Who's On TV Talk Sunday

CBS’ “Face the Nation” features Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)

NBC’s “Meet the Press” focuses on the week’s other big story, the fight over documents related to the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, featuring an interview with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

Host Tim Russert also discusses the week’s events with a political roundtable featuring the Christian Broadcast Network’s David Brody, PBS’ Tavis Smiley and Judy Woodruff, and NBC’s own Chuck Todd.

ABC’s “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos chats with Sen.  Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). This should be an interesting chat.

 “Fox News Sunday.” has Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff caps off a busy week as the headliner

CNN’s “Late Edition.” has Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff also along with House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.).

      courtesy of The Politico

Technorati tags: Sunday talk, Dick Lugar, Patrick Leahy, CBN, Joseph Lieberman, Michael Chertoff

U.S. Killing Civilians?

Crossposted from Truthout.org

Go to Original

US Raids Baghdad Slum; 26 Iraqis Die
    By Hamid Ahmed
    The Associated Press

    Saturday 30 June 2007

    Baghdad - American soldiers rolled into Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City slum on Saturday in search of Iranian-linked militants and as many as 26 Iraqis were killed in what a U.S. officer described as "an intense firefight."

    But residents, police and hospital officials said eight civilians were killed in their homes and angrily accused U.S. forces of firing blindly on the innocent. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki condemned the raids and demanded an explanation for the assault into a district where he has barred U.S. operations in the past.

    Separately, two American soldiers were charged with the premeditated murder of three Iraqis, the U.S. military said Saturday. And in Muqdadiyah, 60 miles north of the capital, police said a suicide bomber blew himself up near a crowd of police recruits, killing at least 23 people and wounding 17.

    A U.S. soldier was killed Friday and three wounded when a sophisticated, armor-piercing bomb hit their combat patrol in southern Baghdad, the military announced a day later.

    The U.S. military said it conducted two pre-dawn raids in Sadr City, killing 26 "terrorists" who attacked U.S. troops with small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs. But Iraqi officials said all the dead were civilians.

    An American military spokesman insisted all of those killed were combatants. "Everyone who got shot was shooting at U.S. troops at the time," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver. "It was an intense firefight."

    U.S. troops detained 17 men suspected of helping Iranian terror networks fund operations in Iraq, a military statement said. There were no U.S. casualties.

    Witnesses said U.S. forces rolled into their neighborhood before dawn and opened fire without warning.

    "At about 4 a.m., a big American convoy with tanks came and began to open fire on houses - bombing them," said Basheer Ahmed, who lives in Sadr City's Habibiya district. "What did we do? We didn't even retaliate - there was no resistance."

    According to Iraqi officials, the dead included three members of one family - a father, mother and son. Several women and children, along with two policemen, were among the wounded, they said.

    The assault brought quick criticism from al-Maliki. "The Iraqi government totally rejects U.S. military operations ... conducted without a pre-approval from the Iraqi military command," al-Maliki said in a statement released by his office. "Anyone who breaches the military command orders will face investigation."

    Sadr City is the Iraqi capital's largest Shiite neighborhood - home to some 2.5 million people. It is also the base of operations for the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The fighters are blamed for much of the sectarian killing in Baghdad.

    Last year, al-Maliki banned military operations in Sadr City without his approval after complaints from his Shiite political allies. But he later agreed that no area of the capital was off-limits, after President Bush ordered reinforcements to Iraq as part of the Baghdad security operation.

    Houses, a bakery and some other shops were damaged by U.S. tank fire during the assault, Iraqi officials said. In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, Sheik Salah al-Obaidi, a spokesman for al-Sadr condemned Saturday's raids: "The bombing hurt only innocent civilians."

    A policeman wounded in the raid, Montadhar Kareem, said he was on night duty when U.S. troops moved in and "began bombing houses in the area."

    "The bombing became more intense, and I was injured by shrapnel in both my legs and in my left shoulder," Kareem said from a gurney at Al Sadr General Hospital.

    Hours afterward, a funeral procession snaked through Sadr City. Three coffins were hoisted atop cars.

    One resident who goes by the nickname of Um Ahmed, or "mother of Ahmed," stood outside her home as mourners passed by.

    "We are being hit while we are peacefully sleeping in our houses. Is that fair?" she cried. The woman gave only her nickname, fearing reprisal.

    The U.S. military statement said American troops opened fire on four civilian cars during the assault - one that failed to stop at a checkpoint, and three that insurgents were using for cover as they shot at U.S. soldiers.

    "Every structure and vehicle that the troops on the ground engaged were being used for hostile intent," Garver said. Some of the 26 dead were in civilian cars, some had been hiding behind cars and others had fired on U.S. troops from nearby buildings, he said.

    In the murder case, the two American soldiers are accused of killing three Iraqis in separate incidents, then planting weapons on the victims' remains, the military said in a statement. Fellow soldiers reported the alleged crimes, which took place between April and this month near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad, it said.

    The U.S. military on Saturday identified the soldiers as Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley from Candler, N.C., and Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval from Laredo, Texas.

    Hensley is charged with three counts each of premeditated murder, obstructing justice and "wrongfully placing weapons with the remains of deceased Iraqis," the military said. He was placed in military confinement in Kuwait on Thursday.

    Sandoval faces one count each of premeditated murder and placing a weapon with the remains of a dead Iraqi, a statement said. He was taken into custody Tuesday while at home in Texas, and was transferred to military confinement in Kuwait three days later, it said.

    Saturday's blast in Muqdadiyah ripped through a crowded market area where Iraqi police recruits were having coffee, police said.

    One witness, 30-year-old Abu Omar, said he rushed to the area where his brother has a shop, and saw police loading mutilated bodies into the back of a pickup truck. Fire engines sprayed water onto burning storefronts, and ambulances evacuated the wounded, he said.

    At least seven shops were destroyed by the explosion, and the market street soaked with blood, Omar said.

Technorati tags: Sadr City, Iraq, Baghdad, U.S.troops

Contracting Under The Bush Administration

More Dollars, Less Sense

June 27th, 2007 by Karina   The Gavel

Today the Oversight Committee released a report entitled More Dollars, Less Sense: Worsening Contracting Trends Under the Bush Administration. Last year, the committee conducted the first comprehensive assessment of government contracting under the Bush Administration creating an online searchable database of problem contracts and releasing a report finding “that between 2000 and 2005, federal procurement spending rose by over 80%, no-bid and other contracts awarded without full and open competition increased by over 100%, and contract mismanagement led to rising waste, fraud, and abuse in federal procurement.”

The report released today analyzing the 2006 federal procurement data reveals that procurement spending continues to grow rapidly with over $200 billion in new contracts awarded uncompetitively. Specifically, the report finds:

Procurement Spending Continues to Grow Rapidly. Last year’s report found that procurement spending had risen from $203.1 billion in 2000 to $377.5 in 2005. This year’s report finds that procurement spending increased to $412.1 billion in 2006, a new record. Contract spending has now more than doubled since President Bush took office. At the Department of Homeland Security, procurement spending increased by 51% last year alone. Since 2000, spending on federal contracts has grown more than twice as fast as other discretionary federal spending. For the first time, the federal government now spends over 40 cents of every discretionary dollar on contracts with private companies.

The Award of Noncompetitive Contracts Is Accelerating Dangerously. Last year’s report found that no-bid contracts and other forms of contracts awarded without full and open competition had risen from $67.5 billion in 2000 to $145.1 billion in 2005. This year’s report finds that spending on these no-bid and limited-competition contracts surged over $60 billion to $206.9 billion in 2006, the largest single-year increase ever. The value of federal contracts awarded without full and open competition has more than tripled since 2000. For the first time on record, more than half of federal procurement spending was awarded through no-bid and limited-competition contracts in 2006.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Continue to Soar. Last year’s report identified 118 contracts valued at $745.5 billion that had been found by government auditors to involve significant waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. This year’s report identifies 187 contracts valued at $1.1 trillion that have been plagued by waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. In the case of each of these 187 contracts, reports from the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, agency inspectors general, or other independent federal oversight officials have documented significant overcharges, wasteful spending, or mismanagement over the last six years.

On March 15th, the House overwhelmingly passed the Accountability in Contracting Act which requires federal agencies to limit the use of abuse-prone contracts and increases transparency and accountability in federal contracts. The Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy declaring their strong opposition to the legislation. Chairman Waxman explains: “It looks like this Administration would now like to keep us from getting embarrassing information about them, because they don’t like this bill. ‘We have to give too many reports to Congress…there has to be too much transparency…it’s burdensome to have to be open about these contracts.’ But the fact of the matter is, we are spending an incredible amount of money on these outside contracts. And from what we have seen, our taxpayers are not being protected from waste, fraud, abuse and corruption.”

     Let's be honest with each other shall we? How many of you who have read this would really believe anything different to come from a Republican administration especially one such as this Bush clan? History tells us that anything that any member of the Bush family has been involved in has been plagued with corruption and malfeasance. It doesn't help that we have the dumbest member of this family up on stage trying to act like he knows something when we all know that he is an idiot. I'm still trying to figure out why many of you voted for this moron ( twice ) even after seeing that anything he has ever done has been a failure.

   Personally, I think that George Bush would have had an outstanding career as a Muppet character. Just look at him.

Technorati tags: Bush administration, homeland security, contracting

Cheney Part 2 From WaPo

  I'm not even going to add my own comments to this as I could not do it justice. Everyone should read this story from the Washington Post and maybe you few remaining idiots on this earth will wake the fuck up!

    From Daily Kos

Cheney Part II is out:

by dday Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:59:53 PM PDT

    The next installment in the Washington Post series on the Imperial Fourthbranch Vice Presidency has hit the Internet.  This is truly a groundbreaking series that will hopefully open the public's eye to the fact that we have had a de facto coup in this country, led by an unaccountable Machiavelli who has used every bureaucratic trick you can think of to countermand his foes in the executive branch and push his brand of supreme executive power that disregards civil liberties, respect for the Constitution, or even the notion of human rights itself.  It's just as stunning as the first imstallment, perhaps more so.

Here we learn that Cheney was at the heart of the soul-deadening practice of torture to extract information from our enemies.

Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning. They did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government.

A lot of these reinterpretations have been since overturned by juidical review.  But even when the forces of justice and democracy feel they have won, behind the scenes they have not.  Because Cheney is like a marionette artist at controlling levers of power.  He uses some of the most skillful lawyerly tactics to give the appearance of staying within the law while essentially gutting it:

Geneva rules forbade not only torture but also, in equally categorical terms, the use of "violence," "cruel treatment" or "humiliating and degrading treatment" against a detainee "at any time and in any place whatsoever." [...] The best defense against such a charge, Addington wrote, would combine a broad presidential direction for humane treatment, in general, with an assertion of unrestricted authority to make exceptions.

The vice president's counsel proposed that President Bush issue a carefully ambiguous directive. Detainees would be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of" the Geneva Conventions. When Bush issued his public decision two weeks later, on Feb. 7, 2002, he adopted Addington's formula -- with all its room for maneuver -- verbatim.

And so we get a definition of torture that equates it only with organ failure or death, enabling any over treatment to be allowable.  As it turns out, Cheney had his fingers all over this redefinition, and his own lawyer, David Addington, was the ghost writer of the infamous "torture memo":

The vice president's lawyer advocated what was considered the memo's most radical claim: that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line of torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to "commit torture," that passage stated, "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."

That same day, Aug. 1, 2002, Yoo signed off on a second secret opinion, the contents of which have never been made public. According to a source with direct knowledge, that opinion approved as lawful a long list of specific interrogation techniques proposed by the CIA -- including waterboarding, a form of near-drowning that the U.S. government classified as a war crime in 1947. The opinion drew the line against one request: threatening to bury a prisoner alive.

Apparently, everyone in the White House is afraid of Cheney, so when they have a problem with what he's done, they go beat up on Fredo:

On June 8, 2004, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell learned of the two-year-old torture memo for the first time from an article in The Washington Post. According to a former White House official with firsthand knowledge, they confronted Gonzales together in his office.

Rice "very angrily said there would be no more secret opinions on international and national security law," the official said, adding that she threatened to take the matter to the president if Gonzales kept them out of the loop again. Powell remarked admiringly, as they emerged, that Rice dressed down the president's lawyer "in full Nurse Ratched mode," a reference to the ward chief of a mental hospital in the 1975 film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Neither of them took their objections to Cheney, the official said, a much more dangerous course.

What kind of mutated government have we constructed where the Vice President not only walls off his office to the snooping eyes and ears of Congressional and executive oversight, but his own peers are too afraid of him to confront him, and so take out their frustrations on lower-level functionaries while Cheney goes behind all of their backs and essentially runs the government, his hand up the back of his empty-suit ventriloquist's dummy called the President?  More than anything, this is an exposure of the cracks in the Constitutional fabric, demanding that the entire structure of it be reviewed to prevent this kind of unaccountability from ever happening again.

The Vice President was writing our intelligence laws.  He was determining how far military interrogators and the CIA could go to attempt to extract information.  He was fighting, and winning, turf battles with practically every federal agency in the government.

The other problem with this, of course, is that Cheney is a dangerously stupid man, who has constructed a view of executive power that doesn't exist, and has convinced himself and his acolytes that it gives him unllimited control.  So when these theories are brought into court, like in Hamdi or Hamdan or Rasul they are always overturned.  However, Cheney could always fall back on his secret maneuvering inside the government to come up with ways to circumvent any restriction.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the Senate voted 90 to 9 in favor of McCain's Detainee Treatment Act, which included the Geneva language. It was, by any measure, a rebuke to Cheney. Bush signed the bill into law. "Well, I don't win all the arguments," Cheney told the Wall Street Journal [...]

Eager to put detainee scandals behind them, Bush's advisers spent days composing a statement in which the president would declare support for the veto-proof bill on detainee treatment. Hours before Bush signed it into law on Dec. 30, 2005, Cheney's lawyer intercepted the accompanying statement "and just literally takes his red pen all the way through it," according to an official with firsthand knowledge.

Addington substituted a single sentence. Bush, he wrote, would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief."

Yep, the familiar signing statement language comes from Cheney.

Read the whole thing and weep for our country.  

UPDATE: Another part at the end ties into that whole "Guantanamo is closing any day now" story from late last week, a goal that apparently everyone in the United States wants except for Mitt Romney and Fourthbranch.  Cheney is pushing, and succeeding at, plans to expand the detention center.

But that's not the scariest thing at all.  After all of the setbacks with detainee policy, with Congressional pushback on torture, the Vice President is essentially telling his empty suit of a "superior" that he can ignore any law imposed on him by another branch of government, which of course flatters the runaway ego of our C+ Augustus, as Charlie Pierce would call him.

According to participants in the debate, the vice president stands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial and legislative restrictions (on torture). His lawyer, they said, has recently restated Cheney's argument that when courts and Congress "purport to" limit the commander in chief's warmaking authority, he has the constitutional prerogative to disregard them.

Absolutely no opinion or restriction or American law means anything to Dick Cheney.  He simply doesn't treat them as relevant.  As much as we'd like to blink our eyes and make it January 2009, that stated belief - that the President has "constitutional prerogative" to disregard any other branch of government - ought to inform everyone that the work of fighting this out-of-control despot must continue with laser-like focus to the very last day.

Technorati tags: Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, torture, signing statements, John Yoo, Vice President

The Democratic Congress and It's Low Approval Ratings

DailyKos

Here are the results of six congressional job approval polls taken so far in June:

Newsweek (6/18-19): 25% approve; 63% disapprove
Gallup (6/11-14): 24% approve; 71% disapprove
NBC/WSJ (6/08-11): 23% approve; 64% disapprove
Quinnipiac (6/05-11): 23% approve; 66% disapprove
LA Times/Bloomberg (6/07-10): 27% approve; 65% disapprove
FOX News (6/05-6): 29% approve; 55% disapprove
ABC/Washington Post (5/29-6/1): 39% approve; 53% disapprove

  As we can all see, the citizens of this country aren't to happy with those Democrats that we hired back in November 2006 because thus far they have done nothing to end our involvement in Iraq and they still have yet to put the kids in the White House on restriction, time-out, whatever.

   They've done nothing but send some harshly worded letters to Bush and the rest of the crime syndicate and they've pretty much given the Bush boys more blank checks to go out and play war with.  Will someone please remind me of why we voted for these spineless wimps?

  Some comments for you from other Kos members.

Remember why we gave you the majority, Democrats

I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but on the off-chance that some staffers or even elected officials are reading this . . .

This is simple: we gave you the majority to provide a check on the outrageous abuses of power by the Bush administration that were enabled by a complacent Republican congress for all too long.

We all know Bush is going to veto everything you send to him. So. Keep. Sending. It. Back.

The majority of Americans are way ahead of you on all these issues: stem cell research, education, equal rights for everyone, protecting a woman's right to do with her body what she wants, stopping cronyism in its tracks, rebuilding the Gulf coast, and ENDING THE GODDAMN WAR.

Get a fucking pair, and stand up to Captain 26%. Democrats across the nation ran on two things: ending the war, and putting a check on the egregious abuses of power coming out of this nightmare of a White house. I don't know about the rest of DailyKos readers, but I sure as hell feel betrayed, and I am pissed off that you're not doing what you promised us you'd do. If you're so scared of Bush and his 26% approval rating, or Big Time and his single-digit approval rating, who are you not afraid of?

You want to know why we disapprove of the job you're doing? It's because you aren't doing what we put you there to do.

So just do it, as the saying goes, and restore our faith in the Democratic party.

by CleverNickName

Vetoes will happen, and it's o.k.

I agree that we expect there to be vetoes and we expect the Republicans to raise cain trying to gum up the works. While I think having a few accomplishments is a good thing, it's also very important to act as though the symbolism matters. By this I mean resending vetoed legislation; let Bush veto it a thousand times, that's part of our point. There is some legislation that needs to get through, but other things (including spending on Iraq) can be the subject of long and difficult fights. We want a fight. I think most Americans do at this point. Stand up, even if it isn't entirely successful. People are smart enough to see that the Republicans are being obstructive to progress, so press on and just do the right thing.

by poserp

   And my favorite comment:

They should try better tactic

Instead of doing traditional legislation, they should try to out maneuver republicans. (eg. flood Bush with so many small legislations he has to fight each one of those)

Make him sign 6-700 different bills all with different  amendments and combinations of crazy regulations.

See if he can catch up.

Shut down every single one of Bush adminstration tools that does not related to troop and public safety.

No more diplomacy, no more trade discussion, no more banking. friggin nothing. sink that administration.

No more Cheney.

They want to spy and create fourth branch of government. let htem pay out of their own money. Bush want to have lunch, make him pay for his own lunch.

shut the entire Bush mafia operation down.

by fugue

Technorati tags: Democrats.Republicans, Congress, Daily Kos, George Bush, approval ratings, government

It Is Now Time for The Democrats to Impeach Vice Criminal Cheney

    This piece of shit has to go! Now! Most of you know that I am speaking  about the fact that Vice President Cheney has exempted his office from from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information. this is a presidential order that this crook is pretty much tossing aside and it would lead one to believe that this punk and his lower-level employees have many things to hide from the public.

  Cheney makes the claim that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch."  This is dastardly Dick up to his usual tricks once again. My question is this. If Cheney's office isn't part of the executive branch, then why are the taxpayers footing the bill for his salary, residence, trips and his Secret Service coverage. Tricky Dick needs to be forced to repay his income and all of the other bills that you and I have paid for this punk. He needs to move ( be removed ) from his residence and his limo needs to be parked, permanently. if Cheney is not part of the government, then we shouldn't be paying his sorry ass to be anywhere near the White House. The Congress has to begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney as there is no other choice now.

  The Gavel

June 21st, 2007 by Jesse Lee

From the Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information

Washington, D.C. — The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President’s position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President’s staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President’s executive order.

In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: “I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. … [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials.”

* Letter from National Archives to the Attorney General (pdf)
* Second Letter from National Archives to the Vice President’s Office (pdf)
* First Letter from National Archives to the Vice President’s Office (pdf)
* Fact Sheet on the Vice President’s Efforts to Avoid Oversight and Accountability (pdf)

Chairman Waxman’s Letter to the Vice President (pdf)

   I would recommend that you read Chairman Waxman's letter to Cheney. It's an educational experience.

Technorati tags: Dick Cheney, National Archives, executive branch, Henry Waxman, Alberto gonzales

Rudy Giuliani Is An Ass

  Anyone who pays attention to the politics of the United states knows that Giuliani is nothing but an asshole, and a very good one at that. He's also one to put his money making above his job, as has been pointed out as of late with his getting fired from the Baker Commission for not showing up to do his job. I guess that he's more into ass-kissing and brown-nosing those big time donors than he is in doing what he was elected to do while being the mayor of NYC.

Kagro X over at Daily Kos has a rather insightful look at Mr.( ? ) Giuliani and his priorities.

How much of a prick is Rudy Giuliani?

by Kagro X

Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:24:08 PM PDT

How much of a prick is Rudy Giuliani? So much that he basically got fired from the Iraq Study Group by James Baker because he never went to any of the meetings.

And where was he instead? Cashing in on his 9/11 celebrity, giving motivational speeches for an organization called Life Win, Inc., which puts on "Get Motivated" (!) seminars all over the country.

You know the drill. Big stage show. Big music. Big lights. Big name celeb tells you to reach for your dreams. Big charge on your credit card.

How big? Big enough to pay Rudy a hundred grand per appearance (he did two while he was supposed to be at ISG meetings).

You know, for a war we got into (and an occupation we continue -- maybe for 50 years) because people like Giuliani told America Iraq was connected to the World Trade Center attack, you'd think the decent thing for Giuliani to do would be to drop his 9/11 grave robbing for a while and see what he could contribute to getting us the hell out of this mess. But then, Giuliani probably knew it was a lie right from the beginning, just like the rest of us.

Either way, I guess we have our answer as to what he can contribute: nothing. So that's what he did.

Keep that in mind, Republican America, next time Giuliani tells some swooning crowd how he felt the 9/11 attacks so much more deeply than the rest of us because he was mayor of the town that blew up because George Bush didn't read his PDBs. Rudy Giuliani has made his millions picking the pockets of the 9/11 dead.

And you just know this guy has the balls to tell crowds that he "felt a calling" to run for president, too. That wasn't God calling, Rudy. That was Baker, asking why your deadbeat ass wasn't showing up for work.

Guess that settles the "Who truly wears the mantle of George W. Bush" question, though, doesn't it?

Technorati tags: Rudy Giuliani, Iraq Study Group

Tony Snow Describing Al Qaeda or The Bush Regime?

  Just browsing through the transcript of the White House press briefing from Tuesday and I ran across this  little piece of the question and answer session.

Q Let me just finish up, if I can. In Afghanistan -- you probably saw this video that was obtained by ABC, which was apparently suicide bombers. What does that say about what we've done in Afghanistan?

MR. SNOW: Well, first, we're looking at it. At this point, we don't have a definitive thing. It's not clear exactly what they're claiming, but we're reviewing it. But look, it's typical al Qaeda propaganda. Al Qaeda is also good at slick propaganda that encourages people to go out and blow themselves up. Notice that the leaders don't make that effort; instead what they do is they pick younger people and they send them off to die. They are good at manipulating the press. (  my emphasis ) They will continue to do what they can to try to destabilize that government. Again, it fits into what I was talking about, is the forces of radicalism and extremism.

  If you hadn't have read the beginning of this, you would think that this was someone talking about our fearless fighter pilot up in the White House, so far as leaders would be concerned. Replace al Qaeda with the White House and then there is no difference.

   Have you ever noticed how al Qaeda and the Bush administration are like evil twins. They both do the same thing only al Qaeda are terrorist and the Bush company uses mercenaries for its dirty work while our troops are stuck in the middle.

Technorati tags: Tony Snow, Iraq, al Qaeda, Afghanistan

2008 Iraq War Supplemental Resistance

Published on Tuesday, June 19, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Break Time Is Over: Building Nonviolent Resistance to the 2008 Iraq War Supplemental

by Jeff Leys

On August 6, Congress begins its month long recess. August 6 also marks the start of Year 62 After Hiroshima-the one and only time that nuclear weapons were used. And it marks Year 17 After Iraq Sanctions, when the brutal economic sanctions regime against Iraq was first imposed by the international community.

On August 6, the Occupation Project will launch a reinvigorated campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience / civil resistance to end Iraq war funding. Office occupations-both legal and extralegal-will commence at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to publicly pledge to vote against any additional funding of the Iraq war. Occupations will continue at least through the end of September. The Occupation Project will work in conjunction with campaigns organized by Declaration of Peace, National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, CODEPINK, Veterans for Peace, Grassroots America for Us and others.

The hottest weather of the year occurs in August. Let us commit to creating the hottest political weather: focused upon Congress to force an end to the Iraq war. Let us commit to forcing Congress to vote down the $145 billion being sought in supplemental spending to wage the Iraq - Afghanistan war through September of 2008. Let us commit to forcing Congress to force the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

Let us commit to using every nonviolent means at our disposal to defeat the Iraq war supplemental spending bill for 2008 and to bring every U.S. soldier home from Iraq by the end of this year.

Last fall, in Panora, Iowa social justice advocates discussed ways to bring the occupation of Iraq home to the offices of Representatives and Senators. The Occupation Project grew from these discussions. From February 5 through Tax Day, over 320 arrests occurred at the offices of 39 Representatives and Senators across the country. 15 of the 39 voted against the final Iraq war supplemental spending bill that Congress passed in May. 14 of the 15 who voted against the final bill had voted in favor of the Iraq war spending bill last year. Actions occurred at the offices of both Republicans and Democrats-challenging the reality that both parties are responsible for the ongoing war.

Meanwhile, sustained campaigns of office occupations that did not result in arrests took place in such diverse locations as Nashville, Tennessee (the birthplace of the Occupation Project); Huntsville, Alabama; Seattle, Washington; San Francisco, California; and across the state of Minnesota. Social justice advocates entered the offices on a weekly basis (and, in the case of Sacramento, CA, on a daily basis) and occupied the offices, pressing the demand that the Representative or Senator commit to voting against any additional funding for the war.

These next three months are critical to ending the war in and occupation of Iraq. Through the end of July, Grassroots America for Us ( www.grassrootsamerica4us.org ) is organizing the Swarm on Congress, intensive and extensive lobbying on Capitol Hill. In August, we must turn up the heat on Representatives and Senators while they are in their home districts and states for the month long recess.

In early September, General Petraeus will report to Congress on the progress-or lack thereof-that is being made in Iraq. Shortly after, the House will vote on HR 2451 as an amendment to the Iraq - Afghanistan war supplemental spending bill. Next the House will vote on the final version of the $145 billion war supplemental for FY 2008, and send it to the Senate for consideration. It will be a one-two punch vote. It is entirely probable that the final version of the supplemental spending bill will not be publicly available until less than 24 hours prior to the vote (the final version of the supplemental passed in May was not publicly available until the morning of the vote).

H.R. 2451 (sponsored by David Obey and Jim McGovern) requires that the redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq begin within 90 days of enactment. The partial redeployment is to be completed by June 30, 2008.

HR 2451 will keep U.S. troops in Iraq to: protect the U.S. embassy and diplomatic personnel; protect U.S. forces remaining in Iraq; engage in “target special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach”; and to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces. Erik Leaver of the Institute for Policy Studies examined nearly identical language in March 2007 and concluded that it would allow for upwards of 40,000 to 60,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq. (http://ips-dc.org/iraq/supplemental.htm)

Our demand must remain clear: end all funding for the Iraq war and withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. The language of HR 2451 is not sufficient.

And what of the argument that a vote against the $145 billion supplemental spending for 2008 will further endanger the well-being of U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq? U.S. troops will not be in danger when the U.S. withdraws the troops from Iraq. $36 billion of this $145 billion will be for the procurement of ammunition, weapons systems and combat vehicles that will not be delivered to the military until 1 to 3 years has passed. The Army seeks $46 billion for “operations and maintenance” to fund its actions at current levels through September 30, 2008-a sure way to place U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens in further danger. (see “Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Spending 2008″ at www.vcnv.org for an in-depth analysis of the 2008 war funding request).

Recall that the President is seeking $482 billion for the baseline military budget for 2008. That’s an 11 percent increase over the current year’s budget-and nearly 62% more than was spent on the military in 2001. The money is clearly available to safely and quickly withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

It is easy to be discouraged and lose heart after Congress passed the Iraq war bill in May. It is easy to be tempted to give up completely on the legislative process.

But giving up on the legislative process is, indeed, the easy route to take. It is the route that ensures that the Iraq war will continue as a war without end.

Instead, we should intensify our legal and extralegal lobbying efforts. We should recognize that nearly twice as many Representatives voted against the supplemental this year than last year and that, for the first time, Senators voted against an Iraq war supplemental spending bill because of their opposition to the war’s continuation (Arlen Specter voted against the supplemental in 2006 was because he did not believe it provided sufficient funds for a medical program). We should maintain pressure upon those Representatives and Senators who voted against the final war supplemental spending bill-working to ensure that they again vote against war funding this fall.

We should also recognize that the only way that this war will be ended is if we organize to exert sufficient pressure on Republicans and Democrats to force an end to war funding. With this in mind, we should recognize the tricks of the parliamentary trade and demand that David Obey and Nancy Pelosi do more to end the war. But we should also recognize that had Obey bottled up the war supplemental in committee or Pelosi refused to allow a floor vote, Jerry Lewis (as ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee) would have submitted his own version of a war supplemental and obtained 218 signatures on a discharge petition to force his version to be voted upon in the House.

Ending the war requires pressure on both Democrats and Republicans-both via legal lobbying and nonviolent civil disobedience / resistance.

Multiple efforts and allied campaigns are underway to force an end to the war in and occupation of Iraq. Become engaged with these efforts and organize locally.

· Join the efforts of the Swarm on Congress, an intensive and extensive lobbying effort in Washington, D.C. through the end of July initiated by Grassroots America for Us ( http://www.grassrootsamerica4us.org/Get_the_Votes.html)

· Organize local actions with the Occupation Project campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience / civil resistance / office occupations to demand that Representatives and Senators vote to end to all funding for the Iraq war. A reinvigorated campaign will be launched on August 6 to continue through the vote on war funding in September. Get involved at http://vcnv.org/project/the-occupation-project. You can contact the Occupation Project via email at occupationproject@vcnv.org for suggestions and advice on how to organize a local Occupation Project campaign. Resources including voting records, legal information, etc. are available on this website.

· CODEPINK’s ( www.codepinkalert.org) work includes the Occupation Project and the Don’t Buy Bush’s War campaigns (among other critical work to end the war).

· Join the Declaration of Peace campaign efforts. DoP will be lobbying Representatives and Senators through the summer, culminating with a week of actions nationally during the critical week of September 14 to 21. Visit www.declarationofpeace.org

· Participate in the efforts of the National Campaign of Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR) as it challenges the war in Iraq through nonviolent direct action. NCNR has organized actions at military recruiting centers, Congressional offices, the Pentagon and weapons manufacturers. Visit www.iraqpledge.org.

· Participate in the legislative network of United for Peace and Justice as well as its nonviolent direct action working group to force an end to the war. Visit www.unitedforpeace.org

Time is short to end funding for the Iraq war. And the costs are immeasurably high each day that the war continues. Much organizing work remains to be done.

Break time is over.

Jeff Leys is Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence and a national organizer with the Occupation Project campaign. He can be reached via email, jeffleys@vcnv.org.

Technorati tags: Occupation Project, Iraq War Supplemental, Iraq, George Bush, Congress

Voters Not Happy With The Democrats. Is Anyone Except The Republicans?

  And is it any wonder? most of us put these men and women in the Congress to get the United States out of the Republican war in Iraq. Thus far though, the Democrats have done nothing even close to getting our troops home.

   According to Yahoo News, recent polls say that the Congress is  nearly at their lowest approval ratings in a decade with only one out of four Americans liking this group's efforts.

"I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high."

  Raised the bar to high? What a load of horseshit, Mr. Reid. The bar isn't high enough and it would seem that the Democrats still cannot find their balls or their convictions either.

Biden, seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said: "Voters are going to be mad with us until we end the war."

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi  said some Democrats understand "we can only do so much."

"Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them," Pelosi, of California, told The New York Times.

  It would seem that Mrs. Pelosi isn't happy enough at this point in time. As far as that bullshit about they can only do so much, cut the fucking funding flat out and that will be all that is required. End of story, case closed. NEXT!

  It is getting pretty bad when the Republicans are now calling the Congress the " do- nothing Congress."  It isn't brought up that the Democrats can't do anything because the House and the Senate is still being held hostage by the Republican thugs in bed with the Bush clan. Then you throw in GOP'er Lieberman and it all turns to shit.

   Here is what the Republican strategy appears to be and why the Democrats can get nothing done.

"If Democrats fail to reverse course, the dynamics in the 2008 elections may shift significantly, allowing Republicans to run as the party of change ... only two years after Democrats successfully campaigned on that same theme," Senate Republican leaders told their ranks in a letter last week.

  This is what it is all about on both sides of the aisle. nothing but politics and who can make who look the worst before 2008 gets here. At the present time, the Repugnicans have the upper hand because the Democrats have no balls!!

Technorati tags: Democrats.Republicans, Congress, Senate Judicial Committee, Nancy Pelosi, Iraq

Tony Snow's Other Stupid/Ignorant Statement

  I was just going over the transcript of the White House press briefing by tony Snow yesterday and I came upon a question by a member of the press that had me rolling on the floor!

Q I have one follow-up. Are there any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war?

MR. SNOW: Yes, the President. The President is in the war every day.

Q Come on. That isn't my question.

MR. SNOW: If you ask any President who is a Commander-in-Chief --

Q On the front lines --

MR. SNOW: The President.

  I cannot believe that even Mr. Snow would have the nerve to say something so ridiculous as this! To claim that Bush is in this war in any form is an insult to not only all of our troops, but to all of the citizens of the United States.

  You all know what an I.Q. test is but I am thinking that maybe we should develop a different kind of intelligence test for the Republicans among us. We could call it a " Low Q " test and it would be one that the Republicans would actually be able to pass.

  I have a firm belief that all of the Bush administration are children that were left behind in the education process. NCLB Act is to little to late for this group of juvenile delinquents.

Technorati tags: Tony Snow, George Bush, Iraq war

F.B.I. sees more National Security Letters Abuse

From The Gavel

June 14th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

From the Judiciary Committee:

Conyers: New FBI Report Confirms “Worst Fears”

(Washington, DC)- Today, FBI officials briefed House Judiciary Committee staff on a new draft audit report detailing the bureau’s use of National Security Letters (NSLs). The briefing served to update and correct prior statements to Congress, since the release of an earlier Inspector General report. The FBI confirmed that they found more abuses in the use of NSLs than the IG’s report had originally found. FBI officials say they are launching a new compliance program as a result.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) had the following statement:

“The Patriot Act and its renewal was rammed through Congress with the repeated claim that there was not one instance in which the Act had been abused. We now know that information on law abiding Americans was illegally obtained and kept in secret files. This confirms some of our worst fears about what happens when you give the government too much power with too little oversight.”

FBI Finds It Frequently Overstepped in Collecting Data
John Solomon, Washington Post - June 14, 2007

An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.

The new audit covers just 10 percent of the bureau’s national security investigations since 2002, and so the mistakes in the FBI’s domestic surveillance efforts probably number several thousand, bureau officials said in interviews. The earlier report found 22 violations in a much smaller sampling.

The vast majority of the new violations were instances in which telephone companies and Internet providers gave agents phone and e-mail records the agents did not request and were not authorized to collect. The agents retained the information anyway in their files, which mostly concerned suspected terrorist or espionage activities.

But two dozen of the newly-discovered violations involved agents’ requests for information that U.S. law did not allow them to have, according to the audit results provided to The Washington Post. Only two such examples were identified earlier in the smaller sample.

FBI officials said the results confirmed what agency supervisors and outside critics feared, namely that many agents did not understand or follow the required legal procedures and paperwork requirements when collecting personal information with one of the most sensitive and powerful intelligence-gathering tools of the post-Sept. 11 era — the National Security Letter, or NSL.

Technorati tags: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, F.B.I., NSL's, Justice department, patriot act

Send Scooter Libby to Gitmo

  I kind of like that idea, don't you? Since a judge has ordered that Libby must spend his time in the slammer I think that we should let him go to Guantanamo for his vacation. So do the fine people over at Act For change, it would seem.

  This group is always sending letters to our Senators and Congressmen with some very good ideas. Below is the letter that I have sent to my state Senators. Keep in mind that they are both Republicans, so this should go over real well!

Former President Bush called them the "most insidious of traitors." He was referring, of course, to those who reveal the identities of America's covert operatives.

Scooter Libby is a traitor and is being detained in jail while his appeals are being heard.  Why not send Libby to Gitmo? Unlike other people currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he's been convicted of his crimes in a court of law. You might say this is inappropriate -- but if it isn't good enough for Libby, then it isn't good enough for anyone.

I ask that you publicly call for Scooter Libby to be imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- or, join fellow senators in co-sponsoring legislation to shut down Guantanamo.  Senator Feinstein has introduced legislation (S. 1249) that will require President Bush to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

You should sign on as a co-sponsor -- or publicly call for Scooter Libby to serve his sentence there.

I look forward to your response to my letter.

  That was sent to both Senator Elizabeth dole and Richard Burr here in north Carolina. Burr will probably get a little mad because he pretty much is a Bush brown noser.

Technorati tags: Scooter Libby, Gitmo, Bush, Elizabeth Dole, Republicans

Subpoenas Issued In Attorney " Purge " Scandal

   The first subpoenas to be issued in conjunction with the U.S. attorneys " purge " investigation have been sent to Sara Taylor ( ex White House political director )  and at the same time it was announced that the House Judiciary Committee will be issuing a subpoena to ex former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

   In another first for this investigation both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee will be issuing subpoenas for some documents from the White House.    Source

The committees have issued subpoenas for officials and documents from the Justice Department. The committees are investigating whether the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year were politically motivated and whether the White House was involved.

Taylor resigned from her White House job a couple of weeks ago. Miers resigned her White House post in January. President Bush has nominated Miers to serve on the Supreme Court but later withdrew her nomination. A day earlier, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that the last batch of e-mails provided to investigators by the Justice Department, "shows again that there was no wrongdoing in the replacement of U.S. attorneys."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been authorized to subpoena several current and former White House officials including Taylor, Miers and Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.    CNN

  Don't look for any subpoena to be issued to Karl Rove as of yet because the committees are still building a case against him, or so they claim.

"We want to build up and get documents to have basis to ask questions of Rove," one of the sources said. "It's the way you do it in any investigation."

Having said that, the source said the reality is that this will end up in a constitutional showdown and they will never get a chance to talk to any of the White House witnesses.

  Begin impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney and that will avoid any kind of constitutional showdown with these crooks.

Technorati tags: attorneys, Harriet Miers, Patrick Leahy, Karl Rove, subpoena, Senate Judicial Committee, House Judicial Committee, Sara Taylor

Iraq Not Meeting U.S. Oil Company Benchmarks

  In this surprise of a story, the New York Times says that the leaders in Iraq have haven't reached agreements on almost every law that the United States have set as benchmarks even though the Iraqi government is getting some pressure from our Congress, military commanders and from the White House.

    As is usual with this article from the times and others, the problems with the Iraqis not meeting Bush's benchmarks seem to put the oil law at the top of the list. This sham oil law is the first thing that is mentioned when referring to the Iraqis failure to get anything done.

    As you know, progress reports on the status of Iraq are due out in three months and we now have Iraqi and U.S. officials saying that they are questioning whether any of the substantial laws ( oil ) will be passed before the end of the year.

   The delusional White House ( Bush ) seem to think that getting the oil law passed will show the American citizens that progress is being made in Iraq. that is not progress unless you happen to be ExxonMobile, BP, or a few other big time players in this scam. Progress in Iraq for the American citizen would be less of our troops getting placed into body bags. That is progress!

Kurds have blocked a vote in Parliament on a new oil law. Shiite clerics have stymied an American-backed plan for reintegrating former Baathists into government. Sunnis are demanding that a constitutional review include more power for the next president.

For the handful of party leaders with the power to make deals, the promise of compromise now carries less allure than the possibility for domination. Long-suppressed Shiites and Kurds now see total victory within their grasp. Previous American benchmarks like elections have failed to bring peace and, after four years of unfulfilled promises, bloodshed and sprawling chaos, once wary glances have become cold, unblinking stares.

  Real progress in Iraq would come first by throwing Bush and Cheney out of the White House and into the World Court. That is progress!

LiveJournal tags: Iraq, oil law, Bush, Cheney, Sunnis, Kurds, Shiite, troops

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Top Donors To Hillary Clinton For Presidential Run

   It would seem that Mrs. Clinton is getting her fair share of corporate contributions from some big players.

Top Ten

1) Citigroup Inc
$101,450

2) DLA Piper
$87,350

3) Morgan Stanley
$79,350

4) NRG Energy
$73,250

5) Goldman Sachs
$68,700

6) Time Warner
$65,550

7) Farallon Capital Management
$59,800

8) Bear Stearns
$55,550

9) Avenue Capital Group
$52,600

10) JP Morgan Chase & Co
$47,950

   Courtesy of Center for Responsive Politics

 

Technorati tags: Hilliray Clinton, campaign contributions, big donors, corporate interest

Google Inc. Has Worst Privacy Practices

     A watchdog group ( Privacy International ) came out with a report on Saturday that says that Google's privacy practices are the worst of any of the Internet's top destinations.

    London-based Privacy International gave Google its lowest score possible in a category that is kept for companies with  "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy."

   Out of 23 companies which were surveyed, Google was the only one with the bottom of the barrel score, which is no surprise to myself.

Huffington Post

While a number of other Internet companies have troubling policies, none comes as close to Google to "achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy," Privacy International said in an explanation of its findings.

In a statement from one of its lawyers, Google said it aggressively protects its users' privacy and stands behind its track record. In its most conspicuous defense of user privacy, Google last year successfully fought a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding to review millions of search requests.

"It's a shame that Privacy International decided to publish its report before we had an opportunity to discuss our privacy practices with them."

Privacy International contacted Google earlier this month, but didn't receive a response, said Simon Davies, the group's director.

The scathing report is just the latest strike aimed at Google's privacy practices.

An independent European panel recently opened an inquiry into whether Google's policies abide by Europe's privacy rules.

     Google also has a few consumer groups in the United States hot on its ass what with the proposed buyout of DoubleClick, which as you more than likely know has a nasty habit of tracking users Internet surfing habits. This is a $3.1 billion buyout and it really doesn't need to be approved by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission because this most certainly is not in the consumers best interest in any way, shape, or form.

    To shut the critics of this deal up, Google has said that they will start erasing user's search request info within 18 to 24 months. Sorry Google, that's not enough. 18 to 24 months? Why the year and a half wait to begin this?

As Google becomes more knowledgeable about the people relying on its search engine and other free services, management hopes to develop more tools that recommend activities and other pursuits that might appeal to individual users.

Privacy International is particularly troubled by Google's ability to match data gathered by its search engine with information collected from other services such as e-mail, instant messaging and maps.

   Bullshit! I would suggest that those of you who use Google do as I do. Erase the Google 'cookies' after you have finished your surfing, emailing, or instant messaging. Their cookies do not expire for quite some time.

Technorati tags: Google, Internet, FTC, Privacy International

New York Times: Issue The Subpoena's

   And I could not agree more!

    The Times editorial says that it is time to stop playing around with these Bush characters and to get down to business.

For months, senators have listened to a parade of well-coached Justice Department witnesses claiming to know nothing about how nine prosecutors were chosen for firing. This week, it was the turn of Bradley Schlozman, a former federal attorney in Missouri, to be uninformative and not credible. It is time for Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to deliver subpoenas that have been approved for Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and their top aides, and to make them testify in public and under oath.

Congress has now heard from everyone in the Justice Department who appears to have played a significant role in the firings of the prosecutors. They have all insisted that the actual decisions about whom to fire came from somewhere else. It is increasingly clear that the somewhere else was the White House. If Congress is going to get to the bottom of the scandal, it has to get the testimony of Mr. Rove, his aides Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor, Ms. Miers and her deputy, William Kelley.

This noncooperation has gone on long enough. Mr. Leahy should deliver the subpoenas for the five White House officials and make clear that if the administration resists, Congress will use all available means to get the information it needs.

    Senator Leahy should have issued the subpoena's right from the start in the first place and just tossed all of this playing around nice shit right out the window.

    I'm wondering how much more evidence the Bush Crime Family has had time to destroy on top of the emails that have disappeared.

 

Tags: subpoena's Bush Karl Rove Patrick Leahy Harriet Miers Bradley Schlozman, emails Congress

Bush, Republicans and Politics=Scandals

Original Article and TruthOut

Bush Scandals: It's the Politics, Stupid
     By Bernard Weiner
     The Crisis Papers

     Tuesday 05 June 2007

Overture: Now we've lost both Steve Gilliard and Molly Ivins - two vital, feisty, great-writer journalist/blogger voices speaking truth to power. And Cindy Sheehan's voice will be more muted now, as she recovers from her immensely draining anti-war battles. All three were essential to the building of our current Movement. The progressive community holds them dearly to our collective heart - and Cindy will return re-energized, we hope.

Act 1: Survival of the Unfittest

     When trying to figure out the motives of the Bush Administration on nearly any issue you can think of, the first place to look should always be Karl Rove's "politics" workshop. By "politics," I mainly mean how an action affects the survival of the CheneyBush Administration, and only incidentally with how it affects the Republican Party.

     This solipsistic concern for their own political/economic welfare is as true today with regard to the various impeachable scandals - lying to Congress to foment wars, the outing of a covert CIA agent, the domestic spying program, U.S. Attorney firings, etc. - as it was in the first years of the CheneyBush Administration.

     We were told in those early years, by a White House insider, of the predominance of Rove's political operation in deciding which policies the Administration would advocate and support. Whoops! Strike that word "predominance," since there was virtually no policy-making apparatus in the White House; politics was effectively the ONLY thing in play.

"Kids on Big Wheels

     That insider was John DiIulio, who was the first chief of Bush's faith-based-funding operation - another politics-based scheme, this one designed to pay off the fundamentalist base with grants of public funds to religious groups. DiIulio in 2002 put his finger right on the button of why the CheneyBush Administration has been such a train-wreck. Here's his money-quote in Ron Suskind's January 2003 article in Esquire:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. ... When policy analysis is just backfill, to back up a political maneuver, you'll get a lot of ooops."

     Suskind writes:

"An unnamed 'current senior White House official' [said] pretty much the same thing: 'Many of us feel it's our duty - our obligation as Americans - to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy, there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues. It's just kids on Big Wheels, who talk politics and know nothing. It's depressing. DPC (Domestic Policy Council) meetings are a farce'."

Iraq in "06, Iraq in '08

     It must be obvious to everyone by now that the CheneyBush Administration has no intention of getting out of Iraq, and recent events have served as confirmation. Bush and his Press Secretary Tony Snow blathered on the other day about the U.S. staying on in Iraq as it has in South Korea for 54 years. Defense Secretary Gates confirmed that policy a few days ago that America might well stay in its hardened military bases in Iraq for many decades.

     Plus, the U.S. is constructing the world's largest embassy, which CheneyBushRove envision will be the locus for U.S. political and military adventures in the greater Middle East for decades to come. Bush is quoted in a Dallas newspaper telling Texas friends that he is setting up Iraq so his successor can not get out of "our country's destiny."

     But the prospect of the U.S. troops being bled to death by a thousand "insurgent" cuts over that time frame is not something the American citizenry might look on with favor, so there's always a countervailing political spin going on to create confusion and try to take the sting out. And, surprise!, that spin gets spun as a new election cycle in America comes into play.

Iraw Withdrawal - Talk Then

     Do you remember what happened in Iraq prior to the all-important 2006 midterm election? Here's how arch-conservative Pat Buchanan ( www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6812 reported it in July of 2005:

"Standing beside our defense secretary in Baghdad, Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari called for the speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. The top U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, also standing beside Rumsfeld, said 'fairly substantial' withdrawals of the 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq could begin by spring...

"Casey's comment lends credence to a secret British defense memo that described U.S. officials as favoring a 'relatively bold reduction in force numbers.' The memo pointed to a drawdown of Allied forces from 170,000 today to 66,000 by next summer, a cut of over 60 percent.

"Previously, the administration had denounced war critics who spoke of timetables, arguing that they signal the enemy to go to earth, build its strength, and strike weakened U.S. forces during the pullout. Now, America's top general is talking timetables."

     But, of course, major withdrawals of American troops never happened and any ideas about timetables were scrapped. It was all spin designed for the 2006 midterm election, to help the Republicans maintain their majorities in the House and Senate. (The Roveian ploy didn't work, as the American public, tired of being bamboozled yet again, threw the GOP bums out and installed Democratic majorities.)

Iraw Withdrawal - Talk Now

     These days, even amidst the talk of America remaining in Iraq for decades, the Administration is engaging in feints and spin about the possibility of the U.S. withdrawing tens of thousands of troops prior to the 2008 election - the election, it just so happens, that will decide which party controls the Executive Branch (and presidential pardons) for the next four years.

     Just a few weeks ago, anonymous "senior administration officials" leaked to the New York Times that the Iraq plan being considered calls "for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels [in] the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000..."

     Do they think we're that stupid not to see through their unbelievable, pre-election B.S.? Wait, don't answer that question.

     Clearly, the Congressional Republicans have got to figure out a way to seem to be supporting Bush's war while not being associated with it in any way. They know that support for the war is poison at the polls and that they'll lose their jobs in a crushing defeat in 2008 unless the Iraq War news starts turning positive and quickly. So spinning the possibility of troop withdrawals is to their partisan benefit.

     But those withdrawals ain't gonna happen. The Bush Administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, launched an unnecessary war, botched its implementation and occupation, and helped foment a sectarian civil war. There is no way, at least not at this stage, that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again, no way that the U.S. comes out looking good.

     All the options at this stage are awful, but some, such as withdrawal ASAP, are less onerous than the others. Staying in-country, presumably hunkered down in hardened military bases on Iraqi soil, is no solution at all, good, bad or otherwise. It turns American troops into stationary targets for mortar and rocket attacks on the bases and moving targets and potential political hostages once they drive off them. CheneyBush simply refuse to acknowledge that most Iraqis do not want foreigners permanently occupying their country.

Act 2: 2008 is All That Matters

     Am I making this up, that all policy is filtered through a Rovian political prism - even, or especially, U.S. strategy in Iraq? Don't take my word for it. Check out what the Washington Post's former Baghdad Bureau Chief, Rajiv Chandrasekeran, reported in his book, " Imperial Life in the Emerald City."

     As Chandrasekeran reports, the Coalition Provisional Authority overseeing the U.S. occupation in the first few years was an ongoing disaster, run by incompetent bunglers who could not talk or think straight. Supposedly the CPA was preparing the ground for a functioning democracy in Iraq - based on setting up a privatized, free-market "libertarian paradise," heedless of cultural/historical realities - but since the CPA had FUBAR-ed the situation so totally, Chandrasekeran wrote:

"What was best for Iraq [in 2004] was no longer the standard. What was best for Washington was the new calculus. ... The only election that mattered was the one in November - in the United States."

     And that's where we are today both with regard to policy in and about Iraq, and domestic policy as well. Unless it helps Rove lay the groundwork for a GOP presidential victory in 2008 - achieved by hook or by crook - forget about it.

The US Attorneys Scandal

     We now know, based on the evidence that has surfaced in the past several months, that the presidential vote in November of 2008 is what lies at the heart of the U.S. Attorneys scandal. Rove has a long history of winning elections by any means necessary; one of his main ways of doing this is to encourage the removal of hundreds of thousands of likely Democratic voters from the precinct rolls in key states, by illegal or unethical means. Usually, these voters are simply bumped from the rolls; most of them live in vulnerable minority areas.

     In addition, many of the fired U.S. attorneys in those key states were leaned on by Rove and his minions to file criminal charges against individuals or groups registering new Democratic voters and to do so before the elections. It didn't matter if the charges were unsubstantiated or ridiculous - file the charges, smear the Dems and their supporters prior to the balloting, make them spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the indictments, scare away wavering voters who might vote Democratic, etc. For example, New Mexico's U.S. Attorney David Iglesias says he was fired because he wouldn't file what he called "bogus" charges of "voter fraud" before the election.

     As the U.S. attorneys scandal unravels, the situation inside Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice has been revealed to be even more outrageous: The DOJ, it turns out, is basically run as an arm of the White House's political operation: inquiring about ideology and party affiliation (which is illegal) before appointing applicants to judicial jobs, staffing the Civil Rights Division with those antagonistic to civil rights and thus not following the law, etc. And other government agencies are similarly infected as well, holding workplace seminars on ways to aid "our candidates," which is also illegal, etc.

     It's abundantly clear that Gonzales will not resign and will not be fired; he's the consiglieri in the White House mob, knowing too much about the various illegalities to be cut loose. The House should initiate impeachment hearings of Gonzales ASAP.

Epilogue: CheneyBush Must Go Soonest

     Likewise, Bush and Cheney will not resign. They are prepared to sacrifice thousands of more troops in Iraq - and perhaps put them in danger over Iran as well - in order to further their imperial policies in the greater Middle East. During the next year and a half of their scheduled tenure, the damage CheneyBush can do is immense: further destruction of constitutional protections, fomenting more terrorist anger, ruining America's reputation even more through aggressive wars and through other policies as well; even on global warming, for example, Bush is unwilling to do anything meaningful, other than to delay and delay until he leaves office.

     The only way out of this reckless nightmare endangering America's national security is to initiate impeachment hearings at once against Cheney and Bush. Once their "high crimes and misdemeanors" are laid out as evidence for all the public to see, it's conceivable that many Republicans will join the effort to convict, if for no other reason than to hang on to their Congressional positions in the 2008 election. It's won't be done maliciously - it's just politics.

    ---------

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers. To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net.

Tags: George Bush Republicans Iraq Dick Cheney Karl Rove Middle East Alberto Gonzales DoJ politics Iraqi withdrawal

Iraqi Lawmakers Forcing End Of Occupation?

   Here is something that you will not hear on Fox News anytime soon or anywhere else on television for that matter.

   The Iraqi Parliament passed a binding resolution that guarantees lawmakers a chance at blocking the extension of the U.N. mandate which keeps coalition troops in Iraq, which is coming up for renewal in December. Of course, Iraqi Bush minion Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is said to probably veto the attempt.

The law requires that any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's Prime Minister, be approved by the parliament. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "this new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the UN mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the UN mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "there will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the UN mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."     AlterNet for more

   This could be something in the making here, not to mention the fact that the Iraqi parliament is making our Democratic Congress look sort of wimpy, which they are getting to be. While our Congress and Senate ignore the will of the Americans who gave them the power, the Iraqis are listening to their citizens and are trying to take some action to end our occupation of their war- torn country. Maybe the Democrats in the United States should pay attention and take some notes!

Tags: Iraq parliament Baghdad occupation coalition forces

Will Paid Mercenaries Turn On American Citizens?

   This post and the following story goes right in step with my previous piece concerning companies like Blackwater and what they do in Iraq.

 Philosopher Karl Popper: ” ‘It cannot happen here’ is always wrong. A dictatorship can happen anywhere.”

Mercenary units are a vital instrument in the hands of despotic movements. Communist and fascist movements during the last century each built rogue paramilitary forces. And the appearance of Blackwater fighters, heavily armed and wearing their trademark black uniforms, patrolling the streets of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, may be a grim taste of the future. In New Orleans Blackwater charged the government $240,000 a day.

The word contractor helps launder the fear and threat out of a more accurate term: “paramilitary force.” We’re not supposed to have such forces in the United States, but we now do. And if we have them, we have a potential threat to democracy. On U.S. soil, Blackwater so far has shown few signs of being an out-and-out rogue retainer army, though they looked the part in New Orleans. But were this country to become even a little less stable, outfits like Blackwater might see a heyday. If the United States falls into a period of instability caused by another catastrophic terrorist attack, an economic meltdown that triggers social unrest, or a series of environmental disasters, such paramilitary forces, protected and assisted by fellow ideologues in the police and military, could ruthlessly abolish what is left of our eroding democracy. War, with the huge profits it hands to corporations, and to right-wing interests such as the Christian Right, could become a permanent condition. And the thugs with automatic weapons, black uniforms and wraparound sunglasses who appeared on the streets in New Orleans could appear on our streets.        Philadelphia Inquirer

  So, you complacent, ignorant little asshole's out there in fantasy land just keep on thinking that these things can't happen here. They thought the same thing in Cuba, China, and almost every other communist country and country that are now run by dictators.

  So, to you ignorant asshole's I have one thing to say. When the shit hits the fan and you have no-where to run to, I'll be glad to help you for a small fee of, say, $1,000 per day, same as Blackwater.

Tags: Blackwater Christian Right paramilitary forces mercenaries United States