Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Another Lovely Bio
Who is David Sentelle?
by wsws (reposted) Saturday Feb 24th, 2007 10:21 AM
Both of the judges who upheld the Military Commissions Act’s attack on habeas corpus in the 2-1 ruling handed down February 20 by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—David Sentelle and A. Raymond Randolph—have a record of decisions defending the interests of big business and attacking democratic rights.
Sentelle, in particular, epitomizes the type of arch reactionaries who have in recent years been elevated to the federal judiciary.
He began his political career as a protégé of Jesse Helms, the North Carolina senator and former segregationist whose extreme right-wing views for years relegated him to the fringes of the US political establishment, until the general rightward trajectory of official American politics made his fascistic inclinations “respectable.” Sentelle was appointed to the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina by Ronald Reagan in 1985. He was then appointed by Reagan to the US Court of Appeals for the DC District in 1987, replacing fellow reactionary Antonin Scalia, who moved on to the US Supreme Court. T
he DC Court of Appeals is considered the second most influential court in the US, behind only the Supreme Court, and in his 20 years on the court Sentelle has consistently used his position to promote right-wing positions. He has, in particular, advocated a narrow interpretation of the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause so as to attack government regulation of business on environmental and other matters.
In 1990, Sentelle joined in a ruling voiding the felony convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter for their roles in the Iran-Contra scandal, in which officials in the Reagan administration were exposed as having secretly sold arms to Iran in order to illegally fund Contra death squads in Nicaragua who were seeking to overthrow the left-nationalist Sandinista government. More http://wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/sent-f24.shtml
....and the truth shall set us free.
Clinton and Democrats are Obstacles to Real Health Care Reform
WASHINGTON - February 26 - Green Party leaders called on Congress to reject health care reform plans that maintained corporate-based insurance and HMO coverage, and urged passage of a single-payer national health insurance program.
"America is ready for single-payer," said Maria Allwine, former Green candidate for Maryland State Senate and U.S. Senate and member of the Maryland Universal Health Care Action Network . "We're not ready for another Republican or Democratic proposal that guarantees profits for HMOs and insurance firms, while doing little for America's 46 million uninsured and millions more under-insured. We appeal to Congress, the American people, unions, and health-care providers to reject corporate-friendly managed-care plans and demand national health insurance."
Greens were especially critical of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) continuing role in obstructing needed health care reforms.
"Hillary Clinton should be banished from the room when health coverage is discussed," said Rebecca Rotzler, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States and Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, New York. "Ms. Clinton's favoritism towards major insurance companies undermined real health care reform when her husband's administration crafted its managed-care monstrosity in 1993. She and other Democrats remain at the top of the list of recipients of contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies [http://www.opensecrets.org]."
In the 2006 race for the U.S. Senate, New York Green candidate Howie Hawkins sharply criticized Ms. Clinton for pandering to private health insurance companies and endorsing a Massachusetts bill mandating that consumers buy inadequate private health insurance. Greens running for office in New York, Massachusetts, and numerous other states promoted state-based plans to provide all residents with health care services through publicly-funded coverage.
"Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other prominent Democrats are the greatest obstacle to universal health coverage. Except for a few mavericks like Rep. John Conyers [D-Mich.], who has regularly introduced single-payer bills, Democrats have joined Republicans in favoring HMO and insurance corporations over guaranteed publicly-financed quality health care for every American. It's a safe bet that the 2008 Democratic nominee will -- like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry before them -- follow the same pattern," said Kat Swift, spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus of the Green Party.
Greens noted that Democrats and Republicans alike were responding to the growing health care crisis in recent years by siding with corporate insurers and rejecting the principle that federal or state governments should provide coverage, despite poll numbers showing growing majority support for single-payer. During the Clinton-Gore Administration, the Democratic Party deleted national health insurance from its national platform; national health insurance had been a Democratic promise since 1948.
In November, 2003, Republicans in Congress passed a complex Prescription Drug bill that mostly benefits drug firms and advances the long-time Republican ambition to replace Medicare with private coverage <http://www.gp.org/press/pr_11_21_03.html>. More recently, President Bush has cut $28 million from Medicaid to pay for the Iraq War.
Greens noted that profits for the private health insurance industry now consume as much as 30¢ of every health dollar, and that pay for insurance and HMO executives is now in the multimillion-dollar stratosphere, e.g., $29,061,599 for Stephen Wiggins, CEO of Oxford Health Plans, Inc.; $11,568,410 for Wilson Taylor, Chairman and CEO of CIGNA Corporation <http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm>.
According to a 2000 study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information <http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/0820woolhimmel.html>, U.S. pays 31 cents on every dollar for administrative costs; Canada, under its single-payer system, pays half this amount. Greens further noted that taxpayers and health care providers are already paying health care costs for the uninsured.
"We urge unions and other civil groups to demand single-payer, instead of falling into lockstep with Democrats, or we'll repeat the health care reform debacle of 1993," said John Battista, M.D., former Green candidate for state representative in Connecticut and co-author of his state's single-payer legislation in 1999 (the Connecticut Health Care Security Act). "It's time to reject vaguely defined corporate-friendly 'affordable' health care plans."
"Single-payer will provide quality health coverage for every American regardless of income, ability to pay, residence, age, or prior medical condition at a cost that's far less than working Americans currently pay for private coverage, while providing full choice of physician and hospital," added Dr. Battista. "That's why the Green Party supports single-payer."
....and the truth shall set us free.
WASHINGTON - February 26 - Green Party leaders called on Congress to reject health care reform plans that maintained corporate-based insurance and HMO coverage, and urged passage of a single-payer national health insurance program.
"America is ready for single-payer," said Maria Allwine, former Green candidate for Maryland State Senate and U.S. Senate and member of the Maryland Universal Health Care Action Network . "We're not ready for another Republican or Democratic proposal that guarantees profits for HMOs and insurance firms, while doing little for America's 46 million uninsured and millions more under-insured. We appeal to Congress, the American people, unions, and health-care providers to reject corporate-friendly managed-care plans and demand national health insurance."
Greens were especially critical of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) continuing role in obstructing needed health care reforms.
"Hillary Clinton should be banished from the room when health coverage is discussed," said Rebecca Rotzler, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States and Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, New York. "Ms. Clinton's favoritism towards major insurance companies undermined real health care reform when her husband's administration crafted its managed-care monstrosity in 1993. She and other Democrats remain at the top of the list of recipients of contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies [http://www.opensecrets.org]."
In the 2006 race for the U.S. Senate, New York Green candidate Howie Hawkins sharply criticized Ms. Clinton for pandering to private health insurance companies and endorsing a Massachusetts bill mandating that consumers buy inadequate private health insurance. Greens running for office in New York, Massachusetts, and numerous other states promoted state-based plans to provide all residents with health care services through publicly-funded coverage.
"Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other prominent Democrats are the greatest obstacle to universal health coverage. Except for a few mavericks like Rep. John Conyers [D-Mich.], who has regularly introduced single-payer bills, Democrats have joined Republicans in favoring HMO and insurance corporations over guaranteed publicly-financed quality health care for every American. It's a safe bet that the 2008 Democratic nominee will -- like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry before them -- follow the same pattern," said Kat Swift, spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus of the Green Party.
Greens noted that Democrats and Republicans alike were responding to the growing health care crisis in recent years by siding with corporate insurers and rejecting the principle that federal or state governments should provide coverage, despite poll numbers showing growing majority support for single-payer. During the Clinton-Gore Administration, the Democratic Party deleted national health insurance from its national platform; national health insurance had been a Democratic promise since 1948.
In November, 2003, Republicans in Congress passed a complex Prescription Drug bill that mostly benefits drug firms and advances the long-time Republican ambition to replace Medicare with private coverage <http://www.gp.org/press/pr_11_21_03.html>. More recently, President Bush has cut $28 million from Medicaid to pay for the Iraq War.
Greens noted that profits for the private health insurance industry now consume as much as 30¢ of every health dollar, and that pay for insurance and HMO executives is now in the multimillion-dollar stratosphere, e.g., $29,061,599 for Stephen Wiggins, CEO of Oxford Health Plans, Inc.; $11,568,410 for Wilson Taylor, Chairman and CEO of CIGNA Corporation <http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm>.
According to a 2000 study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information <http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/0820woolhimmel.html>, U.S. pays 31 cents on every dollar for administrative costs; Canada, under its single-payer system, pays half this amount. Greens further noted that taxpayers and health care providers are already paying health care costs for the uninsured.
"We urge unions and other civil groups to demand single-payer, instead of falling into lockstep with Democrats, or we'll repeat the health care reform debacle of 1993," said John Battista, M.D., former Green candidate for state representative in Connecticut and co-author of his state's single-payer legislation in 1999 (the Connecticut Health Care Security Act). "It's time to reject vaguely defined corporate-friendly 'affordable' health care plans."
"Single-payer will provide quality health coverage for every American regardless of income, ability to pay, residence, age, or prior medical condition at a cost that's far less than working Americans currently pay for private coverage, while providing full choice of physician and hospital," added Dr. Battista. "That's why the Green Party supports single-payer."
....and the truth shall set us free.
The Bigs will Decide Everything, So Just Relax
Published on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 by the Madison Capital Times (Wisconsin)
Hillary Coronation Wanted by 'the Bigs'
by Ed Garvey
A billion dollars will be spent on this race. By whom? The bigs. Why will they cough up the money? Because of a burning desire for good government?The race for president is in full swing, but feel no need to get excited, contribute to a candidate or watch the debates. Selecting the "American Idol" will be a more democratic process than nominating the Republican and Democratic candidates for president.
You, my friends, are not needed. Big media conglomerates, pollsters, consultants, big drug and insurance companies, and other captains of industry will take this burden from your shoulders.
You have plenty to keep you busy just making a living, so you can let the big boys ("bigs") and their bagmen make the decision for you. Rather comforting, wouldn't you say?
The bigs want a close race between the Democrat and the Republican, so that both must beg them for big bucks in their Faustian bargain.
The Democratic Leadership Council bigs decided five years ago to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008. Sure, Barack Obama is a rising star with charisma Hillary would kill for, but he won't get the big money he needs. You say, "But people like him." So what? Too unpredictable. The bigs don't know enough about him. You will be told, "not enough experience." Translated, that means "he might have his own agenda."
He might pursue peace in the Middle East while pushing for universal single-payer health care or proposing that the bigs pay Social Security taxes on all income coupled with a progressive tax system. Yikes! Better stick with Hillary. The bigs know her game, and she plays well. Remember NAFTA?
John Edwards? Hell no. He is way too serious about poverty, and that could bring more money and smaller classes to public schools but less for the military-industrial complex. What if Edwards pushes through a living wage, health care, fewer prisons, and decent housing? One can almost hear the bigs yelling, "What about us?" Iraq? Bring 'em home. Iran? Leave it to the U.N.
Besides, Edwards thinks corporations should be responsible for their misdeeds. What is he a commie?
Tom Vilsack? Too late. He dropped out because of money. Shame on him. Why didn't he select wealthy parents or join the DLC, or both? I must admit, he is a quick study. Lack of money stopped two other Iowans who should have been president, John Culver and Tom Harkin. Vilsack had the quaint notion that a person with executive experience, good values and good ideas could run for president and let the people decide. I'm not kidding; he thought this was a democracy.
His Field of Dreams campaign build it and the money will come collapsed before he could locate the cornfield. Vilsack was told that he needed $20 million by June of this year to be taken seriously. Face it, Tom. The bigs don't like you very much. I like Vilsack.
How about Bill Richardson? He is a popular governor, a former ambassador to the U.N., a seven-term member of Congress, and former secretary of energy! The man is smart, experienced, gutsy, and knows about energy needs. He was elected governor with 69 percent of the vote; he has negotiated on the international scene. He, like Vilsack, is a good man with executive experience, solid values and plenty of good ideas. Bye-bye, Bill. Bye-bye. He might make it until Easter.
Al Gore? Way too independent, and this global warming stuff please!
Good for Hollywood but not for our economy. He is needlessly scaring folks into finding alternatives to our comfortable way of life. Indeed, his truth is inconvenient for the bigs. The utilities don't like him, the oil boys can't stand him, and the auto industry is more than a little suspicious. Hell, he even opposed the invasion of Iraq! The bigs don't like any of it. "Thanks anyway, Al. Good movie."
Now then, how about Joe Biden? I don't think so. So long, Joe.
Take a break, folks. They will let you know the names of the chosen ones by July.
But wait. I didn't write anything about the Republican race. Could it be that Tommy has the nomination in the bag? He says he will shake every hand in Iowa good start. He is not burdened with ideology or new ideas. He is clear about Iraq. He said the other day that they could have a civil war if they aren't careful.
Back to reality.
A billion dollars will be spent on this race. By whom? The bigs. Why will they cough up the money? Because of a burning desire for good government?
Remember when we had a democracy and people like us played a role in nominating our candidates?
Whom do you favor for "American Idol"?
Our democracy has been hijacked. Might as well watch TV.
Copyright ©2007, Capital Newspapers.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Hillary Coronation Wanted by 'the Bigs'
by Ed Garvey
A billion dollars will be spent on this race. By whom? The bigs. Why will they cough up the money? Because of a burning desire for good government?The race for president is in full swing, but feel no need to get excited, contribute to a candidate or watch the debates. Selecting the "American Idol" will be a more democratic process than nominating the Republican and Democratic candidates for president.
You, my friends, are not needed. Big media conglomerates, pollsters, consultants, big drug and insurance companies, and other captains of industry will take this burden from your shoulders.
You have plenty to keep you busy just making a living, so you can let the big boys ("bigs") and their bagmen make the decision for you. Rather comforting, wouldn't you say?
The bigs want a close race between the Democrat and the Republican, so that both must beg them for big bucks in their Faustian bargain.
The Democratic Leadership Council bigs decided five years ago to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008. Sure, Barack Obama is a rising star with charisma Hillary would kill for, but he won't get the big money he needs. You say, "But people like him." So what? Too unpredictable. The bigs don't know enough about him. You will be told, "not enough experience." Translated, that means "he might have his own agenda."
He might pursue peace in the Middle East while pushing for universal single-payer health care or proposing that the bigs pay Social Security taxes on all income coupled with a progressive tax system. Yikes! Better stick with Hillary. The bigs know her game, and she plays well. Remember NAFTA?
John Edwards? Hell no. He is way too serious about poverty, and that could bring more money and smaller classes to public schools but less for the military-industrial complex. What if Edwards pushes through a living wage, health care, fewer prisons, and decent housing? One can almost hear the bigs yelling, "What about us?" Iraq? Bring 'em home. Iran? Leave it to the U.N.
Besides, Edwards thinks corporations should be responsible for their misdeeds. What is he a commie?
Tom Vilsack? Too late. He dropped out because of money. Shame on him. Why didn't he select wealthy parents or join the DLC, or both? I must admit, he is a quick study. Lack of money stopped two other Iowans who should have been president, John Culver and Tom Harkin. Vilsack had the quaint notion that a person with executive experience, good values and good ideas could run for president and let the people decide. I'm not kidding; he thought this was a democracy.
His Field of Dreams campaign build it and the money will come collapsed before he could locate the cornfield. Vilsack was told that he needed $20 million by June of this year to be taken seriously. Face it, Tom. The bigs don't like you very much. I like Vilsack.
How about Bill Richardson? He is a popular governor, a former ambassador to the U.N., a seven-term member of Congress, and former secretary of energy! The man is smart, experienced, gutsy, and knows about energy needs. He was elected governor with 69 percent of the vote; he has negotiated on the international scene. He, like Vilsack, is a good man with executive experience, solid values and plenty of good ideas. Bye-bye, Bill. Bye-bye. He might make it until Easter.
Al Gore? Way too independent, and this global warming stuff please!
Good for Hollywood but not for our economy. He is needlessly scaring folks into finding alternatives to our comfortable way of life. Indeed, his truth is inconvenient for the bigs. The utilities don't like him, the oil boys can't stand him, and the auto industry is more than a little suspicious. Hell, he even opposed the invasion of Iraq! The bigs don't like any of it. "Thanks anyway, Al. Good movie."
Now then, how about Joe Biden? I don't think so. So long, Joe.
Take a break, folks. They will let you know the names of the chosen ones by July.
But wait. I didn't write anything about the Republican race. Could it be that Tommy has the nomination in the bag? He says he will shake every hand in Iowa good start. He is not burdened with ideology or new ideas. He is clear about Iraq. He said the other day that they could have a civil war if they aren't careful.
Back to reality.
A billion dollars will be spent on this race. By whom? The bigs. Why will they cough up the money? Because of a burning desire for good government?
Remember when we had a democracy and people like us played a role in nominating our candidates?
Whom do you favor for "American Idol"?
Our democracy has been hijacked. Might as well watch TV.
Copyright ©2007, Capital Newspapers.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Congress Takes Another Look.
While I do find it amazing that the military would prefer gang members, white supremacists and other slack-jawed enlistees, over bright, skilled Gays, I also cannot figure out why gays want to serve in this war (crime).
Published on Monday, February 26, 2007 by ABCNews
Congress Reexamining 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'Support for Gay People to Serve Openly in Military Has Increased, Polls Say
by Jake Tapper and Thomas M. Giusto
Air Force Staff Sgt. David Hall was a decorated officer, had been given a much-coveted opportunity to train be a pilot, and in 2002 had earned the highest ranking of all the Air Force ROTC juniors in his detachment. Hall to this day is eager to fly missions in Iraq.
But Hall won't be sent to the Middle East any time soon, because in August 2002 the Air Force discharged him because he's gay.
"To have that taken away from me -- it was devastating," Hall told ABC News today.
Hall is one of more than 11,000 gay and lesbian service members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy enacted in 1993. On March 7, the 1st Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals will hear the court case that Hall and 11 other gay and lesbian service members have filed -- working with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network -- against the Pentagon seeking reinstatement.
But before that, on Wednesday, a bipartisan group of congressmen led by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., will introduce legislation to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed forces, a ban that many Democrats now mock.
"For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., at a House International Relations Committee hearing earlier this month. "If the terrorists ever got a hold of this information, they'd get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad."
But beyond such snipes is a serious debate. Congress will take up a policy this week that forces able troops out when the military is stretched so thin it has lowered its enlistment standards for age, education and even criminal history.
Beyond "culture war" divides about gay and lesbian rights, this debate now takes on national security implications, as President Bush seeks to enlarge the size of the armed forces, and the war against terrorism looms large and continues to pose serious challenges.
A 2004 study conducted by the Government Accountability Office, for instance, found that eight percent of discharged gay soldiers "held critical occupations," including 322 with "skills in an important language such as Arabic, Farsi or Korean."
"It doesn't make sense for the Pentagon to kick people out when they need people," Hall said. "That they're going to say, 'I would rather have people who have criminal behaviors serve rather than someone who has already served honorably' -- that makes no sense."
Public opinion on the topic has shifted. According to an ABC News poll in 1993, only 44 percent of the American people supported letting gays and lesbian troops serve openly. But by 2004, according to a Gallup poll, 63 percent supported gay people serving openly in the military.
"They're watching Ellen DeGeneres on TV, or they're knowing someone who is a self-identified homosexual," said retired Col. Bob Maginnis. "That's understandable in a cultural context."
Despite that social acceptance, Maginnis said changes in the civilian culture are not relevant to the field of battle.
"Really, the bottom line for the military is: Is this a policy change that's going to help promote combat effectiveness?" Maginnis said. "I see no evidence of that."
And what about the ousted gay and lesbian soldiers with critical language skills?
"We come to the conclusion that if we embrace homosexuality in the military, that that has far more of a detrimental impact than will, in fact, keeping someone just because they happen to have a critical skill," said Maginnis.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
....and the truth shall set us free.
Published on Monday, February 26, 2007 by ABCNews
Congress Reexamining 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'Support for Gay People to Serve Openly in Military Has Increased, Polls Say
by Jake Tapper and Thomas M. Giusto
Air Force Staff Sgt. David Hall was a decorated officer, had been given a much-coveted opportunity to train be a pilot, and in 2002 had earned the highest ranking of all the Air Force ROTC juniors in his detachment. Hall to this day is eager to fly missions in Iraq.
But Hall won't be sent to the Middle East any time soon, because in August 2002 the Air Force discharged him because he's gay.
"To have that taken away from me -- it was devastating," Hall told ABC News today.
Hall is one of more than 11,000 gay and lesbian service members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy enacted in 1993. On March 7, the 1st Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals will hear the court case that Hall and 11 other gay and lesbian service members have filed -- working with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network -- against the Pentagon seeking reinstatement.
But before that, on Wednesday, a bipartisan group of congressmen led by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., will introduce legislation to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed forces, a ban that many Democrats now mock.
"For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., at a House International Relations Committee hearing earlier this month. "If the terrorists ever got a hold of this information, they'd get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad."
But beyond such snipes is a serious debate. Congress will take up a policy this week that forces able troops out when the military is stretched so thin it has lowered its enlistment standards for age, education and even criminal history.
Beyond "culture war" divides about gay and lesbian rights, this debate now takes on national security implications, as President Bush seeks to enlarge the size of the armed forces, and the war against terrorism looms large and continues to pose serious challenges.
A 2004 study conducted by the Government Accountability Office, for instance, found that eight percent of discharged gay soldiers "held critical occupations," including 322 with "skills in an important language such as Arabic, Farsi or Korean."
"It doesn't make sense for the Pentagon to kick people out when they need people," Hall said. "That they're going to say, 'I would rather have people who have criminal behaviors serve rather than someone who has already served honorably' -- that makes no sense."
Public opinion on the topic has shifted. According to an ABC News poll in 1993, only 44 percent of the American people supported letting gays and lesbian troops serve openly. But by 2004, according to a Gallup poll, 63 percent supported gay people serving openly in the military.
"They're watching Ellen DeGeneres on TV, or they're knowing someone who is a self-identified homosexual," said retired Col. Bob Maginnis. "That's understandable in a cultural context."
Despite that social acceptance, Maginnis said changes in the civilian culture are not relevant to the field of battle.
"Really, the bottom line for the military is: Is this a policy change that's going to help promote combat effectiveness?" Maginnis said. "I see no evidence of that."
And what about the ousted gay and lesbian soldiers with critical language skills?
"We come to the conclusion that if we embrace homosexuality in the military, that that has far more of a detrimental impact than will, in fact, keeping someone just because they happen to have a critical skill," said Maginnis.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
....and the truth shall set us free.
Oh God, Just Shoot Me Now!
The religiously insane want Jeb!
Ok, No way in Hell.
No more Bushes, period!
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Feb. 23, 2007 - Watching the Republican candidates elbowing each other for position on the right is a classic Washington spectator sport. Nobody quite measures up, and they all look a little craven trying. The prize they’re seeking: the evangelical vote, which is crucial to success in the GOP primaries. Republicans can’t win the White House without them, and social conservatives so far have been lukewarm toward everybody in the field.
Story continues ↓
....and the truth shall set us free.
Ok, No way in Hell.
No more Bushes, period!
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Feb. 23, 2007 - Watching the Republican candidates elbowing each other for position on the right is a classic Washington spectator sport. Nobody quite measures up, and they all look a little craven trying. The prize they’re seeking: the evangelical vote, which is crucial to success in the GOP primaries. Republicans can’t win the White House without them, and social conservatives so far have been lukewarm toward everybody in the field.
Story continues ↓
....and the truth shall set us free.
In Case You Missed It....
Feb. 19, 2007 issue - Jalal Sharafi was carrying a videogame, a gift for his daughter, when he found himself surrounded. On that chilly Sunday morning, the second secretary at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad had driven himself to the commercial district of Arasat Hindi to checkout the site for a new Iranian bank. He had ducked into a nearby electronics store with his bodyguards, and as they emerged four armored cars roared up and disgorged at least 20 gunmen wearing bulletproof vests and Iraqi National Guard uniforms. They flashed official IDs, and manhandled Sharafi into one car. Iraqi police gave chase, guns blazing. They shot up one of the other vehicles, capturing four assailants who by late last week had yet to be publicly identified. Sharafi and the others disappeared.
Story continues
....and the truth shall set us free.
Story continues
....and the truth shall set us free.
Condi gets K.O.ed
On "Fox News Sunday" Feb. 25, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paralleled World War II with the state of Iraq when discussing what would happen if Congress were to revise the Iraq authorization:
We already know about her suggestion that the president could just ignore whatever congressional Democrats do about Iraq.
Just ignore Congress.
We know how that game always turns out. Ask President Nixon. Ask President Andrew Johnson.
Or ask Vice President Dick Cheney, who utterly contradicted Secretary Rice on Monday when he warned President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan about what those mean congressional Democrats could do to his foreign aid.
All of this, par for the course.
But about what the secretary said regarding the prospect of Congress’ revising or repealing the 2002 authorization of the war in Iraq:
Here we go again! From springs spent trying to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11, to summers of cynically manipulated intelligence, through autumns of false patriotism, to winters of war, we have had more than four years of every cheap trick and every degree of calculated cynicism from this administration, filled with Three-Card Monte players.
But the longer Dr. Rice and these other pickpockets of a nation's goodness have walked among us, waving flags and slandering opponents and making true enemies — foreign and domestic — all hat and no cattle all the while, the overriding truth of their occupancy of our highest offices of state has only gradually become clear.
As they asked in that Avis commercial: "Ever get the feeling some people just stopped trying?"
Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought he could equate those who doubted him with Nazi appeasers, without reminding anybody that the actual, historical Nazi appeasers in this country in the 1930s were the Republicans.
Vice President Cheney thought he could talk as if he and he alone knew the “truth” about Iraq and 9/11, without anyone ever noticing that even the rest of the administration officially disagreed with him.
The president really acted as if you could scare all of the people all of the time and not lose your soul — and your majority — as a result.
But Secretary of State Rice may have now taken the cake. On the Sunday morning interview show “Of Broken Record” on Fox, Dr. Rice spoke a paragraph, which if it had been included in a remedial history paper at the weakest high school in the nation would've gotten the writer an "F" — maybe an expulsion.
If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present: "… it would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change, then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
CONTINUED
1 2 3 Next >
...and the truth shall set us free
We already know about her suggestion that the president could just ignore whatever congressional Democrats do about Iraq.
Just ignore Congress.
We know how that game always turns out. Ask President Nixon. Ask President Andrew Johnson.
Or ask Vice President Dick Cheney, who utterly contradicted Secretary Rice on Monday when he warned President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan about what those mean congressional Democrats could do to his foreign aid.
All of this, par for the course.
But about what the secretary said regarding the prospect of Congress’ revising or repealing the 2002 authorization of the war in Iraq:
Here we go again! From springs spent trying to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11, to summers of cynically manipulated intelligence, through autumns of false patriotism, to winters of war, we have had more than four years of every cheap trick and every degree of calculated cynicism from this administration, filled with Three-Card Monte players.
But the longer Dr. Rice and these other pickpockets of a nation's goodness have walked among us, waving flags and slandering opponents and making true enemies — foreign and domestic — all hat and no cattle all the while, the overriding truth of their occupancy of our highest offices of state has only gradually become clear.
As they asked in that Avis commercial: "Ever get the feeling some people just stopped trying?"
Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought he could equate those who doubted him with Nazi appeasers, without reminding anybody that the actual, historical Nazi appeasers in this country in the 1930s were the Republicans.
Vice President Cheney thought he could talk as if he and he alone knew the “truth” about Iraq and 9/11, without anyone ever noticing that even the rest of the administration officially disagreed with him.
The president really acted as if you could scare all of the people all of the time and not lose your soul — and your majority — as a result.
But Secretary of State Rice may have now taken the cake. On the Sunday morning interview show “Of Broken Record” on Fox, Dr. Rice spoke a paragraph, which if it had been included in a remedial history paper at the weakest high school in the nation would've gotten the writer an "F" — maybe an expulsion.
If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present: "… it would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change, then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
CONTINUED
1 2 3 Next >
...and the truth shall set us free
Monday, February 26, 2007
Moon and Bush
Just when you thought nothing could possibly get any more insane....
Here come the Moonies!
Consortiumnews.com:
From petty local scams to international money-laundering, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s political/media/business/religious empire has all the looks of a global “ongoing criminal enterprise,” albeit one with enough powerful friends in Washington to protect it from serious consequences.
Benefiting from relationships with the Bush family and other prominent Republicans, Moon’s Unification Church slips away from one illegal scheme after another – despite overwhelming evidence and first-person admissions about the systematic pattern of the criminality. Somehow U.S. authorities never put two and two together.
Even Moon’s 1982 felony conviction for tax evasion arising from an earlier money-laundering scheme and public confessions from his ex-daughter-in-law and other church insiders about later financial conspiracies don’t clue in the feds to the bigger picture before them.
So, while prosecutors mostly look the other way, Moon continues to pour an estimated $100 million a year into his influential Washington Times newspaper and other pro-Republican media outlets. Additional millions have gone to fund right-wing political conferences; to pay speaking fees to world leaders, such as former President George H.W. Bush; and to bail political allies out of financial troubles.
The Cliinton's Real Problem With Lying.
Amen!
Consortiumnews.com:
Hollywood mogul David Geffen touched a raw nerve with Hillary Clinton when he told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that “everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
The Clintons’ trouble with truth, however, is not just the petty political lying nor is it their quibbling over what “is is” or what “mistake” means. It’s that they have never shown any real reverence for the truth. Too often, they see it as something to be traded away for a transitory tactical advantage.
If a future historian is ever to understand what happened to the United States in this era – how the world’s greatest power so disastrously lost its way – that scholar should look back to the first Clinton-Bush transition in 1992-93, when Bill Clinton could have grasped a unique historical moment but didn’t.
Clinton was the first U.S. President to take office after the end of the Cold War. He could have ordered a long-needed historical review of what nine U.S. presidents had done,often behind opaque cloaks of government secrecy.
Go, John, Go!
EmeraldCoast.com - AP News:
"NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- Health care was the topic of the day Saturday, but Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards made sure New Hampshire voters gave him another chance to say he was wrong as a senator to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Edwards' visit to New Hampshire was billed as a series of house meetings to promote his health care plan and his presidential bid. But less than five minutes after walking into the day's first house party, the 2004 vice presidential nominee turned to the subject that has consumed the Democratic contenders: Iraq.
'Honestly, if you don't bring up Iraq, I'll bring it up,' the former North Carolina senator told about 150 people gathered in a state senator's living room and kitchen.
And when the first few questions dealt with other issues - homelessness, catastrophic health insurance, the federal budget - Edwards again suggested someone might want to ask him about Iraq. Edwards wanted to make sure everyone there knew he regretted his Senate vote that gave President Bush the authority to begin the war in Iraq - an apology Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has refused to offer.
"NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- Health care was the topic of the day Saturday, but Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards made sure New Hampshire voters gave him another chance to say he was wrong as a senator to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Edwards' visit to New Hampshire was billed as a series of house meetings to promote his health care plan and his presidential bid. But less than five minutes after walking into the day's first house party, the 2004 vice presidential nominee turned to the subject that has consumed the Democratic contenders: Iraq.
'Honestly, if you don't bring up Iraq, I'll bring it up,' the former North Carolina senator told about 150 people gathered in a state senator's living room and kitchen.
And when the first few questions dealt with other issues - homelessness, catastrophic health insurance, the federal budget - Edwards again suggested someone might want to ask him about Iraq. Edwards wanted to make sure everyone there knew he regretted his Senate vote that gave President Bush the authority to begin the war in Iraq - an apology Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has refused to offer.
The Spotlight: Al Gore!
Gore is our legitimate president.
G.W. Bush has never won a national election in his life!
Consortiumnews.com:
As Al Gore steps into the national spotlight because of the Academy Awards and his global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” it’s worth remembering that in fall 2002 Gore sought to warn the American people about another “inconvenient truth,” the folly of invading Iraq."
Bush Judge Earns His Keep!
This should scare the livin' shit out of every conscious American
TvNewsLIES.org:
You really have to hand it to the man for being there when his party really needed him! For more than three decades, he has bravely stepped forward to defend Republican administrations against the evils of the Constitution of the United States. And just days ago, in true form, and hiding behind the anonymity of time, Judge David Bryan Sentelle has done it again!
In case you missed it, Judge Sentelle just joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph in a 2-1 decision that should unnerve everyone who reads it. Sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the two men ruled that that hundreds of detainees in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba do not have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts.
In essence, George W. Bush and his cohorts can keep nearly 400 detainees caged in their Guantanamo prison indefinitely, with no charges, no access to counsel, and no way on earth to appeal their status or attempt to attempt to prove their innocence.
Bush: Bad, Worse, Worst
Any way we look at it we are screwed, unless we act, firmly and righteously
TvNewsLIES.org: "n regards to Iraq being a potential threat to the United States George W. Bush used “worst case scenario” logic to convince the world that America had to take the most extreme measures available in order to eliminate this potential threat. This is a threat that showed no signs of existing, had no evidence to support its existence and claimed no lives at all!
Bush’s logic & exact words: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Contrarily when it comes to Bush’s logic on the “potential” threat posed by global warming Bush uses the “best case” scenario.
Bush’s logic (in my words): “We need many many more smoking guns in the form of funnel clouds and such before we address this potential threat!”
Is he that stupid or is this guy just a fanatic fascist who bows to one god: money?
Either way how can any one in the world support this man?
TvNewsLIES.org: "n regards to Iraq being a potential threat to the United States George W. Bush used “worst case scenario” logic to convince the world that America had to take the most extreme measures available in order to eliminate this potential threat. This is a threat that showed no signs of existing, had no evidence to support its existence and claimed no lives at all!
Bush’s logic & exact words: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Contrarily when it comes to Bush’s logic on the “potential” threat posed by global warming Bush uses the “best case” scenario.
Bush’s logic (in my words): “We need many many more smoking guns in the form of funnel clouds and such before we address this potential threat!”
Is he that stupid or is this guy just a fanatic fascist who bows to one god: money?
Either way how can any one in the world support this man?
What Possible Good Is A Law Passed in A Lawless Land.....
including this one...........or Iraq?
AFP
Published: Monday February 26, 2007
Iraq's cabinet approved Monday a draft law on oil revenues -- a key plank in moves to reunite the war-torn country -- and will submit it to parliament for approval, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.
The law aims to distribute revenues from crude oil exports equitably across 18 provinces and open the sector to foreign investors. It has been a subject of fierce debate among leaders from Iraq's bitterly divided factions.
"This law has been based on our national interest. It will encourage the bringing together of all component parts of the Iraqi people," Maliki told a news conference.
"This law is a gift to all the Iraqi people," he added.
Iraq has the third largest proven shares of crude reserves in the world, and oil exports are its single most important source of revenue, despite frequent insurgent attacks on oil facilities.
Since the US invasion of March 2003, which overthrew Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, divisions between Iraq's communities of Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds have erupted into open hostility and sectarian bloodshed.
Most current oil production is in the Shiite south, and the best prospects for future discoveries in the Kurdish north -- while the northern oil city of Kirkuk is disputed between Kurdish and Arab leaders.
US officials have repeatedly urged the Iraqis to adopt a consensus law on sharing revenues and on international investment in order to head off future conflict and allow the oil sector to develop.
Parliament is due to meet in the coming weeks and can be expected to approve the bill quickly, as all parties have been involved in drafting it.
"This law is one of the most important achievements in Iraq since the voting of the constitution," said planning minister Ali Baban.
"There was clear participation of all political movements in this law, which will boost national unity. This law will create a single oil revenue stream for all Iraqis," he said.
Baban added that foreign oil majors had been waiting for such a law to be passed before deciding on investing in Iraq's oil industry, which badly needs foreign direct investment after three decades of war and economic sanctions.
...and the truth shall set us free
AFP
Published: Monday February 26, 2007
Iraq's cabinet approved Monday a draft law on oil revenues -- a key plank in moves to reunite the war-torn country -- and will submit it to parliament for approval, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.
The law aims to distribute revenues from crude oil exports equitably across 18 provinces and open the sector to foreign investors. It has been a subject of fierce debate among leaders from Iraq's bitterly divided factions.
"This law has been based on our national interest. It will encourage the bringing together of all component parts of the Iraqi people," Maliki told a news conference.
"This law is a gift to all the Iraqi people," he added.
Iraq has the third largest proven shares of crude reserves in the world, and oil exports are its single most important source of revenue, despite frequent insurgent attacks on oil facilities.
Since the US invasion of March 2003, which overthrew Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, divisions between Iraq's communities of Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds have erupted into open hostility and sectarian bloodshed.
Most current oil production is in the Shiite south, and the best prospects for future discoveries in the Kurdish north -- while the northern oil city of Kirkuk is disputed between Kurdish and Arab leaders.
US officials have repeatedly urged the Iraqis to adopt a consensus law on sharing revenues and on international investment in order to head off future conflict and allow the oil sector to develop.
Parliament is due to meet in the coming weeks and can be expected to approve the bill quickly, as all parties have been involved in drafting it.
"This law is one of the most important achievements in Iraq since the voting of the constitution," said planning minister Ali Baban.
"There was clear participation of all political movements in this law, which will boost national unity. This law will create a single oil revenue stream for all Iraqis," he said.
Baban added that foreign oil majors had been waiting for such a law to be passed before deciding on investing in Iraq's oil industry, which badly needs foreign direct investment after three decades of war and economic sanctions.
...and the truth shall set us free
Bushites Make Nixon Look Like A Choir Boy!
Bernstein: Bush administration's disinformation, misinformation 'something I have never witnessed before on this scale'
Mike Sheehan
Sponsored by: The Agenda with Joe Solmonese
Veteran reporter Carl Bernstein says the lack of truth and candor from the Bush administration is unprecedented in his experience.
Comparing the Nixon administration's press relations to those of Bush, Bernstein says, "Nixon's relationship to the press was consistent with his relationship to many institutions and people. He saw himself as a victim. We now understand the psyche of Richard Nixon, that his was a self-destructive act and presidency.
"The Bush administration," Bernstein continues, "is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell the truth -- a willingness to lie both in the Oval Office, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the office of the vice president, the vice president himself -- is something that I have never witnessed before on this scale."
Bernstein contrasted Nixon's covering up of illegal activities tied to his re-election campaign with the Bush White House's "unwillingness to be truthful, both contextually and in terms of basic facts that ought to be of great concern to people of all ideologies.
"This president has a record of dishonesty and obfuscation that is Nixonian in character in its willingness to manipulate the press, to manipulate the truth," he adds. "We have gone to war on the basis of misinformation, disinformation and knowing lies from top to bottom."
Bernstein blasts what he describes as "the willingness of the president and the vice president and the people around them to try to undermine people who have effectively opposed them by telling the truth." He cites attacks on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) and even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
"That's the real story, and that's the story that [the press] should have been writing," he says.
Bernstein, who gained fame with Bob Woodward for their breakthrough reporting on the Watergate scandal, was interviewed for a PBS Frontline series on the media.
In an earlier interview reported on at RAW STORY, the famed journalist said the Bush administration had done "far greater damage" than Nixon.
Excerpts from an Editor and Publisher article with portions of the PBS interview follow...
It's very difficult, as a reporter, to get across that when you say, "This is a presidency of great dishonesty," that this is not a matter of opinion.
This is demonstrable fact.
If you go back and look at the president's statements, you look at the statements of the vice president, you look at the statements of Condoleezza Rice, you go through the record, you look at what [counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke has written, you look at what we know -- it's demonstrable.
It's fact.
Now, how do you quantify it?
That's a different question.
But to me, if there is a great failure by the so-called mainstream press in this presidency, it's the unwillingness to look at the lies and disinformation and misinformation and add them up and say clearly, "
Here's what they said; here's what the known facts were," because when that is done, you then see this isn't a partisan matter. This is a matter of the truth, particularly about this war. This is a presidency that is not willing to tell the truth very often if it is contrary to its interests.
It's not about ideology from whence I say this.....
It's about being a reporter and saying:
"That's what the story is. Let's see what they said; let's see what the facts are." ...
....and the truth shall set us free.
More States Take Lead on Climate Change
Yep, State Officials are closer to getting their heads lopped off.
We, the people, have been mislead on so many different, but vital, issues, over the last 25 years, there should be heads rolling, so to speak!
Recasts, adds statements from more governors, details on bi-coastal greenhouse gas markets
By Timothy Gardner
NEW YORK, Feb 26 (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest regional pact to bypass the Bush administration to cut emissions linked to global warming through market mechanisms.
The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative requires Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona to develop a regional target in six months for reducing greenhouse emissions according to statements from the states' governors.
Reuters Pictures
During the next 18 months, the states will devise a market-based plan, such as a load-based cap-and-trade program, to reach the target. They also have agreed to participate in a multi-state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their region.
More politicians and corporations have been pressuring the federal government to join most of the world's other developed countries in regulating the gases most scientists blame for global warming.
Several eastern U.S. states have signed a similar agreement called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Utility TXU Corp. (TXU.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Monday scrapped plans to build eight of 11 new coal-fired power units in Texas as part of a buyout by private equity firms.
Bicoastal regional greenhouse pacts could force U.S. smokestack and transportation businesses to lobby more intensely for a national greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, said Jeremiah Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group. Continued...
....and the truth shall set us free
We, the people, have been mislead on so many different, but vital, issues, over the last 25 years, there should be heads rolling, so to speak!
Recasts, adds statements from more governors, details on bi-coastal greenhouse gas markets
By Timothy Gardner
NEW YORK, Feb 26 (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest regional pact to bypass the Bush administration to cut emissions linked to global warming through market mechanisms.
The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative requires Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona to develop a regional target in six months for reducing greenhouse emissions according to statements from the states' governors.
Reuters Pictures
During the next 18 months, the states will devise a market-based plan, such as a load-based cap-and-trade program, to reach the target. They also have agreed to participate in a multi-state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their region.
More politicians and corporations have been pressuring the federal government to join most of the world's other developed countries in regulating the gases most scientists blame for global warming.
Several eastern U.S. states have signed a similar agreement called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Utility TXU Corp. (TXU.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Monday scrapped plans to build eight of 11 new coal-fired power units in Texas as part of a buyout by private equity firms.
Bicoastal regional greenhouse pacts could force U.S. smokestack and transportation businesses to lobby more intensely for a national greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, said Jeremiah Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group. Continued...
....and the truth shall set us free
Marcy Wheeler:Libby Trial
This weekend, RAW STORY interviewed Marcy Wheeler, one of the blogosphere’s most tireless observers and analysts of the CIA leak investigation and the I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Trial.
In the interview, she revealed that she believes that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will press forward with his investigation, and that his ultimate target is Vice President Dick Cheney: "I’m not entirely convinced that Fitzgerald’s done. I used to be conservative on that, believing that he was done. But there are little snippets of hints that he’s not."
Wheeler is omnipresent in the new media, most notably at the blog Firedoglake, while also appearing on her own blog, The Next Hurrah, and also at Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Her book on the CIA leak scandal, Anatomy of Deceit, has been released in paperback. Because of a marathon effort parsing public documents, she managed to beat the traditional media to major stories by months.
“We figured out that Armitage was the Novak/Woodward source in March,” Wheeler said in an implicit critique of mainstream coverage of the Plame story, “and we were able to do that because we were able to do things that journalists wouldn’t do.”
Fitzgerald became famous for using organized crime-fighting tactics to root his way through an immensely corrupt government in the state of Illinois, culminating his years-long investigation with over 60 indictments and the conviction of former Republican Governor George Ryan.
Wheeler believes that Fitzgerald will bring that indefatigable nature to this trial: "I think Fitzgerald clearly wants Cheney and he’s not the kind of person who rests on his laurels after getting one conviction. One thing I can say is I don’t understand why Eric Edelman wasn’t called and that may be something he kept in reserve. I don’t understand why Jenny Mayfield wasn’t called, that may be something he kept in reserve."
A transcription of the interview appears below.
BB: I didn’t realize how serious the loophole in Fitzgerald’s strategy was and how profoundly it affected the course of the investigation. But at the same time he probably couldn’t have moved forward without promising to limit the investigation to only known leakers. Talk about that, if you can.
MW: Armitage is the perfect example because people on the right always say how dare Patrick Fitzgerald didn’t find the Bob Woodward/Armitage’s connection. But had he done what he needed to do to find that, he would have needed to subpoena every single journalist who spoke to Libby, Rove, Armitage, Fleischer, Bartlett, Hadley, Condi. And you’re beginning to get into the range of things. They were all potential leakers and probably to some degree were involved. There’s no way you would’ve been able to subpoena all of that.
BB: How disappointed were you when Cheney was excused.
MW: I wasn’t surprised. But you know Cheney can’t keep his cool. He may be very intelligent, but if you look at what happened with Leahy he can’t keep his cool when somebody challenges him and he’s never been challenged by journalists in the way he would have been challenged by Fitzgerald. But I just think there was no way they could have scoped the testimony narrowly enough to avoid Cheney opening himself up to charges. If you read Sid Blumenthal’s piece from last week where people were telling Libby not to take the fall for Cheney. It’s pretty clear that everyone agrees that’s what he’s in the process of doing. It would defy the point of him taking the fall if Dick Cheney took the stand and exposed himself to a perjury charge. Plus the fact that—I don’t even think that Cheney could have successfully reinforced Libby’s testimony. John Hannah was a huge bust for the defense. They had a great witness, John Hannah, saying if Libby took 2 hrs on July 8 to meet with Judith Miller there’d be no way he’d forget it.
BB: So predictions? Verdict?
MW: I think Wells is going to make a very concerted effort at jury nullification. In his closing statement he’s going to harp on: Rove leaked, Ari [Fleischer] leaked, Armitage leaked and they’re not doing time, they’re not even charged. But what Fitzgerald isn’t quite able to say although he might get there is that whoever leaked it all came out. Armitage only found out about Plame because of the INR memo [which was part of the leak process to begin with]. Ari found out from Libby and Rove probably found out from Libby. I think Wells, it goes back to his opening statement when he said, “the only way my client doesn’t get off is if you violate your oath.” And it’s very wrong. And I think he could be disbarred if it was perceived that he did it intentionally. But what he wants them to think about the leak and not this narrow perjury charge.
BB: Do you buy the reports that Ari Fleischer came forth because he was worried about being
imprisoned or executed?
MW: There was nothing in the testimony to support that. You asked about predictions. If Wells is unsuccessful at jury nullification then I think that Libby will get off on the two Cooper charges but be found guilty on obstruction and the two Russert charges.
BB: Do you think that the Intelligence Identities Act is a law that will ever be successfully adjudicated?
MW: Well the problem in this case, I’m not entirely convinced that Fitzgerald’s done. I used to be conservative on that, believing that he was done. But there are little snippets of hints that he’s not.
BB: What are those? Talk about those.
MW: I don’t think I should say. It’s court personnel stuff. If nothing else, there may be another charge for Libby that he’s lying about the NIE. But I think Fitzgerald clearly wants Cheney and he’s not the kind of person who rests on his laurels after getting one conviction. One thing I can say is I don’t understand why Eric Edelman wasn’t called and that may be something he kept in reserve. I don’t understand why Jenny Mayfield wasn’t called, that may be something he kept in reserve. I think I understand why the defense didn’t call her. So he may or may not be done, but, in this case, if he’s not done, I say this in the book, there are two Constitutional issues you run up against. Because I’ve long believed that if Fitzgerald gets to the point where he can prove that it wasn’t the NIE they were declassifying but it was Plame’s identity, then you’re in the Constitutional issue of whether Navy vs. Egan, which is what Addington was using to justify it, whether its true that it can supersede all the procedures that executive orders lay out for declassification. That you can instantly declassify something. And whether you can declassify Plame’s identity without telling her. And I’m still not convinced that you can indict a sitting vice president for something he did as a sitting vice president. Agnew was indicted for something he did before.
BB: What would you say are the differences between blog ethics or citizen journalist ethics and regular journalist ethics? And how much of what you do is in the old style, calling and cultivating sources?
MW: In the book I very deliberately avoided that, partly because my big sources were Joe and people who know Joe and I didn’t want the book to be Joe’s side of the story. I wanted it to be able to stand on its own. I did that deliberately. I wanted this to be public record stuff. That’s what I do well. I’m as good a close reader as I think there are out there. And reading through the filings and that kind of thing I’m sure I read them as intelligently as anybody. So for me that’s what I do. I don’t particularly like the phone and I don’t live in DC. I think one of the bigger differences between what I do and what journalists do has to do with genre more than anything else. And I’ve said this before. I wouldn’t want to give up the ability to say, ‘I’m going to speculate wildly. It is speculation, but here’s my basis for it.’ And I mean, we figured out that Armitage was the Novak/Woodward source in March and we were able to do that because we were able to do things that journalists wouldn’t do. And I’ve been harping since October since it became crystal clear that Libby had met with Novak and probably was hiding those meetings and I’ve just been saying “Novak meetings, why the hell isn’t anybody reporting this.” But to some degree I understand that journalists can’t say, “everyone said Richard Armitage is the source but we just discovered that Scooter Libby actually had meetings with Robert Novak that neither of them has revealed until now and we therefore can’t say with certainty that Richard Armitage was the first source until we understand what this is,” and that’s the conversation that should be happening.
BB: How do you stay accurate?
MW: I definitely do corrections on anything that I asserted definitively. A lot of what I do is present evidence. The book was different. I had to put it to bed. Where a lot of what I do on the blog is say, “here’s something we don’t know about the January 24 document." I can say with certainty based on OVP’s own documents that it is post dated to the time they were told to take the Niger reference out of the State of the Union. And maybe there are documents I don’t know. What I do is say, “here’s what the evidence shows.” If new evidence comes to light then I say, “new evidence comes to light and here’s what we now know.”
BB: Have there been any recriminations, intimidation or defamation or anything like that?
MW: So far there haven’t been any ill side-effects.
BB: Do you see yourself — when all this is said and don e— continuing to blog or transferring into a media position or bridging the two? What’s the plan?
MW: I don’t know. I don’t want to do traditional media. It’s the genre issue. We need to expand the genre of traditional media—everything from pseudo-objectivity to the size of articles to the kinds of things you can say in articles because that’s not serving our purposes very well. I don’t want to do that until journalism gets a lot more vibrant
BB: Is blogging a sustainable medium? Can they be profitable, or provide people a living?
MW: That’s one of my questions because right now I’m a consultant so I can work 20 hrs a
week and pay the bills and that’s what I did when I left academic work. I spend a lot of time blogging now and I like doing it but there is something to be said for having people who aren’t full time bloggers doing it. I kind of want to retain at least the principle of that because you get a lot of different viewpoints that you wouldn’t otherwise necessarily get. I think that’s a good thing.
BB: What’s your readership like these days?
MW: I’m not sure we’re sustainably at 4000 we’re normally at 3000 unique hits a day. That was before Thursday’s New York Times article, though.
....and the truth shall set us free.
In the interview, she revealed that she believes that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will press forward with his investigation, and that his ultimate target is Vice President Dick Cheney: "I’m not entirely convinced that Fitzgerald’s done. I used to be conservative on that, believing that he was done. But there are little snippets of hints that he’s not."
Wheeler is omnipresent in the new media, most notably at the blog Firedoglake, while also appearing on her own blog, The Next Hurrah, and also at Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Her book on the CIA leak scandal, Anatomy of Deceit, has been released in paperback. Because of a marathon effort parsing public documents, she managed to beat the traditional media to major stories by months.
“We figured out that Armitage was the Novak/Woodward source in March,” Wheeler said in an implicit critique of mainstream coverage of the Plame story, “and we were able to do that because we were able to do things that journalists wouldn’t do.”
Fitzgerald became famous for using organized crime-fighting tactics to root his way through an immensely corrupt government in the state of Illinois, culminating his years-long investigation with over 60 indictments and the conviction of former Republican Governor George Ryan.
Wheeler believes that Fitzgerald will bring that indefatigable nature to this trial: "I think Fitzgerald clearly wants Cheney and he’s not the kind of person who rests on his laurels after getting one conviction. One thing I can say is I don’t understand why Eric Edelman wasn’t called and that may be something he kept in reserve. I don’t understand why Jenny Mayfield wasn’t called, that may be something he kept in reserve."
A transcription of the interview appears below.
BB: I didn’t realize how serious the loophole in Fitzgerald’s strategy was and how profoundly it affected the course of the investigation. But at the same time he probably couldn’t have moved forward without promising to limit the investigation to only known leakers. Talk about that, if you can.
MW: Armitage is the perfect example because people on the right always say how dare Patrick Fitzgerald didn’t find the Bob Woodward/Armitage’s connection. But had he done what he needed to do to find that, he would have needed to subpoena every single journalist who spoke to Libby, Rove, Armitage, Fleischer, Bartlett, Hadley, Condi. And you’re beginning to get into the range of things. They were all potential leakers and probably to some degree were involved. There’s no way you would’ve been able to subpoena all of that.
BB: How disappointed were you when Cheney was excused.
MW: I wasn’t surprised. But you know Cheney can’t keep his cool. He may be very intelligent, but if you look at what happened with Leahy he can’t keep his cool when somebody challenges him and he’s never been challenged by journalists in the way he would have been challenged by Fitzgerald. But I just think there was no way they could have scoped the testimony narrowly enough to avoid Cheney opening himself up to charges. If you read Sid Blumenthal’s piece from last week where people were telling Libby not to take the fall for Cheney. It’s pretty clear that everyone agrees that’s what he’s in the process of doing. It would defy the point of him taking the fall if Dick Cheney took the stand and exposed himself to a perjury charge. Plus the fact that—I don’t even think that Cheney could have successfully reinforced Libby’s testimony. John Hannah was a huge bust for the defense. They had a great witness, John Hannah, saying if Libby took 2 hrs on July 8 to meet with Judith Miller there’d be no way he’d forget it.
BB: So predictions? Verdict?
MW: I think Wells is going to make a very concerted effort at jury nullification. In his closing statement he’s going to harp on: Rove leaked, Ari [Fleischer] leaked, Armitage leaked and they’re not doing time, they’re not even charged. But what Fitzgerald isn’t quite able to say although he might get there is that whoever leaked it all came out. Armitage only found out about Plame because of the INR memo [which was part of the leak process to begin with]. Ari found out from Libby and Rove probably found out from Libby. I think Wells, it goes back to his opening statement when he said, “the only way my client doesn’t get off is if you violate your oath.” And it’s very wrong. And I think he could be disbarred if it was perceived that he did it intentionally. But what he wants them to think about the leak and not this narrow perjury charge.
BB: Do you buy the reports that Ari Fleischer came forth because he was worried about being
imprisoned or executed?
MW: There was nothing in the testimony to support that. You asked about predictions. If Wells is unsuccessful at jury nullification then I think that Libby will get off on the two Cooper charges but be found guilty on obstruction and the two Russert charges.
BB: Do you think that the Intelligence Identities Act is a law that will ever be successfully adjudicated?
MW: Well the problem in this case, I’m not entirely convinced that Fitzgerald’s done. I used to be conservative on that, believing that he was done. But there are little snippets of hints that he’s not.
BB: What are those? Talk about those.
MW: I don’t think I should say. It’s court personnel stuff. If nothing else, there may be another charge for Libby that he’s lying about the NIE. But I think Fitzgerald clearly wants Cheney and he’s not the kind of person who rests on his laurels after getting one conviction. One thing I can say is I don’t understand why Eric Edelman wasn’t called and that may be something he kept in reserve. I don’t understand why Jenny Mayfield wasn’t called, that may be something he kept in reserve. I think I understand why the defense didn’t call her. So he may or may not be done, but, in this case, if he’s not done, I say this in the book, there are two Constitutional issues you run up against. Because I’ve long believed that if Fitzgerald gets to the point where he can prove that it wasn’t the NIE they were declassifying but it was Plame’s identity, then you’re in the Constitutional issue of whether Navy vs. Egan, which is what Addington was using to justify it, whether its true that it can supersede all the procedures that executive orders lay out for declassification. That you can instantly declassify something. And whether you can declassify Plame’s identity without telling her. And I’m still not convinced that you can indict a sitting vice president for something he did as a sitting vice president. Agnew was indicted for something he did before.
BB: What would you say are the differences between blog ethics or citizen journalist ethics and regular journalist ethics? And how much of what you do is in the old style, calling and cultivating sources?
MW: In the book I very deliberately avoided that, partly because my big sources were Joe and people who know Joe and I didn’t want the book to be Joe’s side of the story. I wanted it to be able to stand on its own. I did that deliberately. I wanted this to be public record stuff. That’s what I do well. I’m as good a close reader as I think there are out there. And reading through the filings and that kind of thing I’m sure I read them as intelligently as anybody. So for me that’s what I do. I don’t particularly like the phone and I don’t live in DC. I think one of the bigger differences between what I do and what journalists do has to do with genre more than anything else. And I’ve said this before. I wouldn’t want to give up the ability to say, ‘I’m going to speculate wildly. It is speculation, but here’s my basis for it.’ And I mean, we figured out that Armitage was the Novak/Woodward source in March and we were able to do that because we were able to do things that journalists wouldn’t do. And I’ve been harping since October since it became crystal clear that Libby had met with Novak and probably was hiding those meetings and I’ve just been saying “Novak meetings, why the hell isn’t anybody reporting this.” But to some degree I understand that journalists can’t say, “everyone said Richard Armitage is the source but we just discovered that Scooter Libby actually had meetings with Robert Novak that neither of them has revealed until now and we therefore can’t say with certainty that Richard Armitage was the first source until we understand what this is,” and that’s the conversation that should be happening.
BB: How do you stay accurate?
MW: I definitely do corrections on anything that I asserted definitively. A lot of what I do is present evidence. The book was different. I had to put it to bed. Where a lot of what I do on the blog is say, “here’s something we don’t know about the January 24 document." I can say with certainty based on OVP’s own documents that it is post dated to the time they were told to take the Niger reference out of the State of the Union. And maybe there are documents I don’t know. What I do is say, “here’s what the evidence shows.” If new evidence comes to light then I say, “new evidence comes to light and here’s what we now know.”
BB: Have there been any recriminations, intimidation or defamation or anything like that?
MW: So far there haven’t been any ill side-effects.
BB: Do you see yourself — when all this is said and don e— continuing to blog or transferring into a media position or bridging the two? What’s the plan?
MW: I don’t know. I don’t want to do traditional media. It’s the genre issue. We need to expand the genre of traditional media—everything from pseudo-objectivity to the size of articles to the kinds of things you can say in articles because that’s not serving our purposes very well. I don’t want to do that until journalism gets a lot more vibrant
BB: Is blogging a sustainable medium? Can they be profitable, or provide people a living?
MW: That’s one of my questions because right now I’m a consultant so I can work 20 hrs a
week and pay the bills and that’s what I did when I left academic work. I spend a lot of time blogging now and I like doing it but there is something to be said for having people who aren’t full time bloggers doing it. I kind of want to retain at least the principle of that because you get a lot of different viewpoints that you wouldn’t otherwise necessarily get. I think that’s a good thing.
BB: What’s your readership like these days?
MW: I’m not sure we’re sustainably at 4000 we’re normally at 3000 unique hits a day. That was before Thursday’s New York Times article, though.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Rummy's Nuclear Trigger; Scary
When Rummy Tried To Nuke Russia'A few months after the inauguration, Donald Rumsfeld was invited to play the role of president of the United States in an exercise devised by a Washington think tank. In this scenario, "President" Rumsfeld was intent on securing congressional approval to go to war. "I don't care what you tell them," he barked at White House chief of staff Ed Markey, "just get over to Capitol Hill and make them do it, and make sure there are no constraints."
'"It was an exercise devised by the Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] to study the functioning of the War Powers Act," remembers Markey, a liberal Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. "We acted out roles. I accepted the role of Chief of Staff because I figured that was my only shot at the job." Rumsfeld may have felt the same way. At the age of fifty-seven he appears to have concluded that if he could no longer realistically aspire to be president, he could at least act the part.
'By all accounts "President" Rumsfeld played his role in that 1989 exercise for CSIS with great gusto, raging at the obdurate Congress and deploying the "White House spokesman" (played by the venerable broadcast journalist Daniel Schorr) to maneuver the press into supporting his martial position. But this Washington exercise was a comparatively lighthearted affair compared to Rumsfeld's role in games that were far more elaborate, and deeply secret. Well away from journalists and others lacking highly restricted security clearances, he could perform not merely as a chief executive, but one faced with the awesome responsibility of waging nuclear war.' (Salon Magazine article).
Read More...
....and the truth shall set us free.
'"It was an exercise devised by the Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] to study the functioning of the War Powers Act," remembers Markey, a liberal Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. "We acted out roles. I accepted the role of Chief of Staff because I figured that was my only shot at the job." Rumsfeld may have felt the same way. At the age of fifty-seven he appears to have concluded that if he could no longer realistically aspire to be president, he could at least act the part.
'By all accounts "President" Rumsfeld played his role in that 1989 exercise for CSIS with great gusto, raging at the obdurate Congress and deploying the "White House spokesman" (played by the venerable broadcast journalist Daniel Schorr) to maneuver the press into supporting his martial position. But this Washington exercise was a comparatively lighthearted affair compared to Rumsfeld's role in games that were far more elaborate, and deeply secret. Well away from journalists and others lacking highly restricted security clearances, he could perform not merely as a chief executive, but one faced with the awesome responsibility of waging nuclear war.' (Salon Magazine article).
Read More...
....and the truth shall set us free.
White House conducts bomb drill
Something about this gives me the willies....
Print Story: White House conducts bomb drill on Yahoo! News:
Dozens of high-level officials joined in a White House drill Saturday to see how the government would respond if several cities were attacked simultaneously by the type of the roadside bombs used against American troops in Iraq.
White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend presided over the three-hour exercise that brought the government's highest level homeland security officials to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House. All Cabinet agencies were represented by their secretaries or other high-ranking officials, with a total of about 90 participants, said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman.
Stanzel said the drill revealed gaps in the government's ability to respond, but also showed that there have been many improvements since Hurricane Katrina exposed federal inadequacies when it devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005. For instance, coordination with state and local authorities and the ability to get federal resources in place quickly — key missteps after Katrina — appeared much better now, Stanzel said.
President Bush went on a bike ride not far from the White House Saturday morning, and did not take part in the test.
E. J. Dionne Jr. - Smearing Like It's 2003
If this smear crappola works again, after all we now know, we will jolly well get what we deserve.
E. J. Dionne Jr. - Smearing Like It's 2003 - washingtonpost.com:
Even as jurors pondered whether Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff should be convicted for lying about what the Bush administration did to smear one of its critics, there was Cheney accusing another adversary of doing the work of the terrorists.
The fabricate-and-smear cycle illustrated so dramatically during the case of I. Lewis 'Scooter'' Libby explains why President Bush is failing to rally support for the latest iteration of his Iraq policy. The administration's willingness at the outset to say anything, no matter how questionable, to justify the war has destroyed its credibility. Its habit of attacking those who expressed misgivings has destroyed any goodwill it might have enjoyed. Bush and Cheney have lost the benefit of the doubt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
