Michael Moore Writes Letter To Secretary Henry Paulson Over Cuba Flap

   By now you all know that the ever moral Bush administration is investigating Michael Moore for taking some clean up workers from 9/11 to Cuba for better treatment than they were getting here in the states.

   AlterNet has an open letter from  Mr. Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson

Secretary Henry Paulson

Department of the Treasury

Secretary Paulson,

I am contacting you in light of the document sent to me dated May 2, 2007, which was received May 7, 2007 indicating that an investigation has been opened up with regards to a trip I took to Cuba with a group of Americans that included some 9/11 heroes in March 2007 related to the filming of my next documentary, on the American Healthcare system. SiCKO, which will be seen in theaters this summer, will expose the health care industry's greed and control over America's political processes.

I believe that the decision to conduct this investigation represents the latest example of the Bush Administration abusing the federal government for raw, crass, political purposes. Over the last seven years of the Bush Presidency, we have seen the abuse of government to promote a political agenda designed to benefit the conservative base of the Republican Party, special interests and major financial contributors. From holding secret meetings for the energy industry to re-writing science findings to cooking the books on intelligence to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, this Administration has shown time and time again that it will abuse its power and authority.

There are a number of specific facts that have led me to conclude that politics could very well be driving this Bush Administration investigation of me and my film.

First, the Bush Administration has been aware of this matter for months (since October 2006) and never took any action until less than two weeks before SiCKO is set to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival and a little more than a month before it is scheduled to open in the United States.

Second, the health care and insurance industry, which is exposed in the movie and has expressed concerns about the impact of the movie on their industries, is a major corporate underwriter of President George W. Bush and the Republican Party, having contributed over $13 million to the Bush presidential campaign in 2004 and more than $180 million to Republican candidates over the last two campaign cycles.

It is well documented that the industry is very concerned about the impact of SiCKO. They have threatened their employees if they talk to me. They have set up special internal crises lines should I show up at their headquarters. Employees have been warned about the consequences of participating in SiCKO. Despite this, some employees, at great risk to themselves, have gone on camera to tell the American people the truth about the health care industry. I can understand why that industry's main recipient of its contributions -- President Bush -- would want to harass, intimidate and potentially prevent this film from having its widest possible audience.

And, third, this investigation is being opened in the wake of misleading attacks on the purpose of the Cuba trip from a possible leading Republican candidate for president, Fred Thompson, a major conservative newspaper, The New York Post, and various right wing blogs.

For five and a half years, the Bush administration has ignored and neglected the heroes of the 9/11 community. These heroic first responders have been left to fend for themselves, without coverage and without care. I understand why the Bush administration is coming after me -- I have tried to help the very people they refuse to help, but until George W. Bush outlaws helping your fellow man, I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide.

I demand that the Bush Administration immediately end this investigation and spend its time and resources trying to support some of the real heroes of 9/11.

Sincerely,

Michael Moore

   Perhaps if this corrupt government in D.C. and the former mayor of New York ( Giuliani ) had done the right thing in the first place and got these workers the treatment that was required, Mr. Moore wouldn't have had to take these people out of country in the first place.

   Under the Bush group, this would go in line with family members having to buy their sons and daughters in Iraq the vests and other equipment that they so badly need. $ 500 billion, where is this cash going? Sorry, that was a stupid question. It goes to Halliburton, Blackwater and a few others who may happen to be lining the pockets of Bush Inc.

 

Tags: Michael Moore Cuba George Bush Henry Paulson

Iraq President Says We Should Stay In Iraq For Another Year Or Two

     Iraq's president,Jalal Talabani, on Friday told the students at the   University of Cambridge that Iraq was safer because of Saddam Hussein's removal and that many of the Iraqi citizens were living normal lives.

    He also said that the United States and British troops need to stay in Iraq for a couple of years to stem the flow of blood in the country.

Jalal Talabani: "I think within one or two years, we will be able to recruit our forces and prepare our armed forces and tell goodbye to our friends."

 On the U.S. Congress and the war funding bill, he said this: "We are concerned. We hope that Congress will review this decision and help the American army to stay until the Iraqi army will be able to replace them and to protect the security of Iraq."

"We are planning to show some tangible achievements to the Congress that we are going forward for national reconciliation, for national unity, for fighting terrorism and achieving peace and security in our country."

   Sorry President Talabani, but your comments are worthless since they sound more like a script handed to you from Cheney and Bush. I see that they have the Iraqi government now using the Republican talking points manual to get the Americans into backing this Bush bullshit, which isn't going to work.

  I think that we have had more than enough of our citizens getting killed for an Iraqi government that wishes to take a two month vacation in the midst of all of this crap. I think that we have had enough of our president using our tax dollars to pay off all of his loyal " bushies " and business friends in order to profit from this so called war.

    You sir, do not have years. You have until NOW!

   Whoever thought that you would hear of such a thing as an Iraqi Republican?

 

Tags: Jalal Talabani Iraq Congress Bush war

Another Law Slipped Into The Patriot Act to Be Reversed?

    I generally do not cover to much of the attorney " purge " scandal because other places seem to have the story down very well. However, this piece from Talking Points Memo caught my attention.

Last month, the Congress passed* a bill reversing one of those provisions -- one that made it possible for the attorney general to indefinitely appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.

Now Four Democrats are trying to undo another of those little-noticed provisions -- one that made it possible for certain U.S. attorneys to pull double duty in the Justice Department leadership. The provision was shepherded through by William Mercer, the principal associate deputy attorney general, who's also the U.S. Attorney for Montana. When the chief judge in his district, hopping mad that Mercer is gone almost all the time, charged that Mercer was violating the residency requirement for U.S. attorneys, Mercer had the law changed. And he's kept both jobs for two years.

  Someone once stated that the mafia were angels compared to this corrupt group of Bush Crime Family members, they were right.

The punchline to all this, remember, is that Justice Department officials have claimed that U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias was fired because he was an "absentee landlord," spending 30 days a year away from the office -- on Navy reserve duty.

   More of the Republican " Family Values Tour " at work. More of our hard earned tax dollars getting stolen and pocketed by these shitheads.

   Impeachment should be placed back on the table!

 

Tags: Patriot Act Senate DoJ William Mercer U.S. Attorneys

GOP Will Do Nothing Different In September

  September, September, September! The magic month. the time to see if there is any progress in Iraq and then the  time to see if George bush and clan will see the light and agree to funding with a withdrawal timetable in it.

   But anyone with any sense of an I.Q. knows that this is not going to happen no matter what kinds of improvements are visible or not. we all know that there will be no improvement and that the Republicans will then say that the " surge " needs just a little more time to take affect. Something like six months, since that seems to be their favorite time zone. How many times have you all heard " six more months"?

   Nothing will change in September. Those 11 Republicans who went into a meeting with Bush the other day and voiced their "grave concerns"  will still back Bush in September, as they always have. The meeting was the usual GOP bullshit! Lets's look tough to the public but vote differently when the time comes.

Did any one of those 11 back up this "grave unease" with their votes yesterday? The answer is no. All 11 voted straight party line with Bush.

"But wait," you say. "Straight party line? I thought at least that two Republicans crossed over to vote with Dems yesterday?"

Yeah, they did: Wayne Gilchrest and Walter Jones.

But they weren't invited to the White House to express their "grave unease."       Source

   Don't hold your breath waiting for most of the Republicans to do anything of any worth come September because they won't.

   They are to stupid to realize that they have no chance in hell come 2008 if they keep voting the usual party line.

   Bush is a wannabe-someone who will never be. Giuliani and McCain are on the same boat with Bush and are going down with this pathetic excuse for a human.

 

Tags: Bush Iraq withdrawal vote Congress Republicans

U.S. District Judge Approves Monica Goodling Immunity

      It now appears that former Justice Department aide Monica Goodling will get to testify to Congress about those eight federal prosecutors who were fired because of " poor performance."        Source                                         

    U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan approved the deal to give Goodling immunity from prosecution, which Congress agreed to. Goodling had refused to testify unless she was given the immunity, so now things should get really interesting for Bush/Rove and Gonzales.

"Monica Goodling may not refuse to testify," Hogan began his brief order, which said that Goodling could not be prosecuted for anything other than perjury in connection with her testimony.

Lawmakers want to question Goodling as part of an inquiry into whether the Justice Department played politics with the hiring and firing of department officials. What began as an inquiry into whether U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons has grown to include the role of the White House in the firings and whether the Justice Department officials misled Congress about them.

Goodling's lawyer has said that, with an immunity deal, she would cooperate and testify honestly.

   My take is that Monica Goodling will go before the Congress, and just as Gonzales has done, she will have a memory lapse and she simply will not remember the circumstances to some of the questions which she will be asked. Typical Republican b.s. Then again, there is the slight chance that she will become a humane being with some morals and answer as she should, truthfully and completely.

Tags: Monica Goodling Judge Thomas Hogan Alberto Gonzales Congress immunity

Friday News Blastoff! OxyContin,Iraqi Parliament, and Mexican Trucks Everywhere?

ABINGDON, Va., May 10 — The company that makes the painkiller OxyContin and three of its current and former executives pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court here to criminal charges that it had misled doctors and patients when it claimed the drug was less likely to be abused than traditional narcotics.

The company, Purdue Pharma, agreed to pay $600 million in fines and other payments to resolve the criminal charge of “misbranding” the product, one of the largest amounts ever paid by a drug company in such a case.

The three executives, including its president and its top lawyer, also pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of misbranding the drug. Together, they agreed to pay $34.5 million in fines                    NYTIMES

-----------------------------------

BAGHDAD, May 10 -- A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

"We haven't asked for the immediate withdrawal of multinational forces; we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified, and at that point there would be a withdrawal," said Bahaa al-Araji, a member of parliament allied with the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose supporters drafted the bill. "But no one can accept the occupation of his country."    WaPo

------------------------

The day may be nearing when Mexican trucks will carry freight deep into Arizona and other states for the first time in a generation.

The prospect has rekindled controversy over the safety of Mexican trucks, the fairness of international trade agreements and the effectiveness of border security efforts.

The latest round of debates comes as the U.S. government prepares to open up the southern border to 100 Mexican trucking companies as part of a one-year experiment. Tucson Citizen

 

Tags: Iraq Mexico Bush Congress OxyContin Arizona

Iraqis Visit U.S. Congress Members To Push GOP Talking Points

        The fine government of Iraq sent some of their senior people to Washington to lobby the Congress against pulling U.S. troops out of their country, saying the usual Bush chant that pulling out would have disastrous consequences.        Source

On Thursday, hours before the House voted to limit funds for the war, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh met with more than 30 House Republicans and more than a half-dozen senators, including Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., John Warner, R-Va., and Hillary Clinton.

With the clock ticking, Saleh — a Kurdish politician highly regarded by U.S. officials and who speaks impeccable English — said he came to Capitol Hill to convey the "imperative of success" in Iraq.

"Iraq is a central battleground in this historic conflict" against terrorism, he said in a brief interview after meeting with Reid, the Senate majority leader.

   I guess that it would be safe to say that Cheney didn't do to much arm twisting in regards to getting the Iraqi government to get with the program or else lose support. More like he went to make sure that Saleh had his rehearsed script and was ready to deliver the White House line of bullshit.

"Our armed forces are up to 150,000 troops; we're over $600 billion appropriated for this, lost 3,300 lives, 25,000 wounded fellow citizens. ... And the Iraqi answer? We're taking a summer off. Goin' fishing," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Saleh said he expects the vacation to be shortened by at least a month, although nothing had been decided. He added that Iraqis value being independent and do "not take kindly of (U.S. officials) telling us when to recess."

    A statement such as that one would have me pulling the plug on Iraq no matter how much oil the country has.

   If Bush were a real man and President, he would have told this Iraqi Republican wannabe to shut the fuck up and get ready for the policing of your country by your own military because ours are leaving.

    On the other hand, if Bush were a real man we would never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Tags: Barham Saleh Rahm Emanuel Iraq Congress George Bush

Tony Snow Press Briefing Was A lot About Nothing, As Is Usual

      Ladies and Gentleman, a peek at today's White House press briefing with the ever faithful, severely mis-guided Tony Snow!

  May 10, 2007

Q One last thing about -- in connection with the Vice President's trip. On board Air Force Two yesterday, senior administration officials said of the trip, and the message, "We've got to get this work done. It's game time." -- what does that suggest about the first four years of the war? Is it that the administration is just now saying that that was a scrimmage and now it's game time? What does that mean?

MR. SNOW: I think that's simply -- it gets back to what the President is saying. In some ways, there may be perceptions of two different clocks, Baghdad and Washington. The President said, you've got to speed up the clock. It is a matter of realizing that there have been a lot of efforts now. We've been working on this joint way forward in Iraq. You are getting results in a number of areas. We have been talking and working with the Iraqis on political, economic, and other reform.

As the President was pointing out, there are very key things that people want and expect to see, because you know it has to happen. If you want success in Iraq, you have got to have political accommodation, you've got to have the oil law, you've got to have constitutional reform, you've got to have the elections, you've got to have de-Baathification. All of those things are necessities; everybody knows it. It is tough to get to those points, but you've got to do it.

 

Q Is there a point when the President does become concerned with the political ramifications for the party? As I understand it, during the meeting there was an argument made that "our members are worried they're going to lose their seats," and that will be bad for the war policy overall.

MR. SNOW: What the President's main concern is, it's bad for the country if you have a vacuum. It is, in fact, it is something that the country simply must not permit to happen and cannot afford, which is a failure in Iraq that would create a vacuum that would empower Iran, that would give al Qaeda a staging ground, that would shred American credibility in the region, that would create economic consequences --

Q Who's the cause of all that?

MR. SNOW: Well, notice again --

Q Who went into Iraq and created this chaos?

   Next dish, please!

MR. SNOW: Thank you. And so, to continue

      Again with the al Qaeda staging ground bullshit! In case Mr .Snow has not noticed, the United States has no credibility in the mid-east, with the exception of Israel. The United States has no credibility anywhere, not even at home thanks to George Bush.

Q The President emphasized September and he emphasized General Petraeus' report -- all week you moved away from September. Is it a real important date for us to decide things?

MR. SNOW: I think what the President is saying is --

Q Does he know that we have civilian rule in this country?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Do you?

Q I do.

MR. SNOW: Okay, good.

Q I'm not waiting for Petraeus.

   I like this reporter. someone up near the White House with a set of nuts! Sure Bush is aware that civilians rule this country, that's why he is trying his damndest to strip those rights away from us citizens.

 

Tags: Tony Snow George Bush Iraq al Qaeda

Iraqi Citizens "Hostile" and "Humiliated"

     That is how Borzou Daragahi, formerly the Los Angeles Times Baghdad Bureau Chief, described the Iraqi citizens and he also said  that he doubts the troop " surge " in Iraq will work.

NEW YORK Former Los Angeles Times Baghdad Bureau Chief Borzou Daragahi says he doubts the "surge" in Iraq will work, and describes Iraq citizens as "hostile" and "humiliated" after four years of war.
Asked by Brian Lamb, in a forthcoming C-SPAN interview, about his personal views on the war, he replied: "I think at this point, it just – it seems like it’s become a disaster. I mean, I don’t think anyone could dispute that. It’s just going very, very, very, very badly." He said he had mixed feelings about the invasion but "As time wore on, though, as the bodies mounted, it just seems more and more like a really bad mistake."
The interview will be broadcast Sunday night.

Highlight of the interview, from a C-SPAN transcript:

On why Iraqis feel humiliated:
"Iraqis are rather hostile and feel humiliated. And that's the key thing that maybe some of our policymakers don't understand. The presence of the U.S. soldiers is very humiliating to the Iraqis. Even those who, in their minds know that it's necessary to have the soldiers there, at least some kind of force there preventing an all-out civil war from getting even worse...I don't think they appreciate American culture."      READ MORE

  This should be an interesting program.

 

Tags: Iraq PBS Borzou Daragahi U.S. military

Bush's 41-Second F.U. To The United States

     Back on January 4,2006 Bush did another one of his " screw America " jobs by appointing 17 of his friends to posts in the Federal Election Commission, National Labor Relations Board, and a few other federal offices. It would appear that since he couldn't get them confirmed by the Senate, he waited for a congressional recess so that he could just bypass the confirmation process. Keep in mind that this was a Republican controlled Senate at the time and even they didn't like his choices for these positions.

   As Nick Burt over at In These Times has pointed out, this would be just more cronyism of the part of Bush. So what's new, right?

The recess appointments avoided floor fights over dubiously credentialed nominees, including a former oil executive, a former president of a weapons manufacturer and a relative of a cabinet employee. All told, they include eight donors to Bush’s presidential campaigns.   

Two of the appointees are 2004 Bush-Cheney Campaign “Rangers,” supporters who are being rewarded for having “bundled” at least $200,000 in $2,000 contributions from individuals. Among the 221 Rangers were Roger Wallace, who was named to the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation, and Stephen Goldsmith, who now sits on the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service.       MORE

  This is a pretty loyal group of " bushies " in which nine of the seventeen have contributed $440,585 to either Bush or the GOP.

   These appointments were made by Bush between sessions of Congress in order to have them around for a longer period of time. Many thought that these hoods would be gone in January 2007 with the new Congress coming in, but that ain't so.

If the President makes a recess appointment between sessions or between Congresses, that appointment will expire at the end of the following session. 

If he makes the appointment during a recess in the middle of a session, that appointment also will expire at the end of the following session. In this case, the duration of the appointment will include the balance of the session in progress plus the full length of the session that follows.

   As is noted at the Daily Kos:

The Senate calendar on the Democratic site shows no meeting until Congress opened on January 18, 2006, which would lead one to assume that date marked the opening of the second year of the 109th Congress. But the Library of Congress indicates a session was held on January 3, 2006, thus officially opening the 109th. And lo and behold, the Daily Digest reports a 41-second pro forma Senate session, from 12:00:04 PM to 12:00:45 P.M., on that date. The Senate convened, immediately adjourned and thus began a "recess in the middle of the session," not meeting again until January 18, 2006.

The day following the less-than-a-minute convening, of course, Bush made his recess appointments—now officially during a session of Congress—which allowed his eminently rejectable appointees to complete the "balance of the session in progress plus the full length of the session that follows."

  So Bush and the rest of his criminal enterprise snuck in a 41 second session of Congress just so that he could appoint these inept fools and keep them around for a few years instead of a few months.

   Yet, we still have House Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid saying that they have more important things to do other than impeaching Cheney and Bush. They might as well start working on impeachment since they aren't doing a whole hell of a lot about getting our troops out of Iraq.

 

Tags: George Bush Senate recess appointments Julie Myers Federal Election Commission National Labor Relations Board,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are The Democrats Supporting Bush Or The Troops?

     Much is being made as of late about the Bush veto of the Iraq war funding bill last week and we are already hearing a bunch of shit about how Bush will veto the next bill that the Democrats are crafting.

   Now the bill would fund the war only through July, instead of September. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that this would be disastrous. What else would this shithead say?

   Bush is looking for some $90 billion in funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, not a partial payment, which the Democrats are offering.

In a flash of defiance, House Democratic leaders this week promoted legislation that would provide the military $42.8 billion to keep operations going through July, buy new equipment and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces. Congress would decide shortly before its August recess whether to release an additional $52.8 billion to fund the war through September.

"In essence, the bill asks me to run the Department of Defense like a skiff, and I'm trying to drive the biggest supertanker in the world," Gates told senators Wednesday. "And we just don't have the agility to be able to manage a two-month appropriation very well."     Yahoo News

   I put in all of this to get to this.

   If the Democrats are serious about getting our troops out of Iraq, then why are the screwing around with " benchmarks " and " timelines " and such crap? Why the hell are they even considering funding  any of this crap in the first place, only in stages? Funding the war for two months at a time doesn't support our troops any more than funding them eternally does!

  If these clowns ( Pelosi, Reid, Murtha ) where serious about bringing our troops back from Iraq, there would be not one dime spent with the exception of the money to bring the troops and the equipment home.

  It is that simple! don't let the politicians con you with the crap about these things take time because that's bullshit. You either fund the war, or you don't fund the war, plain and simple.

   So now we have the Democrats wanting to wait a little longer and see what happens with this troop surge. That simply means that the house leadership  have no problem with a few more of our troops getting killed.

Tags: Democrats Iraq Bush Nancy Pelosi Congress

Cheney, Iraq and Another Day In Bushland

   I haven't had a chance to pick on the press briefings that Tony Snow does since he has been back to work, so today I make up for some of it.

Press Gaggle by Tony Snow

May 9,2007

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Wichita, Kansas

Q A quick question on Iraq. It seems like the House Democrats' plan is taking shape to fund the war in the short-term for a few months and then require a progress report before releasing more money. What's the administration's position on that?

MR. SNOW: The bill that was at least being whipped yesterday contains elements of the bill the President vetoed already, and if it were to come to his desk, it would be vetoed.

We continue to have conversations with members of the House and Senate, trying to put together something that's acceptable. But again, you take a look, there are a number of spending items, there are also some of the restrictions. Again, this is what we saw yesterday at the end of the day, at any rate. And certainly conditions that were a part of a veto message the first time are still going to be vetoed if they were to come back.

Q Make sure I'm clear on that. As you understand the bill as it's working through the process, the President would veto it?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q And what are the specific criteria that he finds objectionable?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, if you take a look, there are restrictions on funding, there are a series of -- there are restrictions on funding, and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still on the bill.

   Always with the grip about the restrictions on funding! This bill being worked on is what I would consider more tasteful to the Bush regime and it would be in their better interest to sign this thing. But NOoooo, Bush and his crime lords would have to be accountable for the progress or lack of it in Iraq, so this bill is headed to the wastebasket if it stays in its current state.

Q Cheney's visit to Baghdad today, what's the purpose of it?

MR. SNOW: Well -- what's the purpose of it? He's there -- he's meeting with General Petraeus, he's meeting with the Prime Minister, he's meeting with key officials in Baghdad. And one of the things he's doing is not only reiterating support, but also saying something that I think a lot of Americans realize, which is it really is time for action; we're here to help, let's get going.

Q Is there going to be kind of warnings about the political situation in the United States, how political support over here is waning?

MR. SNOW: You know, I think what you -- you've got to be careful what you try -- because you're dealing with a sovereign government that has it's own political concerns, but on the other hand, I'm sure the Vice President -- look, when the President talks to the Prime Minister, they're candid with each other. They're also practical. The point here is not to engage in stagecraft, it's to engage in statesmanship. It is to find ways to work with this government so they can do things that are going to build confidence with the Iraqi people in terms of developing national unity and national capability, and certainly also developing confidence with the American people, as well.

   So Cheney is in Iraq and elsewhere to twist a few arms in order to get the Bush oil law passed by the Iraqi parliament. I see this as Cheney doing a " do this for us or else " kind of meeting. The major oil companies must be threatening to withhold funds from Cheney and company if they can't get a bill to keep all of that future Iraqi oil profit to themselves.

   If the bill is approved by the Parliament, then Bush will no doubt claim that we have seen some progress in Iraq, which is bullshit.

                       IMPEACH! INDICT! IMPRISON!

 

Tags: Dick Cheney George Bush Iraq Congress

Impeachment of Bush From This Congress? Not Until You Make Some Noise

   I get a lot of emails from various groups and organizations dealing with politics in some form or another.

  One of those groups happens to be A28.org, which bills itself as the " peoples impeachment movement," and they do have quite a few members.

   One of their favorite things, it would seem, is to have their members send in candidates to be nominated for their Congressional Hall of Shame.

  These would be Congressman who state that Bush is running an illegal war, lied to get us into this war, and the unconstitutional and illegal use of unauthorized spying on American citizens, among many other issues.

   Yet, they do not wish to pursue the impeachment of this crook and his minions for various reasons.

  Below is the latest email from A28 and I think that it is worth the read because if all of our Democratic Congressman feel this way, then Bush/Cheney and the others will just continue to rob us and to rip the few remaining rights that we have left right out of our hands.

 

The Congressional Hall of Shame

Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA) gets it. Almost.

In a recent letter explaining his position on impeachment, Farr condemns the lying, spying, and torture carried out by the Bush administration in no uncertain terms, calling these actions a travesty of justice that cannot be tolerated:

This Administration's actions with regard to the war in Iraq and lying about weapons of mass destruction, with regard to the torture of prisoners and foreign nationals, and with regard to the unconstitutional and illegal use of unauthorized spying on American citizens, are a travesty to the principles and integrity of a just society and impugn the honor of this country. These actions are in direct contradiction to the laws of this land and cannot be tolerated.

Unconstitutional. Illegal. Cannot be tolerated. Those are strong words. So it comes as a bit of shock when Farr goes on to say that actually, on second thought, he can tolerate these things:

However, even as the Congress changes to a Democratic majority in the 110th Congress, it is doubtful impeachment will be pursued... An impeachment effort would divert Congress' attention from restoring order to our government at a time when it needs it so badly...Though there has been renewed interest in impeachment due to Rep. Kucinich's bill to charge Vice President Cheney (H.Res. 333), an impeachment effort is not viable right now.

Having slipped into the passive voice to absolve himself of any and all responsibility to support and defend the Constitution, Farr then closes with some stirring and entirely empty rhetoric:

I agree that President Bush has failed in many ways to fulfill the duties of his office. The President has appeared to assume the power of the Presidency but not the responsibility, and that power has led to the deaths of American troops, Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians. I can only hope, however, that the American public begins to understand - as you do - that the White House must be held accountable for its failures.

So help him God, Congressman Farr seems a bit shaky on the content of the sacred oath of office he just solemnly swore:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

As far as I can see, there's nothing in this oath about supporting and defending the Constitution only when it's politically expedient. If you'd like to review the oath with Congressman Farr, I'm sure he'd love to hear from you at 202-225-2861.

Please submit your own candidates for the Congressional Hall of Shame to info@a28.org.

Peace,

Jacob Park
A28 National Coordinator

Tags: George Bush impeachment Congress Congressman Sam Farr

Dems and Repubs Want to Wait Until September for Iraq Results?

   So it would seem as if the biggest story thus far today is the article in the Washington Post stating that both the Democrats and Republicans are giving George Bush one last shot at showing improving conditions in Iraq. The deadline would be for September to have proof that his surge is actually working.

   The commanding general in Iraq,Gen. David H. Petraeus, has said that he will know by then if the troop increase has had any kind of affect on the bullshit going on over there.

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.): "Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September. I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.):  "September is the key. If we don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration."

   Let us not forget House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, who said: "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

"There were always two debates in the debate over timelines to end the war," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "George W. Bush is hellbent on January 20, 2009, when he walks out of the door, leaving a box stamped 'Iraq' for the next president. The Republicans are hellbent on not going through the next election with Iraq tied to their ankles. All Boehner said publicly was what Republicans have been saying privately for months."       WaPo

   September is it? I think that we all know how that will go, do we not? Gen. David H. Petraeus will come out with a report that says that there is improvement in Iraq concerning the sectarian violence and the political problems and that the surge is beginning to show some results and that things should be even much better in another six months. Of course, he will also say that we could use just a few more U.S. troops in the country to maintain the current progress.

   Here is some of what our troops are doing in Baghdad on a daily basis.

 

Seems we've heard this all before. I was chuckling this AM when I read that the spineless DC Dems are putting forth legislation that gives W until September and now I read that the Repubs and MSM are talking the same stuff.

But wait. In NOVEMBER, 2006 the American voter spoke and said GET OUT NOW. Isn't it amazing that BushCo and friends (including DC Dems) have managed to string this thing out for another year. And then what? Another "new way forward"? Another two years needed to "get our troops home".

"See you in September...." a great song title but crap when it comes to Iraq.

Posted by: Sha@ Talking Points Memo
Date: May 8, 2007

 

The real question is not what events on the ground look like in September. Or benchmarks. All goals and benchmarks should revolve around getting out of Iraq. That does not seem to be a goal of this admin. Once the US military leaves there will be no one to enforce the contracts with the US oil companies. Iraq can then find new companies that will pay better. THIS IS THE REASON BUSH DOES NOT WANT TO LEAVE. Arguing other goals and events is a complete waste of time. They do not want to leave. The oil is worth trillions of dollars. Why leave? The CEOs of these companies do not have sons and daughters in the conflict dying. Comments?

Posted by: Stephen Johnson@ TPM
Date: May 8, 2007

Paul, the report's already written. Trust me. Maybe I'm clairvoyant, maybe I'm the world's biggest cynic. But I can already see the report, and it says yes, there's been "real progress". There's hope that Americas will see "real change" in the Iraqi government "in the next six months". It'll conclude that the "surge must continue, however", that "timetables for withdrawl are damaging to this progress being witnessed", and "things may get worse before they get better".

This September report will be the most disingenuous, dishonest thing this Admin has ever produced (and that's saying a lot), but the media will eat it up. And we'll locked in for another 6 months. Bank on it.

Posted by: Punchy@TPM
Date: May 8, 2007

   I would tend to agree with all of the above comments. The Democrats, when you look at them closely, are doing absolutely nothing in dealing with Iraq and getting our troops out of there. You and I put them into office to do their jobs and get our people home NOW, not in September or next year or next summer.

   I believe that the Democrats have come down with the " Bush disease " and they must be cured, NOW!

Tags: Democrats Republicans Iraq troop surge Gen. David H. Petraeus Rep. James P. Moran Jr. war

Bush's Occupation Of Iraq Is About Oil

     Here are some interesting details about the United States invasion of Iraq and its quest to control all of the oil in the country.

   This comes from Michael Schwartz at TomDispatch

Eyes Eternally on the Prize
By Michael Schwartz

The struggle over Iraqi oil has been going on for a long, long time. One could date it back to 1980 when President Jimmy Carter -- before his Habitat for Humanity days -- declared that Persian Gulf oil was "vital" to American national interests. So vital was it, he announced, that the U.S. would use "any means necessary, including military force" to sustain access to it. Soon afterwards, he announced the creation of a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, a new military command structure that would eventually develop into United States Central Command (Centcom) and give future presidents the ability to intervene relatively quickly and massively in the region.

Or we could date it all the way back to World War II, when British officials declared Middle Eastern oil "a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination," and U.S. officials seconded the thought, calling it "a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

The date when the struggle for Iraqi oil began is less critical than our ability to trace the ever growing willingness to use "any means necessary" to control such a "vital prize" into the present. We know, for example, that, before and after he ascended to the Vice-Presidency, Dick Cheney has had his eye squarely on the prize. In 1999, for example, he told the Institute of Petroleum Engineers that, when it came to satisfying the exploding demand for oil, "the Middle East, with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies." The mysterious Energy Task Force he headed on taking office in 2001 eschewed conservation or developing alternative sources as the main response to any impending energy crisis, preferring instead to make the Middle East "a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy." As part of this focus, the Task Force recommended that the administration put its energy, so to speak, into convincing Middle Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment" -- in other words, into a policy of reversing 25 years of state control over the petroleum industry in the region.

The Energy Task Force set about planning how to accomplish this historic reversal. We know, for instance, that it scrutinized a detailed map of Iraq's oil fields, together with the (non-American) oil companies scheduled to develop them (once the UN sanctions still in place on Saddam Hussein's regime were lifted). It then worked jointly with the administration's national security team to find a compatible combination of military and economic policies that might inject American power into this equation. According to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, the National Security Council directed its staff "to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the 'melding' of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: 'the review of operational policies towards rogue states,' such as Iraq, and 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.'"                Read More Here

Tags: oil Cheney Iraq Bush ExxonMobile BP

George Bush and Harry Truman

   Today is the 123rd birthday of Harry Truman, whom President Bush likes to compare himself to, as he did a year ago during a West Point   commencement address.

 From Daily Kos

by Bill in Portland Maine  Tue May 08, 2007

A year ago this month, in his West Point commencement address, President Bush compared himself to Harry Truman. On this, Truman's 123rd birthday, we take this opportunity to replay last year's C&J-sponsored debate in which the 33rd president mopped the floor with the 43rd:

Bush: I glance at the headlines, just to get kind of a flavor. I rarely read the stories.
Truman: A president either is constantly on top of events or, if he hesitates, events will soon be on top of him.
-

Bush:  Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Truman: In the circumstances, alarm is justified. The man who isn't alarmed simply doesn't understand the situation---or he is crazy. But alarm is one thing, and hysteria is another. Hysteria impels people to destroy the very thing they are struggling to preserve.
-

Bush: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.  <<>>  [T]here's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out.
Truman: He's one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides.
-

Bush: The FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also...and we...look, I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.
Truman: It's plain hokum. If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em. It's an old political trick.
-

Bush: Because the...all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those...changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be...or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled.
Truman: Why, this fellow don't know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday.
-

Bush:  There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that's the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring `em on.
Truman: Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes and perhaps a supporter below.

Score:  Bush 0   Truman 6

Tags: George Bush Harry Truman

Rudy Giuliani Liked Planned Parenthood Enough To Donate To Them

    Rudy Giuliani has said in his campaign speeches that he abhors abortion even though he believes that the right to choose should be kept legal.

   The Politico says dear Rudy was not always this way when it came to family planning and abortion rights groups, such as Planned Parenthood.

...But records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country's leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.

Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani's support for Planned Parenthood -- along with e-mailed copies of the returns -- was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.

   Provided by a rival campaign? I wonder which one that would have been?

On the campaign trail, Giuliani has a consistent mantra when the abortion issue comes up. "I'm against abortion. I hate it. I wish there never was an abortion, and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion," Giuliani said last month in Columbia, S.C., in a typical comment.

Told of Giuliani's contributions to Planned Parenthood, Clemson University political science professor Dave Woodard said, "If he actually gave money to Planned Parenthood, boy, that puts him in a very precarious position, at least in the South Carolina Republican Party."

A Republican, Woodard noted that a personal contribution is something that is difficult to explain away to abortion opponents. "This isn't something like where your position is misunderstood," he said. "An overt act of giving money shows support for a position. That can't be a mistake or misinterpretation."

   I think that Rudy is now toast with the fundamentalist.

       You can read the whole story HERE.

    If the Democrats and Giuliani's rivals continue to bring this up, then I think that his chance of a presidential nomination are toast since this would pretty much make the social conservatives not want to back him.

  It is pretty funny with the Republicans and this election. You have John McCain ( wash-up ) as a choice and then you have Rudy Giuliani ( wannabe ) as a choice. That other character isn't worth the waste of time. McCain and Giuliani are both seeking the crown that Bush wears for the time being and they both wish to be like Bush, so they can't win no matter who the Democrats place in the running. That's provided the Dems don't screw up between now and November 2008.

Tags: Rudi Giuliani Planned Parenthood Republican Party

The Middle Class Economy Under George Bush

   Stats, stats, and more stats. I just love statistics, especially when they happen to make the spin machine from Bush and company look worse than idiots.

   Family Health Insurance has gone up 80.8 percent since the year 2000. the average premium for family health insurance comes in at $11,480 per year. It was at $6,348 in 2000.

The number of uninsured Americans is also up to 46.6 million in 2005 compared to 39.8 million in 2000.   Source

  The Wall Street Journal, “Since the end of the recession of 2001, a lot of the growth in GDP per person – that is, productivity – has gone to profits, not wages.   

The real median earnings of both male and female full-time, full-year workers declined between 2004 and 2005 by 1.8 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively.[15]  Median weekly earnings have risen only 0.9 percent between 2000 and 2006 compared with 7.1 percent growth between 1996 and 2000 under the Clinton Administration.[16]

   Job creation? Not hardly.

   Non-farm payroll employment up by only 5.2 million since Bush was elected while it rose 22.7 million under President Clinton. Employment growth has averaged only 70,000 per month under Bush which is much lower than the roughly 150,000 per month job growth needed to keep up with the population growth.  Previous administrations have been known to have had gains of 300,000 to 400,000 per month job growth.

Private sector job creation has been especially poor during the Bush presidency, with an average annual job growth rate of only 0.5 percent per year since 2001. Just 3.8  million private sector jobs have been created during the Bush presidency, compared with over 20 million private sector jobs during the Clinton presidency.   Source

    Check out this fact on our United States poverty levels.

More American families and children face severe financial problems.  The average annual increase in the poverty rate during President Bush’s first term is second only to that during George H.W. Bush’s administration and contrasts sharply with the declines in the Clinton and Kennedy-Johnson Administrations.[35]  The poverty rate has increased 12 percent to 12.6 percent since 2000.[36]  Nearly thirty-seven million Americans were living in poverty in 2005,[37] an increase of 5.4 million over the 2000 level, the year before President Bush took office.[38]  Poverty has hit America’s children particularly hard.  According to the latest Census report, almost one out of every six American children lives in poverty.[39]  The number of children living in poverty has increased 6.5 percent during the Bush Administration.[40]  

   Democratic Policy Committee for more stats and info.

   Though I generally try to stay away from statistics provided by any political party, I went to their sources, and they are valid.

 

Tags: George Bush middle class poverty jobs income Bill Clinton   employment

VA Bonuses Paid Out In North Carolina

  I'm covering basically two stories here that just happen to merge into one story.

   First off, we all know about the ridiculous bonuses that some members of the VA have been paid even though this group has a budget short-fall, and our troops and veterans wait months to see a doctor.

     All of this has naturally caught the eyes of our oversight committees who know want an explanation.

The Gavel

Congressional leaders on Thursday demanded that the Veterans Affairs secretary explain hefty bonuses for senior department officials involved in crafting a budget that came up $1 billion short and jeopardized veterans’ health care.

Rep. Harry Mitchell, chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee on oversight, said he would hold hearings to investigate after The Associated Press reported that budget officials at the Veterans Affairs Department received bonuses ranging up to $33,000.

Sen. Daniel Akaka, who heads the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said the payments pointed to an improper “entitlement for the most centrally placed or well-connected staff.” He has sent a letter to VA chief Jim Nicholson asking what the department plans to do to eliminate any bonuses based on favoritism.

“These reports point to an apparent gross injustice at the VA that we have a responsibility to investigate,” said Mitchell, D-Ariz. “No government official should ever be rewarded for misleading taxpayers, and the VA should not be handing out the most lucrative bonuses in government as veterans are waiting months and months to see a doctor.”

A list obtained by the AP of bonuses to senior career officials in 2006 documents a generous package of more than $3.8 million in payments by a financially strapped agency straining to help care for thousands of injured veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

     Next, we go to North Carolina and look at some of those bonuses that were paid out.

    According to the News&Observer, the Department of Veterans Affairs paid out more than $335,000 in bonuses to some of the top NC VA hospital managers while they were getting reports of bad patient care and of suspicious deaths.

Regional director Daniel Hoffmann received the largest bonuses, including more than $29,000 in 2004 - the year investigators looked into deaths at the hospitals.

In 2005, bonuses for regional managers and Salisbury hospital executives tallied nearly $80,000, which was the largest total paid in the years reviewed by The Charlotte Observer. That same year, VA investigators concluded the Salisbury and Asheville hospitals provided poor care.

In 2004, Steinberg received a $5,000 bonus less than two weeks before he led an executive meeting on an "unanticipated post operative death." Steinberg received a $12,500 bonus in 2005, though he didn't receive a bonus in 2006.

In January, Steinberg and associate director James Robinson each received $5,000.

   Getting paid a bonus while running  a shoddy service. Sorry folks, but this sounds more Republican than anything else. Since this is a government run ( not very well ) institution in the first place, why are these people getting a bonus? Is this government or a corporation because it is getting hard to tell the difference anymore.

Tags: North Carolina Veterans Administration bonuses

This Is What President Bush Vetoed

  This comes from The Gavel

What President Bush Vetoed

May 7th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Extra armor causing Humvee doors to trap troops
Tom Vanden Brook, USA Today (Army Times republication) - May 7, 2007

Kits to fix the problem were included in vetoed bill

The Army is fixing the doors of every armored Humvee in combat in Iraq because the doors can jam shut during an attack and trap soldiers inside, Pentagon records and interviews show.

The door trouble, the latest in a series of problems with the Humvees since the Iraq war began, is an unintended consequence of the Pentagon’s effort to add armor to protect troops from makeshift bombs. Improvised explosive devices are the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq, causing 70 percent of injuries and deaths. Armored Humvees, the primary troop transport vehicle, are often targeted by insurgents who plant bombs on roads.

One quick fix to the jamming problem was to weld D-shaped hooks to Humvee doors so another truck could rip them off with a cable. The hook is built in to the latest version of armor added to the Humvee, known as the Frag Kit 5, said Lt. Col. William Wiggins, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. “Every Humvee outside [a fortified base] will have a hook,” Wiggins said. There are about 18,000 Humvees in Iraq.

The Army plans to spend $284 million this year on armor kits, which also include improved door latches and stronger hinges to handle the heavier doors. The money is included in the emergency Iraq spending bill President Bush vetoed last week. Bush rejected the bill because it contained a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Rep. John Murtha closed the debate on final passage of the Iraq Accountability Act for House Democrats, and explained more about what was in the bill, what Republicans in Congress voted against, and what President Bush vetoed:  SEE THIS

  What Bush did was veto any support for our United States troops in Iraq. Impeach the bastard and Cheney along with him!

Tags: President Bush veto U.S.military Iraq

Some George Bush Quotes as Governor of Texas

      For those of you who aren't sure if Bush is a total idiot yet, this should seal it.

Comedy Central

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
...George W. Bush

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
...Governor George W. Bush

"Welcome to Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts."
...Governor George W. Bush

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
...Governor George W. Bush, 8/11/94

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
...Governor George W. Bush, 9/15/95

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy -- but that could change."
...Governor George W. Bush, 5/22/98

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
...Governor George W. Bush, 12/6/93

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
...Governor George W. Bush, 11/30/96

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
...Governor George W. Bush

"The future will be better tomorrow."
...Governor George W. Bush

"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
...Governor George W. Bush 9/21/97

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."
...Governor George W. Bush

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
...Governor George W. Bush to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
...Governor George W. Bush

"Public speaking is very easy."
...Governor George W. Bush to reporters

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican."
...Governor George W. Bush

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
...Governor George W. Bush

"When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA, my answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame."
...George W. Bush

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it."
...Governor George W. Bush 5/20/96

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
...Governor George W. Bush 9/22/97

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
...Governor George W. Bush, 9/5/93

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
...Governor George W. Bush , 9/18/95

"The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that George Bush may or may not make."
...Governor George W. Bush

"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made."
...Governor George W. Bush

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
...Governor George W. Bush

"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
...Governor George W. Bush

Tags: George Bush Governor Texas quotes

George Tenet's Other Income

   I was making my usual rounds through the Internet this morning ( DKos, TPM, Salon, ect.) when I ran across this story on George Tenet and his un-publicized income as a director and/or advisor for four companies which earn money from contracts with the U.S. intelligence agencies and with the Department of Defense.

Tim Shorrock at Salon has the details.

When Tenet hit the talk-show circuit last week to defend his stewardship of the CIA and his role in the run-up to the war, he did not mention that he is a director and advisor to four corporations that earn millions of dollars in revenue from contracts with U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense. Nor is it ever mentioned in his book. But according to public records, Tenet has received at least $2.3 million from those corporations in stock and other compensation. Meanwhile, one of the CIA's largest contractors gave Tenet access to a highly secured room where he could work on classified material for his book.

By joining these companies, Tenet is following in the footsteps of thousands of other former intelligence officers who have left the CIA and other agencies and returned as contractors, often making two or three times what they made in their former jobs. Based on reporting I've done for an upcoming book, contractors are responsible for at least half of the estimated $48 billion a year the government now spends on intelligence. But exactly how much money will remain unknown: Four days before Tenet's book was published, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence decided not to release the results of a yearlong study of intelligence contracting, because disclosure of the figure, a DNI official told the New York Times, could damage national security.

That may be a real break for Tenet. Under his watch, according to former CIA officials and contractors I've interviewed, up to 60 percent of the CIA workforce has been outsourced. A spokesman for the CIA told me last week that that figure "is way off the mark," but wouldn't provide the actual figure, which he said is classified. But publication of that number could prove embarrassing to Tenet, particularly in light of his own deep involvement in the privatization of U.S. intelligence.

   Tenet and his positions with these companies isn't the only problem. I wonder if the government really is looking out for the United States best interest when it outsources intelligence work to private firms.

   This will be just another Republican scandal given enough time.

Tags: George Tenet CIA U.S. intelligence privatization

A British Soldier's View On Iraq

  Crossposted from Common Dreams

Published on Sunday, May 6, 2007 by the Independent/UK

We Soldiers Once Assumed Our Political Bosses Would Not Lie to Us. That is Over.
We realized the actual issue was about long-term access to oil

by Leo Docherty

Four years ago, I watched, with other young officers, the invasion of Iraq on TV in the mess. We were sick with envy. Our brother officers were having the most exciting time of their lives, at the center of history, while we, on ceremonial duties in London, marched about in red tunics and bearskin hats.

The invasion, it seemed, was a necessary evil to be redeemed by the creation of a free, democratic Iraq. The WMD issue was a pretext, we all concurred, an honorable white lie to knock an evil dictator off his perch and breathe new hope into the lives of a brutally repressed people.

Our turn soon came, and the ground truth in Basra and Maysan provinces was a shock. The statue-toppling euphoria had been replaced by the horrific chaos of a state in collapse, exacerbated by a rising insurgency and sectarian bloodshed. The truth gradually emerged. The police and army we were training were corrupt and probably loyal to the insurgency. The first supposedly democratic elections for half a century were a façade, dependent on the presence of our Warrior fighting vehicles at polling stations.

Then we realized the issue was not replacing tyranny with democracy, but gaining long-term access to oil. Blair, in bowing to American oil-mad energy hunger, had deployed the British Army on a lie, a much bigger lie than the one about WMDs. Today, the appalling sectarian violence killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians every week is the direct result of our invasion and botched occupation. As Blair prepares to leave office, Iraq is descending into deeper human tragedy, and British troops are still dying.

Those in the forces who, like me, were frustrated and disillusioned after Iraq, took new optimism from British intervention in Afghanistan. It looked like being everything Iraq should have been: reconstructive nation-building to improve the lives of poverty-stricken Afghans.

Sadly, political ill-preparation and haste dropped the military, again, into lethally hot water. Last year, British forces were sent into volatile Helmand, ill-equipped and inadequately supported. Scattered across the north of the province (the size of Wales), small teams occupied “platoon houses” in remote towns.

I was in Sangin where, as in everywhere else, we had no means of starting developmental reconstruction and stood no chance of winning Afghan hearts and minds. To the locals, the presence of British soldiers seemed to presage destruction of their poppy crop and their livelihoods.

Helmand produces 40 per cent of Afghanistan’s opium crop, the source of 90 per cent of global heroin. And the people there are tribesmen, infamous for their ferocious hostility to foreign interference. The savage backlash rages still; more than 50 British servicemen are dead in this sub-campaign, countless Afghan civilians have been killed, and opium production is at an all-time high.

The Taliban are thriving on this: every Afghan civilian killed by the British artillery round or helicopter gunship has a dozen brothers, cousins, and friends seeking British blood for vengeance. Today, our troops are risking their lives in a pointless conflict, a nightmare scenario of counter-insurgency gone wrong.

There is the mismatch between Blair’s huge military ambition overseas and the scarce resources the forces get to fulfill it. The Army has lost four infantry battalions. Soldiers serving a fourth tour struggle to maintain relationships at home. Half the Navy’s fleet is threatened with mothballing.

When you join the Army, you swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and, by extension, the Prime Minister. We commit ourselves, with unquestioning loyalty, to the State. This is founded on trust in our political masters, and the belief that they are honorable people who will not lie to us, will resource us correctly and deploy us with sound judgment, after thorough strategic planning. This bond is unique, set in stone regardless of party politics. Today, this bond is broken. Catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan and years of resource-starvation have taken their toll; this is Blair’s legacy.

Late last year, the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannat, publicly called for our withdrawal from Iraq. Other senior officers voiced concern. Such public statements, unthinkable before Blair, are a glimpse of the military’s anger and frustration.

Of those officers I sat with in the mess four years ago, many, like me, have left the Army. Those who remain have no trust in the Government. One told me: “We won’t be fooled again.”

Leo Docherty is author of ‘Desert of Death: A Soldier’s Journey from Iraq to Afghanistan‘, published by Faber and Faber.

   I think that the same can be said from our U.S. soldiers. The same can also be said by our U.S. citizens, with the exception of some 28% who are still either ignorant or stupid.

 

Tags: Leo Docherty General Sir Richard Dannat Iraq Afghanistan Tony Blair

Nuke Iran and Save the GOP?

   Only Jon McCain could come up with something like this, if needed.

Published on Saturday, May 5, 2007 by the Guardian/UK

  Crossposted From Common Dreams

Saved by the Bomb: Senator McCain has Hit Upon a Solution to All the Republican Party’s Woes: A Nuclear War with Iran

by Terry Jones

Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John McCain was asked what should be done about Iran. He responded by singing, “Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran”, to the tune of the Beach Boys’ Barbara Ann. (Join the hilarity and see for yourself on YouTube.) How can any thinking person disagree? I mean, any country with a president who doesn’t shave properly and never wears a tie deserves what’s coming to it - a lot of American bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don’t miss out on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism.

The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year’s US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican party re-elected. This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy job Halliburton has been doing. In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete, failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance.

The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more problematic as opinion turns against George Bush’s little invasion of Iraq. Even Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as “an illegal foreign occupation”; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn’t been returning calls for weeks.

More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise. The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III called a “poisonous” environment has begun to dent fundraising - an unheard-of problem for the Republicans.

So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and amusingly suggests. The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job properly and go nuclear.

Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country uninhabitable for years. With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs.

But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that the world would be totally changed. A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis “Scooter” Libby signed a statement for the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative thinktank. They rather hoped for “some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor” to kickstart their dream of a world run by US military might. A nuclear war would do the trick in spades. The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or even 100 years.

Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in the process, but that shouldn’t be a problem as long as there are anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff. Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner what’s left of the world’s oil reserves.

In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced by a “stark and dreadful and inescapable” choice: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” Senator McCain wasn’t bothered by such questions; the human race may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of permanent re-election.

Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python. Terry-jones.net

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

Tags: John McCain Iran GOP nuclear weapons

I.G.s, Snow Jobs and More Dubya Talk

From  Jeff Huber

Friday, May 04, 2007

Woe is you if you land a plumb appointee job in the Bush administration and decide to take your job and your oath of office more seriously than you take loyalty to the Bush administration. Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, whose investigations of waste and corruption in Iraq have repeatedly embarrassed the Bush administration, is now under investigation himself.
How about them bad apples?
According to James Glanz of the New York Times , both the White House and a spokesman for Congressman Thomas M. Davis (R-Virginia) say the investigations "were not started in retribution for the work undertaken in Iraq by Mr. Bowen." But, Glanz adds…

…the investigations are coming to light just a few months after Mr. Bowen’s office narrowly escaped what amounted to a termination clause tucked away in a large military authorization bill by staff members of another Republican congressman. A bipartisan group of lawmakers later managed to reverse that provision, but the latest action has renewed suspicions that Mr. Bowen--a Republican himself--has come to be seen as a serious political liability by his own party.

The investigation, according to Glanz, "originated with a complaint put together by roughly half a dozen former employees who appear to have left his office on unhappy terms." From whom did Glanz glean this information? "…Several officials familiar with the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is still going on."
Anonymous officials. How convenient. How familiar. Here's testimony from another anonymous source:

One of the former employees who filed the complaint, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concern that he would face reprisals, agreed that all of those who brought the misconduct accusations had been unhappy with demotions, terminations or other sanctions during their time in the inspector general’s office.

Reprisals? This "former employee" either quit or got canned. What kinds of reprisals is he worried about? The kind that might come about if he doesn't help the Bush administration put a muzzle on Inspector General Bowen?
The investigation of Bowen is being conducted by "…an oversight committee with close links to the White House and by the ranking Republican on the House Government Reform Committee." That ranking Republican would be Thomas M. Davis. Funny thing about Thomas M. Davis. Back in 2004 when he was chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Davis and his staff knew about the problems at Walter Reed hospital. His staff supposedly made phone and fielded phone calls on the issue, but Davis never pressed other congressional committees or Republican leaders to pass legislation or make money available to address the issue. Why not?
“We are not appropriators," Davis said. "I don’t know what else we could have done. If generals don’t go around and look at the barracks, how do you legislate that?”
Tommy, can you hear this? As members of Congress, especially the House of Representatives, you are appropriators. In fact, you're the only appropriators. And Article I of the Constitution assigns the power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" to the legislature. So how is it you couldn't appropriate money to fix the problems at Walter Reed or pass a law that ordered a general to get up off his duffel bag and look at what was happening across the street from his sumptuous, government provided quarters?
A spokesman for Tom Davis says that politics played no role in the decision to investigate Inspector General Bowen, but one has to cast a skeptical eye at that claim in light of the fact that Bowen is seen as a potential political candidate in Davis's home state of Virginia.
Snow Jobs and Dubya Talk
Don't get the idea, though, that the Bowen investigation will be conducted by a congressional committee. Oh, no. The investigating council is drawn from the executive branch, and its chairman is Clay Johnson III, a longtime friend of one George W. Bush.
But that makes no never mind, as Bush administration mouthpiece Tony Snow tells it. Snow says the council is “an independent investigative organization” that doesn't follow the White House's direction. “The White House has no role in this, zero,” Snow says.
Yeah, right.
Snow also says that the council's investigation is being conducted by inspector generals from throughout the administration, and that Clay Johnson "is not, in fact, involved in the process.”
Clay Johnson is chairman of the council but he's not involved in the process? What in the wide world of sports, arts and sciences?
I once thought that despite its deplorable record over the past six years, I didn't want to see the GOP go completely down the sink for the sake of preserving a two party system. But I've changed my mind. For the foreseeable future, if I have a choice between Bugs Bunny and a Republican, I'm pulling the lever for the wabbit.
#
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.

Tags: Stuart W. Bowen, Jr. GOP White House Tony Snow inspector general