The Rights That You Have Lost Under The Patriot Act, Part 1

  I ran across an interesting web-site which just happens to list the laws that have been enacted  under The Patriot Act, so I thought that I would list some of them at this site.

  Maybe after you have read some of these laws, you will wake the hell up and realize that these laws are not for keeping track of any terrorist, they are for keeping track of you, and me.

  This comes by way of Cooperativeresearch.org and is listed in order by date.

Open-Content project managed by Paul, blackmax

 

September 19, 2001: First Draft of Patriot Act is Introduced

The first draft of what will later be called the Patriot Act is introduced to Congress. [US Congress, 9/19/2001] However, due to Congressional opposition of its broad powers, the act is revised and reintroduced on October 2 (see October 2, 2001). [Houston Chronicle, 10/7/2001]

October 2, 2001: Patriot Act is Introduced to Congress

The “anti-terrorism” Patriot Act is introduced in Congress, but is not well received by all. [US Congress, 10/2/2001] One day later, Senate Majority Leader and future anthrax target Tom Daschle (D) says he doubts the Senate will take up this bill in the one week timetable the administration wants. As head of the Senate, Daschle has great power to block or slow passage of the bill. Attorney General Ashcroft accuses Senate Democrats of dragging their feet. [Washington Post, 10/3/2001] On October 4, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and future anthrax target Patrick Leahy (D) accuses the Bush administration of reneging on an agreement on the anti-terrorist bill. Leahy is in a key position to block or slow the bill. Some warn that “lawmakers are overlooking constitutional flaws in their rush to meet the administration’s timetable.” Two days later, Ashcroft complains about “the rather slow pace�over his request for law enforcement powers� Hard feelings remain.” [Washington Post, 10/4/2001] The anthrax letters to Daschle and Leahy are sent out on October 9 and difficulties in passing the Act continue (see October 2001).

October 26, 2001: Patriot Act Becomes Law

Bush signs the Patriot Act into law.

Here are some of its provisions:
1) Non-citizens can be detained and deported if they provide “assistance” for lawful activities of any group the government chooses to call a terrorist organization. Under this provision the secretary of state can designate any group that has ever engaged in violent activity as a terrorist organization. Representative Patsy Mink notes that in theory supporters of Greenpeace could now be convicted for supporting terrorism. [San Francisco Chronicle, 11/12/2001]

2) Immigrants can be detained indefinitely, even if they are found not to have any links to terrorism. They can be detained indefinitely for immigration violations or if the attorney general decides their activities pose a danger to national security. They need never be given a trial or even a hearing on their status. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002]
3) Internet service providers can be ordered to reveal the web sites and e-mail addresses that a suspect has communicated to or visited. The FBI need only inform a judge that the information is relevant to an investigation. [Village Voice, 11/26/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002]

4) It “lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess.” [Washington Post, 11/4/2001] It allows the government to access confidential credit reports, school records, and other records, without consent or notification. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002] All of this information can now be given to the CIA, in violation of the CIA’s mandate prohibiting it from spying within the US. [Village Voice, 11/26/2001]
5) Financial institutions are encouraged to disclose possible violations of law or “suspicious activities” by any client. The institution is prohibited from notifying the person involved that it made such a report. The term “suspicious” is not defined, so it is up to the financial institutions to determine when to send such a report.
6) Federal agents can easily obtain warrants to review a library patron’s reading and computer habits (see January 2002). [Village Voice, 2/22/2002]

7) The government can refuse to reveal how evidence is collected against a suspected terrorist defendant. [Tampa Tribune, 4/6/2003]
The law passes without public debate. [Village Voice, 11/9/2001; Village Voice, 11/26/2001] Even though it ultimately took six weeks to pass the law, there was no hearing or congressional debate. [Salon, 3/24/2003] Congressman Barney Frank (D) says, “This was the least democratic process for debating questions fundamental to democracy I have ever seen. A bill drafted by a handful of people in secret, subject to no committee process, comes before us immune from amendment.” [Village Voice, 11/9/2001] Only 66 congresspeople, and one senator, Russell Feingold (D), vote against it. Few in Congress are able to read summaries, let alone the fine print, before voting on it. [Los Angeles Times, 10/30/2001] Feingold says, “The new law goes into a lot of areas that have nothing to do with terrorism and have a lot to do with the government and the FBI having a wish list of things they want to do.” [Village Voice, 11/9/2001] Supporters point out that some provisions will expire in four years, but in fact most provisions will not expire. [Chicago Tribune, 11/1/2001] One year later, criticism of the law grows. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002] Dozens of cities later pass resolutions criticizing the Patriot Act (see January 12, 2003).

Early 2002: Bush Signs Executive Order Allowing NSA to Spy on US Citizens; Spying Began Before 9/11

Sometime in early 2002, President Bush signs a secret executive order authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap phone conversations and read e-mails to and from US citizens. The order extends an operation set into motion at least as early as October 2001 to begin wiretapping US citizens’ phones in a response to the 9/11 attacks. When the program is revealed by the US media in late 2005 (see December 15, 2005), Bush and his officials will say the program is completely legal, though it ignores the requirements of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) that requires the government to obtain court-issued warrants to mount surveillance against US citizens. They will insist that only those suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda, and then only when those individuals make or receive international communications, are monitored. As more information continues to come out about the program, these assertions will be increasingly called into question. [New York Times, 12/15/2005; Washington Post, 12/22/2005] In January 2006, the press will learn that the NSA wiretapping program began well before 9/11, obviating the justification that the Bush administration had to authorize the surveillance in response to the terrorist attacks (see Late 1999, February 27, 2000, December 2000, February 2001, February 2001, Spring 2001, and July 2001). Bush’s order details the NSA to monitor international telephone conversations and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of US citizens without court warrants, in an effort to track what officials call “dirty numbers” linked to al-Qaeda. When the program is finally revealed by the New York Times over three years later (see December 15, 2005, officials will say that the NSA still seeks warrants to monitor domestic communications. But there is little evidence of this (see, e.g., Spring 2001). The presidential order is a radical shift in US surveillance and intelligence-gathering policies, and a major realignment for the NSA, which is mandated to only conduct surveillance abroad. Some officials believe that the NSA’s domestic eavesdropping crosses constitutional limits on legal searches. “This is really a sea change,” a former senior official who specializes in national security law will say in December 2005. “It’s almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches.” [New York Times, 12/15/2005]

   your right to privacy, gone

                                  To Be Continued...

Technorati Tags: NSA, The Patriot Act, George Bush, FISA, illegal wiretaps, FBI, Russell Feingold

The Iraqis View Of the British Occupation

  Here are a few polls from the BBC which, as we all know, say basically that the British and American occupation of Iraq has done no good for the Iraqi citizens.

This comes by way of Dailykos.

Iraqis want coalition forces to leave

by smintheus

Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:20:43 AM PST

Iraqi opinion polls don’t get much play in the US for the simple reason that Iraqis hold unflattering views about the way we’ve wrecked their country. The latest poll conducted by the BBC is no exception. On the eve of the British hand-over of control in Basra, it asked the residents of that province their opinion of what the occupation had achieved, whether security will now get better or worse, and what they’d like British troops to do.

As to the latter question, nearly two-thirds of Basrans want the Brits to withdraw not just from Iraq or from the region, but from the Middle East entirely. Of 922 Iraqis surveyed, only one person wanted the British to retain a presence in Basra.

Furthermore only 2% thought the British presence had had a positive impact on Basra, whereas 86% said it was negative. Only 3% said the British troops had reduced the level of militia violence, while 56% thought they had increased violence.

In perhaps the most stunning renunciation of the occupation, only 5% of Basrans think that security will get worse after the British hand-over. Around two-thirds believe that security will improve in both the short and long term. That may be overly optimistic, but in any case it demonstrates how thoroughly sick Iraqis are of the occupation of their country.   (  Continued )

Technorati Tags: Iraq.bbc, occuptaion forces

The Constitution, U.S. Government and Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people
to retain their right to keep and bear arms
is as a last resort to protect themselves
against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

...And what country can preserve

its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time

to time,that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? 

Let them take arms.The remedy is to set them right as to the 

facts, pardon and pacify them.What signify a few lives lost 

in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from 

time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

-- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source: November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

Technorati Tags: U.S. Government, George bush, Thomas Jefferson, The Constitution

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

  This is a sneaky bill brought forth by a Democrat ( Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36] ) and this bill did not get much debate in The House. It was pretty much a " here it is, now let's vote on it " kind of setting.

Oct 23, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting. govtrack.us

  If you wish to see who voted and how they voted, then may I suggest that you go here and check out your Representatives.

  Funny thing is that more Democrats ( 219 ) voted " yes " for this bill than did Republicans ( 185 ). Only 6 members voted against this bill, 3 from each party and my hat goes off to them because they apparently have seen that this bill could be more problems to us citizens as far as our eroding rights are concerned.

Arizona- Flake, Jeff [R],California- Rohrabacher, Dana [R],Hawaii- Abercrombie, Neil [D],Illinois- Costello, Jerry [D],Ohio- Kucinich, Dennis [D],Tennessee- Duncan, John [R] 

   It is in your best interest to contact you Senators to let them know that this bill is no good and that it needs to be dropped. On the surface, fighting homegrown terrorism is a great idea. It is the " other purposes " of this bill which you should be more than worried about. All of those " other purposes " in a vaguely worded bill can cover a lot of areas that should be left alone.

   I don't know about you, but I don't like dictators up in the White House in my United States. It is my United States. It is your United States also.

                       We, the People...

Technorati Tags: homegrown terrorism prevention act of 2007, Jane Harman, House of Representatives, the congress

The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: Our Rights Are Past History

    It looks as if George Orwell was right when he penned his book " 1984 " as our government now seems intent on banning most forms of group gatherings with this bill.

  The reader should really make the effort to take a look at this bill

H.R 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was recently passed by the House and it has it's evil twin looming in the Senate. It begins, “AN ACT - To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.”      Source

  It is the " other purposes " part of this bill that we need to concern ourselves with. I would like to know what those " other purposes " consist of, wouldn't you?

   After looking at this piece of garbage, I can say with surety that the United States is most certainly headed down the road of no return when it comes to us citizens having any kind of rights that have been granted to us by the Constitution and/or The Bill of Rights.

The “sheer cloudy vagueness” of H.R 1955, as well as its terror factor, may account for its bipartisan 404-6 House vote but how, in an era informed by the Bush-Cheney administration’s egregious assault on the Bill of Rights, can the phrase “other purposes” fail to raise the “National Terror Alert” from its current threat level of “elevated” to “severe.”

Future “other purposes” will undoubtedly be justified by the Act’s use of the term “violent radicalization,” which it defines as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence . . .” or by the folksy, Lake Wobegonesque “homegrown terrorism,” defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born [or] raised . . . within the United States . . . to intimidate or coerce the United States, the civilian population . . . or any segment thereof . . . [italics added].”      CommonDreams

  This bill could go so far as to make me a terrorist just because I advocate the dismemberment of the Bush administration, non-violently, of course. Taking part in an anti-war protest could possibly get you or I into trouble with the government.

    The days of Hitler kind of tactics are not that far off so far as our government is concerned. They've already begun to fuck us when we aren't paying attention and they are getting away with it because the ignorant population of this country prefers to keep their heads buried in the sand.

H.R 1955 would threaten things such as:

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

  This is what we'll get if this continues. For that matter, some of the following have gotten us to this point.

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

“History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy… These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened.”
Benjamin Franklin

“It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1781

“Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Pre American Revolution

“Every generation needs a new revolution.”
Thomas Jefferson    ( all posted at CommonDreams  )

   It is the idea put forth by Thomas Jefferson which our beloved government wishes to stop. We cannot let this happen!

  I'll have more on this subject as I become better acquainted with it. I'm not letting this just pass you by.

Technorati Tags: H.R.1955, Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act, 1984, Rep. Jane Harmon

Bush's War Funds and the Democrats, or, Baby Whines Again

"The American people expect us to work together to support our troops. That's what they want.They do not want the government to create needless uncertainty for those defending our country and uncertainty for their families. They do not want disputes in Washington to undermine our troops in Iraq just as they're seeing clear signs of success."< ( he's kidding, right? )  G. Bush, while visiting the Pentagon

"Let us tell our men and women in uniform that we will give them what they need to succeed in their missions, without strings and without delay," Bush said. "I ask Congress to provide this essential funding to our troops before the members leave on their Christmas vacation."  Yahoo News

  So here we have resident Bush at his usual fine art of trying to tell the Congress that they aren't supporting the troops if the Congress does not give Bush the check that he wants. I wonder, does this idiot ever fucking listen to himself? He sounds like an 8-track tape player that never stops. Every time I here this creep I end up having to reach over for the barf bag because he's so sickening! hopefully this punk will leave on his Christmas vacation and if we get lucky, it'll be permanently!

  But my problem on this isn't just Bush by himself, it's the Democrats also. At this point in time, every time Bush spouts the support the troops bullshit, the Democrats cave in and give him what he wants. Did we elect these fucks in 2006 to sit back and say " sure thing George " every time he wants money for nothing? I'm not sure about you, but I didn't. I voted for my Representatives to stop the blank checks to George and to fund our troop withdrawal from Iraq.

  The Democrats have said that they will not send George a funding bill at all this year so the Pentagon says that they will have to start curbing spending in other areas next month if they don't get the cash soon. Once again, this is nothing but BULLSHIT  since the funds are there for well beyond next month already. Civilian layoffs,reduced operations at the military bases and the termination of contracts? This is Pentagon propaganda once again that was more than likely ordered by Cheney and his buddy Bush.

  Cheney is already looking at the prospect of impeachment by his peers and Bush should be the next in line. Hopefully, the Democrats, (the older ones ) will wake the hell up and not fall for the Cheney/Bush fear card once again.

   I said hopefully, but I doubt it.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, George Bush, Democrats, war funding, Pentagon, Congress, Dick Cheney, U.S. military

A Call For Impeachment!

George Bush and Dick Cheney promote an imperial presidency. They assert that the executive is the most powerful branch of government, undermining the judiciary and Congress in violation of the Constitution’s bedrock principle of shared power among three co-equal branches. This subverts the very nature of our system of government.

“This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy. … That’s a big problem because that’s essentially a dictatorship,” Fein said. CommonDreams            ( blogger's emphasis ) 

The national movement to impeach is a non-partisan effort to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. People across the political spectrum can unite to preserve the Constitution and civil liberties given to us by the founders. Impeachment is the peaceful, orderly, constitutionally prescribed way to rid ourselves of a lawless administration.

The issue is not about removing Bush and Cheney as much as it is about preserving the Constitution and redeeming the office of the executive. The Constitution is the contract of governance between the people and the government. What happens when major portions of the contract are violated?

Congress has failed to call the president and vice president to account, so citizens must turn up the heat. Members of Congress who fail to demand investigations are covering for criminals. Every elected official has sworn an oath to “support and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.” Anything less than impeachment and a full repudiation of the Bush administration’s crimes and violations of the law is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of the public trust.

If we want our democracy back, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work to clean out the House.   CommonDreams

  It is way past time to get off of our asses and to get this ball moving!

Technorati Tags: impeachment, constitution, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Dennis Kucinich

The U.S. Economy Turning Into A Outlet for Foreign Shoppers

  I got bored this morning and thought that I'd browse a few online newspaper sites to see what they had up today. THIS article caught my eye in particular because of all of the bullshit that the Republicans tell us about how our economy is in great shape and only getting better.

   If that was the case then our dollar won't be going down in value against the Euro and others. Because of our declining value, it seems that many Europeans and other foreigners have decided that the United States is the place to come and do their holiday shopping. It's cheaper to get a plane ticket, even at the high cost, and fly to the U.S. to buy goods than it is to buy in their own countries.

    The Boston Globe

   ... America is one big discount bin, thanks to a weak dollar that slid this week to another record low against the euro. As a result, tourists are spending thousands to travel to the United States to snag blockbuster bargains on everything from iPods to designer clothes and handbags.

By 4 a.m. yesterday, Kinsella had rung up nearly $2,000 in Christmas presents and winter clothes, including a $79 black leather jacket at Guess that she estimated would cost more than $250 in Ireland.

"The bargains for us are so great," said Kinsella, who paid $1,000 for a flight and hotel but expects to save even more on purchases here.

But now American wares are even more of a bargain as the slowing US economy has weakened the dollar. Further, as the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to boost the economy, the dollar has lost even more value, and global investors have realized they won't earn as much when they park their cash in greenbacks. As a result, the euro has shot up by 33 percent compared with the dollar since 2002, so Europeans who exchange 1,000 euros now get close to 1,500 US dollars. And the Canadian dollar is worth as much as the US dollar for the first time in three decades.

  So the foreign shoppers get great deals by shopping in the United States and the citizens of the U.S. are tightening their purse strings because of a lousy dollar, bad real estate market and other not so great reasons.

   Only in America can outsiders do better than we insiders can. But in case of emergency, we can always buy Chinese!

Technorati Tags: economy, U.S., dollar, Euro, foreign shoppers

Bill Richardson Issues Statement on Senate Bill Giving Telecom's Amnesty

  New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued a statement today calling for the United States Senate to reject the amnesty bill that Bush wants to give the telecom's for helping him spy on U.S. citizens.

  Governor Richardson is most certainly right in prodding his Senators into not signing this bill. Bush and his crime family have had more than enough free passes since 2000 and now is the time to put the brakes on this asshole and his friends.

  Here is the statement.

  "Like most of his promises, President Bush's inauguration day pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution has been folded away and forgotten. From torture to secret prisons and wiretapping, this administration systematically has stripped away or ignored many of the most basic rights and principles upon which this nation was founded.

"This unprecedented assault on American laws and values, cloaked falsely and irresponsibly in the guise of national security, must be stopped.

"Incredibly, the Senate stands on the verge of abetting another Presidential outrage by considering a bill that would grant immunity to telecommunications companies that admitted to assisting the government in spying on American citizens by disclosing personal information. This bill must not pass.

"We need strong leadership to prevent this latest injustice, not equivocation or political calculation. Senators Clinton and Obama say they will oppose the bill, but are leaving the door open to a potential compromise. There can be no compromise on personal rights and privacy. I urge my Democratic primary opponents, and every Senator, to stand up and state loudly and clearly -- without any equivocation -- that he or she will not pass any bill that grants retroactive immunity to companies that willingly aided the Bush administration in violating the law and spying on our own people.

"As President, I will follow the Constitution. America needs and deserves leadership that reflects and upholds our finest principles and traditions. We can have a secure America without trampling on the Constitution and personal freedoms. For now, though, we have President Bush. It is about time that the Senate stood up to him."

Technorati tags: Bill Richardson, telecoms, wiretaps, George Bush, The Senate

Dissent From Former U.S. Military Captains

  I ran across this piece over at The Washington Post and I thought that it should be read by everyone who wants our troops out of Iraq.

  This piece was written by  12 former Army captains who all served in Iraq so I'll take their word over any troop posing with Bush for a photo-op any day of the week. This was in Tuesday's paper.

The Real Iraq We Knew

By 12 former Army captains

Tuesday, October 16, 2007; 12:00 AM

Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.      

U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.

Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.

This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

This column was written by 12 former Army captains: Jason Blindauer served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Elizabeth Bostwick served in Salah Ad Din and An Najaf in 2004. Jeffrey Bouldin served in Al Anbar, Baghdad and Ninevah in 2006. Jason Bugajski served in Diyala in 2004. Anton Kemps served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Kristy (Luken) McCormick served in Ninevah in 2003. Luis Carlos Montalván served in Anbar, Baghdad and Nineveh in 2003 and 2005. William Murphy served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Josh Rizzo served in Baghdad in 2006. William "Jamie" Ruehl served in Nineveh in 2004. Gregg Tharp served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Gary Williams served in Baghdad in 2003.

© Copyright 1996-2007 The Washington Post Company

 

Technorati tags: United States, Iraq, Congress, military, President Bush

Dems push surveillance bill through

  As is par for the course, the Democrats in the House pushed their eavesdropping bill through two committees today and they made only minor changes to the bill. Once again, the Bush Crime Family ( GOP ) is waiting to trash this bill because it doesn't give some of the Bushco contributors ( U.S. telecommunications companies ) retroactive immunity from lawsuits. There are around 40 pending lawsuits naming telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Bush has said that he will not okay this bill as long as the said companies can face actions against them for doing something illegal in the first place! This is the Bush that we all love and hate. Pathetic piece of shit.

  Bush had the nerve to tell reporters the bill would "take us backward" in efforts to thwart terrorism. Here we go with the usual GOP fear card once again.

A.P.

The measure advanced by the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees left out the immunity provision Bush wants. Democrats also voted down Republican attempts to tailor the legislation more to the administration's liking.

The committees even strengthened the bill slightly by establishing a new threshold for when the government has to seek a court order to listen in on American communications with foreigners. They also gave the secret court set up 30 years ago to oversee government surveillance a little more power to monitor intelligence agencies' compliance with court orders.

Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the senior Republican on the Intelligence panel, said Republicans had been left entirely out of the creation of the bill. It was delivered to them on Monday, a federal holiday when few were working.

"This is a deeply flawed bill," Hoekstra told reporters after the committees acted.

He and other GOP lawmakers said the bill gives too much power to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to oversee intelligence activities and will bog down intelligence agencies with administrative burdens. They charged that the measure extends constitutional protection to phone calls by terrorists overseas, takes rights away from telecommunications companies, and prohibits legitimate surveillance of other countries.

 Maybe we should all call Rep. Hoekstra and tell him that it isn't the bill which is flawed but it is him and the rest of the republicans who still insist on trying to scare our citizens into believing everything that they say. The fear card isn't working anymore. Get use to it.

  I dare the Democrats in the House or the Senate to decide on a compromise bill after Bush trashes this one. Some of you punks on both sides of the aisle may want to remember that your job review comes up in 2008. Many of you are failing.

Technorati tags: Democrats, Republicans, congress, Bush

ARE Democrats Republican Lite?

  The following may contain some vulgar language. If you do not like it, TOUGH SHIT!!

    Yes I know. I've been pretty quiet as of late. I do have other things to do which took up alot of my time. But guess what kiddies? I AM BACK with a freaking vengeance! There is way to much bullshit going on with our Democrats and with the Bush Crime Family to stay silent any longer.

   What I am going to do right now is nothing but bitch about our Democrats being nothing but a step in line bunch of pussies! If I had wanted more of the George Bush policy, I'd have voted Republican in the first fucking place. What the fuck is the problem with the Democrats? We vote these asshole's in and then they want to compromise with the White House if not fall in lock and step with the Bush morons.

  Come on now! Pelosi, Reid and the rest are acting like Bushco clones! They are either giving into this prick or they are choosing to help him  " stay the course" in Iraq and with everything else.

  Bush did veto the health bill for impoverished children and now we have Democrats wanting to work out a compromise bill with the prick! There should be no deals to get this measure passed. Dems compromised when they cut back the funding to $35 billion from the original amount.

  In case you haven't noticed. Our presidential front-runners ( Clinton, Obama, Edwards ) will not commit to a timely withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

  In case you haven't noticed, We are getting fucked by the politicians that we wanted to turn things around!

  Pelosi. You'd better get your ass in gear because you can be replaced!

  I'm just warming up folks. There will be much more in the coming days. I'm fed up, pissed off, and hostile and I'm not taking anymore bullshit from our elected representatives.

Technorati tags: Democrats, Republicans, congress, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Edwards

Bush Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Plan

  Always remember that some of your friends voted for this moron!

  From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America."

  So now it is time to put the screws to the Republican House members who voted against this bill and we need to make sure that the House can come up with the number needed to override Bush's veto. This can already be done in the Senate.

Technorati tags: George Bush, Harry Reid, veto, SHCIP

Alberto Gonzales Resigns!

Yahoo News

CRAWFORD, Texas - Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, under fire from congressional Democrats, has resigned, senior Bush administration officials said Monday.

A senior Justice Department official said that a likely temporary replacement for Gonzales is Solicitor General Paul Clement, who would take over until a permanent replacement is found.

Another official, also speaking on grounds of anonymity, said that Gonzales had submitted a resignation letter last Friday. These officials declined to be identified because the formal announcement about Gonzales was still pending.

  That would be one down, and many more still to go! This is great news for the United States. Now if we can just get around to beginning this shitheads prosecution in a court of law!

Technorati tags: Alberto Gonzales, resignation, George Bush, Attorney General

Iraq Evaluation Written By The White House?

LATIMES

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

   Ten bucks says that the September report has already been written a month or so back, especially if the White House is doing the writing.

  Come on people, are we really to believe anything that comes out of General Petraeus's mouth or from out of the mouth of the White House?

  I guess that it hasn't dawned on the Bush Crime Family that only 28% of the population still has their heads stuck up their asses or either still buried in the sand.

Technorati tags: Petraeus, White House. Iraq, Ryan Crocker

Impeach Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales

 

Originally from Consortiumnews

Impeachment & the Constitution

By Stephen Crockett
July 31, 2007

Editor’s Note: Once considered a fringe idea, impeachment is moving quickly into the mainstream of American public opinion, as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney insist on flouting the rule of law and defying congressional oversight.

In this guest essay, Stephen Crockett of DemocraticTalkRadio.com casts the impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as not just an option but an imperative:

The United States has been in a prolonged Constitutional crisis since the Supreme Court showed it had been corrupted by partisan politics when the Bush vs. Gore ruling was issued in December 2000.

The Bush Administration began by Republican politicians thumbing their noses at the rule of law. The past seven years have been an unending assault on Constitutional government, American political traditions and personal freedom.

It is time to place impeachment fully on the table for the top members of the Bush White House and Cabinet.

The appointment of Attorney General Gonzales should never have been approved by the Senate. His record of distorting the truth in order to protect the political career of George W. Bush is the only real qualification he had when nominated. It was the reason he was appointed and the reason the appointment should have been soundly rejected.

Gonzales has always been an advocate of radical legal theories that attack the essence of our Constitutional protections of personal freedom. The Attorney General holds legal theories that would give the President dictatorial powers.

Bush, Cheney and Gonzales have resolutely claimed powers not given by the Constitution to the Executive Branch. These claims are essentially “high crimes” by their very nature. They subvert the American Constitution and border on treason.

Claims that the President can place in prison any American citizen by declaring that person an enemy combatant, without court hearings forever, are criminal violations of Constitutional guarantees of personal freedoms.

These claims are illegal bids for power – not granted in our Constitution – by Bush, Cheney and Gonzales. These legal theories are fascist in nature. All three need to be facing impeachment.

Impeachment is designed to check corrupt, dictatorial members of the Executive and Judicial Branches of government.

Bush has issued executive orders that negate laws passed by Congress like the Presidential Papers Act. The signing statements routinely and radically used by Bush to gut the intent of Congress concerning legislation are assaults on the Constitutional checks and balances and are illegal.

Cheney’s claims that he does not have to comply with laws limiting the powers of members of the Executive Branch or Congress are illegal. His role in almost every scandal connected to the White House seems apparent but Cheney remains secretive and defiant. The power claims of Cheney are assaults on the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.

Impeachment hearings are needed for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales for many reasons. All three are claiming Constitutional powers that are not Constitutional. All three have played major roles in subverting federal law enforcement and an independent judiciary.

All three have deceived both the American public and Congress. All three are hiding their activities, using false national security and executive privilege claims to hide their law-breaking.

Bush has demonstrated his willingness to use Presidential powers to keep his White House cronies from paying the costs of their illegal behaviors.

Scooter Libby committed perjury to obstruct justice in a federal investigation of White House operatives who broke the law by intentionally outing a covert CIA agent. Bush protected him. It appears that Bush and Cheney may have been directly responsible for the crime.

The political firings of U.S. Attorneys has been another issue where Presidential powers may be used to obstruct justice, hide the truth and subvert the rule of law. It certainly appears that Gonzales has committed perjury like Libby and for similar reasons.

Presidential pardon powers do not apply to impeachment.

Because Bush is willing to misuse his Presidential powers and the Supreme Court has been packed with radical, partisan Republican appointees, only impeachment hearings will reveal to the public the abuses of the Bush White House. Only impeachment will bring these powerful criminals to justice and preserve the Constitutional rule of law.

Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio, http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com. His e-mail is midsouthern@aol.com.

Technorati tags: impeach, U.S. Constitution, george bush, dick cheney, alberto gonzales, congress

Spineless Democrats and The " Terror War "

  Check this article out from Black Agenda Report.

When a cowardly congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 last fall, many were quick say that in the House of Representatives at least, Democrats never had any realistic hope of stopping it. This anti-constitutional atrocity rolled the cause of human rights back some 800 years, legalizing secret imprisonment, torture, and evidence obtained by torture. It made possible life imprisonment with neither accusation nor trial, and absolved from prosecution all the recently active kidnappers and torturers on US government payrolls and contracts along with those who gave them orders.

But last fall’s good news, supposedly, was that the Republican congress was certain to be replaced in a matter of weeks by clear Democratic majorities in the House and Senate who’d stand up to the president, end the war, indict even impeach some of the malefactors, and begin to undo some of the damage inflicted by the most lawless presidential administration in the nation’s history. It hasn’t happened that way.

Instead, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have ruled impeachment of Bush, Cheney or Gonzalez off the table. Congressional Democrats have increased the Pentagon’s budget by $100 billion over Bush’s request. They continued construction of an 80 acre embassy and the largest military bases in the world in Iraq. The end of 2007, a full year of Democratic control of the nation’s purse will see more US forces and mercenaries in Iraq than at the beginning of the year. Only last week Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama declared himself ready to take up the “White Man’s Burden” and invade Pakistan. Democrats are scrambling to re-brand the fictitious “global war on terror” as their own, and to outdo Republicans at threatening the peace abroad and scaring citizens at home.

  This is one reason that we may have to fire some of our elected Democrats in 2008. They are not doing the job that we have been paying them to do and that is cause for dismissal, starting with Nancy Pelosi. It has become time to put her on the table if impeachment of Bush and Cheney is to remain off of the table.

   The above article in its entirety, crossposted from CommonDreams, is below.

Published on Thursday, August 9, 2007 by Black Agenda Report

“Terror War” Terrorizes Spineless Democrats

by Bruce Dixon

When Democrats compete to adopt the phony “global war on terror” as their own, and promise they can do it “better” or “smarter” than Republicans, they erase what little difference remains between the parties. “Terror Democrats” have abandoned the politics of hope for the politics of fear, and turn the political process into one that threatens to elect the candidates who frighten us the most.

When a cowardly congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 last fall, many were quick say that in the House of Representatives at least, Democrats never had any realistic hope of stopping it. This anti-constitutional atrocity rolled the cause of human rights back some 800 years, legalizing secret imprisonment, torture, and evidence obtained by torture. It made possible life imprisonment with neither accusation nor trial, and absolved from prosecution all the recently active kidnappers and torturers on US government payrolls and contracts along with those who gave them orders.

But last fall’s good news, supposedly, was that the Republican congress was certain to be replaced in a matter of weeks by clear Democratic majorities in the House and Senate who’d stand up to the president, end the war, indict even impeach some of the malefactors, and begin to undo some of the damage inflicted by the most lawless presidential administration in the nation’s history. It hasn’t happened that way.

Instead, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have ruled impeachment of Bush, Cheney or Gonzalez off the table. Congressional Democrats have increased the Pentagon’s budget by $100 billion over Bush’s request. They continued construction of an 80 acre embassy and the largest military bases in the world in Iraq. The end of 2007, a full year of Democratic control of the nation’s purse will see more US forces and mercenaries in Iraq than at the beginning of the year. Only last week Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama declared himself ready to take up the “White Man’s Burden” and invade Pakistan. Democrats are scrambling to re-brand the fictitious “global war on terror” as their own, and to outdo Republicans at threatening the peace abroad and scaring citizens at home.

Last week both houses of Congress, including dozens of Democrats approved legislation granting the feds the absolute power to intercept phone, fax and email traffic of anyone, anywhere in the world without the bother of explanations to any judge or competent authority whatsoever. House Democratic leaders denounced it, but didn’t stop it. Senate Democratic leaders, including presidential candidates Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden if they mentioned it at all, decried the bill. But true to form, none stepped forward to lead a filibuster that might have stopped it.

With Congressional poll numbers nearly as low and the president’s the gap between Democratic office holders and Democratic voters has never been wider. At the same time, corporate donations to Democratic candidates are higher than ever. These are two sides of the same coin. The Democratic establishment’s uncritical embrace of the so-called “global war on terror” is exposing for all to see the widening fissure between the two Democratic parties — the Democratic party of voters who are called out once every year or two, and the permanent Democratic party of consultants, pundits, lobbyists and wealthy campaign contributors. It is this gap between the expectations of voting Democrats and the will of donors and leading Democrats that prompted Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate President Harry Reid to avoid last weekend’s Yearly Kos, where they would have faced pointed questions on impeachment, war and peace, or domestic policy from an ordinarily tame crowd of Democratic bloggers, consultants, campaign staffers and wannabees. Pelosi and Reid know who their real base is.

Bush and Cheney have already declared that their “global war on terror” will be the foundation of America’s domestic and foreign policy for the next twenty or thirty years. By following their lead, Democrats have doomed themselves to a cycle in which they will no longer compete with Republicans to offer a better vision of life for Americans and the rest of the planet, and have made the Republican politics of fear their own. Subsequent campaigns, including the 2008 presidential well underway will be contests to see who can scare us the most. And worse news still — they’re pretty good at it. Four out of seven Democratic presidential candidates declared their immediate readiness to undertake immediate US military action in Sudan, completely bypassing the African Union force option to which all the regional parties have agreed.

As former Alaska senator Mike Gravel remarked in more than one of this year’s presidential forums, “…all these guys up here scare me….” He should know. Gravel is a man well acquainted with scary times, scary politicians and exposing the lies they tell the public. As a US Senator back in 1968 Gravel risked his own safety and his political career by revealing to the the massive decade-long campaigns of lies to the American public that made possible the secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia and the war in Vietnam, which killed two to three million Vietnamese alone.

“You won’t get change from any of these guys up here” said Gravel in Chicago last week. “For that you need a movement. You’ll have to get together and make some of your own policy, your own laws. Change doesn’t come from elections and political parties and politicians. It comes from movements”

We at BAR think this is uncommonly good advice coming from a presidential candidate. Our African American politicians are fond of describing themselves as sons, daughters and heirs of the Freedom Movement. It’s time we began to untangle that mess, to consciously separate those claims from reality, and see whose followers, whose heirs they really are.

Bruce Dixon, Managing Editor of The Black Agenda Report, can be reached at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com

© 2007 The Black Agenda Report

Technorati tags: Democrats, war on terror, Mike Gravel, george bush, dick cheney

Bipartisan Solutions?

   From the Daily Kos

We Can't Wait for Bipartisan Solutions

by DHinMI Tue Aug 07, 2007

"We need a consensus."

This is what Joe Biden said a little while ago, when asked by Keith Olberman if he would appoint a Republican to head up the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security.  I don’t have the exact language, but he seemed to imply that nothing would work unless it had significant support from Republicans.

I was floored.

If there is anything that has been apparent since the Democratic takeover of Congress, it’s that many and probably most of the current Republican members of Congress will NEVER work with Democrats for the good of the country.  Since the rise of Newt Gingrich, the majority of Republicans in Congress have demonstrated that they don’t care about the good of the country.  Grover Norquist is inadvertently one of the most honest of conservatives, and when he referred to bipartisanship as date rape, he wasn’t revealing just his own personal view, he was describing the mindset of much of the Republican Congressional caucus and it’s allies in think tanks, among campaign hacks and activists, and in a sizeable chunk of its electoral base.  

It’s a realization many of us had come to long ago.  It’s one of the reasons many of us ended up at Daily Kos, the knowledge that George W Bush, his allies in Congress and the people who push them in to power will use unscrupulous means to attain, maintain and exercise power.  They know they have to conceal their unscrupulousness from the public.  While the Republican party has veered farther and farther to the right, the American people haven’t really budged.  In fact, on individual issues, the American public is more liberal today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and far more liberal than it was when Lyndon Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, which provided the mandate to enact our major civil rights legislation and the most major extension of the social welfare state since the New Deal and World War II.  Republicans involved in organizing and running elections and selling their policy positions to the press and the talking heads know that the American public is far to their left.  But they conceal their radicalism through clever marketing scams like Frank Luntz’ Contract on America and the pabulum of "compassionate conservatism."  

Further obfuscating the dangerous radicalism of a main current in current Republican politics is that most of their office holders, at least in the past, appeared to the keepers of beltway conventional wisdom as genial men, the type who David Broder or David Ignatius wouldn’t mind chatting up at the Safeway in Georgetown or while waiting for a flight at National.  They seemed like good guys, and on the major organizing principle of our politics after World War II—the Cold War and the long fight against communism—they made common cause with Democrats.  While nasty people like Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy were scurrilous red baiters, and the Republican party was full of people who made common cause with reactionary Southern Democrats to fight unionization and the full inclusion of blacks in to our nation’s public and economic life, they weren’t fundamentally hostile to cooperation with Democrats on any and all issues.  

But Bob Michel retired, Bob Dole was attacked by the right for doing his job and actually passing legislation, and Newt Gingrich became the leader of the Republican party.  People like David Broder never saw or understood what happened and continued to indulge their idiotic fixations on making a fetish of bipartisanship.  Joe Lieberman and his ilk confused moderation with centrism; as the Republicans moved farther to the right, Joementum followed them, thinking there was virtue in being equidistant from the middles of both parties, but showing that someone who’s deepest principle is appearing to be above a passionate partisan love of our country can be played like a rube from the backwoods facing his first big-city grifter.  And people like Joe Biden, who haven’t figured out that the hatred that fearful conservatives mustered against commies and blacks has now been directed at tolerant and non-authoritarian Americans, and that these haters control and intimidate all but a few of the once proud Republican moderates, act as if we’re still in the Cold War and everyone in Congress is committed to a higher good.  

Senator Biden, please look around, and realize that the solutions to our nation’s woes, the answers to our challenges, aren’t bipartisan.  The involvement of people looking for solutions and to meet our challenges could eventually be bipartisan, but current evidence suggest otherwise.  No more than four House Republicans have voted for any of the most meaningful pieces of legislation dealing with Iraq.  Only four Republicans have joined the Senate Democrats on Iraq.  The Republican Study Group in the House engages in delaying tactics almost every day; to see one reason why the House—which has passed significant legislation—isn’t doing more, look at how many bullshit procedural votes the Republican offered last week.  In the Senate, the Republicans continue to use the filibuster and cloture votes to bottle up almost everything the Democrats try to accomplish.  The Republicans go along with just about everything Bush and Cheney shove down our nation’s throat.

And unfortunately, a consistent minority of Democrats buckle under and accept what Bush and the Republicans shove down our throats.  

A few weeks ago, in his dissent in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, which partially rolled back Brown v Board of Education, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote of change on the Supreme Court:

The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today's decision.

Stevens was discussing a change in American politics in which so-called conservatives have become radicals whose views are now divorced from the mainstream of American politics and life.  The same radical turn that Stevens observed on the Court is evident in the radicalism of the Bush administration and its allies in Congress and the Republican party.

In electoral and representative politics, those of us at Daily Kos have known about this change for some time; as Markos (justifiably) crowed this morning, we’ve been right on just about everything for five years, while the establishment drones and too many timid Dems tried to find the truth in between where we were—and we were eventually joined by about 80% of the country on the war—and where the Republicans were.  But the Republicans’ politics are so skewed, they have gone so far from reality, that we have now arrived at the point where it’s probably impossible to have any reality-based solutions to our national problems and challenges that can be accepted by the Republicans.  

As Stevens pointed out in the Seattle schools case, as we see on the Iraq votes, the majority of Republicans are radicals, or are too beholden to their radical leadership, radical money interests and radical activist base to step up and do what’s good for the country.  Democrats like Joe Biden, who’ve served a long time in public life, have a hard time recognizing that the Republicans no longer can or care to act in the interests of the country.  Therefore, we must recognize that until the Republicans change, the answers to our nation’s most pressing needs and challenges—getting out of Iraq and fixing our foreign and defense policy, combating terrorism, addressing global warming and environmental devastation, changing out energy policy, implementing universal health care, shoring up the economic security of the middle class, expanding opportunities for the poor and disadvantaged, and undoing the damage of the "unitary executive" and the assault on our civil liberties—will not be bipartisan.  Demanding bipartisan solutions to our problems requires us to wait for the Republican party to heal itself.  We can’t wait, and it’s time all our Democratic politicians and policy wonks and pundits and campaign and strategy people stop expecting the Republicans officials and party leadership to join in and work for the good of the country.  

I’m floored that this is still a mystery to Joe Biden.

Technorati tags: Bipartisanship, 2008 elections, President, Primaries, Democrats, Republicans, Joe Biden

George Bush's Greatest Hits With Energy Policy

  I just happened to be browsing around the Internet looking for nothing in particular when I ran across an article written by Greg Palast of the BBC which happened to look into the Bush energy policy that developed after the idiot was elected in 2000. What got me started on this was a piece that I was reading somewhere about the Iraq problems with meeting the U.S. set benchmarks, the oil law being at the top of the list.

  We all know that this so-called war in Iraq was never about WMD's or democracy, but about profit for the big oil companies and for a few select politicians, Bush being number one on the list.

  The following is some of the favors that Bush did for the energy companies while he was governor of Texas and after he became appointed president in 2000.

Bush energy plan: Policy or payback?

By Greg Palast in Houston

A new power plant every week for 20 years, new nukes, drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge - is this an energy policy, or a payback for President Bush's big campaign contributors?

From the moment George W Bush announced he was running for president, $50m came in from Texas-based energy companies.

But they are hundreds of millions of dollars better off from his time as governor of Texas - and because of decisions taken in the first months of his presidency.

Worst polluter

When it comes to pollution, Texas is champ, the number one state in emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals.

A visit to the city of Houston is enough to confirm that status.

A 24 km (15 mile) wide forest of smokestacks stands on the edge of Houston, a place famous for pumping out pollution, profits and the political donations which put George Bush into the White House.

There a mile long cloud of black smoke, with flames 60 metres (200 ft) high erupts out of a Houston cracking plant as a ruined batch of ethylene and other toxic chemicals is burned off after a hydrogen line snapped.

Such accidents are common on this side of Houston, where poisonous smoke rains on local neighbourhoods.

And it is not just visible emissions locals have to worry about.

Suspicions aroused

LaNell Anderson lived in the shadow of the Houston smoke stacks - her mother and father both died young, victims of bone cancer and lung disease, which made Ms Anderson suspicious.

She started taking air samples after an ethylene leak caused the local high school running team to collapse on the track.

Lab analysis of her bucket samples has found carcinogens in the air that are way above legal limits.

She has since found that local cancer cases are twice the normal rate.

Against regulations

Driving around the area it is possible to smell hydrogen sulphide in the air, a contravention of regulations.

"They're not supposed to be releasing anything, these are outside chemical impacts, that's not supposed to happen its supposed to stop at the fence," she says.

So how do the polluters get away with it?

Ms Anderson has her own theory about "vending machine governance, where the lobbyists put the money in and out comes slacker regulation."

Centre for petrochemicals

Texas is the centre of America's petrochemical industry - home to the nation's biggest refinery, Exxon's plant in Baytown.

Ms Anderson has Exxon in her sights, "they're the largest emitter in Harris County and they have the worst attitude of any corporation I've ever witnessed," she said.

Exxon would not accept her assessment and neither would George W Bush.

As Texas governor, Mr Bush quietly set up a committee led by Exxon, with other big oil and chemical companies, to advise him what to do about the state's deadly air pollution.

Regulators wanted compulsory cuts in emissions of up to 50% - this "secret" committee instead proposed making the cuts voluntary.

Mr Bush duly steered the polluters plan through the state legislature.

Huge donations

Texas anti-corruption law made it illegal to donate money to Mr Bush as governor whilst such legislation was under consideration.

But that month, Mr Bush declared for his candidacy for president - making the $150,000 donated by committee members and their representatives completely legal.

The bill passed and pollution did go down - by just 3% - saving the companies hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the compulsory cut.

And there has been a bonus for chemical industry donors since Mr Bush became president.

The BBC's Newsnight programme learnt he is quietly restricting public access to estimates of the number of people who will burn or die in the event of a catastrophic explosion near these plants.

Biggest funders

A walk through downtown Houston takes you past the headquarters of some of Mr Bush's biggest campaign fund donors.

The El Paso Corporation, which gave $750,000 to the Republican campaign, is now under investigation for manipulating the California power market.

Other big contributors include Dynegy, which gave $300,000 and Reliant, which gave $600,000.

And the Enron Corporation, America's number one power trading company, has given more money than any other to Mr Bush's political campaigns.

William S Farish, president of W S Farish and Co, gave $140,000. Mr Bush subsequently made him ambassador to Great Britain.

Under investigation

Investigations are proceeding into profiteering by power traders during the California energy crisis and blackouts.

The state of California has accused the El Paso Corporation and Dynegy of deliberately restricting the flow of natural gas through the pipeline from Texas creating an artificial shortage which caused prices to go up ten-fold.

President Clinton ordered an end to speculation in energy prices in California, which bit into the profits of El Paso, Reliant, Enron and Dynegy.

Between them the four companies gave $3.5m to Mr Bush and the Republicans. Three days after his inauguration Mr Bush swept away Mr Clinton's anti-speculation orders.

Profits for these four power traders are now up $220m in the first quarter.

And protection against pollution is set to weaken further, the BBC's Newsnight programme has discovered that deep in Mr Bush's new budget, the million-dollar fund for civil enforcement to deter pollution will be axed.

In the future law enforcement will be left to locals.

Biggest industry donators to Bush campaign

Enron $1.8m

Exxon $1.2m

Koch Industries $970,000

Southern $900,000

BP Amoco $800,000

El Paso Energy $787,000

Chevron Oil Corp $780,000

Reliant Energy $642,000

Texas Utilities $635,000

  The next time some stupid Bush supporter defends this crook, just slap the fuck out of them and tell them to go and read something educational.

Technorati tags: Greg Palast, George W Bush, Exxon, Dynegy, El Paso Corporation, energy policy, contributions

NIE Report Has Media Covering For Bush Again

   As is usual for the MSM, any report critical of the Bush Iraq war strategy is being spun by the media as a mixed bag of " this is good " or " on the other hand " bullshit.

    Arianna Huffington has a few things to say about this subject so I'm giving it all to you right here.

In the Name of Objectivity, Media Clouds the Reality of Terror Report

Posted July 19, 2007 | 06:37 PM (EST)

Here we go again. Another devastating report being spun as a mixed bag -- with the spin dutifully echoed by the media. Another administration brain tumor being "offset" by shiny hair.

  This time it's the new National Intelligence Estimate report on the threat of terrorist violence against America that is being given the utterly ludicrous "on the one hand... and on the other hand" treatment.

A prime example of this came on AC 360, where Anderson Cooper reported that "both sides in the Iraq debate are spinning [the NIE] to support their case." To prove his point, he rolled a video clip of Bush making the case for staying the course in Iraq. Back on camera, he said, "The Democrats, of course, see it differently."

"Of course" they do. Not because there are always two sides to every issue, but because the facts are different than Bush claims they are.

Cooper then turned to a trio of experts whose goal was "Keeping Them Honest."

Up first was the always bracing Michael Ware, beamed in via satellite from Iraq, where he has spent most of the war. Ware took a cudgel to the White House spin machine, beating down the administration's attempt to portray the war as a fight between America and al-Qaeda by reporting that "al-Qaeda would be lucky to make up 3 percent of the insurgency." Ware's verdict on the White House: "They're trying to play the American public."

Next up was CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen who agreed with Ware that al-Qaeda in Iraq is a "relatively small group" but was quick to add: "On the other hand, the largest number of suicide attackers in Iraq are foreigners... few Iraqis are involved in the suicide attacks. And it's the suicide attacks, of course, that sparked the civil war, that got the United Nations to withdraw, and that made Iraq a much more dangerous place. So, despite their small number, they have had a disproportionate strategic effect on the ground."

So for those keeping score, that's one "the administration is not being honest" and one "the administration is partially honest and partially dishonest." Hmm... I wonder what could be next? Perhaps someone to defend the administration as "totally honest"?

Enter CNN military analyst, retired U.S. General David Grange. Like the White House, Grange sees a silver lining in the fact that the war in Iraq has "multiplied" the number of terrorists: "I kind of like the idea [terrorists] assemble in Iraq, because there's more of them there to take down, instead of hunting them around the world of global operations, which are very difficult. Here, we have a license to kill or capture. Many other places, we do not. And, so, I don't think it's a bad thing that they're assembling in Iraq."

As usual, Ware refused to let the spin go unchallenged: "The whole notion of 'better to fight them over there than over here,' let's bring them in like a honey pot and draw them to Iraq and kill them, is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, it's so ludicrous, it's downright dangerous, because what they're doing is, they're creating entire generation of jihadis that did not exist... Iraq has been a total disaster, in terms of limiting the number of jihadis on the planet."

So there you had it -- a typical media sampler. One saying "it's A", one saying "it's B," and one saying "it's a little of each".

Fair, balanced, objective. And utterly confusing for the very public they are trying to inform.

There are such things as facts. There is such a thing as reality. And refusing to see those facts and report that reality -- undiluted by an "on the other hand" mixer -- isn't a sign of objectivity, it's a sign of intellectual laziness and journalistic muddled thinking.

The NIE report represents the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and is a stark and unambiguous repudiation of the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy and its contention that the war in Iraq has made us safer.

Indeed, the report suggests that it's just the opposite -- that the war in Iraq has fueled a growing hatred of America, spread Islamic extremism, and spawned an expanding crop of newly inspired jihadists around the globe. And it eviscerates the Bushies' bedrock notion that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. It turns out that the odds of us having to fight them over here have greatly increased precisely because we are fighting them over there.

The report also highlights the "regenerated" strength of al-Qaeda. So not only have we failed to capture bin Laden and destroy those that attacked us on 9/11 -- we have, thanks to Bush's tragic actions, actually helped keep al-Qaeda strong and deadly.

If this NIE assessment was a Keeping Us Safe report card, Bush would get an F.

There are times when there aren't two sides to an issue -- when there is no "other hand." This is one of those times.

The president vowed to keep us safer and, according to 16 intelligence agencies, he has failed. Period. End of story.

Technorati tags: NIE, media, Iraq War Supplemental, George Bush, Al Qaeda

Senate GOP Blocks U.S. Troop Withdrawal

  So what's new, right? As is usual with the Republicans in the Senate, they shut down the Democratic proposal which would have required Bush to begin bringing our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, home from Iraq within 120 days with a complete pullout by April 30, 2008.

    There were 4 exceptions to the Republican rule who did not see eye to eye with the rest of the GOP. They were Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who support a deadline on this war.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules.

ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer via Yahoo News

Other GOP members, while uneasy about the war, said they could not support legislation that would force Bush to adhere to a firm pullout date.

"The amendment tells our enemies when they can take over in Iraq," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who is up for re-election next year.

The bill "is the wrong approach at the wrong time," he added.

Addressing troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said that while it's fine for Americans to debate whether to continue the campaign in Iraq, the global war on terror will compel the nation to fight somewhere for at least another 20 to 30 years.

"We can vote to fight it in one place or another. We can do whatever it it is we want to do to have a dialogue about how to fight this enemy," Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a meeting with soldiers that also was aired live for reporters at the Pentagon. "But the bottom line is that as long as our enemy is sworn to destroy our way of life, we are going to be in a war."

   Since it has been reported in the past that our enemies in Iraq ( al Qaeda ) only make up 10% of the Iraqi population, I do not see them taking over the country anytime soon. They may be causing alot of disruption in Iraq, but taking over? Give me a fucking break!

   Gen. Pace needs to grow a set of balls and maybe try to be his own man instead of one of the White House propaganda mouthpieces. Our enemies are not sworn to destroy our way of life General, they are sworn to destroy our way of life that we keep trying to shove down their own throats in their own countries.

   Our enemies also know that the only reason the United States in in the middle east is because of Israel crying to us all of the time and because of the oil that the United States would like to steal from Iraq, and Iran, and...

Technorati tags: Senate, Republicans, Democrats, Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Iraq, U.S. troop withdrawal, Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel

Bush,Republican's Growing Further Apart

   I am kind of still in the middle of getting settled in after moving last week so I'm only going to give you a bit of the news story from the day and maybe a small thought on the story. I will be back up and running at full kilt next week.

  For our first story, let us look at the dumbass in the White House and his newest veto threat against legislation calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. ( source )

   As is so usual with George Bush, he once again isn't going to listen to the American people or the United States Congress when it comes down to doing anything right or moral. At the same time,  it's hard to do either of those things when you know nothing right and you have no lasting morals. This would be the case with Mr. Bush.

   Bush couldn't stop the U.S. involvement in Iraq even if he wanted to because both he and Dick Cheney are to beholden to the big oil company's and the stakes are to high for both men to just turn around and walk out of the Iraqi bullshit that they let the oil people pay them for.

On the situation in Iraq, Christopher Bond, R-Mo. "The strategy we had before was not the right strategy.We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "we've lost more than 600 troops, costing the American taxpayers more than $60 billion. The escalation has done nothing to bring the Iraqi government together. It's done absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq."

  The Senator was speaking of the cost in life and funds since Bush ordered more troops into Iraq last winter.

Two Democrats, Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, back legislation to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, to be completed by the end of April 2008.

A vote is expected next week, and Reid said nearly all Democrats support the proposal. Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon is a supporter, as well, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told reporters she may switch her position and vote for it, too.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would call for a vote on a similar measure by week's end.

The Senate proposal appears to be short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster. Bush's veto threat applied to any legislation that sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal "without regard to conditions on the ground or the recommendations of commanders."

"Setting a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting a date for failure," he said in a written statement that employed terms similar to those he used earlier in the year when he vetoed legislation that set a target date for a withdrawal.

In a further sign of eroding GOP support, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., called for troops to come home next year.

"Simply put, our troops have been doing a great job, but the Iraqi government has not," said Dole, the latest Senate Republican facing the voters in 2008 to switch positions on the war. "Our commitment in Iraq is not indefinite, nor should the Iraqi government perceive it to be."         YahooNews

   It's funny how so many Republicans are changing their views on the war in Iraq if they happen to be up for re-election in 2008. If these pigs really wanted to stop this mess, then they, along with many Democrats, would vote this war out of existence by cutting off Bush's war allowance. The game would then be over, would it not?

Technorati tags: Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Dole, Olympia Snowe, Goerge Bush, Iraq, Congress, veto, Republican

Congress Ready For Battle?

  Washington, DC is full of our blowhard Congressmen freshly back from their Independence Day holiday vacation and they appear headed with a confrontation with idiot Bush over his claims of executive privilege when it comes to the Bush Crime Family having to hand over documents and other data to the Congress concerning investigations. It doesn't help Bush that the Congress is pissed off because he commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while everyone was out for summer break.

  Republicans and Democrats are both questioning Bush and his flawed Iraq war policy with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, saying today that there has been a steady erosion of support for the president's policy in Congress because of the "tremendous loss of life among our troops" (June) and "the failure of the Iraqi government to pursue the political reforms that are necessary to quell the sectarian violence."

   This should be an interesting week with the Democrats and the White House with a few investigations maybe heading towards contempt of court citations and possibly federal court if the investigators and the crooks in the White House can't come to any compromise over the requested documents and records.

 

_Monday is the deadline for the White House to explain why Bush is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for e-mails and other documents on his aides' involvement in the firings of eight federal prosecutors last winter. The White House is not expected to comply with the deadline.

_In a pair of hearings Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will look at Bush's commutation last week of Libby's prison sentence for obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hear from former White House political director Sara Taylor about the prosecutor firings, according to Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

_The next day, the House panel is expected to turn to the prosecutor firings and has scheduled testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. It's unclear whether she will appear.    Source

   On Iraq:

"The president argued that we needed to undertake the surge in order to give the Iraq government the time, the space to pursue the political reforms," Collins said on CNN. "That hasn't happened. Instead it has been our troops who are making the sacrifice, who are bearing the burden, and that's why you see a real change in support for the Iraq strategy."

In Baghdad Monday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned that a quick American troop withdrawal could lead to civil war and the collapse of the Iraqi state.

   It would seem that the Iraqi Foreign Minister is eating the same bullshit that Bush and others have been feeding the American people for the past 4 years. Living in the state of delusion must be nice  at times! Maybe a real human being needs to go visit the Foreign Minister and take his rose colored glasses off of his face since they seem to be blinding him to the civil war going on around him.

   Anyway, the Democrats need to forget about playing nice with the White House and contempt of Congress citations and just gather up the Sargent at Arms, the Feds, and the military if necessary, and go drag those in contempt out of their offices and lock their sorry asses up until the hearings and trials are completed. Problem solved!

  These gutless Democrats had better start worrying about the battle that they will have to do with the American voter if they do not get off of their butts and do the job that we hired them to do!

Technorati tags: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, George Bush, Congress, contempt of court, White House, Sara Taylor, Iraq, House Judiciary Committee