American Politics Just get Goofier by the Mimute

Republicans flip out over lawyer flap

Philadelphia man isn't only GOP member switching sides in 2008

July 19, 2007

BY JENNIFER HUNTER Sun-Times Columnist

Ever been harassed by a group of irate Republicans?

For the past few days, since a news story of mine was published on Monday, I have been bombarded with dozens of daily e-mails from Republicans calling me a liar, demanding I be fired, and insisting on a retraction.

The grumbling arose partially because my editor took a small part of my story and made it into a headline: "GOP lawyer sold on Dems." Reporters don't write headlines, editors do. And they want to write something catchy so readers will read the darned story.

The story was not about the GOP lawyer; it was about the speeches five Democratic presidential candidates gave to a convention of trial lawyers (those two words "trial lawyers" also make Republicans crazy) last Sunday. As reporters usually do, I asked two attendees after the session what they thought about the speeches.

One of the men I interviewed, Jim Ronca, identified himself as a disgruntled Republican, fed up with the Bush White House, who was going to give his vote and money to Democrats. In my story I called him a "staunch Republican." His wife was standing by his side, and so was a friend, a Democrat from New York, Ted Oshman, neither of whom disputed Ronca's description of himself as a Republican.

Oshman added during our interview that he could "not eliminate one of" the Democrats, they all spoke so well. That line ended up in a subhead on the story.

After the story was published, some Republicans posted to right-wing Web sites the two headlines and the two paragraphs quoting Ronca.

And so the madness began.

Industrious partisans, upset that anyone calling himself a Republican could possibly think of supporting the Democrats, decided to "investigate" Ronca, an attorney from Philadelphia. And what they found, they told me, was a long history of Ronca giving more money to Democrats than Republicans. (In fact, much of the money he donated to Democrats was after George W. Bush was elected.)

Richard Rentfrow sent a "notice" each day demanding I give him "Jim Ronca's GOP credentials" or he would "out" me to other papers and Web sites. After he sent me what he described as his "5th notice" he posted an e-mail decrying me as "a lying liberal Democrat girl reporter." Thank you Richard, at my age it's nice to be thought of as a girl.

"Is this a story or an editorial?" wrote Reg Fennell. "You know your "staunch Republican" is NOTHING OF THE SORT! You know he has a history of not supporting Republicans. Did you really believe this would go unnoticed or are you simply comfortable with intellectual dishonesty to your readers? Maybe you're just lazy and careless." Oh, Reg, calm down.

Here's another from Jeffery Cernekee: "It seems that you must be on the demorats [sic] payroll. Your claim that a prominent republican is changing his ways. Too bad the truth will come out and of course it did that he gave most of his money to the demorats [sic]. Will you please get you [sic] facts straight or quit reporting on things you do not have a clue about. . . . Do you have to lie to give the impression that people are leaving the republicans to vote for the demorats [sic]? How bush of you."

Karen Mango wrote: "Have you been fired yet for your lie about your trial lawyer/staunch republican turned democrat? Are you shamefaced for believing a TRIAL LAWYER??? I hope you finally did the research that the bloggers did with a google entry -- your Ronca has given to democrats all his life. He lied to you, and you printed it. You didn't research, you were salivating over going to print with an anti-republican story, and the truth never mattered. Don't fall back on the ''he said he was a staunch republican,'' because your article does not attribute his political stance as a quote, but as fact.

"I can't wait for your next article: All Trial Lawyers are Lying Jerks."

The final kicker for all you Republicans who read my column with a magnifying glass is a press release issued Wednesday: "One of Chicago's key Republican fund-raisers, CME Group Executive Chairman Terry Duffy today announced that he is endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for the 2008 election."

Duffy says he intends to remain a registered Republican.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Goopers: Don't expect any apologies from us!

As a matter of fact, you might need to lower your expectation quite a bit.

APOLOGIZE? Are you out of your damn minds?
Submitted by clammyc on Sun, 06/17/2007 - 11:48.
Republicans

Excuse me, Mr. republican pot for taking issue with your feigned outrage (yet again) directed towards those evil “kettle” Democrats. This time it is an apology owed by Majority Leader Harry Reid for his remarks about former Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace.

Tony fucking liar Snow wants Reid to apologize. Lying, two faced opportunist John McCain called the remarks highly inappropriate. republican congressman Mike Conaway joined in with his own “outrage”. And, always eager to lap this up, George Stephanopolous hopped all over this today, asking Biden if he thought Reid should apologize.

This, on the heels of the Democratic debates, where the candidates were asked to distance themselves from Reid or other Democrats on various “issues” that were mere nonsense.

Apologize? Give me a fucking break, assholes. You want an apology? Well, maybe when you apologize and take actions to fix some of the thousands of crimes and horrific acts that you watched, cheered on or even perpetrated yourselves. If republicans are so damn “tough”, then why do they go squealing like a stuck pig every single goddamn time someone says something that would “hurt the troops feelings” or “undermine our generals” or whatever other stupid crap they can conjure up?

You want an apology? Why not start with looking in the mirror? And if you can’t because you would be staring at a torture enabling, deficit increasing, corrupt criminal associating scumbag, then I’ll be all the more happy to give a bit of a reminder of the more egregious acts that have been fostered and conjured up by the republican party – and by no means is this list even remotely exhaustive.

Enabling torture. Neglecting the Gulf Coast and stranding tens of thousands to die. Lies about WMD. Lies about Saddam and al Qaeda. Lies about “progress in Iraq”. Cutting and running from Afghanistan. Tax cuts to the wealthy while squeezing the middle class. Abu Ghraib. Extraordinary rendition. Ruining the military. Not equipping our troops. Neglecting veterans. Extremist activist judges that take away our rights. Preference for corporations’ rights over peoples’ rights. Free speech zones. Politicization of the Justice Department. Caging. Promotion of those who have spent their careers suppressing the vote.

Warrantless wiretapping. Outing a covert CIA agent. Swift Boat liars. Making a mockery of the US Attorneys. Funding the Sunni insurgents. Warmongering about Iran. Ignoring bin Laden. Ignoring the disaster in Afghanistan. Politicizing the education department with “No Child Left Behind”. Gutting the environmental laws. Allowing nearly 50 million people to go without any health insurance, and millions more with insurance that won’t cover much of anything. Suspension of habeas corpus. Indefinite detainment of people without charges. Secret CIA prisons overseas.

Corporate media consolidation and suppression of any other voices. Covering up Mark Foley’s disgusting and illegal behavior. Republican felon Jack Abramoff and all of his connections. Tom DeLay’s corruption and money laundering. Neutering the House Ethics Committee. Not testifying under oath before the 9/11 Commission. Ignoring the PDB about Bin Laden striking in the US. Blowing off Iran in 2002 and 2003, then lying about it to Congress.

Lying and distorting Gore’s record in 2000. Lying and distorting Kerry’s record in 2004. Ignoring the will of the people about Iraq. Brownie. Lying about the air quality at Ground Zero and then not helping those rescue workers who developed health problems. Paid propaganda to push the White House agenda not investigated. “Fixing the facts around the policy”. Ruining America’s image around the world. Double standards with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran.

No bid contracts to Halliburton. $8 Billion missing in Iraq. Blackwater. Not using Homeland Security funds to protect nuclear plants, railways, the power grid, the food supply or our ports. Not attending any military funerals. “Listening to the generals” except when they don’t tell you what you want to hear. “Strolls through Baghdad markets” with hundreds of guards and air cover for a photo op. Using white phosphorus in Iraq. Duke Cunningham. John Doolittle. Jerry Lewis. Coingate. Phone jamming in NH on Election Day.

And I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands more. So stop with the fake outrage. A few words – especially ones that are pretty true – are no match for the depths of corruption, lies, death, suppression, theft and other actions that truly are worthy of much more than a mere apology. Frankly, it has gotten old, boring and stupid.
Demanding an apology. Grow the fuck up already.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Intelligence Vets Question Rethug Committement to rule of Law

Everyone is questioning it....because they have shown no evidence that they care a whit about the rule of law when it interefres with their agendas, hidden or otherwise.

CIA Veterans Write to RNC of Their Concern Over Republican Threat to Rule of Law

Submitted by david Swanson on Wed, 2007-06-13 18:49.
Media


13 June 2007

The Honorable Mel Martinez
General Chairman
The Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SEWashington, D.C. 20003

As former intelligence officers—most of us have served the United States in undercover positions—we are saddened and appalled by the recent public comments of former Senator Fred Thompson, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Governor Mitt Romney—one a potential candidate and the other two declared candidates for the Republican nomination for President--with respect to the perjury and obstruction of justice conviction of Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby. These men misrepresent the case against Mr. Libby and call into question the integrity of a respected Federal Judge and U.S. attorney. Their positions with respect to the just and fair punishment meted out to Mr. Libby raise serious questions about their commitment to the rule of law free of partisan bias.

We are particularly concerned by the recent speech by Fred Thompson, who declared:

As you may recall, for some inexplicable reason, the CIA sent the husband of one of its employees to Niger on a sensitive mission. She had suggested it. He came back to the U.S. and proceeded to publicly blast the administration. Naturally, everyone wanted to know “who is this guy?” and “why was he sent to Niger?” Just as naturally, the fact that he was married to Valerie Plame at the CIA was leaked.

Having virtually guaranteed that Ms. Plame’s identity would be ultimately disclosed by using her, shall we say, “politically active” husband, the CIA then demanded that this leak of her name be investigated by the Justice Department for a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The Justice Department, bowing to political and media pressure, appointed a Special Counsel to investigate the leak and promised that the Justice Department would exercise no supervision over him whatsoever — a status even the Attorney General does not have.

The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody — the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a “covered person” under the statute and it was obvious from the outset.

Furthermore, Justice and the Special Counsel knew who leaked Plames’s name and it wasn’t Scooter Libby. But the Beltway machinery was well oiled and geared up so the SpecialCounsel spent the next two years moving heaven and earth to come up with something, anything.

Finally he came up with some inconsistent recollections by Scooter Libby, who had been up to his ears studying National Intelligence Estimates. But he worked for Dick Cheney, so that apparently was enough for the special counsel.

The factual errors in Mr. Thompson’s statement are almost as egregious as his partisan view that perjury and obstruction of justice are not serious crimes. For example, Thompson states that there is something implausible about sending Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. In fact, Ambassador Wilson was uniquely qualified for the mission. Having served as the acting Ambassador in Iraq and faced down Saddam Hussein, Ambassador Wilson also was the Director of Africa in the National Security Council and had served as an Ambassador in west Africa and monitored the uranium mining activity of the country where he was stationed.

Former Senator Thompson persists with the lie that there was no “violation” of the intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). But his claim is debunked by Federal Judge Reginald Walton and Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who, after reviewing the classified personnel file of Valerie Plame Wilson, stated that she was in fact covered by the IIPA when Robert Novak printed her name in July of 2003.

It also is important to correct the record that Valerie Wilson did not suggest sending her husband to Niger. She responded to an inquiry from her supervisor and provided a memo laying out his capabilities. The decision to send Ambassador Wilson to Niger was made by a senior official in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA. Fred Thompson also is factually wrong by claiming that Joe Wilson returned from the trip, “and proceeded to publicly blast the administration”.

This is not true. Ambassador Wilson made no public statements critical of the Administration’s claims about the alleged purchase of yellowcake uranium until May of 2003—more than 15 months after returning from the trip and only after the President made the specious claim in the State of the Union address.

Our concern about Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney is narrower but important—are these men committed to a rule of law free of partisan influence? During the last Republican debate Rudy Giuliani said that:
he'd have to wait for the appeals process to play out to see if Libby met the criteria for a pardon. However, the former federal prosecutor said he believes the sentence imposed on Libby was "way out of line."

Mr. Giuliani had a different standard for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on September 11, 1987:

The United States Attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani, declared yesterday that the one-year prison sentence that a Queens judge received for perjury was "somewhatshocking."
"A sentence of one year seemed to me to be very lenient," Mr. Giuliani said, when asked to comment on the sentence imposed Wednesday on Justice Francis X. Smith, the former Queens administrative judge. . . .

Justice Smith was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury investigating corruption in the city, Mr. Giuliani said later, adding that "he could have helped root out corruption" by cooperating with the grand jury.

Mr. Romney’s statement is more outrageous. He accused Patrick Fitzgerald of abusing "prosecutorial discretion."

The case against Mr. Libby is straightforward. He blocked the efforts of Federal agents to investigate the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA officer who was covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Mr. Libby lied to Federal law enforcement officialsinvestigating the leak. Most importantly, Mr. Libby was convicted in a fair trial of perjury and obstruction of justice.

This is not an issue of Republican versus Democrat. The signatories of this letter include registered Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We believe that Republicans and Democrats alike must commit themselves to upholding the rule of law and refusing to use clandestine CIA officers as a political football. In this regard we find that the recent comments by Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney sadly wanting and unworthy of the highest elected office in the United States.

We are pleased, however, that the Republican Party is offering candidates who do believe in the rule of law. Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore and U.S. Congressman Ron Paul spoke boldly and reaffirmed the commitment of Republicans to uphold the rule of law. Both emphasized that the law must be applied to Mr. Libby, regardless of his social standing or wealth. We believe that Governor Gilmore and Congressman Paul reflect the values espoused by Ronald Reagan.

Good intelligence should not be a partisan issue. It is a professional obligation of intelligence officers to provide politicians with the best information and their best judgment. And it is the professional obligation of politicians to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the Constitution of the United States is upheld and enforced. On this critical issue we believe that the statements by Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney do damage to the reputation of the Republican Party and undermine public respect for the judicial system.

Respectfully yours,

Ray Close, Directorate of Operations
James Marcinkowski, Directorate of Operations
Philip Giraldi, Directorate of Operations
Michael Grimaldi, Directorate of Intelligence
Ray McGovern, Directorate of Intelligence
Melvin Goodman, Directorate of Intelligence
Larry Johnson, Directorate of Intelligence
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Gonzo Is Toast, whether he stays or goes

In our humble opinion, it isn't the firings so much as the connection of those firings to the supression of voter turn-out in past elections that should be everyone's major concern.

We suggest that the penalty for election tampering in a Democracy (as if we still had one) of any kind should be punishable by no less than 20 years in prison. If the only way a candidate can win is to cheat, then it should be obvious to anyone with more than three neurons firing that the candidate should not become president, senator, congressman or anything else.

Election stealing in a Democracy is the grandest of grand theft and should be treated as such, for many reasons, most of which are obvious.

One reason may not be all that obvious: When citizens become aware of election theft on a grand scale, they realize they are living in a lawless land in which anything goes. Sooner or later that realization will lead to major problems of crime and, eventually, revolution; and it won't be peaceful, but a horrible, bloody one, in which no one will be safe.

We call for investigations into the every election in this country, beginning with election 2000.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Several administration officials and the House Republican Conference chairman said Friday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should step down, following the harsh response to his Senate testimony on last year's firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Gonzales for hours Thursday about the dismissals.

The attorney general has been roundly criticized for his handling of the shakeup and for the shifting explanations Justice Department officials have given for the changes. (Watch how pressure on Gonzales to resign is growing )

Gonzales said more than 60 times that he "couldn't recall" certain incidents. His former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, used that explanation 122 times during his testimony weeks ago.

Detractors say the Justice Department has not been straightforward about the reasons the attorneys were dismissed. The controversy has led to allegations of political interference with pending investigations.

"He did not distinguish himself in the hearing," said Rep. Adam Putnam, House GOP conference chairman. "There remains a cloud over the department."

"I think that they would be well-served by fresh leadership," said Putnam, who is often a spokesman for House Republicans. He said no one was doing "high fives" after the testimony.

During the hearings Thursday, while Democratic senators criticized Gonzales' leadership, some of the sharpest criticism came from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including one who called for his resignation.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, said Gonzales should resign.

"The communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent -- it's generous to say that there were misstatements; it's a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered," Coburn said, adding, "I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation." (Watch Coburn tell Gonzales he must "suffer the consequences" )

On Friday, another Republican, Sen Jeff Sessions of Alabama, told CNN that Gonzales should consider leaving office.

"I think the attorney general ought to take the weekend and think about this and ask himself whether he can effectively reconstitute the attorney general's office," Sessions said, "and I'll be thinking about the same thing.

"If he feels like he cannot, then it would be best for the president and the country to resign."
Justice official: Gonzales 'feeling good'

According to a senior Justice Department official, Gonzales spoke to some senators Friday. The official would only say they included Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, "and others" and was not sure whether he spoke to any Democrats. "The conversations went well," the official said but provided no details.

The official also said, "Attorney General Gonzales is in good spirits. He's optimistic, feeling good." "He is eager to get on with the other important work of the department," the official added.
The attorney general plans to participate in private and public events in the coming week in Washington.

After Gonzales' testimony Thursday, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Gonzales has the full backing of the president:

"President Bush was pleased with the attorney general's testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the senators' questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses," Perino said.

White House insiders: Gonzales hurt himself

But White House insiders told CNN after the testimony that Gonzales hurt himself during his testimony.

The sources, involved in administration discussions about Gonzales, said two senior level White House aides who heard the testimony described Gonzales as "going down in flames," "not doing himself any favors," and "predictable."

"Everyone's putting their best public face on," one source said, "but everyone is discouraged. Everyone is disappointed." (Watch a recap of the testy hearing )

And the administration officials who talked to CNN on Friday agreed that Gonzales' statements did little to help him regain credibility on Capitol Hill and, in fact, may have lost him the few supporters he had left.

One official, who works closely with Gonzales, described him as "out of touch" with the political pulse in Washington. The official said the attorney general is still optimistic that he can remedy the situation.

The White House sources acknowledge that no one knows what the president will do. No one is looking for a replacement yet, sources said, and the White House is waiting to see how this plays out with the public and members of Congress over the next couple of days.

Another White House insider said it's up to the president to save him. (Strategy Session: Should Gonzales go? )

"He and Al have to work this out ..." he said. "There is no indication that Gonzales thinks he needs to leave."

Former solicitor general mentioned as possible replacement

Several other officials said Republicans have begun discussing a possible replacement.
One name that consistently comes up is Ted Olson, former solicitor general. Olson is seen as having the experience, reputation and credibility needed to steer the department for the next year and a half, through the end of Bush's term.

However, officials note that Bush has been a longtime defender of Gonzales, whom he hired as his general counsel in 1994 when he was elected Texas governor.

He may not be willing to give in to congressional demands to remove him, unless he becomes convinced that keeping Gonzales will hinder his agenda, they said.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, indicated to CNN that he is ambivalent about the possibility that Gonzales might leave.

"If Al Gonzales were to quit tomorrow, it wouldn't end it. It would just, I think, add fuel to the fire, especially with Democrats controlling the Senate," he said.

"We'd have a confirmation hearing with the new attorney general, with a year and half left to serve in President Bush's second term in office. I think it would be more chaotic than it would if he were to stay and try to do the best job he can under very difficult circumstances."

CNN's Terry Frieden, Kelli Arena, Dana Bash, Ted Barrett, Kevin Bohn and Suzanne Malveaux contributed to this report.

....and the truth shall set us free.

Bush's Nixonian Poll numbers

Jan. 27, 2007 - President George W. Bush concluded his annual State of the Union address this week with the words “the State of our Union is strong … our cause in the world is right … and tonight that cause goes on.” Maybe so, but the state of the Bush administration is at its worst yet, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans. Half (49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who’d prefer the GOP to remain in the White House.

http://msnbc.com

....and the truth shall set us free.