of the House Pelosi ARE BEING ACCUSED of TREASON by the Righty talkers of Hate-Radio, which just demonstrates the urgency of Democrats WORKING OVERTIME to DEFINE the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration as the creator of all these massive failures, corruptions, and fundamentalist terrorist recruiter fantasies in the first place.)
================================
Pelosi calls out Bush for 1999 statement on timetable.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/01/pelosi-calls-out-bush-for-1999-statement-on-timetable/
Reacting to President Bush’s veto of the Iraq supplemental bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted this evening that Bush once believed it was important for a president to lay out a timetable (TRANSCRIPT follows):
<< The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him. The president said, in his comments, he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5th, then-Governor Bush said, about President Clinton, “I think it’s important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn.” Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activities. Standards — that’s the issue.
If the president thinks that what is happening on the ground in Iraq now is progress, as he said in his comments tonight, then it’s clear to see why we have a disagreement on policy with him. I agree with Leader Reid. We look forward to working with the president to find common ground, but there is great distance between us right now. >>
Dear Madam Speaker:
In the "may you live in interesting times" school of history and politics, we certainly live in interesting times. All across America an entire class of professional politicians, an entire party (the Democrats) that should represent well over one-half of the American public, find themselves MUTED by the coordinated and forceful PR spin - propaganda - that is the Republican Party under the control of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration.
Democrats, who should represent the BEST CHARACTERISTICS of our modern American society - the willingness of society to educate _all_ of our children; the desire to protect our environment and children from toxins such as lead which can overnight create lifetime mental and physical disabilities; the desire to embrace humanity's "wretched masses" and lead them, too, to economic self-sufficiency if not the "promised land" - all these impulses and many thousands more stem from the progressive, democratic, and freedom-loving desires that we Americans have come to regard as our birthright, and that we celebrate every July 4th: the RIGHT and ABILITY to CONFRONT any wrongful, injurious, or ABUSIVE use of authority, and to demand that OUR rights - "WE THE PEOPLE" - be heard over the coordinated efforts of those (the autocracy/aristocracy) that would seek to quell the voices of the public so as to further concentrate wealth and power, as barons and nobles once treated the populace as serfs and peasants during the feudal age.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG TODAY with the Democratic Party that some FORCEFUL PR would not correct.
And the good news is - Democrats COULD HAVE FUN doing so - if they just stop taking orders from the CW "CONVENTIONAL WISDOM" of the DC press corps and corporate-owned press-media!
Quite simply, Republican arch-conservitives ("reactionaries" or "right-wingers") WANT TO TAKE AMERICA BACK to the days and society of THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Ten, even five years ago, it would have been impolitic - even daft - to say so, but almost seven years into the Bush administration, we know that the Bush Republicans have as much respect for American voters and taxpayers as they do for minimum-wage illegal immigrants - "You may provide cheap labor, but DON'T EVEN THINK of asserting your rights!"
Even before anyone in America (outside of Texas) had heard of Karl Rove, Right-Wing leaders, reporters, and think-tank writers, and above all HATE RADIO DJs had made the words "LIBERAL DEMOCRAT" into a pejorative.
i.e. "Tax and Spend Liberals!" with all the sneering contempt that a Right-Wing hate-radio DJ could muster. Karl Rove, using the wealth and influence of the Republican Party's alliance with corporate America (i.e. Bush Sr's rolodex, including such industry executives such as Halliburton Chairman and CEO Dick Cheney), merely took the "Librul Democrats!" pejorative to new levels - especially once 9-11 shocked America's sense of security, and allowed the GOP to bind their pejorative smears of "tax and spend libruls" to FEAR, to every American's very desire to survive in a dangerous world.
Madam Speaker, when George W. Bush talks of "DEFENDING AMERICA" and "PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" - HE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME, or millions of other fellow Americans who voted against him in two or three or four elections.
HE is the president who, when warned in person, "Al Qaida is DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN AMERICA" did - EXACTLY NOTHING!
Nothing, that is, except to give his Attorney General the authority to stop flying on public airliners in July of 2001, leaving AIRLINE CREWS and PASSENGERS EXPOSED, like sitting ducks while the Attorney General flew in the security of a private chartered jet - two full months, 8 long weeks, before the 9-11 terrorists made good on their well known efforts to bring the Africa embassies- and USS Cole-style suicide-bomb attacks to America.
George W. Bush CLAIMS to want "to protect the American people" but his actions speak louder than his words. HE preferred STAYING ON VACATION as the most powerful hurricane in decades swirled ominously towards American towns and cities... (Katrina set the all-time meteorological low-pressure record for the Atlantic basin, before it stalled and weakened, then regained strength and resumed heading north towards the Mississippi-Louisiana coastline)- then he TOPPED that DISMAL, callous, GROSS NEGLECT - BY ATTENDING REPUBLICAN PHOTO-OP FUNDRAISERS as American citizens in New Orleans drowned - after the FEDERAL dikes and levees failed, as had BEEN PREDICTED THEY WOULD!
Mr. Bush looked at beleaguered citizens of New Orleans in the same way that a military commander orders the relocation and deportation of enemy civilians after a victorious military conquest - with SCORN and CONTEMPT!
It is scarcely possible to compile all of President Bush's "war on terror" failures and instance of gross incompetence in a single book, much less in a single letter, but any such compilation would have to include SELLING US PORTS (and port security) to DUBAI firms owned by dictators who answer to no one - in a region that was the nexus of the BCCI "bank of terrorists international" money-laundering and fraud (and possibly 9-11 funding as well)! To top THAT gross, in-your-face contempt of the American people, the President and Vice President have clearly approved of Halliburton corporation's desire to move its headquarters from - Houston, USA, to Dubai, UAE, presumably taking its billion-dollar US government contracts and military secrets with it!
And finally, how can any discussion of the Bush-Cheney administration's 'leadership' fail to mention that the conservative Republicans have had, for at least a decade since the 'end of the Cold War,' a JIHAD against - nuclear non-proliferation talks and treaties! The 'conservatives' of the Right-Wing of the Republican party have been ENCOURAGING nuclear proliferation! (Including a $5 billion deal to sell India GE's latest nuclear technology, with the "understanding" that India's SEVENTEEN 'secret' military reactors will be able to produce more weapons-grade material - unsupervised and with the blessings of the US government!)
In a word, the Republican Party agenda, as exhibited by the Bush-Cheney-Rove White House, is one of unadulterated GREED and CORRUPTION - greed and corruption that puts American citizens, even our very American way of life, at great risk!
HOW can such transparent 'leaders,' and such a grossly corrupt agenda, fail to provoke more OUTRAGE from more of the American citizenry?
The answer is - control of the media and PR spin machine. As Leslie Stahl explained in a Bill Moyers documentary from the Reagan administration days, President Reagan was able to SLASH funding for health-care facilities for senior programs - but merely by attending the grand-opening of one of the last such facilities to survive his budget cuts, he garnered public approval for "being compassionate" in a skillfully executed photo-op!
The Republican agenda under the Bush Republicans is quite simple - to take America, and Americans, as closely back to the days of the Great Depressionas politically possible. Before the Bush administration came to power, it would have been quite impossible for Democratic leaders and commentators to make this bold assertion - but today we have the wreckage of New Orleans to point to, much less the carnage in Iraq that the Bush administration points to as "PROGRESS"!
Without even going into whether Bush administration zealots sees open-ended, on-going, never ending wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere as "progress" (they most certainly do, and only need another major terror "incident" to justify the draft and even more draconian police-state powers), just here in America, and exclusive of the war-on-terror, they have openly signaled their desire to subordinate American law and jurisprudence to "fundamental religious values" - the same values that Bible-thumping preachers in the slave-states once used to justify slavery! The Bush-Republicans seek to destroy (and many have said so) ALL the layers of the social safety net built up since the New Deal administration. They have openly sought to destroy Social Security, and indeed want to keep the mandatory "WITHHOLDING" in place, but instead of having a GUARANTEED retirment account at the end of one's working life, want to turn those withholdings into a gian ponzi scheme at the mercy of brokers and fund-managers - in effect turning what is a form of SAVINGS into a form of TAXATION. (IF Social Security returns MORE money to retired workers than they put in, then it has become A FORM OF SAVINGS. Righties ignore this point, Democrats seem to be oblivious of it, and economist rarely credit Social Security with being a FORM OF SAVINGS.)
Across the board, Right-Wing Republicans are unapologetic (if not proud) about their dsire to DISMANTLE the New Deal - which is to say, TO TAKE AMERICA BACK TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION ERA!
WHY can not Democrats come out and forcefully make this assertion? That "LIBRUL" policies have brought America almost all the things that we take for granted about our America since the Great Depression - protections of our civil rights and property rights and voting rights and our right to breath clean air and consume food untainted by corporate production of toxins and poisons?
These points should be, to steal an recently abused notion, "A SLAM DUNK" of Demoratic PR, spin, and media savy!
WHENEVER a Republican is caught in public talking about DISMANTLING Social Security or other New Deal programs, the Democrats should FORCEFULLY, ENERGETICALLY, and HAPPILY counter "SO - you Republicans want to take us back to the Depression era?"!!
Madam Speaker, whether you realize it or not, you are matched in a high-stakes battle of wits with Karl Rove. He still controls the DC press corps (and thereby the NY/Chicago/LA national press-media). IF he is still the president's Chief Political Counsel by the end of this presidential term, that will mean Republicans will have WON the battle to portray the War in Iraq as a _DEMOCRATIC_ FAILURE, and the Democrats as being weak and unable to PROTECT American citizens.
And, quite honestly, Madam Speaker, IF the Democrats CAN NOT PROTECT THEIR CONSTITUENTS (from Mr. Rove's blatant voter suppression and voter intimidation schemes and outright computerized vote-THEFT ballot rigging)... IF the Democrats can NOT PROTECT American taxpayers from Mr. Cheney's wholesale HALLIBURTON billion-dollar FRAUDS.... IF the Democrats can not PROTECT American citizens from wholesale corporate corruption, of the kind that such as ENRON used to DEFRAUD workers, investors, and pensioners, that Mr. Bush used to ride to power (1) in the first place -
- IF the Democrats CAN NOT PROTECT American citizens from such clear and present CORRUPTION, FRAUD, ABUSE, and outright criminal conduct (2) from the highest levels of this government - then they DESERVE the caulumny that Mr. Rove is so ardently hoping and planning to heap on them starting in January 2009.
(1) - (Enron was Mr. Bush's NUMBER ONE CAMPAIGN DONOR in TWO Texas gubernatorial campaigns, the 2000 Republican presidential primary campaign, the 2000 presidential campaign, the 2000 Florida recount battle, and the 2001 inauguration balls)
(2) - (Lewis "Scooter" Libby was concurrently a SENIOR PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR - at the SAME TIME that he was the Vice President's CHIEF OF STAFF - during the time for which he was CONVICTED of FELONY PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE that put the "CIA outing scandal" safely past the 2004 election)
The good news is, IT SHOULD BE FUN AND EASY to portray the Republican Party, and Bush-Rove-Cheney administration, in this light!
Just imagine poor Karl Rove - having to CREATE the "WHITE HOUSE TRASHING SCANDAL" out of THIN AIR! - so as to smear and disgrace the departing Clinton-Gore White House staffers, and drive popular vote-winner of the 2000 presidential race (Vice President) Al Gore out of town, tarred-and-feathered in abject DISGRACE by Mr. Rove's "they VANDALIZED sacred White House property" SMEAR.
Poor Mr. Rove- having to CREATE SCANDALS out of thin air, while, were he working for the Democrats, he would have to compile an entire encyclopedia of Republican GENUINE SCANDALS of the first order, just to decide which atrocious frauds and derelictions-of-duty he would select and focus on to raise public outrage to "IMPEACH YESTERDAY!" levels!
Madam Speaker, DON'T be an Al Gore or John Kerry, to have victory and your good name SNATCHED from you because you were afraid of that very possibility, and thereby (they) were to afraid to confront the GOP smear machine! DON'T be a Tom Daschle or Joe Lieberman, SITTING IDLY as ENRON- with the BLESSINGS of the Bush-Cheney White House, DEFRAUDS American investors and pensioners, and extorts California ratepayers. DONT pretend ignorance, as the DC press corps does, as Dick Cheney and George W. Bush turn New Orleans into Blackwater and Halliburton's Happy Hunting Grounds, at the expense of American citizens.
HAVE SOME FUN! DEMAND that your party stay ON MESSAGE, to DEFINE the Bush-Cheney administration, and Republican Party, as the party of those frauds and abuses and outrages!
IF Karl Rove can SMEAR Max Cleland, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, (all three Vietnam combat veterans)and popular-vote winner VICE PRESIDENT Al Gore - he can certainly SMEAR YOU.
DON'T go down without a good fight! Defend America, protect your grandchildren, AND HAVE FUN DOING IT!
-----------------------------------------
(PS: In the recent televised Democratic Presidential debate, the swarmy NBC anchor Brian Williams aked to one of the candidates "A recent letter-to-editor in the USA Today newspaper said that Senate Majority Leader HARRY REID is guilty of "TREASON" for saying that the war in Iraq is lost, and that he should be exiled from the Senate, if not punished. First thing, would the swarmy Mr. Williams ask of a Jewish candidate, or African-American candidate, a racist letter written by a Skin-head reader? Let's give Mr. Williams "a pass" for using a HATE-RADIO TALKING POINT as a question in the primary debate (for, indeed, that portrayal is the essence of Campaign 2008) - his choice of question merely points out that indeed Senate Majority Leader Read and Speaker of the House Pelosi ARE BEING ACCUSED of TREASON by the Righty talkers of Hate-Radio, which just demonstrates the urgency of Democrats WORKING OVERTIME to DEFINE the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration as the creator of all these massive failures, corruptions, and fundamentalist terrorist recruiter fantasies in the first place.)
================================
Pelosi calls out Bush for 1999 statement on timetable.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/01/pelosi-calls-out-bush-for-1999-statement-on-timetable/
Reacting to President Bush’s veto of the Iraq supplemental bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted this evening that Bush once believed it was important for a president to lay out a timetable (TRANSCRIPT follows):
<< The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him. The president said, in his comments, he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5th, then-Governor Bush said, about President Clinton, “I think it’s important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn.” Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activities. Standards — that’s the issue.
If the president thinks that what is happening on the ground in Iraq now is progress, as he said in his comments tonight, then it’s clear to see why we have a disagreement on policy with him. I agree with Leader Reid. We look forward to working with the president to find common ground, but there is great distance between us right now. >>
Thursday, May 3, 2007
An Open letter to (former) Senator John Edwards:
An Open letter to (former) Senator John Edwards:
Dear Senator Edwards: We applaud your career as a lawyer, and your winning the North Carolina senate race in 1998. However, we suspect that you and your staff were "taken under the wing" by the staff of the Senior Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, just as incoming freshman Senator Barak Obama was once 'taken under the wing' of Senator Joe Lieberman, who may have started his political career as a social liberal or progressive, but now votes reliably with Republican conservatives on all issues regarding big business (and the Bush-Cheney administration's war in Iraq).
That (being taken 'under the wing' by Senator Helm's staff) is the only explanation we can come up with to understand how such an articulate, passionate, and informed a leader as yourself was so entirely muted during your term as senator -and the fact is, you would not have won reelection in North Carolina for senate even if you had run. North Carolina had suffered a "triple-whammy" of economic woes since you became senator - they lost their textile & furniture industries at the same time that the Bush administration budget slashings were tearing down social welfare and job training programs - and you were nowhere to be found in speaking out for those affected by the JOB OUTSOURCING and budget slashings.
At least in 2004 you did not repeat Joe Lieberman's 2000 travesty, running for both Vice President AND senate races! I've always thought that Al Gore failed miserably in his selection of Mr. Lieberman to be his running mate - Not only was Lieberman so lacking in faith in the Gore-Lieberman campaign that he refused to drop his senate race, but the CLUELESS Al Gore REFUSED to DEMAND that he withdraw from the VP nomination. (Or, more to the point, Gore should have demanded the Lieberman drop his senate race BEFORE accepting the VP nomination.)
Which brings us to the present. I was heartened to see you on national news coverage last night (Lou Dobbs?) insisting that Democrats should in no way back down from the president's Iraq spending bill VETO. You took an issue that the president is trying to use as his strength - the veto - and trying to make it look like HE is the one OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS.
Which is exactly how it should be. We hope you will continue to push and shove and portray the Bush-Cheney White House in an honest light - that their oversight of the Iraq war and US economy is corruption bordering on CRIMINAL:
#1. Selecting Mike "Heckuva job, Brownie!" Brown to head FEMA - with ZERO disaster experience or management qualifications!)
#2. That not only did the Bush-Cheney administration DO NOTHING to prevent HALLIBURTON from looting stockholders and investors with their fraudulent accounting and "turn debt into assetts" subsidiary schemes, but the Bush-Cheney administration ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED Enron's EXTORTION of California rate-payers, by using coordinated power-plant shutdowns and other tactics to make electricity rates skyrocket.
#3. That Vice President Cheney CONTINUES TO BENEFIT FROM HIS HALLIBURTON STOCK-OPTIONS, which ratchet up in price with every billion dollars of NO BID, NO OVERSIGHT CONTRACTS that the Vice President and his administration ship to Halliburton in Iraq and in post-Katrina Louisiana and Mississippi.
#3. That the Bush-Cheney administration practically wallows in their ability to COUNT VOTES, with NO RECOUNT, AUDIT, or VERIFICATION mechanism - the Republicans gleefully ignorning President Reagan's dictim, "Trust - but VERIFY."
#4. And, in coordination with their ability to make massive amounts of Democratic votes DISAPPEAR into the electronic ether, the Republicans have sought to USE THE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - the law-enforcement arm of the entire US government - to INTIMIDATE and DISENFRANCHISE LEGAL VOTERS.
The above four items is only a partial list of Bush-Cheney-Republican CRIMINALITY - we haven't even included the federal felony CONVICTIONS of Abramoff, Cunningham, Libby, Ney and others in our list! - which means that Democrats are NOT DEFENDING THEIR VOTERS AND CONSTITUENTS from a rogue, criminal administration.
A few weeks ago, there was a tempest-in-a-teapot that KATIE COURIC had been "overly tough" on you and your wife regarding your wife's medical condition. This is just to say, Senator Edwards, that American voters DO NOT WANT a candidate who looks like they need help in - an interview with Katie Couric!
You need to ditch the "Conventional Wisdom" and go with the convictions of your upbringing and life. GO ON THE OFFENSE! Turn Katie Couric's aggressive questions into opportunities! "Katie, not everyone in America has excellent health-care coverage THAT YOU or I have. We are running this campaign to FIGHT for the right for all Americans who need it to get the same excellent care as Elizabeth is getting."
Senator Edwards, Americans are TIRED of having their jobs OUTSOURCED, having their pensions GUTTED, having their votes STOLEN, having their treasury LOOTED, having their media CONTROLLED by big-business and big-religion. We are looking for a leader who DOES NOT TAKE ORDERS, or badgering, from the Katie Courics and David Broders and George Wills and Rupert Murdochs of America. THEY all have their million-dollar penthouses and pension portfolios.
We Americans are looking for a leader who can FIGHT BACK against the conventional wisdom, someone who can take their asinine TALKING POINTS and skillfully, articulately, and forcefully TURN THEM BACK against "the establishment", against the media mavens who yucked it up at when President Bush did his comedy sketch of looking under the White House desk for weapons of mass destruction. (The video was shown, to hoots and laughter, at the White House correspondents dinner, the assembled media-press thinking it hilarious that a WAR had been started for reasons that had little to do with reality.)
Senator Edwards, RONALD REAGAN was the model for a politician being forceful and commanding in person, without being brutal or gruff. (Not counting his economic policies, which were brutal.)
We implore you to master the art of turning INANE media questions back on the questioner - tell the multi-millionaire media anchor that NOT ALL AMERICANS HAVE THE LUXURY OF GOOD HEALTH CARE, and that you are FIGHTING the Conventional Wisdom, because it is time that ordinary Americans have a voice in government, and not be drowned out my millionaire pundits and billionaire media owners.
Dear Senator Edwards: We applaud your career as a lawyer, and your winning the North Carolina senate race in 1998. However, we suspect that you and your staff were "taken under the wing" by the staff of the Senior Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, just as incoming freshman Senator Barak Obama was once 'taken under the wing' of Senator Joe Lieberman, who may have started his political career as a social liberal or progressive, but now votes reliably with Republican conservatives on all issues regarding big business (and the Bush-Cheney administration's war in Iraq).
That (being taken 'under the wing' by Senator Helm's staff) is the only explanation we can come up with to understand how such an articulate, passionate, and informed a leader as yourself was so entirely muted during your term as senator -and the fact is, you would not have won reelection in North Carolina for senate even if you had run. North Carolina had suffered a "triple-whammy" of economic woes since you became senator - they lost their textile & furniture industries at the same time that the Bush administration budget slashings were tearing down social welfare and job training programs - and you were nowhere to be found in speaking out for those affected by the JOB OUTSOURCING and budget slashings.
At least in 2004 you did not repeat Joe Lieberman's 2000 travesty, running for both Vice President AND senate races! I've always thought that Al Gore failed miserably in his selection of Mr. Lieberman to be his running mate - Not only was Lieberman so lacking in faith in the Gore-Lieberman campaign that he refused to drop his senate race, but the CLUELESS Al Gore REFUSED to DEMAND that he withdraw from the VP nomination. (Or, more to the point, Gore should have demanded the Lieberman drop his senate race BEFORE accepting the VP nomination.)
Which brings us to the present. I was heartened to see you on national news coverage last night (Lou Dobbs?) insisting that Democrats should in no way back down from the president's Iraq spending bill VETO. You took an issue that the president is trying to use as his strength - the veto - and trying to make it look like HE is the one OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS.
Which is exactly how it should be. We hope you will continue to push and shove and portray the Bush-Cheney White House in an honest light - that their oversight of the Iraq war and US economy is corruption bordering on CRIMINAL:
#1. Selecting Mike "Heckuva job, Brownie!" Brown to head FEMA - with ZERO disaster experience or management qualifications!)
#2. That not only did the Bush-Cheney administration DO NOTHING to prevent HALLIBURTON from looting stockholders and investors with their fraudulent accounting and "turn debt into assetts" subsidiary schemes, but the Bush-Cheney administration ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED Enron's EXTORTION of California rate-payers, by using coordinated power-plant shutdowns and other tactics to make electricity rates skyrocket.
#3. That Vice President Cheney CONTINUES TO BENEFIT FROM HIS HALLIBURTON STOCK-OPTIONS, which ratchet up in price with every billion dollars of NO BID, NO OVERSIGHT CONTRACTS that the Vice President and his administration ship to Halliburton in Iraq and in post-Katrina Louisiana and Mississippi.
#3. That the Bush-Cheney administration practically wallows in their ability to COUNT VOTES, with NO RECOUNT, AUDIT, or VERIFICATION mechanism - the Republicans gleefully ignorning President Reagan's dictim, "Trust - but VERIFY."
#4. And, in coordination with their ability to make massive amounts of Democratic votes DISAPPEAR into the electronic ether, the Republicans have sought to USE THE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - the law-enforcement arm of the entire US government - to INTIMIDATE and DISENFRANCHISE LEGAL VOTERS.
The above four items is only a partial list of Bush-Cheney-Republican CRIMINALITY - we haven't even included the federal felony CONVICTIONS of Abramoff, Cunningham, Libby, Ney and others in our list! - which means that Democrats are NOT DEFENDING THEIR VOTERS AND CONSTITUENTS from a rogue, criminal administration.
A few weeks ago, there was a tempest-in-a-teapot that KATIE COURIC had been "overly tough" on you and your wife regarding your wife's medical condition. This is just to say, Senator Edwards, that American voters DO NOT WANT a candidate who looks like they need help in - an interview with Katie Couric!
You need to ditch the "Conventional Wisdom" and go with the convictions of your upbringing and life. GO ON THE OFFENSE! Turn Katie Couric's aggressive questions into opportunities! "Katie, not everyone in America has excellent health-care coverage THAT YOU or I have. We are running this campaign to FIGHT for the right for all Americans who need it to get the same excellent care as Elizabeth is getting."
Senator Edwards, Americans are TIRED of having their jobs OUTSOURCED, having their pensions GUTTED, having their votes STOLEN, having their treasury LOOTED, having their media CONTROLLED by big-business and big-religion. We are looking for a leader who DOES NOT TAKE ORDERS, or badgering, from the Katie Courics and David Broders and George Wills and Rupert Murdochs of America. THEY all have their million-dollar penthouses and pension portfolios.
We Americans are looking for a leader who can FIGHT BACK against the conventional wisdom, someone who can take their asinine TALKING POINTS and skillfully, articulately, and forcefully TURN THEM BACK against "the establishment", against the media mavens who yucked it up at when President Bush did his comedy sketch of looking under the White House desk for weapons of mass destruction. (The video was shown, to hoots and laughter, at the White House correspondents dinner, the assembled media-press thinking it hilarious that a WAR had been started for reasons that had little to do with reality.)
Senator Edwards, RONALD REAGAN was the model for a politician being forceful and commanding in person, without being brutal or gruff. (Not counting his economic policies, which were brutal.)
We implore you to master the art of turning INANE media questions back on the questioner - tell the multi-millionaire media anchor that NOT ALL AMERICANS HAVE THE LUXURY OF GOOD HEALTH CARE, and that you are FIGHTING the Conventional Wisdom, because it is time that ordinary Americans have a voice in government, and not be drowned out my millionaire pundits and billionaire media owners.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Representatives Co-Sign IMPEACHMENT bill now in Congress!
Three US Representatives Now Support Cheney Impeachment Bill
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor,
Atlanta Progressive News
April 29, 2007
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0153.html
(APN) ATLANTA – H Res 333, the bill introducing ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT against Vice President of the United States DICK CHENEY, now has two co-sponsors, for a total of 3 current total supporters, including sponsor US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
The two cosponsors are US Reps. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Janice Schakowsky (D-IL). APN currently has press requests in to both Offices since this morning but has not heard back yet; check back here for updates on their comments.
US Reps. Clay and Schakowsky were early cosponsors of US Rep. Conyers’s (D-MI) former bill, H Res. 635, in the last, or 109th, Congressional Session. Conyers’s bill had been introduced December 18, 2005. The first round of cosponsors appeared on December 22, 2005. Clay and Schakowsky had been part of the second round of cosponsors appearing on January 31, 2006.
The cosponsorships are significant for a number of reasons. First, it shows there is more than one Member of Congress willing to entertain real accountability for the Bush Administration, despite the insistence of US Rep. Pelosi that impeachment is off the table.
Also, this bill is calling for actual Articles of Impeachment for Cheney, unlike the last bill which not only was related to Mr. Bush, but created an investigative committee to look into possible impeachment rather than providing for actual possible impeachment.
Therefore, cosponsorships on H Res 333 have even more weight than those which were listed on H Res 635 last Session.
Also, since the time of H Res 635, Democrats have taken control of both the US House and Senate. Thus, impeachment is even more a real possibility on account of having the potential Democratic support for the bill, even though most Democrats currently aren’t rushing to impeach Bush.
Because Democrats are now the Majority in Congress, we also now know that Bush refuses to be accountable to Congress, particularly on the US Invasion of Iraq. Bush has now vetoed historic legislation to attach funding for the Occupation with a deadline for withdrawal. Thus, it is now even more clear that traditional oversight mechanisms will not be effective.
Just over the weekend there had been a flurry of events supporting impeachment, including several here in Atlanta, organized by World Can’t Wait and other groups. Organizing and public outcry for impeachment is ever-increasing, and Atlanta activists say that the crowd response to impeachment events are overwhelmingly positive.
The House Judiciary Committee told APN there are no plans to have hearings on impeachment of Cheney or anyone else at this time.
"It’s not at this time on the Committee’s immediate agenda," spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said.
"Once its referred it has to be on the Committee’s agenda for the Committee to take it up," Roussell said.
"In order to move a bill you have to have hearings scheduled on it," Roussell said.
When asked by APN if Conyers taking impeachment "off the table" meant based on present information or whether it was complete abdication of a constitutional mechanism no matter what information comes forward, "All we can speak to is the present time," Roussell said, adding it would be unwise to speculate about the future.
"I don’t think it’s prejudging," she said.
Impeachment activist David Swanson said he was very encouraged by the two cosponsorships. "It’s wonderful. There are now three heroes in the US Congress. They deserve all the thanks and credit in the world. They have merely done their duty," Swanson told Atlanta Progressive News.
"I would think it was a very easy choice and there are other Members who have yet to look at it," Swanson said.
"I doubt you’re going to find very many who question the evidence," Swanson said. "On the lies that got us into Iraq, the evidence is overwhelming now."
"It makes sense for them to go after Cheney first He’s the boss, he’s running the show," Swanson said.
I know, I know, if Cheney is impeached, Bush becomes President," he joked.
"From one of point, H Res 635 was purely redunant. It was an investigation into possible grounds for impeachment, which is exactly what impeachment is," Swanson said.
H Res 635 "was written that way to be a preliminary step in hopes of getting people to sign on," Swanson said.
"It’s all public, it’s all staring us in the face. There are no needs for investigation," Swanson said.
About the author:
Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor and National Correspondent for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.
Syndication policy:
This article may be reprinted in full at no cost where Atlanta Progressive News is credited.
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor,
Atlanta Progressive News
April 29, 2007
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0153.html
(APN) ATLANTA – H Res 333, the bill introducing ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT against Vice President of the United States DICK CHENEY, now has two co-sponsors, for a total of 3 current total supporters, including sponsor US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
The two cosponsors are US Reps. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Janice Schakowsky (D-IL). APN currently has press requests in to both Offices since this morning but has not heard back yet; check back here for updates on their comments.
US Reps. Clay and Schakowsky were early cosponsors of US Rep. Conyers’s (D-MI) former bill, H Res. 635, in the last, or 109th, Congressional Session. Conyers’s bill had been introduced December 18, 2005. The first round of cosponsors appeared on December 22, 2005. Clay and Schakowsky had been part of the second round of cosponsors appearing on January 31, 2006.
The cosponsorships are significant for a number of reasons. First, it shows there is more than one Member of Congress willing to entertain real accountability for the Bush Administration, despite the insistence of US Rep. Pelosi that impeachment is off the table.
Also, this bill is calling for actual Articles of Impeachment for Cheney, unlike the last bill which not only was related to Mr. Bush, but created an investigative committee to look into possible impeachment rather than providing for actual possible impeachment.
Therefore, cosponsorships on H Res 333 have even more weight than those which were listed on H Res 635 last Session.
Also, since the time of H Res 635, Democrats have taken control of both the US House and Senate. Thus, impeachment is even more a real possibility on account of having the potential Democratic support for the bill, even though most Democrats currently aren’t rushing to impeach Bush.
Because Democrats are now the Majority in Congress, we also now know that Bush refuses to be accountable to Congress, particularly on the US Invasion of Iraq. Bush has now vetoed historic legislation to attach funding for the Occupation with a deadline for withdrawal. Thus, it is now even more clear that traditional oversight mechanisms will not be effective.
Just over the weekend there had been a flurry of events supporting impeachment, including several here in Atlanta, organized by World Can’t Wait and other groups. Organizing and public outcry for impeachment is ever-increasing, and Atlanta activists say that the crowd response to impeachment events are overwhelmingly positive.
The House Judiciary Committee told APN there are no plans to have hearings on impeachment of Cheney or anyone else at this time.
"It’s not at this time on the Committee’s immediate agenda," spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said.
"Once its referred it has to be on the Committee’s agenda for the Committee to take it up," Roussell said.
"In order to move a bill you have to have hearings scheduled on it," Roussell said.
When asked by APN if Conyers taking impeachment "off the table" meant based on present information or whether it was complete abdication of a constitutional mechanism no matter what information comes forward, "All we can speak to is the present time," Roussell said, adding it would be unwise to speculate about the future.
"I don’t think it’s prejudging," she said.
Impeachment activist David Swanson said he was very encouraged by the two cosponsorships. "It’s wonderful. There are now three heroes in the US Congress. They deserve all the thanks and credit in the world. They have merely done their duty," Swanson told Atlanta Progressive News.
"I would think it was a very easy choice and there are other Members who have yet to look at it," Swanson said.
"I doubt you’re going to find very many who question the evidence," Swanson said. "On the lies that got us into Iraq, the evidence is overwhelming now."
"It makes sense for them to go after Cheney first He’s the boss, he’s running the show," Swanson said.
I know, I know, if Cheney is impeached, Bush becomes President," he joked.
"From one of point, H Res 635 was purely redunant. It was an investigation into possible grounds for impeachment, which is exactly what impeachment is," Swanson said.
H Res 635 "was written that way to be a preliminary step in hopes of getting people to sign on," Swanson said.
"It’s all public, it’s all staring us in the face. There are no needs for investigation," Swanson said.
About the author:
Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor and National Correspondent for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.
Syndication policy:
This article may be reprinted in full at no cost where Atlanta Progressive News is credited.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Purge-gate: Bush, Gonzales DOJ _SUBORNED PERJURY_ - pushed US Atty. Iglesias to MAKE FALSE PROSECUTIONS vs Dems accused by GOP hit-squads....
The heart-and-soul of the PURGE-GATE SCANDAL is that President Bush (his political director, Karl Rove) and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales SOUGHT TO USE THE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - the US government - as an election bully, intimidator, extortion thug, and hatchet man, by getting US Attorneys TO CREATE FALSE PROSECUTIONS, out of thin air as with so many Rove/GOP smear operations, in order to swing close elections in Congressional, Senate and presidential races.
In short, the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Gonzales White House is trying to REASSERT VOTER SEGREGATION, using the DoJ not to ENFORCE voter rights, but TO DENY and INTIMIDATE legal voters from voting.
<< Iglesias: What they wanted me to do was come up with some BOGUS PROSECUTIONS WITH NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD. That's number one. And number two, they wanted me to rush indictments against democrats who were engaging in corrupt activities. I couldn't do that because the case wasn't ready. It's that simple. >>
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4477
BILL MAHER VIDEO: David Iglesias Interviewed on US Attorney Scandal, Says 'They Wanted Bogus Prosecutions, I Couldn't Do That'
Conservative Bush Apologist Steals Spotlight with Jaw-Dropping Analysis: Politics Comes Before Duty for Political Appointees
Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer
April 29, 2007
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4477
On HBO's Real Time Friday night (click to play the video at left) Bill Maher was going over the basics of the US Attorney scandal with former New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias when conservative guest Lisa Schiffren chimed in that Iglesias was failing to understand that US Attorney jobs were political. A surprised Maher tried to clarify by differentiating the appointment of US Attorneys from their actual law enforcement duties, but Schiffren stuck to her point. In addition to condoning the selective enforcement of the law, Schiffren implies that the oath to uphold the Constitution, taken by political appointees, was also secondary to politics. And she speaks from experience as a former political apppointee!
Clearly Schriffren just earned herself a jury duty pass for the rest of her life. To understand the outrageousness of her suggestion one need not look any further than the statement Iglesias made about his firing two minutes earlier:
Iglesias: What they wanted me to do was come up with some bogus prosecutions with no evidence of voter fraud. That's number one. And number two, they wanted me to rush indictments against democrats who were engaging in corrupt activities. I couldn't do that because the case wasn't ready. It's that simple.
Essentially the White House, along with Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Senator Pete Domenci (R-NM), who pressured Iglesias directly, were upset that Igesias refused to use the power of his office to help them fraudulently win elections. In other words, Iglesias was fired because he would not help the Republican party circumvent our Democracy. And that is okay according to Schiffren!
Schiffren: You know, with all due respect, it's a political, you're in a political job, you're a political appointee.
Maher: Woh, it's not a political job, it's a political appointment. Once you get the job, shouldn't it not be political?
Schiffren: You know what, I have been a political appointee also and sworn the same oath to the Constitution, and the truth is, you can't take politics out of politics, you were there to serve an administration that will have its own ends some of which are stupid, petty and trivial and sometimes the guy above you wants to put his guy in your slot...
Democratic candidates IGNORING the Cheney/Halliburton DEALING WITH IRAN and Iraq story!!
It what can only be declared as a case of political INCOMPETENCE, the Democratic presidential candidate front-runners - Biden, Hillary, Obama - are IGNORING the stories that, for the past 6 years, HALLIBURTON HAS BEEN HAVING DEALINGS WITH IRAN - even as Vice President Cheney and President Bush have energetically sought to portray Iran as an "AXIS OF EVIL" nation that supports terrorism against the United States!
This is a REPEAT of Joe Lieberman's anemic and pathetic 2000 vice presidential campaign, when Lieberman REFUSED to even bring up Dick Cheney's role, while Chairman and CEO of Halliburton in the late 1990s, of skirting US-enforced UN sanctions to sell oil-drilling equipment to Iraq, thereby enriching dictator Saddam Hussein's treasury.
THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of the Democratic "front-runner" candidates IS FEAR - they are AFRAID to use the issues and scandals that swirl around the Bush-Cheney adminstration, as if they have ORDERS to give the president and vice president a FREE PASS!
In doing so, those candidates are ROBBING Democratic voters and activists of the OUTRAGE that we all should feel - that the Bush-Cheney administration has a lot of nerve touting their "war on terror" credentials, when they DID NOTHING to prevent 9-11, ALLOWED Osama bin Laden to escape the US special forces noose at Tora Bora, invaded Iraq under false pretenses, allowed insurgents and common looters to empty Saddam's arsenals; ran kangaroo courts for volunteer privates accused of "ABUSE" - WHILE the adminsitration demands the 'right' to torture prisoners, to death if they so demand!
And now we learn that not only have Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney "OK'd" the sale of US ports (and port security) to foreign companies in Dubai - not only does Mr. Cheney continue to profit from his Halliburton stock-options which the US press-media REFUSE to investigate... Not only have Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush approved of the TRANSFER of Halliburton's corporate offices to DUBAI - but we now learn that the entire time that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush, and their lieutenants have been portraying IRAN as an ENEMY NATION - that Mr. Cheney's Halliburton HAS BEEN DEALING WITH IRAN THE WHOLE TIME!
============================================
In 2004 Vice Presidential debate, Vice President Cheney SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTS the SANCTIONS on IRAN - except, it turns out, for Halliburton, the company that HE STILL HOLDS SHARES IN:
https://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/deb04main/ohdebtrq8.html
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work."
After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the "Axis of Evil," do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?
CHENEY: No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.
=================================================
ABC news:
Halliburton says NO LONGER working in Iran
Apr 9, 2007
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=3022938
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Halliburton Co on Monday said all of its commitments in Iran have been completed and it is no longer working in the country.
In January 2005, the company decided it would not accept new work in Iran but would complete its existing contracts there.
================================================
Senators Question Halliburton Executive About Dealings in Iran
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: May 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01halliburton.html
WASHINGTON, April 30 — A Halliburton executive, facing withering criticism from Democratic lawmakers during a Senate hearing on Monday about the company’s business dealings in Iran, insisted that the firm had not broken any laws.
The official, Sherry Williams, a Halliburton vice president and corporate secretary, said the company had consulted several law firms in 1995 after sanctions were imposed on Iran. Officials of the company, which recently announced it was moving its chief executive from Houston to Dubai and establishing a corporate headquarters there, determined that it was legal for independent foreign subsidiaries of United States companies to do business there, she said.
“We have followed U.S. law,” she said. “We will continue to follow U.S. law.”
Although the three Democratic senators on hand repeatedly suggested broader concerns than strict legality should have prompted the company to halt its business in Iran, Ms. Williams expressed no regret for the firm’s work there.
From 1995 to 2000, Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s chairman; at the time he spoke out against sanctions on Iran.
Halliburton announced recently that it had completed its outstanding contracts in Iran and was leaving the country, fulfilling a promise it made in 2005 to wrap up its work there.
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat who has helped lead the investigation into the company’s work in Iran, said Halliburton effectively financed terrorism by doing business there.
“Companies that help terrorist states generate revenues that are helping fund terrorist operations,” he said. “It’s that simple.”
Senator Byron L. Dorgan, chairman of the Senate subcommittee that convened the hearing, was similarly blunt.
“Was there any discussion about whether from a values standpoint doing business through a foreign subsidiary with a prohibited country like Iran was in fact helping the terrorists?” he asked Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams said she was “not a part of those discussions.” She cited an array of factors driving the decision to leave Iran, including the difficulty of working in the country and diminishing business there.
Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said he was incredulous that the reasons did not include “anything to do with patriotism or anything to do with the values that I think our country holds dear.”
In 2004, the Department of Justice began an investigation of the company’s work in Iran, which Ms. Williams said she believed was continuing.
Federal law generally prohibits United States companies from doing business with countries, like Iran, that are on a State Department list as sponsors of terrorism. But a gap in the law when it comes to Iran allows foreign subsidiaries of American corporations to do business there as long as they operate independently.
Halliburton’s work in Iran was carried out under the name of a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands with headquarters in Dubai: Halliburton Products and Services Limited.
Mr. Lautenberg has introduced legislation to close the loophole for foreign subsidiaries. Meanwhile, Mr. Brown and Mr. Dorgan have introduced a bill to prohibit the awarding of government contracts to any company doing business with state sponsors of terrorism.
The senators pressed Ms. Williams about whether Halliburton’s subsidiary in Iran was truly independent of the parent company, citing a “60 Minutes” report in 2004 that found the Cayman Islands address for the subsidiary was little more than a mail drop and that in Dubai it shared office space, phone and fax lines with a division of Halliburton.
But Ms. Williams said the Cayman Islands registration was “perfectly appropriate under the law.” She noted that Halliburton itself was registered in Delaware, even though it has no offices there.
As for the Dubai office, she said that work for the subsidiary actually took place at a different location. Even the telephone number for the subsidiary listed in the phone book “is actually incorrect,” she said. She described the address visited by “60 Minutes” as a “registration office” that the subsidiary used when it was changing its names at one point.
But Mr. Lautenberg produced documents from an Iranian oil subsidiary that were addressed to the Halliburton subsidiary at the same address in Dubai, which he said cast doubt on her statements.
William C. Thompson Jr., the New York City comptroller who runs several city pension funds that invest in Halliburton, has pressed vigorously in the past few years for the company and others to stop doing business in Iran.
“Unfortunately, it’s become clear over a period of years that while things may be legal, it doesn’t mean that they are ethical,” he said at the hearing. “And I believe that unless you close the loophole, companies will continue to attempt to do business in backdoor fashions.”
This is a REPEAT of Joe Lieberman's anemic and pathetic 2000 vice presidential campaign, when Lieberman REFUSED to even bring up Dick Cheney's role, while Chairman and CEO of Halliburton in the late 1990s, of skirting US-enforced UN sanctions to sell oil-drilling equipment to Iraq, thereby enriching dictator Saddam Hussein's treasury.
THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of the Democratic "front-runner" candidates IS FEAR - they are AFRAID to use the issues and scandals that swirl around the Bush-Cheney adminstration, as if they have ORDERS to give the president and vice president a FREE PASS!
In doing so, those candidates are ROBBING Democratic voters and activists of the OUTRAGE that we all should feel - that the Bush-Cheney administration has a lot of nerve touting their "war on terror" credentials, when they DID NOTHING to prevent 9-11, ALLOWED Osama bin Laden to escape the US special forces noose at Tora Bora, invaded Iraq under false pretenses, allowed insurgents and common looters to empty Saddam's arsenals; ran kangaroo courts for volunteer privates accused of "ABUSE" - WHILE the adminsitration demands the 'right' to torture prisoners, to death if they so demand!
And now we learn that not only have Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney "OK'd" the sale of US ports (and port security) to foreign companies in Dubai - not only does Mr. Cheney continue to profit from his Halliburton stock-options which the US press-media REFUSE to investigate... Not only have Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush approved of the TRANSFER of Halliburton's corporate offices to DUBAI - but we now learn that the entire time that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush, and their lieutenants have been portraying IRAN as an ENEMY NATION - that Mr. Cheney's Halliburton HAS BEEN DEALING WITH IRAN THE WHOLE TIME!
============================================
In 2004 Vice Presidential debate, Vice President Cheney SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTS the SANCTIONS on IRAN - except, it turns out, for Halliburton, the company that HE STILL HOLDS SHARES IN:
https://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/deb04main/ohdebtrq8.html
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work."
After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the "Axis of Evil," do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?
CHENEY: No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.
=================================================
ABC news:
Halliburton says NO LONGER working in Iran
Apr 9, 2007
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=3022938
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Halliburton Co on Monday said all of its commitments in Iran have been completed and it is no longer working in the country.
In January 2005, the company decided it would not accept new work in Iran but would complete its existing contracts there.
================================================
Senators Question Halliburton Executive About Dealings in Iran
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: May 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01halliburton.html
WASHINGTON, April 30 — A Halliburton executive, facing withering criticism from Democratic lawmakers during a Senate hearing on Monday about the company’s business dealings in Iran, insisted that the firm had not broken any laws.
The official, Sherry Williams, a Halliburton vice president and corporate secretary, said the company had consulted several law firms in 1995 after sanctions were imposed on Iran. Officials of the company, which recently announced it was moving its chief executive from Houston to Dubai and establishing a corporate headquarters there, determined that it was legal for independent foreign subsidiaries of United States companies to do business there, she said.
“We have followed U.S. law,” she said. “We will continue to follow U.S. law.”
Although the three Democratic senators on hand repeatedly suggested broader concerns than strict legality should have prompted the company to halt its business in Iran, Ms. Williams expressed no regret for the firm’s work there.
From 1995 to 2000, Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s chairman; at the time he spoke out against sanctions on Iran.
Halliburton announced recently that it had completed its outstanding contracts in Iran and was leaving the country, fulfilling a promise it made in 2005 to wrap up its work there.
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat who has helped lead the investigation into the company’s work in Iran, said Halliburton effectively financed terrorism by doing business there.
“Companies that help terrorist states generate revenues that are helping fund terrorist operations,” he said. “It’s that simple.”
Senator Byron L. Dorgan, chairman of the Senate subcommittee that convened the hearing, was similarly blunt.
“Was there any discussion about whether from a values standpoint doing business through a foreign subsidiary with a prohibited country like Iran was in fact helping the terrorists?” he asked Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams said she was “not a part of those discussions.” She cited an array of factors driving the decision to leave Iran, including the difficulty of working in the country and diminishing business there.
Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said he was incredulous that the reasons did not include “anything to do with patriotism or anything to do with the values that I think our country holds dear.”
In 2004, the Department of Justice began an investigation of the company’s work in Iran, which Ms. Williams said she believed was continuing.
Federal law generally prohibits United States companies from doing business with countries, like Iran, that are on a State Department list as sponsors of terrorism. But a gap in the law when it comes to Iran allows foreign subsidiaries of American corporations to do business there as long as they operate independently.
Halliburton’s work in Iran was carried out under the name of a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands with headquarters in Dubai: Halliburton Products and Services Limited.
Mr. Lautenberg has introduced legislation to close the loophole for foreign subsidiaries. Meanwhile, Mr. Brown and Mr. Dorgan have introduced a bill to prohibit the awarding of government contracts to any company doing business with state sponsors of terrorism.
The senators pressed Ms. Williams about whether Halliburton’s subsidiary in Iran was truly independent of the parent company, citing a “60 Minutes” report in 2004 that found the Cayman Islands address for the subsidiary was little more than a mail drop and that in Dubai it shared office space, phone and fax lines with a division of Halliburton.
But Ms. Williams said the Cayman Islands registration was “perfectly appropriate under the law.” She noted that Halliburton itself was registered in Delaware, even though it has no offices there.
As for the Dubai office, she said that work for the subsidiary actually took place at a different location. Even the telephone number for the subsidiary listed in the phone book “is actually incorrect,” she said. She described the address visited by “60 Minutes” as a “registration office” that the subsidiary used when it was changing its names at one point.
But Mr. Lautenberg produced documents from an Iranian oil subsidiary that were addressed to the Halliburton subsidiary at the same address in Dubai, which he said cast doubt on her statements.
William C. Thompson Jr., the New York City comptroller who runs several city pension funds that invest in Halliburton, has pressed vigorously in the past few years for the company and others to stop doing business in Iran.
“Unfortunately, it’s become clear over a period of years that while things may be legal, it doesn’t mean that they are ethical,” he said at the hearing. “And I believe that unless you close the loophole, companies will continue to attempt to do business in backdoor fashions.”
Monday, April 30, 2007
HALLELUJAH! At long last, the Democrats in Congress PUBLICLY REFUTE DC press-corps "conventional wisdom" pooh-bah David Broder
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)