This is what it is buying us.
By the way, the money is being borrowed to fund the war, so the American people will not notice the cost until we get the bill after Bush is out of office.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Bush games the system again! What a democracy.
So last November the American people spoke and turned over control of Congress to the Democrats. Bush wanted to appoint some creepy donors to positions at the State Department, the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Elections Commission etc. If the Congress was Republican he could just expect them to be approved with no oversight. The problem was that now the Congress would be Democratic. The new appointments would be scrutinized and found to be crap. So the President decided to do what he has done in the past when he can't get approval from Congress, he does a recess appointment. A recess appointment lets him fill a key vacancy during a Congressional recess so the business of Government can continue. The recess appointment clause has been seriously abused by the President to get unqualified cronies past Congress.
Here is the problem, the Congress was not in "recess." It was not in session at all. The 109th Congress had not started yet, and the 108th had already finished. Until the 18th of January, when the new Democrats were sworn in, the Congress was still controlled by the Republicans. So what did they do. They convene the new 109th Congress for 41 seconds on January 4th. After Congress is in session, and then closed, after 41 seconds, Congress is officially in "recess" and Bush can appoint his friends and donors. What a creep.
Read more here
Here is the problem, the Congress was not in "recess." It was not in session at all. The 109th Congress had not started yet, and the 108th had already finished. Until the 18th of January, when the new Democrats were sworn in, the Congress was still controlled by the Republicans. So what did they do. They convene the new 109th Congress for 41 seconds on January 4th. After Congress is in session, and then closed, after 41 seconds, Congress is officially in "recess" and Bush can appoint his friends and donors. What a creep.
Read more here
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
AP gets suckered on bogus Pelosi story yet again.
It is a wonder that any newspaper continues to print the stuff from AP. Here is the story from Horses Mouth:
Here are the specifics: The GOP is hammering Pelosi for including a provision for $25 million in waterfront improvements in San Francisco in a big water redevelopment bill passed by the House in April. The GOP is insinuating that the provision was included by Pelosi because it could boost the value of land her husband owns in the city.
The AP jumped at the GOP's accusations late yesterday, moving this story about the GOP's attack.
As the AP story noted, Pelosi's aides are defending her by pointing out that "the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco," not by Pelosi, and noting that the rental properties owned by Pelosi's husband are at least a mile away from the project.
If it were proven that the improvements were in fact requested by the Port of San Francisco, and not Pelosi herself, of course, it would render the story thoroughly bogus -- unfit for publication, really. The AP, however, merely attributed this line to Pelosi's people. It's unclear whether the AP made a serious effort to determine whether it was objectively true or not. This allowed the news org to run with the GOP hit as a he-said-she-said dispute.
But I've just gotten off the phone with the Port of San Francisco. Guess what? Its representatives told me in no uncertain terms that it requested the improvements, and that Pelosi only included the improvements at their request. Here's what Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said to me:
Here are the specifics: The GOP is hammering Pelosi for including a provision for $25 million in waterfront improvements in San Francisco in a big water redevelopment bill passed by the House in April. The GOP is insinuating that the provision was included by Pelosi because it could boost the value of land her husband owns in the city.
The AP jumped at the GOP's accusations late yesterday, moving this story about the GOP's attack.
As the AP story noted, Pelosi's aides are defending her by pointing out that "the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco," not by Pelosi, and noting that the rental properties owned by Pelosi's husband are at least a mile away from the project.
If it were proven that the improvements were in fact requested by the Port of San Francisco, and not Pelosi herself, of course, it would render the story thoroughly bogus -- unfit for publication, really. The AP, however, merely attributed this line to Pelosi's people. It's unclear whether the AP made a serious effort to determine whether it was objectively true or not. This allowed the news org to run with the GOP hit as a he-said-she-said dispute.
But I've just gotten off the phone with the Port of San Francisco. Guess what? Its representatives told me in no uncertain terms that it requested the improvements, and that Pelosi only included the improvements at their request. Here's what Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said to me:
"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."
Calling all Patriotic Americans
From Kos
According to Matt Stoller, there's a possibility that the Armed Services Committee will include a restoration of habeas corpus into the Defense Department authorization bill in the committee mark up of it, which is happening tomorrow and Thursday.
Congressional Democrats now have the opportunity to undo the most egregious damage they've done to the Constitution with the Military Commissions Act. While the ACLU and other organizations are working to have the entire Act repealed, at the very least restoring habeas is a critical start.
1. Habeas corpus is a core principle of the Western legal system. Since 1215, habeas corpus has been a major mechanism in ensuring that executive power, whether exercised by a king or a president, is checked.
2. Our nation’s founders deemed the right of habeas corpus so important that they enshrined it into the Constitution.
3. Habeas corpus can be suspended by Congress only in times of rebellion or invasion, and neither is currently taking place.
4. Habeas corpus is a core democratic principle. If we are to continue to think of the United States as a free and democratic country, it is very important that we hold on to our Constitutional principles.
5. The Bush administration's "alternative procedure” – the Combatant Status Review Tribunal – is no substitute for habeas corpus. In the unfair and deeply flawed CSRT process, coerced evidence and secret evidence are allowed, and detainees cannot have an attorney represent them.
6. The detainees, many of whom are guilty of only being in the wrong place at the wrong time, have lost years of their lives due to the actions of the Bush administration. They must be given the right to challenge their detention so that these wrongs can begin to be righted.
7. People and countries around the world view the United States as lawless. We can begin to change that by restoring the right of habeas corpus to the almost 400 detainees at Guantánamo
(back to top)
Call your REP!
According to Matt Stoller, there's a possibility that the Armed Services Committee will include a restoration of habeas corpus into the Defense Department authorization bill in the committee mark up of it, which is happening tomorrow and Thursday.
Congressional Democrats now have the opportunity to undo the most egregious damage they've done to the Constitution with the Military Commissions Act. While the ACLU and other organizations are working to have the entire Act repealed, at the very least restoring habeas is a critical start.
1. Habeas corpus is a core principle of the Western legal system. Since 1215, habeas corpus has been a major mechanism in ensuring that executive power, whether exercised by a king or a president, is checked.
2. Our nation’s founders deemed the right of habeas corpus so important that they enshrined it into the Constitution.
3. Habeas corpus can be suspended by Congress only in times of rebellion or invasion, and neither is currently taking place.
4. Habeas corpus is a core democratic principle. If we are to continue to think of the United States as a free and democratic country, it is very important that we hold on to our Constitutional principles.
5. The Bush administration's "alternative procedure” – the Combatant Status Review Tribunal – is no substitute for habeas corpus. In the unfair and deeply flawed CSRT process, coerced evidence and secret evidence are allowed, and detainees cannot have an attorney represent them.
6. The detainees, many of whom are guilty of only being in the wrong place at the wrong time, have lost years of their lives due to the actions of the Bush administration. They must be given the right to challenge their detention so that these wrongs can begin to be righted.
7. People and countries around the world view the United States as lawless. We can begin to change that by restoring the right of habeas corpus to the almost 400 detainees at Guantánamo
(back to top)
Call your REP!
Thursday, May 3, 2007
What happens when you don't know what you are doing.
It sounds so simple. If you want money from the US, then you must sign a pledge to not, in any way, support prostitution. Sounds so simple, while you sit on your Lawn Boy and mow your grass. Unfortunately not everyone lives in America and the money we are talking about is to prevent AIDs in foreign countries.
Here is an article on the matter and a film that opens up the complexity of the issue.
I can just picture some "Bishie" like Monica Goodling saying, "of course we should put this clause in the contract, what could be the harm in doing that?"
Here is an article on the matter and a film that opens up the complexity of the issue.
I can just picture some "Bishie" like Monica Goodling saying, "of course we should put this clause in the contract, what could be the harm in doing that?"
Iraq
No matter what a person's position was four years ago. We have to admit this fact, the war in Iraq is done for America. It is just a matter of time and lives until the conclusion is realized. None of us is happy about this. We all wish things had been done better. The country knows the war is lost, and some Republicans know it. Virtually all the Democrats know it.
Which brings me back to the Republicans. I suspect most of them also know the war is lost, but are too afraid to say so.
When you vote next time, ask yourself this, did my Republican legislator admit the debacle in Iraq and do something about it, or did they tow the party line? If they did not fall on the side of admitting the obvious, then ask yourself the next question, is my representative doing their job, or just what is personally and politically expedient? Are they representing their constituency or sucking up to the person in power, no matter how deluded he is?
We do not have the same test for Democrats at this point. I am sure we will have the opportunity to test their ability in the years to come. For now we just need to focus on what we know, we have a whole bunch of Republican sheep who do not belong in Congress.
Which brings me back to the Republicans. I suspect most of them also know the war is lost, but are too afraid to say so.
When you vote next time, ask yourself this, did my Republican legislator admit the debacle in Iraq and do something about it, or did they tow the party line? If they did not fall on the side of admitting the obvious, then ask yourself the next question, is my representative doing their job, or just what is personally and politically expedient? Are they representing their constituency or sucking up to the person in power, no matter how deluded he is?
We do not have the same test for Democrats at this point. I am sure we will have the opportunity to test their ability in the years to come. For now we just need to focus on what we know, we have a whole bunch of Republican sheep who do not belong in Congress.
Wally Schirra, 1923-2007
I grew up watching the space program and remember the first walk on the moon. I was nine.
Wally Shirra was a name I heard a lot. I took it for granted that I would hear his name any time a rocket went into space. He has not crossed my mind in years.
Wally Shirra is an American icon, a true American Hero. He did his job quietly and with a sense of humor. When he was done he continued his quiet successful life. In an age of media hounds I miss the likes of Wally. We could all learn from this fine man. It never occurred to me that I would notice his passing, much less feel sad to have lost him.
From Wikipedia:
On April 2, 1959, Schirra was chosen as one of the original seven American astronauts. He entered Project Mercury and was assigned the specialty area involving life support systems.
On October 3, 1962, Schirra became the fifth American in space, piloting the Mercury 8 (Sigma 7) on a six-orbit mission lasting 9 hours, 13 minutes, and 11 seconds. The capsule attained a velocity of 17,557 miles per hour and an altitude of 175 statute miles, and landed within four miles of the main Pacific Ocean recovery ship.
March 10, 1966: Wally Schirra is presented with the Philippine Air Force Aviation Badge by Imelda Marcos as Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, watches. Schirra is also wearing the Philippines' Legion of Honor, presented in a ceremony at the Malacañang Palace in Manila.
On December 15, 1965, Schirra flew into space a second time in Gemini 6A with Tom Stafford, rendezvousing with astronauts Frank Borman and James Lovell, Jr. in Gemini 7. This was the first rendezvous of two manned spacecraft in earth orbit. The two vehicles, however, were not capable of actually docking. Gemini 6 landed in the Atlantic Ocean the next day, while Gemini 7 continued on to a record-setting 14-day mission.
On October 11, 1968, Schirra became the first man to fly in space three times on his final flight as commander of Apollo 7, the first manned flight in the Apollo program after a fatal fire during tests of Apollo 1. The three-man crew, including Donn Eisele and Walter Cunningham, spent eleven days in earth orbit, performed rendezvous exercises with the upper stage of the Saturn 1-B launch vehicle that rocketed them into space and provided the first live television pictures from inside a U.S. manned spacecraft for which he received an Emmy.
Wally Shirra was a name I heard a lot. I took it for granted that I would hear his name any time a rocket went into space. He has not crossed my mind in years.
Wally Shirra is an American icon, a true American Hero. He did his job quietly and with a sense of humor. When he was done he continued his quiet successful life. In an age of media hounds I miss the likes of Wally. We could all learn from this fine man. It never occurred to me that I would notice his passing, much less feel sad to have lost him.
From Wikipedia:
On April 2, 1959, Schirra was chosen as one of the original seven American astronauts. He entered Project Mercury and was assigned the specialty area involving life support systems.
On October 3, 1962, Schirra became the fifth American in space, piloting the Mercury 8 (Sigma 7) on a six-orbit mission lasting 9 hours, 13 minutes, and 11 seconds. The capsule attained a velocity of 17,557 miles per hour and an altitude of 175 statute miles, and landed within four miles of the main Pacific Ocean recovery ship.
March 10, 1966: Wally Schirra is presented with the Philippine Air Force Aviation Badge by Imelda Marcos as Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, watches. Schirra is also wearing the Philippines' Legion of Honor, presented in a ceremony at the Malacañang Palace in Manila.
On December 15, 1965, Schirra flew into space a second time in Gemini 6A with Tom Stafford, rendezvousing with astronauts Frank Borman and James Lovell, Jr. in Gemini 7. This was the first rendezvous of two manned spacecraft in earth orbit. The two vehicles, however, were not capable of actually docking. Gemini 6 landed in the Atlantic Ocean the next day, while Gemini 7 continued on to a record-setting 14-day mission.
On October 11, 1968, Schirra became the first man to fly in space three times on his final flight as commander of Apollo 7, the first manned flight in the Apollo program after a fatal fire during tests of Apollo 1. The three-man crew, including Donn Eisele and Walter Cunningham, spent eleven days in earth orbit, performed rendezvous exercises with the upper stage of the Saturn 1-B launch vehicle that rocketed them into space and provided the first live television pictures from inside a U.S. manned spacecraft for which he received an Emmy.
The Bush "justice" Department
Candidates and Elected Public officials investigated by the Bush "justice" Department from 2001 through 2006:
Democrats 298 (79.47%)
Republicans 67 (17.87%)
Independents 10 (2.66%)
So either Democrats are four and a half times more corrupt, or something else is going on here.
Intuitively it makes no sense that Democrats would be more corrupt during this period. They were not in power. For example, why would would anyone bribe a Democrat, who could not deliver legislation with any chance of becoming law?
Democrats 298 (79.47%)
Republicans 67 (17.87%)
Independents 10 (2.66%)
So either Democrats are four and a half times more corrupt, or something else is going on here.
Intuitively it makes no sense that Democrats would be more corrupt during this period. They were not in power. For example, why would would anyone bribe a Democrat, who could not deliver legislation with any chance of becoming law?
How much of this have you seen on the news? I bet none.
From Greenwald:
This week, the Bush administration sought vastly increased powers to spy on the telephone conversations of Americans, and then threatened to begin spying again illegally and without warrants. It was revealed that Condoleezza Rice would meet with Syrian officials, a significant shift in Middle East policy.
Yesterday, it was disclosed that Iraq's government is actually purging itself of anyone who seeks to impede lawless Shiite militias. And one of the right-wing's most influential academicians published an article on The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed page explicitly advocating "one-man rule" in America whereby the President can ignore the "rule of law" in order to fight The Terrorists.
This week, the Bush administration sought vastly increased powers to spy on the telephone conversations of Americans, and then threatened to begin spying again illegally and without warrants. It was revealed that Condoleezza Rice would meet with Syrian officials, a significant shift in Middle East policy.
Yesterday, it was disclosed that Iraq's government is actually purging itself of anyone who seeks to impede lawless Shiite militias. And one of the right-wing's most influential academicians published an article on The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed page explicitly advocating "one-man rule" in America whereby the President can ignore the "rule of law" in order to fight The Terrorists.
The Voter Fraud That Was Really Political Fraud
Two things have become clear in the past two months. Karl Rove was pushing and election strategy that played up "voter fraud." And there was no actual voter fraud for Rove to play up.
The voter fraud theme has even played itself out in the US Attorney scandal. It turns out that a majority of the attorneys fired were unwilling to prosecute bogus voter fraud cases and some attorneys, got their names of the list to be fired, by bringing voter fraud cases, even when they did not have real evidence. Two of these cases have been laughed out of court in the past month.
Digby has a theory on why Rove wanted to play up voter fraud:
(...)
With populations that don't necessarily trust the authorities to be impartial even when the stakes are huge, asking them to run a gauntlet of legal hurdles in order to vote pretty much assures that quite a few of them won't bother. In a cynical nation that can barely get a majority of its eligible citizens to vote anyway, you can potentially peel off a percentage or two just by making voting a pain in the neck.
The voter fraud theme has even played itself out in the US Attorney scandal. It turns out that a majority of the attorneys fired were unwilling to prosecute bogus voter fraud cases and some attorneys, got their names of the list to be fired, by bringing voter fraud cases, even when they did not have real evidence. Two of these cases have been laughed out of court in the past month.
Digby has a theory on why Rove wanted to play up voter fraud:
The preoccupation with ballot fraud in Missouri was part of a wider national
effort that critics charge was aimed at protecting the Republican majority in
Congress by dampening Democratic turnout. That effort included stiffer voter-identification requirements, wholesale purges of names from lists of registered voters and tight policing of liberal get-out-the-vote drives.
(...)
With populations that don't necessarily trust the authorities to be impartial even when the stakes are huge, asking them to run a gauntlet of legal hurdles in order to vote pretty much assures that quite a few of them won't bother. In a cynical nation that can barely get a majority of its eligible citizens to vote anyway, you can potentially peel off a percentage or two just by making voting a pain in the neck.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
How convenient
An internal Justice Department investigation may preclude Monica Goodling from testifying before Congress. I don't buy that this is on the up-and-up for even one millisecond.
The Goodling revelations raise uncertainty about whether she will testify before the House Judiciary Committee, which offered her limited immunity from prosecution last week in exchange for her testimony about the firings. Goodling, who resigned last month, has invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions from Congress.
Such an immunity deal requires approval from the Justice Department, which must agree that her testimony would not interfere with an ongoing criminal probe, according to administration and congressional officials. Although the joint probe into the attorney firings by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and OPR is not criminal, the allegations against Goodling raise the possibility that a crime may have been committed.
The Goodling revelations raise uncertainty about whether she will testify before the House Judiciary Committee, which offered her limited immunity from prosecution last week in exchange for her testimony about the firings. Goodling, who resigned last month, has invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions from Congress.
Such an immunity deal requires approval from the Justice Department, which must agree that her testimony would not interfere with an ongoing criminal probe, according to administration and congressional officials. Although the joint probe into the attorney firings by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and OPR is not criminal, the allegations against Goodling raise the possibility that a crime may have been committed.
Investigations
Rahm Imanuel:
Madam Speaker, the list of Republicans under investigation or resigning in this administration in disgrace keeps growing. This morning The Washington Post reported,
Julie MacDonald, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Department, resigned just as she was being investigated for changing scientific reports to protect the interests of oil and gas companies and real estate developers, all the people she was supposed to be actually holding accountable. I wish this was an isolated case in the Bush Administration.
This morning the New York Times reported the Department of Commerce Inspector General faces three separate investigations into the conduct of his office.
Scott Bloch, the Special Counsel at the Justice Department, is being investigated for the management of his office.
Lurita Doan at the GSA being investigated for the politicization of the offices.
Monica Goodling at the Justice Department resigned.
Sue Ellen Wooldridge at Justice stepped down.
Matteo Fontana, at the Department of Education, has to step aside.
David Safavian, OMB, has been prosecuted.
Steve Griles at the Interior Department had to step down.
All have had their conduct scrutinized while in a professional office. It is time, for in fact it justifies why, this Congress is doing its job of oversight and accountability and bringing people’s professional conduct in order.
Madam Speaker, the list of Republicans under investigation or resigning in this administration in disgrace keeps growing. This morning The Washington Post reported,
Julie MacDonald, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Department, resigned just as she was being investigated for changing scientific reports to protect the interests of oil and gas companies and real estate developers, all the people she was supposed to be actually holding accountable. I wish this was an isolated case in the Bush Administration.
This morning the New York Times reported the Department of Commerce Inspector General faces three separate investigations into the conduct of his office.
Scott Bloch, the Special Counsel at the Justice Department, is being investigated for the management of his office.
Lurita Doan at the GSA being investigated for the politicization of the offices.
Monica Goodling at the Justice Department resigned.
Sue Ellen Wooldridge at Justice stepped down.
Matteo Fontana, at the Department of Education, has to step aside.
David Safavian, OMB, has been prosecuted.
Steve Griles at the Interior Department had to step down.
All have had their conduct scrutinized while in a professional office. It is time, for in fact it justifies why, this Congress is doing its job of oversight and accountability and bringing people’s professional conduct in order.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The rest of the story.
By the way, while we are screwing around in Iraq, we are loosing Afghanistan to the people who actually did attack us, people are getting slaughtered in Darfur, my children do not have enough funding for their school, and 40 million Americans go without health insurance.
I usually go by the motto that "you break it you buy it." At this point I think we have bought and paid for Iraq. I think we now need to cut bait and put some people in jail. Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, and the neo-cons come to mind. So do half the owners of the media and six or seven radio and TV hosts. Talk about treason.
I usually go by the motto that "you break it you buy it." At this point I think we have bought and paid for Iraq. I think we now need to cut bait and put some people in jail. Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, and the neo-cons come to mind. So do half the owners of the media and six or seven radio and TV hosts. Talk about treason.
'Nuf said
May 1, 2007
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.
Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.
[...]
As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.
I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.
Respectfully,
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.
Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.
[...]
As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.
I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.
Respectfully,
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired
Bush cuts Iraq war funding with veto of supplemental spending bill.
Bush will carry out his long-standing threat to veto the legislation after returning from a visit to U.S. Central Command in Tampa, White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
Why we are stuck with Gonzales
If he resigns then the confirmation hearings for his replacement will open up a truck load of dirty laundry that the President does not want aired. No wonder the President pronounced his confidence in Gonzales after the "baby seal clubbing" he took a couple of weeks ago.
Here is the story
From the LA Times opinion page.
That leaves Senate confirmation hearings of a new attorney general nominee as the main leverage for Congress to secure an independent criminal investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.Moreover, the Senate might use such hearings to do more than secure testimony from White House aides about the firings, as Leahy indicated. It also might use the opportunity to probe the Justice Department's role in mistreatment of detainees, four years of flouting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other serious matters.
Rather than face such scrutiny, the White House may prefer keeping a drastically weakened Gonzales in place. But doing so exacts a high price for the Justice Department and the nation. It damages department morale and credibility, undermines its ability to recruit and could affect perceptions of federal prosecutors, jeopardizing important cases. By retaining Gonzales to preempt Senate action, the president has signaled that this is a price he is willing to make the nation pay.
Here is the story
From the LA Times opinion page.
That leaves Senate confirmation hearings of a new attorney general nominee as the main leverage for Congress to secure an independent criminal investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.Moreover, the Senate might use such hearings to do more than secure testimony from White House aides about the firings, as Leahy indicated. It also might use the opportunity to probe the Justice Department's role in mistreatment of detainees, four years of flouting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other serious matters.
Rather than face such scrutiny, the White House may prefer keeping a drastically weakened Gonzales in place. But doing so exacts a high price for the Justice Department and the nation. It damages department morale and credibility, undermines its ability to recruit and could affect perceptions of federal prosecutors, jeopardizing important cases. By retaining Gonzales to preempt Senate action, the president has signaled that this is a price he is willing to make the nation pay.
Josh Marshall Talks About Cheney "Forgery"
Ray McGovern uses "Cheney" and "Forgery" in same sentence. Marshall talks about why the FBI is not doing anything. It turns out the FBI would need the cooperation of the Italian government to dig into this case. For that they need help from the State Department and the Bush administration shows no interest in pushing the Italians to cough up any information on where they got the forged document.
Does it surprise anyone that the Administration is not "pushing" for this information?
Does it surprise anyone that the Administration is not "pushing" for this information?
Which democracy is better? The US or Isreal
It turns out that the Israeli democracy is far more mature. The US democracy is a petulant child.
From Glenn Greenwald:
All of this underscores a fundamental difference between Israel and the right-wing faction in the U.S. For Israel -- whatever else you might think about its policies and government -- war is an extremely serious matter. They don't send other people's children off to fight the wars they cheer on; their own children fight the wars. During the invasion of Lebanon, missiles continuously landed deep in Israeli territory, killing killing or wounding hundreds and forcing hundreds of thousands to flee their homes or live in bomb shelters.
Unlike our chest-beating, play-acting warriors here, war is not something that Israelis cheer on for fun like a video game from behind their computer monitor or sitting on their sofa watching CNN or Fox. When they advocate wars, they pay a price. As a result, they don't have the luxury of shutting their eyes and pretending that things are going well -- or exploiting accusations of treason in order to stifle war criticisms -- or cheering on failing wars for years for no reason other than to avoid having to admit error or feel weak.
All of that stands in such stark contrast to the shrinking though still-substantial faction in this country who see war as a fun and sterile video game that never requires them to pay any price -- no matter how profoundly the war fails. That is what enables them to cheer on those wars for years without end, to urge still new and more destructive ones, and to childishly insist that there is something noble and compulsory about keeping quiet, loyally cheering on the Leader's war, and pretending that things are going great and we are on the verge of success.
From Glenn Greenwald:
All of this underscores a fundamental difference between Israel and the right-wing faction in the U.S. For Israel -- whatever else you might think about its policies and government -- war is an extremely serious matter. They don't send other people's children off to fight the wars they cheer on; their own children fight the wars. During the invasion of Lebanon, missiles continuously landed deep in Israeli territory, killing killing or wounding hundreds and forcing hundreds of thousands to flee their homes or live in bomb shelters.
Unlike our chest-beating, play-acting warriors here, war is not something that Israelis cheer on for fun like a video game from behind their computer monitor or sitting on their sofa watching CNN or Fox. When they advocate wars, they pay a price. As a result, they don't have the luxury of shutting their eyes and pretending that things are going well -- or exploiting accusations of treason in order to stifle war criticisms -- or cheering on failing wars for years for no reason other than to avoid having to admit error or feel weak.
All of that stands in such stark contrast to the shrinking though still-substantial faction in this country who see war as a fun and sterile video game that never requires them to pay any price -- no matter how profoundly the war fails. That is what enables them to cheer on those wars for years without end, to urge still new and more destructive ones, and to childishly insist that there is something noble and compulsory about keeping quiet, loyally cheering on the Leader's war, and pretending that things are going great and we are on the verge of success.
Broder of Wa Po removes his head from his small intestine.
Washington Post columnist David Broder decides it is "doubtful" an Iraq victory is possible. Now how is that for a "treasonous" statement?
I cannot believe that this guy has any credibility. Even my dog knows victory in Iraq is doubtful. I think that statements like this, from Broder, are worthy of a "no s**t Sherlock" rejoinder.
The amazing thing is that just four days ago this same schmuck called out Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the Senate, for asserting the Iraq war "is lost."
Does it leave you just speechless?
Media Matters has more
I cannot believe that this guy has any credibility. Even my dog knows victory in Iraq is doubtful. I think that statements like this, from Broder, are worthy of a "no s**t Sherlock" rejoinder.
The amazing thing is that just four days ago this same schmuck called out Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the Senate, for asserting the Iraq war "is lost."
Does it leave you just speechless?
Media Matters has more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
