Be INFORMED

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Comment On The House Vote On Thursday

   Tomorrow the House will vote on their Iraq supplemental spending bill which mandates a troop withdrawal from Iraq by the fall of 2008. I would imagine that tension are at the boiling point right about now and that there is quite a bit of behind the scenes talk going on over who will support this bill and on whether the leadership can get a few of the blue-dog Democrats to sign on.

   Word has it that  Rep. James Walsh ( R ) will vote NO on the bill despite being hammered almost non-stop by  MoveOn-sponsored ads  and by the blogger's out in reality land.

   The House Democrat leaders still think that this bill can still pass even if only by a tiny margin.

   There are a few other Democrats who do not like this bill and they are Reps. Barbara Lee, Lynne Woolsey, and Maxine Waters. The Democratic leaders have apparently quit trying to talk to these three "because they're lost causes."  There seems to be no hope for winning over Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Lewis as a source has said that they are  "beyond gone."    Source

 

On March 21, 2007 - 8:36pm Kiwi von Huber said:

Americans are generally in opposition to the war in Iraq but they do not support the insurgents' killing and wounding our guys in Iraq, beheading Iraqis who work for America, and driving truck bombs into marketplaces.

* * * *

  I have a question for you. If this bill does pass in the House on Thursday, what will happen to it when it reaches the floor of the Senate? Would anyone care/ dare to take a guess? I say that it will die a horrible death just as has anything else dealing with Iraq when it comes to the Senate and Democrat bills. 0 and 6. That is what the Democrats are in the Senate when it comes to getting anything passed of importance and I see no reason for this to change in the near future. 0 and 6 because there are many criminal and immoral Republicans, and a few Democrats, voting our United States soldiers into death! They are killing our friends and our neighbors and they do not seem to care one way or the other. they are sending our friends and neighbors to Iraq with old equipment that wouldn't stop a B-B gun or a firecracker in a real fight.

    Our friends and neighbors have to save up money from out of their own pockets to buy some of the vests and other equipment that their loved ones ( our troops ) need in order to survive because the money that President Bush spends for the military isn't going to the military.

   The Democratic leaders and the blue-dog Democrats need to get their shit together and I do mean now! Not tomorrow only but the day after and so on because many people like myself are getting tired of this losing battle that the Democrats want to keep indulging in.

   A House divided cannot stand, literally. If this House insist on nit-picking over something so simple as stopping this Iraq bullshit, this House will definitely fall in 2008!

  If the Congress and the Senate cannot beat a lifetime loser like George Bush into submission, the American public has no use for you.

  Keep this in mind!

 

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

More Republicans Who Voted To Kill Our Troops

  Continued From Daily Kos

More local action on Republican troop killers

by Kagro X  Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:21:52 PM PDT

The drubbing continues from this morning...

Eye on Williamson
, on John Carter

[I]f supporting the troops means holding the President accountable and making sure our soldiers and Marines are well rested, well prepared, have healthcare, have body [armor], and armored Humvees then you can count out the Congressman whose district includes the largest Military Base in the United States of America. He’ll vote the party line instead.

Calitics, on John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis

But what else do they have in common, I mean, besides the fact that they are both corrupt? Well, they both voted to continue to send troops to Iraq before they're combat ready and fully equipped.... So, not only are they personally corrupt, they are morally bankrupt.  Good work, California GOP.

The MountainGoat Report, on Mike Simpson

Is party-line voting more important than military readiness?  Apparently so for Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson.... [T]he readiness standards aren't excessive, unreasonable or arbitrary — they are the standards set by the Department of Defense.  Then why, according to Red State Rebels, did every Republican on the Committee vote to scrap that language?  Maybe you should ask Mike Simpson.

Prairie State Blue, on Ray LaHood

Ray has gone and voted to send troops into the war without protective equipment. Well done Ray! That'll show the both our enemies and our own troops who does not support our military. And about those troops not complaining... Don't forget that you also have to talk to the families of those that don't come back.

Missouri Politics, on Jo Ann Emerson

Jo Ann Emerson and the Republican Party continue to talk about supporting the troops while voting to do the exact opposite.

Burnt Orange Report, on Kay Granger, John Carter and John Culberson

Why do Texas' Republican Congressmen continue to vote against our troops and for an unpopular war?

While it would seem, at the least, a bad political move and at its worst, a vote to put American men and women in harm's way, that is exactly what they are doing.

Raising Kaine, on Frank Wolf and Virgil Goode

Given that Virgil Goode is an ethically challenged, globally ridiculed xenophobe and that Frank Wolf got caught lying about his visit to Iraq, a vote against supporting our troops won't help them in 2008.

IdahoRocks, on Mike Simpson

Way to go Rep. Simpson....you who have never served in the military, you who say you support the troops but then want to send them into war without protection. Once again we have an elected official who does not represent the best interests of his communities, his state, and the troops he has sent to war. Shame on you.

We Have Failed Our Duty as Citizens..., on Mike Simpson

What kind of message do you think our soldiers receive when they are lacking appropriate armor, weapons, training, and medical care? What kind of message do they receive when their food is spoiled and their water is contaminated? What kind of message did we send them with the Walter Reed situation? What kind of message do they receive when they needed more troops and were denied over and over and over again...until this pitiful, too little, too late "surge"?

D-day, on Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle

Not only have both of these bloodsuckers drained the national treasury to give their defense contractor and lobbyist friends precious booty, they have talked about patriotism incessantly, yet committed the most unpatriotic act you can possibly commit, signing the death warrants of potentially thousands of Americans.

Democratic Grup, on Jim Walsh

Republicans like James Walsh voted to send our troops to war without proper body armor. Dan Maffei didn't seem to be the guy to take him last November, but in CNY has to do the right thing on behalf of our brave soldiers and send him packing in 2008.

Discourse.net, on Ander Crenshaw, Dave Weldon and C.W. "Bill" Young

There really is no ‘nice’ name for people from a country as rich as ours who send other people’s children, spouses, and parents into combat without basic necessities like body armor, armor for their vehicles, or the weapons they trained with.

Capitol Annex, on Granger, Culbersonand Carter

[T]he votes of Granger, Culberson, and Cater were to send ill-prepared, under-equipped soldiers into war with zero accountability provisions.

Rochester Returning, on Jim Walsh

Walsh voted against this — all the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee did. Shameful.

De Magno Opere, on Ralph Regula

What the hell?! You support sending troops unprepared and unequipped into battle Mr. Regula? Is that not what your vote says in clear and concise terms?

A Seattleite in Idaho, on Mike Simpson

I've been accused of not supporting the troops so many times, at least I didn't vote to send "unarmored, untrained, unrested (and even, Salon and the Hartford Courant tell us, wounded and mentally unstable) troops to Iraq.

 

Aiming At Fox News

  One more from Daily Kos on the Fox News crybabies who got a debate with the Democratic presidential contenders knocked out from under them.

 

Establishment players take aim at Fox News

by kos  Wed Mar 21, 2007

One of the narratives from the Fox News debate debacle was the notion that it was the "crazy, nazi, stalinist MoveOn and Daily Kos crowd" that was being mean to poor ol' Fox News. And journalists trotted out the Dan Gersteins of the Democratic Party to fuel that narrative. All "serious" Democrats understood the need to go on Fox to "reach out" to voters, yet they were being sabotaged by us crazies.

Yet we've found that in reality, there are plenty of Democrats -- even inside the beltway -- who are tired of the propaganda games Fox plays, even old foils like Paul Begala.

Looking forward, the victory in Nevada sends a powerful message to Fox: You’re not going to be able to use Democratic debates to whitewash your right-wing bias the way Exxon greenwashes its reputation by buying off academics and P.R. flacks.  

For Democrats, it sends an equally powerful message: Fight back. You can win. From its first days on the air, Fox News has smeared Bill and Hillary Clinton.  And when President Clinton finally called Fox on it, the effect was electric. Across America, progressives were galvanized into action.

For those who need reminding of Fox’s agenda – using their “fair and balanced” credibility to smear Democrats and help Republicans – here’s the bill of particulars:  

* Fox News’ founder and guiding genius, Roger Ailes, was the chief media strategist for President George H.W. Bush. When you have a Republican political consultant running a news network, don’t be surprised if that network becomes a propaganda tool for the Republican Party.

* After the 2006 elections, Fox Senior Vice President John Moody sent a memo to news staff instructing them: “Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress.”

* Robert Greenwald’s film Outfoxed exposed 33 similar memos from Moody before the 2004 elections. On Bush: “His political courage and tactical cunning are worth noting in our reporting through the day.” On Iraq: “Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there?”

* Fox’s Iraq coverage was so biased that a university study showed 80 percent of Fox viewers believed one of these three falsehoods: Saddam was behind 9/11; WMD’s were found in Iraq, or most of the world supported Mr. Bush’s Iraq war. Fox is entitled to its own opinions, but not its own facts.

Meanwhile, Dem pollster Mark Mellman also argues we should be marginalizing Fox's propaganda efforts.

A study by a University of Maryland center concluded, “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions” about Iraq. For example, in 2003, 67 percent of those who relied primarily on Fox wrongly believed the U.S. “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.” Only 40 percent of those who relied on print media harbored this illusion, debunked thoroughly by the 9/11 Commission.

Instead of providing “fair and balanced” reporting, Fox has created an audience ignorant of the facts, but fully supportive of management’s ideology.

An audience that decides for itself, based on “fair and balanced” coverage, ought not to reach monolithic conclusions. Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

None of this argues for a boycott of Fox. While harboring no illusions, Democrats should try to communicate on Fox and through every other channel. I appear as a guest and will continue to, in the unlikely event they invite me again. However, if Fox wants the legitimacy afforded by official sponsorship of Democratic debates, it needs to become a relatively objective news organization, not a dispenser of partisan cant.

Remember that statistic next time Fox apologists talk about all the independents and Democrats who supposedly watch Fox News:

Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

Democrats made the right choice in ditching the Fox News debate, and hopefully the CBC will make the same right choice.

 

Technorati tags: , , ,

Tony Snow and the 18-Day Gap

   I guess that I am a little lax today as someone else beat me to my usual Tony Snow Comedy press briefing, but it was worth reading this below.

* * * *

Snow on the 18-day gap

By kos Daily Kos

on attorney scandal

Atrios watches TV:

Tells the reporter to ask Justice, and only provides:

I've been led to believe that there's a good response for it, and I'm going to let you ask them because they're going to have an answer.

He looked really really uncomfortable.

Anyone remember what Nixon's excuse was for the 18-minute gap?

And also via the Baby Blue Cherub, the Chicago Tribune digs up a juice old Tony Snow column from 1998:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.''

Ha ha ha ha! I can't wait to see Snow try and explain that one away.

Update: From the comments, the answer to my question about Nixon's excuse:

Nixon's new Chief of Staff Alexander M. Haig Jr. suggested the possibility that "some sinister force" had erased portions of the subpoenaed tape. President Nixon's personal secretary Rose Mary Woods was eventually blamed as having caused the erasure supposedly after she had been asked to prepare a summary of taped conversations for the President.

 

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Republicans Who Voted to Kill Our Troops

Republicans fail to learn the Vote Vets lesson; still voting to kill troops

From Daily Kos
by Kagro X  Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:18:15 AM PDT

Congressional Republicans, Vote Vets and a couple of ex-Senators have a message for you:


This ad -- more powerfully than any other in recent memory -- exposed the truth about Republicans, and helped end the careers of several incompetent troop-haters, who finally faced the music over the bait-and-switch hypocrisy they'd been selling the voters for years. Under instructions from the National Republican Committee, George Allen, Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, Jim Talent and others dutifully complied with their orders: say you support the troops, but vote to kill them.

This cold-blooded political manipulation cost thousands of brave Americans their lives over the course of four years, but only when the truth came to light did it cost these Republican traitors their jobs. Maybe it should have cost them much, much more, but the political system only gives us one option: dump politicians who vote to kill American troops.

Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

Then you tell me why Republicans continue to vote unanimously to send unarmored, untrained, unrested (and even, Salon and the Hartford Courant tell us, wounded and mentally unstable) troops to Iraq.

In a recent vote, the Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee unanimously opposed requiring that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared for their mission and protected with armor. Again.

So who did it? Does one of these troop-killers live near you? Let's name names:

Alabama: Robert Aderholt
California: John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis
Florida: Ander Crenshaw, Dave Weldon and C.W. "Bill" Young
Georgia: Jack Kingston
Idaho: Michael K. Simpson
Illinois: Mark Steven Kirk and Ray LaHood
Iowa: Tom Latham
Kansas: Todd Tiahrt
Kentucky: Harold Rogers
Louisiana: Rodney Alexander
Michigan: Joe Knollenberg
Mississippi: Roger Wicker
Missouri: Jo Ann Emerson
Montana: Dennis Rehberg
New Jersey: Rodney Frelinghuysen
New York: James Walsh
Ohio: Ralph Regula and David Hobson
Pennsylvania: John Peterson
Tennessee: Zach Wamp
Texas: John Carter, John Culberson and Kay Granger
Virginia: Virgil Goode and Frank Wolf

In the days ahead, hundreds more Republicans will close their eyes to the reality so starkly portrayed by Vote Vets, and the political retribution so clearly visited upon their colleagues who failed to heed the basic message that America will no longer tolerate the Republican plan to abandon and expose our troops to preventable death.

The more who die, of course, the stronger becomes the Republican mantra that their deaths must not be in vain. For Republicans, more dead troops = more emotional heartstrings they can pull to continue their shell game. And the more heartstrings pulled, the more troops they're free to kill. It's the only part of the Iraq war that actually does pay for itself. Small wonder, then, that we're entering the fifth year of this war, sending yet more troops into battle, and still sending them without what they need to survive the fight. In any other setting and with any other players, the plan would be considered lunacy. But for Republicans, the blood of the troops has become the oil in their political machine.

There is no other plausible excuse for it.

And as surely as the sun rises, Republicans will later this week once again vote against armor for the troops. Why? Because George W. Bush says it will pay for them at the polls.

In 2008, whatever black magic George W. Bush has been using to accomplish this ghoulish deception runs out, and at long last the reality of facing voters who know the truth and have buried the dead -- the reality that cut short the blood-fueled careers of the worst offenders in the upper chamber -- will be visited on their weaker siblings in the House.

Democrats will be working overtime in the days ahead to make sure that it is so.

 

Technorati tags: , ,

For North Carolina Residents. How your Politicians Voted On Bills Last Week

       SENATE VOTES

1)   U.S. Policy on Iraq - Vote Rejected (48-50, 2 Not Voting)

The Senate rejected this resolution that called for beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within four months.

Sen. Richard Burr voted NO......  ( R )
Sen. Elizabeth Dole voted NO...   ( R )

2) Improving America’s Security Act - Vote Passed (60-38, 2 Not Voting)

The Senate passed this bill that would implement several 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Sen. Richard Burr voted NO......
Sen. Elizabeth Dole voted YES...

3) Freedom of Information Act Amendments - Vote Passed (308-117, 8 Not Voting)

 

    HOUSE VOTES

The House passed this bill that would impose new requirement on government agencies regarding Freedom of Information Act requests.

Rep. Brad Miller voted YES......  ( D )

4) Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act - Vote Passed (331-94, 8 Not Voting)

This House bill is intended to strengthen federal workers' whistleblower rights.

Rep. Brad Miller voted YES.....

5) Accountability in Contracting Act - Vote Passed (347-73, 13 Not Voting)

This House bill is intended to increase oversight of federal contractors.

Rep. Brad Miller voted YES.....

 

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

The House Will Allow Subpoenas In Attorney Riff

CNN     March 21, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats voted Wednesday to give their leaders the authority to force White House officials to testify on the firings of U.S. attorneys.

President Bush on Tuesday offered to let Karl Rove, his top political adviser, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers give unsworn, off-the-record testimony.

A House Judiciary subcommittee on Wednesday rejected the offer on a voice vote. Democrats contend the lack of transcripts under the Bush plan would prevent them from challenging any inconsistencies in testimony.

On Tuesday, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Bush's offer was unacceptable.

"It is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said in a written statement.

The House Judiciary subcommittee vote Wednesday authorizes issuing of subpoenas, not the serving of them. That action would come later.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the same issue Thursday.

* * * *

  Bush has said, "It would be regrettable if they choose to go down the road of issuing subpoenas."

   Oh really? Who would it be  regrettable for?  My guess would be for Bush and the rest of the White House and you can also throw in the underlings of Gonzales who helped with the " purge ' knowing full well that is was the wrong thing to do.

  Bush has got to be an ass if he thinks that the Democrats or anyone else with an I.Q. will just let Rove and the rest come in and testify without having some sort of record of the conversation. I guess that Bush and Cheney have gotten so used to hiding and destroying so much shit that they think that it is the normal thing to do.

  It is pretty obvious that the White house has alot to hide if they are so afraid of letting their hoods testify under oath and behind closed doors. These request pretty much say " guilty ".

   Bush will now run this crap through the courts and hope that he can drag this case out till he is out of office when he will think that he, and the others,  are safe from prosecution.

   I hope that he hasn't made any vacation plans for out of the states.

 

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Iraq: Playing The Course

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Iraq: Playing the Course (and Cheating)

posted by Jeff Huber

Also at DKos.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire
Pro-war rhetoric continues to resonate of the peculiar neoconservative brand of insanity. Last week, Representative C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) said, "Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do, but we can't afford to turn over Iraq to al-Qaida."
The Sunni organization al-Qaeda is not going to take over Shiite dominated Iraq. If Young honestly thinks it can, he's an utter dullard. It's more likely that Young was the Bush liegeman chosen to introduce the latest Rovewellian talking point.
Staying the Course
From the beginning, The administration and its echo chamberlains have sold their woebegone war in Iraq with a fabric of glittering generalities, appeals to emotion, bandwagons, sand bagging, blame shifting, straw man attacks, faulty main assumptions, false analogies, and the rest of the propaganda arsenal. They coaxed us into this war by making visions of mushroom clouds dance in our heads, and they've been playing Rovewellian mind games with us ever since.
Their most enduring trick has been the "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" mantra. In recent months "fighting them over there" has morphed into "If we withdraw, they will follow us here." Pish. How are they going to get here--hide in our troops' luggage? Swim? Wind surf? Jump?
Despite what Bush the younger tells us, the oceans do, in fact, still protect us. Nobody has an army large enough to invade and occupy the United States, and they certainly don't have a navy or air force capable of transporting a force that size across the Atlantic or Pacific. Even if they did, we could sink them and/or shoot them down before they got halfway here.
Yes, terrorists might still sneak through our borders and ports in drips and drabs like the 9/11 perpetrators did, but nothing we're doing militarily in the Middle East is preventing that from happening. That's Homeland Security's job, and if Homeland Security can't keep terrorists from infiltrating our country, why does it even exist?
Young Mr. Bush exhorts us to show "resolve" in the Middle East. But the kind of resolve we're showing in the Middle East is the kind of resolve it takes to throw yourself in front of a moving bus, and then lie there while the bus continues to roll back and forth over you.
In January, Senator Joe Lieberman (?-CT) said on Meet the Press that "We all want to find the right exit strategy. But my own sense of history tells me that in war, ultimately, there are two exit strategies. One is called victory; the other is called defeat."
My three dogs have a better sense of history than Lieberman does. Wars, especially modern American wars, have seldom been decisive. World War I ended in an armistice, the conditions of which laid the groundwork for World War II. World War II concluded with the formal surrenders of Germany and Japan, but that only led to the Cold War and a series of dirty little third world proxy wars that lasted for half a century.
One pro-war neoconservative pundit recently compared Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) to Lee Harvey Oswald. He said that Murtha and Oswald formed a small club of individuals who deserved to be classified as "ex-Marines." This pundit is not a Coulter-class luminary in the neoconservative galaxy. He is a distinguished dean and professor at one of our most distinguished graduate level war colleges who consistently indulges in this kind of vituperative through the Big Brother Broadcast megaphone. With people like him in key positions of upper level of military academia, it's little wonder our national security brain trust is so bankrupt.
We hear from voices on the right that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will create conditions that could lead to a regional war, but the fact is that U.S. presence in Iraq has created a regional war. Conflict, at one level or another, rages from the Horn of Africa to Pakistan, and our presence in Iraq is fueling it, not containing it.
The Bush war hawks keep serving up grape flavored hallucinogen shooters, and their non-cognitive supporters keep slamming them down. Meanwhile, a pack of dune farmers armed with tinker toys continue to make the "best-trained, best-equipped" armed force in history look like it couldn't find its oasis with a map and a flashlight.
It's so difficult for me to watch our chicken hawk leaders pour more of our magnificent troops into a war they're not designed to fight in pursuit of a "victory" that cannot be defined, and justify their policies and strategies with arguments they have to know are medicine show hokum, and blame their failures on the CIA, the news media, Catholics who voted for John Kerry, and whatever other scapegoat is handy.
It breaks my heart.
#
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.

 

Technorati tags: , ,

Pitch In for George Bush's Psychiatric Counseling Because He Needs It

   This little twerp has got alot of nerve or either a lack of functioning brain cells. Maybe it is both.

    Old Georgie boy is having a temper tantrum because he isn't going to get his way with the Democrats and he really has no backing from the Republicans when it comes to the  " purge " of the prosecutors. All that the Repugnicans can do at this point is stand on the sidelines and watch the crime empire slowly head into a crumble. Isn't this just great?

   So now the asshole is going to go to court to avoid having his cronies testify under oath and to try to claim some sort of executive privilege. Any court that buys that bullshit should be disbanded for treason against the United States citizens.

   This bum acts like he is doing the Congress a favor by allowing his butt-wipes to talk behind closed doors and without having anything written/typed down! Is this fool on another planet or what?  President Bush's medication must be wearing off or either Cheney is hiding it from him again.

    This illegitimate president has had six years of ass kissing republicans in both the House and the Senate doing whatever he asked them to do with no accountability for anything said or done. Now he's having a spasm because there is no one to coddle his sorry ass and daddy can do nothing to bail this piece of shit " C " student out this time!   

 

Technorati tags: , ,

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Democrats Are Going To Have To Rough Bush Up A Little

   It now looks as if George Bush and the Democrats are going to go a few rounds and if things go as planned, Bush will be getting his ass handed to him!

   AP

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer   March 20,2007

WASHINGTON - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

   No transcript so that the Bush Crime Family members have no record of their remarks for later use against them?

 

Bush said he would aggressively fight in court any attempt to subpoena White House aides.

"If the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said. "I'm sorry the situation has gotten to where it's got, but that's Washington, D.C., for you. You know there's a lot of politics in this town."

  Candid advice? Did I read that one right? If Bush has actually listened to any advice from anyone and the Iraq mess is one of the fiascos that came from that advice, the Bush advisors should be fired and so should Bush being being dumb enough to listen to them! I'm sorry, I forgot that he is dumb enough! What was I thinking?

 

Kevin C. Landeck

  Here is a letter from a grieving father after his ( Captain Kevin Landeck, 26 ) was killed in Iraq on February 2, 2007, which the father sent to Mr. Bush.

Original

Kevin C. Landeck

By kos

on Iraq

A grieving father sent this letter to Bush. He never got an answer.

Feb 4, 2007

Dear Mr. Bush:

This will be the only time I will refer to you with any type of respect.

My son was killed in Iraq on February 2, 2007. His name is Captain Kevin Landeck.

He served with the Tenth Mountain Division. He was killed while riding in a Humvee by a roadside bomb just south of Baghdad. He has a loving mother, a loving father and loving sister.

You took him away from us. He celebrated his 26th birthday January 30th and was married for 17 months. He graduated from Purdue University and went through the ROTC program. That is where he met his future wife. He was proud to be a part of the military and took exceptional pride in becoming a leader of men. He accepted his role as a platoon leader with exceptional enthusiasm and was proud to serve his country.

I had many conversations with Kevin before he left to serve as well as during his deployment. The message he continued to send to me was that of incompetence. Incompetence by you, (Vice President Richard) Cheney and (former Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. Incompetence by some of his commanders as well as the overall strategy of your decisions.

When I asked him about what he thought about your decision to “surge” more troops to Baghdad, he told me, “until the Iraqis pick up the ball, we are going to get cut to shreds. It doesn’t matter how many troops Bush sends, nothing has been addressed to solve the problem he started.”

Answer me this: How in the world can you justify invading Iraq when the problem began and continues to lie in Afghanistan? I don’t want your idiotic standard answer about keeping America safe. What did Sadaam Hussein have to do with 9/11? We all know it had to do with the first Iraq war where your father failed to take Sadaam down.

Well George, you have succeeded in taking down over 3,100 of our best young men, my son being one of them. Kevin told me many times we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq and they could not do their jobs as soldiers. He said they are trained to be on the offensive and to fight but all they are doing is acting like policemen.

Well George, you or some “genius” like you who have never fought in a war but enjoy all the perks your positions afford you are making life and death decisions. In the case of my son, you made a death decision.

Let me explain a few other points he and I discussed. He said when he and his men were riding down the road in their Humvees, roadside bombs would explode and they would hear bullets bouncing off their vehicle. He said they were scared. He thought “why should we be the ones who are scared?” He asked permission to take some of his men out at night with their night vision glasses because as he said “we own the night” and watch for the people who are setting roadside bombs and “take them out.” He said, “I want them to be the ones that are scared.” He was denied permission. Why? It made perfect sense to me and other people who I told about this.

When he was at a checkpoint he was told that if a vehicle was coming at them even at a high rate of speed he could not arbitrarily use his weapon. He had to wave his arms and, if the vehicle did not stop, he could fire a warning shot over the vehicle. If the vehicle did not stop then, he could shoot at the tires. If the vehicle did not yet stop he could take a shot at the driver. Who in their right mind made that kind of decision?

How would you like to be at a check point with a vehicle coming at you that won’t stop and go through all those motions? You will never know!

You or Cheney or Rumsfeld will never know the anguish, the worry, the sleepless nights, the waiting for the loved one who may never return. If the soldiers were able to do their jobs and the ego’s of politicians like you, your “cronies” and some commanders had their heads on straight, we would be out of this mess which we should not be involved with in the first place.

My family and I deserve and explanation directly from you……not some assistant who will likely read this and toss it. This war is wrong.

I want you to look me and my wife and daughter directly in the eye and tell me why my son died. We should not be there, but because of your ineptness and lack of correct information I have lost my son, my pride and joy, my hero!

Again, you, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never understand what the families of soldiers are going through and don’t try to tell me you do. My wife, my daughter and I cannot believe we have lost our only son and brother to a ridiculous political war that you seem to want to maintain. I hope you and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the other people on your band wagon sleep well at night….we certainly don’t.

Richard Landeck

Proud father of a fallen soldier

* * * *

IMPEACH! INDICT! IMPRISON!

 

That Sucking Sound you Hear Is Bush Being Deflated

      As is usual, every time that Mr. Bush has any kind of press conference, I'm never around to hear it so I am having to catch bits and pieces from all over the net.

   From what I have gathered thus far, Bush is not a happy camper at this time! That is always a good sign! This story is having a few ironic twists to it and following below is one of them as pointed out by  Daily Kos.

Tue Mar 20, 2007

Will he crack?

Update: The emperor hates being challenged, huh? He was furious at the notion that he and his administration should be held accountable.

Update II: I'm a bit relieved that Bush is stomping his feat and holding his breath on this issue. He could've killed this story dead by having Gonzales resign, but his petulance ensures this story goes strong into this coming cycle.

Republicans in Congress can't be too happy about this.

Update III: More details later, if necessary. But just for laughs, know this: the penalty for defying a Congressional subpoena is being charged with contempt of Congress. Who prosecutes those charges on behalf of the Congress?

The U.S. Attorney's office.

You think they don't know the game they're playing? [Kagro X]

 

IceRocket tags: ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Fox News Reporting " Fair And Balanced " ?

   According to TVNewser, Fox News barely covered the 4th year anniversary of the war in Iraq compared to the other news networks.

Between 6am and 3pm, a TVEyes search of closed captioning transcripts shows 153 mentions of Iraq on MSNBC, 112 mentions on CNN, and 42 mentions on Fox News Channel...

   It is noted that Fox News also did very scant coverage of the Walter Reed fiasco a little while back.

Between Feb. 18 and March 5, FNC has mentioned "Walter Reed" 93 times -- about six mentions per day. CNN has covered the story 224 times, and MSNBC has covered it 257 times.

Also on TVNewser: Walter Reed also loses out next to Anna Nicole Smith, who enjoys a robust popularity on both FNC & MSNBC as compared to the beleaguered veteran's hospital. This is made apparent courtesy of ThinkProgress which has a highlight reel comparing the two has compiled a highlight reel of Anna Nicole vs. Walter Reed coverage. They ran the numbers on Friday, March 2nd, and here's what they got:

FOX NEWS: Anna Nicole - 121 Walter Reed - 10
MSNBC: Anna Nicole - 96 Walter Reed - 84
CNN: Anna Nicole - 40 Walter Reed - 53

Per ThinkProgress: "The most lop-sided coverage by far was aired by Fox News, which featured only 10 references to Walter Reed compared to 121 of Anna Nicole — roughly 12 times the coverage..."

   I guess that Fox News did not want to cover the fair and balanced side of the Bush administration's screw-ups so Anna Nicole became more important to them. Anna Nicole is something that I guess that Fox News ignorant viewers could grasp without any explanation needed.

 

Rove And Miers Can Testify, But Not Under Oath Says White House

Daily Kos  

by BarbinMD   Tue Mar 20, 2007

From   MSNBC:

Fred Fielding, he's the White House counsel, he was just here in the House of Representatives meeting with the House Judiciary Committee.  He made the following offer to the Congress, both House and Senate...he said Rove and Harriet Mier would be offered to the Committees for their testimony in the Alberto Gonzales and federal prosecutors scandal.  However, he said it would be unsworn testimony, not under oath, behind closed doors and no trancript would be permitted.

Shumer responds:  They're not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here.  And in that way it's a pretty clever proposal, but it doesn't do the job of figuring out what happened as best we can tell.  The next step is to consult with one another, Chairman Conyers and Chairman Leahy will take the lead in determining what our response will be.  We obviously will present a counter-offer to them that will be far more complete and far more extensive, but speaking for the Senate side, I spoke to Chairman Leahy earlier.  We will move forward with the subpoenas on Thursday because this is not what Chairman Leahy outlined Sunday, which is, coming before us, speaking under oath.

* * * *

     I guess that the Bush Crime Family has much to hide since they do not want the testimony to be made public or put on record. The one thing that Bush doesn't have is a defense against the truth.

 

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Fox News Is Still Stupid

   Fox News still can't do any type of accurate reporting, it would seem.

   From American Progress Action

IRAQ -- STAYING THE COURSE FOUR YEARS LATER: President Bush's schedule yesterday "originally called for no observation whatsoever of the four-year-anniversary of the war." Before altering his plans, Bush's only public event called for playing host to the 2006 college football champion Florida Gators. He proceeded with those plans in the afternoon, shaking hands and celebrating the occasion. (Video HERE.) But at the last minute, he added a brief public statement, which recycled past Iraq-anniversary speeches and advocated a stay the course approach.  The media quickly echoed the President's talking points, arguing that his escalation is showing "progress" in Iraq. Fox News's Brit Hume said the escalation "does seem to be making a difference so far," even though a senior administration official admitted "right now there is no trend" showing the new strategy is working. Fox News's Neil Cavuto did a segment on "something you are not hearing" -- how many Iraqis are "thanking" the United States for "liberating" Iraq. In reality, a new poll shows that just 18 percent of Iraqis now have confidence in the U.S.-led coalition troops and nearly 90 percent "say they live in fear that the violence ravaging their country will strike themselves and the people with whom they live." Similarly, Kadhim al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifter who was enlisted to help bring down the statue of Saddam Hussein in 2003, said, "I really regret bringing down the statue. ... The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day." Vice President Cheney marked the Iraq anniversary by attending the Hudson Institute Board Dinner at the swanky Union League Club in New York. Yesterday, The Progress Report contacted the Vice President's office to request details about what Cheney would be talking about. "No one in the office can answer that question," said a Cheney staffer. The Hudson Institute -- a proponent of war against Iran -- is home to Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby.

 

IceRocket tags: , , , ,

Senate votes For Bill Removal From Patriot Act

       The Senate did something right for a change as they voted overwhelmingly ( 94-2 ) to cancel a provision in the Patriot Act that has allowed the Attorney General To hire U.S. Attorney's without them being confirmed by the Senate. The Democrats said that the Bush Crime Family abused the authority when it had eight prosecutors fired and was looking at replacing them with Bush loyalist.

    The bill has not been considered in the House yet, but I'll bet that it will pass with flying colors!  Score one for the good guys! It will be even better when that asshole Gonzales quits at the end of the week. Source

 

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Iraq War Is Won: 2003

   Making the rounds on the Internet for the past few days have been some of the comments that the media made back when the United States had declared victory in Iraq. You may remember some of these about how the liberal's were all wrong and that Bush was a great leader and all of that other bullshit!  In case you do not, here are a few of the quotes from our brilliant media personalities.

1)  "I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)

2)   "It won't take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

3)     "There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like that."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

4)    "Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."
(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

5)   "If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete with a president fresh from a war victory?"
(CNN's Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03)
6) "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically."
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)

7)   NPR's Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it...
Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have them beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)

8)   "Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them."
(MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)

9)   "Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention."
(NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)

10)   "Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"
(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)

* * * *

   Winning kind of sucks at times, doesn't it?

   You won't ever hear these assholes saying that they were wrong because that would mean defeat to them.

 

Alberto Gonzales Is Just The Latest To Get Tripped Up

Why Conservatives Can't Govern                                                                   Robert L. Borosage     TomPaine.com. March 20, 2007
  March 19, 2007                        'Robert L. Borosage is co-director of the  Campaign For America's Future.

Donald Rumsfeld has been axed. Tom DeLay cut and ran. “Scooter” Libby stands convicted. Michael “you’re doing a heck of a job” Brown was tossed. Newt Gingrich disgraced himself. And now the clueless Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is surely the next to go.

Why this confederacy of dunces? The conservative National Review cover asks plaintively, “Can’t Anyone Here Play this Game?” Time Magazine puts conservative icon Ronald Reagan on its cover, a tear rolling down his face, reporting on “How the Right Went Wrong.” But it’s not incompetence or corruption—although both abound—that fostered the misrule of this conservative administration. And Reagan would feel not dismayed, but right at home with the follies and crimes. Remember: Reagan’s attorney general, Edwin Meese, was disgraced. His national security advisor copped a plea. Oliver North stood convicted. His defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, would have been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice if George Bush the first hadn’t issued a preemptive pardon.

What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn’t at the core of these scandals—ideology is.

Conservative presidents—from Nixon to Reagan to Bush—believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere. Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.

Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America’s divides with back-alley brass knuckles—from Reagan’s welfare queen to Bush’s impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless in seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.

Gonzales’ imbroglio is a direct expression of this. At its core is the run-up to the 2006 elections with the Republicans under siege for the most corrupt Congress ever. The White House and Republican politicians grew exercised at Republican prosecutors who they considered too lax in exposing potential Democratic corruption, too avid in pursuing Republican crimes or too slow in prosecuting reports of “voter fraud,” the GOP code for using investigations to disrupt minority registration and get out the vote programs, and to intimidate wary black and Latino voters. Justice was ranking U.S. attorneys based on whether they were “loyal Bushies.”

The axing of David C. Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, is the archetype. With New Mexico up for grabs, Iglesias was being pressured directly and shamelessly by Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Mickey Barnett, the attorney representing the Bush campaign in New Mexico to hustle up indictments on alleged incidents of voter fraud. (Iglesias found no evidence of any program designed to influence an election.) Vulnerable Rep. Heather Wilson lobbied him to bring indictments against state Democratic officials before the election to help make the point that when it comes to corruption, everyone does it. When Iglesias refused to respond, he was targeted despite glowing performance reviews. The firings took place as an object lesson for U.S .attorneys headed into the donnybrook that will be the 2008 election. As Iglesias put it , “main Justice was up to its eyeballs in partisan political maneuvers.”

Gonzales will surely be the next administration official to fall on his sword. Republican legislators are already questioning his ability to serve the president effectively. We’ll see more stories about White House mismanagement and incompetence. But don’t be misled. Bush and Rove know how to play this game. They play by their rules, the rules that conservative administrations have followed since Nixon. And that’s the real lesson. The phrase “conservative misrule” is a redundancy. The two words mean exactly the same thing.

 

IceRocket tags: , , ,

The World's View Of The United States In Iraq

   More comments on the question  posed by Al Jazeera:

           Original Article

Police arrested more than 100 Iraq war protesters in San Francisco and New York City on the fourth anniversary of the US invasion, as George Bush asked in a televised statement for more patience over his strategy in Iraq, saying that US success ‘will take months, not days or weeks’. What will be the future in Iraq and will Bush’s strategies make any difference?     Published: Monday, 19 March 2007

* * * *

Added: Tuesday, 20 March 2007

I was one of the 10s of thousands of very determined Americans who marched on the Pentagon on March 17. It is my most sincere hope that Saturday marked the beginning of the end of my country's illegal occupation of another nation. I ask all our brothers and sisters in the Middle East not give up on this country, please. Don't judge me by that fool residing in the White House. In 673 days from today, Bush will be gone from office and an adult will be in charge of our nation, and hopefully we will be able to rebuild some burned bridges when that happens. Peace.

Curlew, Washington DC, USA

* * * *

     First, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Second, Bush attacked Iraq instead of finding those guilty of 9/11 massacre. The idea was to destroy Iraq so that Haliburton could rebuild and make a lot of money, and get control of the oil. It was the decision of the president to lie to his government, his people and to other countries, to spy on his own citizens, to approve secret prisons, to approve torture, to use fear to control the American people. Shame on Bush indeed. As the Truman expression goes - the buck stops here - which means that a president does not 'pass the buck' to anyone else but accepts personal responsibility for the way the country is governed.

Evie, Montreal, Canada

* * * *

Added: Tuesday, 20 March 2007

Let's face it: America is undermining Iraq because of the oIL. It's about the oil. As per US intelligence community foresight (stragetic statecraft a.k.a. 'US energy security') nothing has gone wrong; to the contrary, everything is unfolding exactly as planned. After all, why kill the Iraqis when we can set them up to kill each other? As long as there is instability and insecurity in the Middle East, Iraq as well as other Arab nations will have to sell oil to Western markets. Did you really think this mess was 'unplanned'?

address the issues, Denver, USA

* * * *

Added: Tuesday, 20 March 2007

World events during the last few centuries, have continuously reinforced the generally negative image of the Caucasian white colonizer, slavemaster, plunderer and invader, whose moralility is subjective and easily compromised in self interest, when in a particular situation, prone to procrastinate, selfish, greedy, lustful after lands and treasures belonging to others and having the most corrupting influence, in the eyes of the non white/European communities. Of course this is stereotyping. Unfortunately, recent and current warmongering and associated activities of Bush and Blair do nothing to negate the above impressions.

azzi, mumbai, India

* * * *

Added: Tuesday, 20 March 2007

Daneellaw makes a good point. Peace doesn't suit the 'Axis of Greed' either in Iraq or in Palestine. They will keep the pot boiling for as long as there is profit in it. When the situation is played out, they will move on and stir up trouble somewhere else with high potential. Probably Iran. The Iraqis (and Iranians), like the Palestinians, need to get media savvy and take on board western-style news management and broadcasting skills to educate western viewers and listeners.

Inswinger, Cambridge, United Kingdom

 

IceRocket tags: , , ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Early Morning News

   Iraq's former vice- president ( Taha Yassin Ramadan ) got the noose early Tuesday ( 3:05am ) For his part in the killing of 148 Shia Iraqis in Dujail, according to an official in the prime minister's office.

    Ramadan was originally sentenced to life in prison for murder, forced deportation and torture back in November but an appeals court said that the sentence was to lenient and passed the case back to the High Tribunal and demanded that he be sentenced to death.  Source

* * * *

   Here is one more of the signs of progress that the Bush administration says we are seeing in Iraq.

    Police in Baghdad say that they have found bodies of some 30 people who were shot in various Baghdad districts.    Source

   Here are a few thoughts from the Iraqi citizens on things since the U.S. began it's occupation of the country.

Reuters Alertnet

* "We have faced terrorism on a scale we didn't know existed in the past four years. Everybody has lost someone close but we can always remain optimistic that everything will improve once everyone agrees using violence for political gain is wrong." - Ahmed Riyadh, 28, barber.

* * * *

* "After four years I can say that the country is lost. We never expected this would happen. We were hoping to live like a European country, not to be living like this." - Salih Abu Mehdi, 43, security guard and father of six children.

* * * *

* "The Americans came to rob Iraq and to end the Islamic religion... They rebuild what they destroy and we have no security." - Mohammed Ameen, bookshop owner.

* "Are they serious in bringing us democracy when they have lost their own democracies. I watched anti-war protestors in Washington being arrested by police. The Americans have not benefited Iraq and whoever says the opposite is like an ostrich with its head underground." - Marwan Abdul-Karim, 27, works in a mobile phone store.       Read More Here

 

IceRocket tags: , , ,

Monday, March 19, 2007

Oversight The Democratic Way

   Crossposted from Truth Out

Democrats in Congress Kick Oversight Into Overdrive
    By Richard Simon and Noam N. Levey
    The Los Angeles Times

    Monday 19 March 2007

Stymied on its legislative agenda, the party finds greater success with a range of investigations.

    Washington - One day last week, the entire Federal Communications Commission was summoned for the first time in three years before a House committee, where its members were grilled for five hours and told to expect to be "frequent guests."

    On another day, Congress authorized subpoenas for Justice Department officials in its escalating investigation into the murky reasons offered by the Bush administration for its decision to fire eight U.S. attorneys.

    And on yet another day, former covert CIA operative Valerie Plame was the star witness at a hearing where she accused White House officials of "recklessly" blowing her cover and destroying her career.

    Less than three months since they took control of Capitol Hill, Democrats in both chambers have cranked the powerful congressional oversight machinery into overdrive.

    In addition to the headline-hogging investigations, Democrats have launched probes into a wide range of less glamorous subjects, including the FDA's efforts to protect the food supply, the way federal agencies monitor energy markets and whether the White House sought to muzzle federal climate scientists who uncovered evidence of global warming.

    When Democrats won both houses of Congress in November, they promised vigorous oversight in addition to an ambitious legislative agenda. So far, they appear to be accomplishing more through oversight. None of the bills that were part of the party's 100-hour spree has yet emerged from Congress. And with their razor-thin margin in the Senate, Democrats cannot count on passing any legislation that most Republicans oppose.

    But Republicans can do little to stop the investigative juggernaut.

    "The Democrats' most powerful weapons aren't legislative bills, but subpoenas and hearings," said John J. Pitney Jr., a former Republican staffer who is a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

    Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, neatly illustrated this dynamic in a recent letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

    He wrote to ask why President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address had cited a discredited claim that Iraq was seeking uranium. Waxman noted that Rice had ignored all but five of the 16 letters he had sent over the last five years when his party was in the minority. Then, he pointed out: "I am renewing my request as the chairman of the chief oversight committee in the U.S. House of Representatives."

    In that one sentence, Waxman captured one of the most significant changes on Capitol Hill. Now that they have the gavels and subpoena power, the Democrats can no longer be so easily brushed off.

    The administration learned that in recent days as Democratic investigations into the firing of U.S. attorneys have shaken the Justice Department. The department has turned over to the House and Senate Judiciary committees scores of e-mails that show some officials misinformed Congress about how the dismissals were handled and raise questions about whether the dismissals were orchestrated by the White House for political reasons.

    Democrats on the judiciary committees have threatened to subpoena top White House officials, including Karl Rove, the president's primary political strategist. The chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales has already resigned. And Democrats - joined by a few Republicans - have called on Gonzales to join him.

    Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said the scandal was an example of what happens to an administration unprepared for an aggressive legislative branch. "The problem here is they panicked ... and now they got themselves a problem," he said.

    Hearings into conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington also have damaged the White House, reinforcing claims that President Bush has mismanaged the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The hearings confirmed media reports on lengthy treatment delays and deplorable housing conditions for some of the war's most grievously injured soldiers. Both the administration and Congress have pledged more support for wounded soldiers and veterans.

    Administration officials now find themselves regularly summoned to explain their actions and policies, something they didn't have to do quite as often when friendly Republicans were in power. The GOP cut the budget of the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, by about a third after it took over in 1994.

    Republicans did hold oversight hearings, including some on the tragically slow response to Hurricane Katrina and on the bribery scandal centered on GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

    But Davis, the top Republican on the oversight and government reform committee, acknowledged that congressional Republicans, for the most part, were not hard on the administration.

    "There is this tendency to think that your political welfare is tied up with the president and you don't want to make him look bad," he said. "This is an administration that has had it pretty easy."

    Democrats have taken their oversight responsibilities to heart. They added the word "oversight" to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and reestablished disbanded investigative subcommittees.

    In the first two months of this year, they called on staff from the GAO to testify 47 times on Capitol Hill, three times as often as in the first two months of last year. And they say they have already held more than 100 oversight hearings.

    "In just the last three weeks, more people were forced out of their jobs than the entire prior six years under this administration, because a new Congress that had the byword of accountability, accountability, accountability changed the way business was done in Washington," Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said last week.

    The increased oversight is certain to heighten tensions between Congress and the White House, as Democrats continue to press their investigation into the U.S. attorneys' firings and other areas.

    Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of a House science and technology subcommittee, threatened to subpoena a secret report on whether NASA's inspector general suppressed safety investigations, until the administration agreed to release it.

    "There are a variety of things that we are now looking at," he said. "I'd say the reaction of the Bush administration has been less than cheerful."

    Julian E. Zelizer, a congressional scholar at Boston University, said there was a risk that too much oversight would make the party in power look like "partisan zealots" rather than responsible legislators.

    But, he said, the Democrats have "a lot of room" to investigate.

  -------

 

IceRocket tags: , , , , , , ,

Can Stability Be Found In Iraq?

   Every so often I post a question that Al Jazeera  has asked it's readers and I also post the answers. So here goes another one for you.

    Since this question was just asked today, I will be revisiting this one so that we can get a sample of what the Iraqi readers have to say.

Original Article

Iraq war anniversary: Your views 

Published: Monday, 19 March 2007

Demonstrations against the US-led war in Iraq are continuing ahead of the fourth anniversary of the invasion, meanwhile new poll has revealed that Iraqis are feeling increasingly pessimistic and insecure about their future. What is the future in Iraq? Can stability be found? Are you Iraqi and, if so, what do you think?

* * * *

Added: Monday, 19 March 2007

Let's face it, war is good business: for the oil companies and their record profits; for the weapons manufacturers; for the infrastructure companies who rebuild. The U.S. will not leave Iraq until there is another way for these same groups to continue to grow their profits.

daneellaw, New York, USA

* * * *

Added: Monday, 19 March 2007

I think it's time people stop blaming Pres Bush for all this!! He is not the only person who ok'd this War! It takes two to tango. The majority voted for this war multiple times. If anyone knows anything about US Government they would know that its not just the President who runs this country! We need to stop all this Blaming and pointing fingers. Lets remember that Sadam Killed Millions!! I think they did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it's call Sadam and his followers!! If we pull out of this war now I know we will regret it! It will show our weekness and we will be vulnerable to more outside attacks! We need to stay the course and try to free Iraq from the Terrorists for the sake of the good people of Iraq! We need to rally as one America and stop all this Democrate and Repubican rubbish, let's just be the America that our country used to be!

bigmike67, , USA

* * * *

Added: Monday, 19 March 2007

The Iraqi people will most likely never feel comfortable in building a nation as long as they are occupied by the Americans. They don't want a nation built in the image the Americans see fit. I think it would be best for the Americans to withdraw their troops and allow group of willing and peaceful muslim countries to go in and figure out what would be the best course of action. Something similar is happening with a group of muslim nations attempting to ease tensions between the West and Iran. This way the Iraqi people would not feel occupied or oppressed by the Americans and would feel that they would have someone that understands their way of life. Sunnis and Shiites would need to work together on both sides for this to work.

myleshosie53, toronto, Canada

* * * *

Added: Monday, 19 March 2007

You would expect Iraqis to feel a little pessimistic after nearly 700,000 deaths wouldn't you? A survey is probably long due in Fallujah on how Iraqis feel about illuminating the skyline with phosphor. That should really reveal the extent of optimism about the future. But thanks to the objective poll carried out by two well-established Anglo-American media corporations we've learned that only 33% of Iraqis think reconstruction efforts bare fruit. There you have it. A rather pessimistic world. What a shame. Meanwhile the Genecide continues in the Darfure region. That's Sudan in case you missed.

Mohammad Fedah, Surrey, United Kingdom

 

IceRocket tags: , , , , ,