CHENEY IS INVOLVED WITH INFLUENCE PEDDLING
Astounding! Appalling! (Just kidding. This is one of Cheney's greatest talents.) Sent by Ken on Friday. LS
RAW STORY PIECE ON CHENEY INFLUENCE PEDDLING
FROM THE LOW LIFE SLEAZY WING OF THE GOP
The Wall Street Journal published a piece recently that was originally broken by Raw Story.com on how a jilted fiancée of Scanlon brought down the Abramoff House of Fraud and Corruption. LS
Excerpt:
While Mr. Abramoff has become well known as a symbol of the excesses of Washington influence-peddling, the story of the DeLay aides and their role in the scandal is less-known. People who have spoken to Ms. Miller say that after her breakup she began questioning how Mr. Scanlon could afford a lavish lifestyle while working summers as a beach lifeguard and doing seemingly little work at his public-relations firm. She talked about the beach house he had presented to her, the private jet he flew around in and the $17,000-a-month apartment he rented at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington. Prosecutors would later ask the same questions, and discover Mr. Abramoff's deals with the Indian tribes.
RAW STORY ON SCANLON'S JILTED FIANCEE
BUSH ABUSE OF POWER WORSE THAN NIXON'S DURING WATERGATE, ACCORDING TO JOHN DEAN. Dean should know - he served time in prison for his role in Watergate. LS
RAW STORY.COM ON JOHN DEAN
ROVE'S WARNING
It is all about the politics and money with the Bush people. Forget about minor issues like national security, domestic, foreign policy, immigration, or anything for that matter. This group is focused solely on winning elections in order to secure more wealth for themselves and their groupies.
Speaking of the low life and sleazy wing of the GOP, Rove is the party's leading evil doer because he not only undermined our election process on numerous levels, mainly by hiding the truth on the fake Iraq Intel, but worse of all, the monster stuck our nation with another four years of bush inflicted hell and mayhem. LS
Ken sent this extraordinary piece on the White House’s cover up of Bush’s knowledge of the fake prewar Intel on Iraq. Rove told fellow White House aides that we the public had to be barred from knowing Bush was personally informed about the bogus Intel by a White House insider. Why? Because our knowing the truth would have severely damaged Bush's chances for re-election in 2004. The piece was found on THE NATIONAL REVIEW
This article is so outrageously forthcoming, long overdue and well researched that I am posting it entirely, in case it should become removed from the original site, for some Rove reason. LS
Insulating Bush
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews.
Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
The previously undisclosed review by Hadley was part of a damage-control effort launched after former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged that Bush's claims regarding the uranium were not true. The CIA had sent Wilson to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate the purported procurement efforts by Iraq; he reported that they were most likely a hoax.
The White House was largely successful in defusing the Niger controversy because there was no evidence that Bush was aware that his claims about the uranium were based on faulty intelligence. Then-CIA Director George Tenet swiftly and publicly took the blame for the entire episode, saying that he and the CIA were at fault for not warning Bush and his aides that the information might be untrue.
But Hadley and other administration officials realized that it would be much more difficult to shield Bush from criticism for his statements regarding the aluminum tubes, for several reasons.
For one, Hadley's review concluded that Bush had been directly and repeatedly apprised of the deep rift within the intelligence community over whether Iraq wanted the high-strength aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program or for conventional weapons.
For another, the president and others in the administration had cited the aluminum tubes as the most compelling evidence that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon -- even more than the allegations that he was attempting to purchase uranium.
And finally, full disclosure of the internal dissent over the importance of the tubes would have almost certainly raised broader questions about the administration's conduct in the months leading up to war.
"Presidential knowledge was the ball game," says a former senior government official outside the White House who was personally familiar with the damage-control effort. "The mission was to insulate the president. It was about making it appear that he wasn't in the know. You could do that on Niger. You couldn't do that with the tubes." A Republican political appointee involved in the process, who thought the Bush administration had a constitutional obligation to be more open with Congress, said: "This was about getting past the election."
The President's Summary
Most troublesome to those leading the damage-control effort was documentary evidence -- albeit in highly classified government records that they might be able to keep secret -- that the president had been advised that many in the intelligence community believed that the tubes were meant for conventional weapons.
The one-page documents known as the "President's Summary" are distilled from the much lengthier National Intelligence Estimates, which combine the analysis of as many as six intelligence agencies regarding major national security issues. Bush's knowledge of the State and Energy departments' dissent over the tubes was disclosed in a March 4, 2006, National Journal story -- more than three years after the intelligence assessment was provided to the president, and some 16 months after the 2004 presidential election.
The President's Summary was only one of several high-level warnings given to Bush and other senior administration officials that serious doubts existed about the intended use of the tubes, according to government records and interviews with former and current officials.
In mid-September 2002, two weeks before Bush received the October 2002 President's Summary, Tenet informed him that both State and Energy had doubts about the aluminum tubes and that even some within the CIA weren't certain that the tubes were meant for nuclear weapons, according to government records and interviews with two former senior officials.
Official records and interviews with current and former officials also reveal that the president was told that even then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had doubts that the tubes might be used for nuclear weapons.
When U.S. inspectors entered Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime, they determined that Iraq's nuclear program had been dormant for more than a decade and that the aluminum tubes had been used only for conventional weapons.
In the end, the White House's damage control was largely successful, because the public did not learn until after the 2004 elections the full extent of the president's knowledge that the assessment linking the aluminum tubes to a nuclear weapons program might not be true. The most crucial information was kept under wraps until long after Bush's re-election.
Choreography
The new disclosures regarding the tubes may also shed light on why officials so vigorously attempted to discredit Wilson's allegations regarding Niger, including by leaking information to the media that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Administration officials hoped that the suggestion that Plame had played a role in the agency's choice of Wilson for the Niger trip might cast doubt on his allegations.
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, then chief of staff and national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted on October 28 on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice in attempting to conceal his role in outing Plame as an undercover CIA operative. Signaling a possible defense strategy, Libby's attorneys filed papers in federal court on March 17 asserting that he had not intentionally deceived FBI agents and a federal grand jury while answering questions about Plame because her role was only "peripheral" to potentially more serious questions regarding the Bush administration's use of intelligence in the prewar debate. "The media conflagration ignited by the failure to find [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq and in part by Mr. Wilson's criticism of the administration, led officials within the White House, the State Department, and the CIA to blame each other, publicly and in private, for faulty prewar intelligence about Iraq's WMD capabilities," Libby's attorneys said in court papers.
Plame's identity was disclosed during "a period of increasing bureaucratic infighting, when certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability," the attorneys said. "The White House and the CIA were widely regarded to be at war."
Only two months before Wilson went public with his allegations, the Iraq war was being viewed as one of the greatest achievements of Bush's presidency. Rove, whom Bush would later call the "architect" of his re-election campaign, was determined to exploit the war for the president's electoral success. On May 1, 2003, Bush made a dramatic landing on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to announce to the nation the cessation of major combat operations in Iraq. Dressed in a military flight suit, the president emerged from a four-seat Navy S-3B Viking with the words "George W. Bush Commander-in-Chief" painted just below the cockpit window.
The New York Times later reported that White House aides "had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the 'Mission Accomplished' banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot."
On May 6, in a column in The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof quoted an unnamed former ambassador as saying that allegations that Saddam had attempted to procure uranium from Africa were "unequivocally wrong" and that "documents had been forged." But the column drew little notice.
A month later, on June 5, the president made a triumphant visit to Camp As Sayliyah, the regional headquarters of Central Command just outside Qatar's capital, where he spoke to 1,000 troops who were in camouflage fatigues. Afterward, Rove took out a camera and began snapping pictures of service personnel with various presidential advisers. "Step right up! Get your photo with Ari Fleischer -- get 'em while they're hot. Get your Condi Rice," Rove said, according to press accounts of the trip. On the trip home, as Air Force One flew at 31,000 feet over Iraqi airspace, escorted by pairs of F-18 fighters off each wing, the plane's pilots dipped the wings as a sign, an administration spokesperson explained, "that Iraq is now free."
There were few hints of what lay ahead: that sectarian violence would engulf Iraq to the point where some fear civil war and that more than 2,440 American troops and contractors would lose their lives in Iraq and an additional 17,260 servicemen and -women would be wounded.
Blame The CIA
The pre-election damage-control effort in response to Wilson's allegations and the broader issue of whether the Bush administration might have misrepresented intelligence information to make the case for war had three major components, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials: blame the CIA for the use of the Niger information in the president's State of the Union address; discredit and undermine Wilson; and make sure that the public did not learn that the president had been personally warned that the intelligence assessments he was citing about the aluminum tubes might be wrong.
On July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson challenged the Niger-uranium claim in an op-ed article in The New York Times, Libby met with Judith Miller, then a Times reporter, for breakfast at the St. Regis hotel in Washington. Libby told Miller that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA, and he suggested that Wilson could not be trusted because his wife may have played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. Also during that meeting, according to accounts given by both Miller and Libby, Libby provided the reporter with details of a then-classified National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE contained detailed information that Iraq had been attempting to procure uranium from Niger and perhaps two other African nations. Libby and other administration officials believed that the NIE showed that Bush's statements reflected the consensus view of the intelligence community at the time.
According to Miller's account of that meeting in The Times, Libby told her that "the assessments of the classified estimate" that Iraq had attempted to get uranium from Africa and was attempting to develop a nuclear weapons program "were even stronger" than a declassified White Paper on Iraq that the administration had made public to make the case for war.
The special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has said that he considers the selective disclosure of elements of the NIE to be "inextricably intertwined" with the outing of Plame. Papers filed in federal court by Libby's attorneys on March 17 stated that Libby "believed his actions were authorized" and that he had "testified before the grand jury that this disclosure was authorized," a reference to the NIE details he gave to Miller.
In the same filings, Libby's attorneys said that Hadley played a key role in attempting to have the NIE declassified and made available to reporters: "Mr. Hadley was active in discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the NIE and [also] had numerous conversations during [this] critical early-July period with Mr. Tenet about the 16 words [the Niger claim in the State of the Union address] and Mr. Tenet's public statements about that issue."
Three days later, on July 11, while on a visit to Africa, Bush and his top aides intensified their efforts to counter the damage done by Wilson's Niger allegations.
Aboard Air Force One, en route to Entebbe, Uganda, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave a background briefing for reporters. A reporter pointed out that when Secretary Powell had addressed the United Nations on February 5, 2003, he -- unlike others in the Bush administration -- had noted that some in the U.S. government did not believe that Iraq's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for nuclear weapons.
Responding, Rice said: "I'm saying that when we put [Powell's speech] together ... the secretary decided that he would caveat the aluminum tubes, which he did.... The secretary also has an intelligence arm that happened to hold that view." Rice added, "Now, if there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president, or me."
In fact, contrary to Rice's statement, the president was indeed informed of such doubts when he received the October 2002 President's Summary of the NIE. Both Cheney and Rice also got copies of the summary, as well as a number of other intelligence reports about the State and Energy departments' doubts that the tubes were meant for a nuclear weapons program.
Discrediting Wilson
After Air Force One landed in Entebbe, the president placed the blame squarely on the CIA for the Niger information in the State of the Union: "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services." Within hours, Tenet accepted full responsibility. The intelligence information on Niger, Tenet said in a prepared statement, "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed." Tenet went on to say, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
Behind the scenes, the White House and Tenet had coordinated their statements for maximum effect. Hadley, Libby, and Rove had reviewed drafts of Tenet's statement days in advance. And Hadley and Rove even suggested changes in the draft, according to government records and interviews.
Meanwhile, as the president, Rice, and White House advisers worked to contain the damage from overseas, Rove and Libby, who had remained in Washington, moved forward with their effort to discredit Wilson. That same day, July 11, the two spoke privately at the close of a White House senior staff meeting.
According to grand jury testimony from both men, Rove told Libby that he had spoken to columnist Robert Novak on July 9 and that Novak had said he would soon be writing a column about Valerie Plame. On July 12, the day after Rice's briefing, the president's and Tenet's comments, and the conversation between Rove and Libby regarding Novak, the issue of discrediting Wilson through his wife was still high on the agenda. According to the indictment of Libby: "Libby flew with the vice president and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia on Air Force Two." On the return trip, "Libby discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries" regarding Wilson's allegations.
Later that day, Libby spoke on the phone with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Cooper had been told days earlier that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. During this conversation, according to Libby's indictment, "Libby confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information, too." Also that day, Libby's indictment charged, "Libby spoke by telephone with Judith Miller ... and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA."
On July 14, Novak published his now-famous column identifying Plame as a CIA "operative" and reporting that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.
On July 18, the Bush administration declassified a relatively small portion of the NIE and held a press briefing to discuss it, in a further effort to show that the president had used the Niger information only because the intelligence community had vouched for it. Reporters noted that an "alternate view" box in the NIE stated that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (known as INR) believed that claims of Iraqi purchases of uranium from Africa were "highly dubious" and that State and DOE also believed that the aluminum tubes were "most likely for the production of artillery shells."
But White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett suggested that both the president and Rice had been unaware of this information: "They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document." Later, addressing the same issue, Bartlett said, "The president of the United States is not a fact-checker."
Because the Bush administration was able to control what information would remain classified, however, reporters did not know that Bush had received the President's Summary that informed him that both State's INR and the Energy Department doubted that the aluminum tubes were to be used for a nuclear-related purpose.
(Ironically, at one point, before he had reviewed the one-page summary, Hadley considered declassifying it because it said nothing about the Niger intelligence information being untrue. However, after reviewing the summary and realizing that it would have disclosed presidential knowledge that INR and DOE had doubts about the tubes, senior Bush administration officials became preoccupied with ensuring that the text of the document remained classified, according to an account provided by an administration official.)
On July 22, the White House arranged yet another briefing for reporters regarding the Niger controversy. Hadley, when asked whether there was any reason that the president should have hesitated in citing Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes as evidence of Saddam's nuclear ambitions, answered, "It is an assessment in which the director and the CIA stand by to this day. And, therefore, we have every reason to be confident."
Later that summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee launched an investigation of intelligence agencies to determine why they failed to accurately assess that Saddam had no viable programs to develop chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion.
As National Journal first disclosed on its Web site on October 27, 2005, Cheney, Libby, and Cheney's current chief of staff, David Addington, rejected advice given to them by other White House officials and decided to withhold from the committee crucial documents that might have shown that administration claims about Saddam's capabilities often went beyond information provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Among those documents was the President's Summary of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.
In July 2004, when the Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on its investigation of prewar intelligence by the CIA and other agencies, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said in his own "Additional Views" to the report, "Concurrent with the production of a National Intelligence Estimate is the production of a one-page President's Summary of the NIE. A one-page President's Summary was completed and disseminated for the October 2002 NIE ... though there is no mention of this fact in [this] report. These one-page NIE summaries are ... written exclusively for the president and senior policy makers and are therefore tailored for that audience."
Durbin concluded, "In determining what the president was told about the contents of the NIE dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- qualifiers and all -- there is nothing clearer than this single page."
-- Previous coverage of pre-war intelligence and the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas. Brian Beutler provided research assistance for this report.
on the pre-war intelligence on Iraq and the 2004 Presidential election.
JOSH MARSHALL ON THE IRAQ FAKE INTEL COVERUP AND HOW THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THE PRESS TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT IT. LS
JOSH MARSHALL ON THE WHITE HOUSE COVERUP OF BUSH'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE FAKE INTEL ON IRAQ
MORE ON WHITE HOUSE COVERUPS: 9/11 FAMILIES HAVE TO SUE TO GET UNCENSORED TRANSCRIPTS OF 911 CALLS FROM THEIR LOVED ONES.
YAHOO.COM NEWS ON 9/11 CENSORED CALLS
THE LONE RANGER FOR JUSTICE
Feingold Censure Hearings on Tom.Paine.com
TOM PAINE.COM ON FEINGOLD'S CENSURE HEARING
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUE ON BUSH AND THE LAW
Ken sent the article below, written by a right wing ideologue who is fed up with Bush's blatant disregard for our laws. LS
Will Scalia Blow the Whistle on This Constitutional Farce?
By Norman J. Ornstein
Posted: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
ARTICLES
Roll Call
Publication Date: March 15, 2006
A few weeks back, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia described the legal philosophy of his adversaries--those who believe that interpretation of the Constitution should not rely on strict adherence to the words and intent of the document and the framers. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that, Scalia said. The Constitution is not a living organism--it is a legal document. It says something and doesnt say other things.
That is quite a quote--and it is not a paraphrase. But it comes to mind as one watches the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader stonewall on the issue of making S. 1932 legal under the Constitution.
To those unfamiliar with the issue and controversy, the House and Senate passed a major budget bill by the narrowest of margins in both chambers, including a tie-breaking vote in the Senate case by Vice President Cheney, but it turned out that the bill passed the House and Senate in different forms.
This was not simply a transcription error, a misplaced comma or a misspelled word--something that would be plenty serious--but a $2 billion discrepancy that arose over a last-minute compromise between the two chambers over the time allowed for the rental of medical equipment for Medicare patients. After the House had passed its version and the discrepancy became known, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) unilaterally changed the House bill to match the Senates and then sent it on to President Bush, which he signed to great fanfare.
But a seventh-grade civics student who has done his or her homework would immediately know that what the president signed is not a law. Laws, as Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution makes clear, must pass both chambers of Congress in identical form and then be signed by the president.
Of course, when Congress makes an error such as this one, it easily can be resolved by having both chambers re-pass the bill in identical form and having the president sign the proper bill. But not in this Congress with these leaders.
Because the two versions are different by a cool $2 billion, and because the more generous House version would be difficult to pass muster with fiscal conservatives, neither Hastert nor Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) wants to go through another vote. So they have decided to ignore the plain letter and intent of the Constitution and declare, with the same sensitivity to the rule of law as the queen of hearts, that it is law, period, because we say so.
The leaders have come up with a belated rationalization: the 1892 Supreme Court ruling by John Harlan in Field v. Clark, which found that the signatures of the Speaker and the president of the Senate are enough to certify the legality of a bill. But any serious reading of the facts surrounding that decision would make clear that this is a different kettle of fish.
Hastert and Frist are unlikely to budge, despite Democrats fulminations on the issue. But a suit has been filed by a private citizen contesting the acts legality. It may get to the Supreme Court. If it does, we will see how strict Scalias adherence is to his own professed judicial philosophy--and what term he would apply to leaders who dont understand that the Constitution says something and doesnt say other things.
Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.
Will Scalia Blow the Whistle on This Constitutional Farce?
By Norman J. Ornstein
Posted: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
ARTICLES
Roll Call
Publication Date: March 15, 2006
A few weeks back, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia described the legal philosophy of his adversaries--those who believe that interpretation of the Constitution should not rely on strict adherence to the words and intent of the document and the framers. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that, Scalia said. The Constitution is not a living organism--it is a legal document. It says something and doesnt say other things.
That is quite a quote--and it is not a paraphrase. But it comes to mind as one watches the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader stonewall on the issue of making S. 1932 legal under the Constitution.
To those unfamiliar with the issue and controversy, the House and Senate passed a major budget bill by the narrowest of margins in both chambers, including a tie-breaking vote in the Senate case by Vice President Cheney, but it turned out that the bill passed the House and Senate in different forms.
This was not simply a transcription error, a misplaced comma or a misspelled word--something that would be plenty serious--but a $2 billion discrepancy that arose over a last-minute compromise between the two chambers over the time allowed for the rental of medical equipment for Medicare patients. After the House had passed its version and the discrepancy became known, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) unilaterally changed the House bill to match the Senates and then sent it on to President Bush, which he signed to great fanfare.
But a seventh-grade civics student who has done his or her homework would immediately know that what the president signed is not a law. Laws, as Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution makes clear, must pass both chambers of Congress in identical form and then be signed by the president.
Of course, when Congress makes an error such as this one, it easily can be resolved by having both chambers re-pass the bill in identical form and having the president sign the proper bill. But not in this Congress with these leaders.
Because the two versions are different by a cool $2 billion, and because the more generous House version would be difficult to pass muster with fiscal conservatives, neither Hastert nor Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) wants to go through another vote. So they have decided to ignore the plain letter and intent of the Constitution and declare, with the same sensitivity to the rule of law as the queen of hearts, that it is law, period, because we say so.
The leaders have come up with a belated rationalization: the 1892 Supreme Court ruling by John Harlan in Field v. Clark, which found that the signatures of the Speaker and the president of the Senate are enough to certify the legality of a bill. But any serious reading of the facts surrounding that decision would make clear that this is a different kettle of fish.
Hastert and Frist are unlikely to budge, despite Democrats fulminations on the issue. But a suit has been filed by a private citizen contesting the acts legality. It may get to the Supreme Court. If it does, we will see how strict Scalias adherence is to his own professed judicial philosophy--and what term he would apply to leaders who dont understand that the Constitution says something and doesnt say other things.
Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.
Monday, March 27, 2006
KRUGMAN SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON IMMIGRATION
I saw this piece in the New York Times this morning, written by Mr. Paul Krugman, a well-known economist and regular contributor to the NYT. The bottom line, I think, according to Mr. Krugman, is that the solution to illegal immigration proposed by Bush is a no win for both the American worker (who will be replaced by those who are less educated and hence will receive impossibly low wages) or for the "guest worker" that will be paid disgraceful and pathetic wages. The guest workers will not have the right to vote, or will (s)he likely be eligible for health benefits or social security. At the same time, I am sure the guest worker will be required to pay all federal and state taxes. The winning beneficiary naturally is the employer who will reap all benefits and who, in turn, will contribute generously to the politicians who made this form of slavery possible. Have they no shame? Apparently not. LS
Here is the post from Ken, including his comments, on Mr. Krugman's piece "North of the Border."
This is an eye opener. It's also a demonstration of how to think about a problem that has emotional overtones without adding in politicized hysteria and easy answers.
Here's a favorite passage:
while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
-K
NYT SELECT
The New York Times
March 27, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
North of the Border
By PAUL KRUGMAN
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.
In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.
Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came." Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.
Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.
We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a "modest role" in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.
But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?
Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests — legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care — is simply immoral.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's plan for a "guest worker" program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who'd love to have a low-wage work force that couldn't vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.
What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I'd still be careful. Whatever the bill's intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice — that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.
We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I'd rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles.
* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
Here is the post from Ken, including his comments, on Mr. Krugman's piece "North of the Border."
This is an eye opener. It's also a demonstration of how to think about a problem that has emotional overtones without adding in politicized hysteria and easy answers.
Here's a favorite passage:
while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
-K
NYT SELECT
The New York Times
March 27, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
North of the Border
By PAUL KRUGMAN
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.
In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.
Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came." Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.
Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.
We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a "modest role" in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.
But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?
Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests — legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care — is simply immoral.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's plan for a "guest worker" program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who'd love to have a low-wage work force that couldn't vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.
What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I'd still be careful. Whatever the bill's intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice — that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.
We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I'd rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles.
* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
Sunday, March 26, 2006
LET THE FAT MEN SING
AS ARROGANT AND CONDESCENDING AS EVER, CHENEY SAID WHEN DEMOCRATS ARE COMPETENT TO LEAD, HE CAN SING ON AMERICAN IDOL. Rove must have thought this one up.
Both fat boys can start singing. The opera, rather, the nightmarish horror show of the Bush years, can't end soon enough as far as I am concerned. Freedom. Oh Freedom. Sometimes I think I am a motherless child. OH YES...sometimes I think I am a motherless child......A song from the 1970's, by whom? Is it Richie Havens? Help me out here. LS
Found on Yahoo.News.com viaBUZZ FLASH.COM
YAHOO NEWS.COM: "CHENEY SAID WHEN DEMOCRATS CAN LEAD HE CAN SING
ACCORDING TO TIME MAGAZINE (FOUND ON RAW STORY), IF CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS WERE HELD TODAY, THE GOP WOULD LOSE THE HOUSE
Naturally this is great news! Hopefully Democrats can keep up the pressure on this administration of incompetence and corruption. Anyone not fed up is either a nut or a blind, drugged or deluded loyalist.
By the way, the illegal immigration issue will become a damned if you do, damned if you don't one for the GOP. It already has engendered party infighting, according to a piece I read in the New York Times today on Texas Senator John Cornyn who is caught between a rock and a hard place on this. (He said conservatives scream at him about it when he gives talks to groups.) Recent legislation from the House has also fueled a massive protest in Los Angles yesterday (see below).
The GOP dilemma? How can the GOP placate the corporations with whom they are ideologically joined at the hip while not turning their backs on the Hispanic voters who do not want to be perceived as felons or the offspring of felons. It will be a dangerous and dicey dance indeed.
We need to monitor our own party’s stance on this. Will some of our members go Republican Lite or will the liberal wing of our party prevail (my soul mates, really, but I am a hardened realist who lives in a so-called red and very diverse state)? Or will our party not say anything at all? At times, I think there is power in not speaking.
I find it interesting that the “moderates” in the GOP (also known as the corporate cheerleaders) are trying to finesse the issue by saying it is OK for “guest workers” to hold “jobs that no Americans want.” What jobs are they referring to in a land founded and sustained by immigrants who have worked and work now like dogs, both day and night? Is this how the GOP will sashay their way out of this fix? Jobs that no American wants? Think about it, folks, think about it. And don’t let them get away with it. LS
TIME MAGAZINE ON "REPUBLICANS ON THE RUN
Here is a piece on The Huffington Post concerning the huge demonstration yesterday in Los Angeles protesting the passage of a bill in the U.S. House that would render millions of illegal immigrants as felons.
THE HUFFINGTON POST ON IMMIGRATION DEMONSTRATION
NOT SUCH ENCOURAGING NEWS: NOVAK SAYS ABRAMOFF IS CLEARING THE BUG MAN DELAY
This is NOT good for Texas Democrats. ON THREE WRETCHED CREATURES:
RAW STORY ON NOVAK, ABRAMOFF AND DELAY
BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER
I find it interesting that Tom DeLay, a so-called and self-promoted Mr. Squeaky Clean and Fine Christian Man has had so many indicted felons work for him. Odd don't you think for a God fearing, Bible believing dude?
I found this article on a top of advisor to DeLay, who personally pocketed funds funneled by Abramoff to a charity, on The Washington Post.com by Mr. R. Jeffrey Smith via The Huffington Post
WASHINGTON POST: "Former DeLay Aide Enriched By Nonprofit"
BUSH AND CHENEY PLAY THE BLAME GAME. PIN THE BAD NUMBERS ON THE U.S. MEDIA
Wreak havoc, blame others. LS
Great piece found on Salon.com by Peter Daou.
PETER DAOU ON SALON.COM "Bush Launches Massive Shock and Awe Offensive Against the U.S. Media"
IT TAKES A SMUG, WEALTHY, ENTITLED, UNINFORMED AND NARCISSISTIC IDIOT TO START A GLOBAL WAR
Wreak havoc, get even richer in the process and let others clean up afterwards. This is what these dudes do.
How are Granddaddy Cheney and buddy Rove boy, aka bush's brain going to spin us out of this horror I wonder? Another great piece from RAW STORY.COM LS
DELTA FORCE FOUNDER ON BUSH AND WW III
I surely hope the fat dudes will sing soon. LS
Both fat boys can start singing. The opera, rather, the nightmarish horror show of the Bush years, can't end soon enough as far as I am concerned. Freedom. Oh Freedom. Sometimes I think I am a motherless child. OH YES...sometimes I think I am a motherless child......A song from the 1970's, by whom? Is it Richie Havens? Help me out here. LS
Found on Yahoo.News.com viaBUZZ FLASH.COM
YAHOO NEWS.COM: "CHENEY SAID WHEN DEMOCRATS CAN LEAD HE CAN SING
ACCORDING TO TIME MAGAZINE (FOUND ON RAW STORY), IF CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS WERE HELD TODAY, THE GOP WOULD LOSE THE HOUSE
Naturally this is great news! Hopefully Democrats can keep up the pressure on this administration of incompetence and corruption. Anyone not fed up is either a nut or a blind, drugged or deluded loyalist.
By the way, the illegal immigration issue will become a damned if you do, damned if you don't one for the GOP. It already has engendered party infighting, according to a piece I read in the New York Times today on Texas Senator John Cornyn who is caught between a rock and a hard place on this. (He said conservatives scream at him about it when he gives talks to groups.) Recent legislation from the House has also fueled a massive protest in Los Angles yesterday (see below).
The GOP dilemma? How can the GOP placate the corporations with whom they are ideologically joined at the hip while not turning their backs on the Hispanic voters who do not want to be perceived as felons or the offspring of felons. It will be a dangerous and dicey dance indeed.
We need to monitor our own party’s stance on this. Will some of our members go Republican Lite or will the liberal wing of our party prevail (my soul mates, really, but I am a hardened realist who lives in a so-called red and very diverse state)? Or will our party not say anything at all? At times, I think there is power in not speaking.
I find it interesting that the “moderates” in the GOP (also known as the corporate cheerleaders) are trying to finesse the issue by saying it is OK for “guest workers” to hold “jobs that no Americans want.” What jobs are they referring to in a land founded and sustained by immigrants who have worked and work now like dogs, both day and night? Is this how the GOP will sashay their way out of this fix? Jobs that no American wants? Think about it, folks, think about it. And don’t let them get away with it. LS
TIME MAGAZINE ON "REPUBLICANS ON THE RUN
Here is a piece on The Huffington Post concerning the huge demonstration yesterday in Los Angeles protesting the passage of a bill in the U.S. House that would render millions of illegal immigrants as felons.
THE HUFFINGTON POST ON IMMIGRATION DEMONSTRATION
NOT SUCH ENCOURAGING NEWS: NOVAK SAYS ABRAMOFF IS CLEARING THE BUG MAN DELAY
This is NOT good for Texas Democrats. ON THREE WRETCHED CREATURES:
RAW STORY ON NOVAK, ABRAMOFF AND DELAY
BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER
I find it interesting that Tom DeLay, a so-called and self-promoted Mr. Squeaky Clean and Fine Christian Man has had so many indicted felons work for him. Odd don't you think for a God fearing, Bible believing dude?
I found this article on a top of advisor to DeLay, who personally pocketed funds funneled by Abramoff to a charity, on The Washington Post.com by Mr. R. Jeffrey Smith via The Huffington Post
WASHINGTON POST: "Former DeLay Aide Enriched By Nonprofit"
BUSH AND CHENEY PLAY THE BLAME GAME. PIN THE BAD NUMBERS ON THE U.S. MEDIA
Wreak havoc, blame others. LS
Great piece found on Salon.com by Peter Daou.
PETER DAOU ON SALON.COM "Bush Launches Massive Shock and Awe Offensive Against the U.S. Media"
IT TAKES A SMUG, WEALTHY, ENTITLED, UNINFORMED AND NARCISSISTIC IDIOT TO START A GLOBAL WAR
Wreak havoc, get even richer in the process and let others clean up afterwards. This is what these dudes do.
How are Granddaddy Cheney and buddy Rove boy, aka bush's brain going to spin us out of this horror I wonder? Another great piece from RAW STORY.COM LS
DELTA FORCE FOUNDER ON BUSH AND WW III
I surely hope the fat dudes will sing soon. LS
Friday, March 24, 2006
PICK YOUR POISON
IS BUSH A DICTATOR IN THE MAKING, A KING GEORGE WANNABEE OR JUST A PLAIN JUNKYARD BULLY? IN ANY CASE HE MOST CERTAINLY CONSIDERS HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW.
Here in a GOP orchestrated, gerrymandered and election rigged HappyStupidLand U.S.A, Bush says he does not have to be in compliance with conditions set forth by the reauthorized Patriot Act, specifically the part that requires him to inform Congress about how the FBI is using their expanded police power. Click your heels and put on those armbands folks. Or you could roll up your sleeves and beat the bully back into the coward's corner. LS
I found this piece on the Boston Globe via BUZZ FLASH.COM
Excerpt:
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.
BOSTON GLOBE PIECE ON BUSH ADDENDUM TO THE REAUTHORIZED PATRIOT ACT
MAUREEN DOWD (OF THE NEW YORK TIMES) PIECE THAT HAS RUMSFELD TRASHING HER
This is one of Maureen's finest pieces. LS
Found via BUZZ FLASH.COM on TOPPLE BUSH.COM
Fly Into a Building? Who Could Imagine?
by Maureen Dowd
The New York Times
March 22, 2006
Excerpts:
We could have cracked the 9/11 plot if the F.B.I. wasn't run by dunces. Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers got a break because according to the testimony of the officer, Harry Samit, a better-run bureau could have broken the case even without the terrorist's confession -- maybe F.B.I. officers should have shot him with some paintballs.
On Sept. 10, 2001, Mr. Samit confided to a colleague that he was "desperate to get into Moussaoui's computer." He never heard back from the F.B.I.'s bin Laden unit before 9/11 -- what did the unit have to do that was more pressing than catching bin Laden? And he was obstructed by officials in F.B.I. headquarters here, whom he labeled "criminally negligent."
Even though Condi Rice told the 9/11 commission that "no one could have imagined" terrorists' slamming a plane into the World Trade Center, an F.B.I. officer did. Officer Samit testified that a colleague, Greg Jones, tried to light a fire under Mr. Maltbie by urging him to "prevent Zacarias Moussaoui from flying a plane into the World Trade Center."
Missing 9/11, missing Katrina, mangling Iraq, racking up a $9 trillion debt -- those things don't cause officials to lose their jobs. Only saying something honest -- as prescient Gen. Eric Shinseki did -- can get you a one-way ticket to Palookaville.
Rummy told reporters last week that the military was preparing for a civil war in Iraq, but he did not consider it a civil war yet -- even though he acknowledged it was hard to tell exactly when chaos tipped into civil war.
"I don't think it'll look like the United States' Civil War," he added sanguinely. Yeah. At Fort Sumter, Lincoln let the enemy fire first. So the defense secretary believes if the body count stays below the Civil War era's 600,000, Iraq will achieve a healthy blue-state, red-state democracy?
Topplebush.com
Posted: March 23, 2006
MORE ON KINGS, DICTATORS AND BULLIES
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDS TO HOUSE QUESTIONS ON WIRE TAPPING
In a nutshell the Bush Justice Dept. says it is AOK to spy on Americans without warrants. RAW STORY.COM broke this story. LS
Excerpt:
At their core, the responses echo previous assessments by the Bush Justice Department which maintain that the eavesdropping program was legal and met the demands of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"The FISA court of review discussed the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance in 2002, twenty-four years after FISA was enacted," the authors write.
The responses provide little new information about the program. The Attorney General refused to disclose how many Americans were spied upon, and declined to provide specifics on how "terrorists" are defined. Critics of the program say it is ripe for abuse and violates federal law.
RAW STORY PIECE ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE ON WIRE TAPPING
NEWS FROM THE LAZY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LYING AND THE MEDIOCRE WING OF THE GOP:
RIGHT WING BLOGGER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST RESIGNS AFTER LIBERAL BLOGGERS CAUGHT HIM PLAGIARIZING
MEDIA MATTERS ON RIGHT WING PLAGIARIZING BLOGGER
The DAILY KOS has covered this issue in detail. Scroll down to see piece on Ben Domenech, the right wing blogger who steals other writers' work because he is either too dumb or lazy or smugly entitled to do the research and write his own pieces. A perfect fit, indeed, for a Bush role model. How much did the WaPo pay you cheater dude? LS
HOLIER THAN THOU SANTORUM OF PENNSYLVANIA SAID TO HAVE FUNNELED CHARITY MONEY TO FAITH BASED GROUP KNOWN FOR ITS POLITICAL ACTIVITY
Political activity that promotes right wing "christian" ideology, also known as the Taliban Wing of the GOP. LS
Found on pnionline.com via THE HUFFINGTON POST
SANTORUM FUNNELED MONEY TO POLITICALLY ACTIVE FAITH BASED GROUP
NEWS FROM THE SLEAZY LOW LIFE CRIME AND WHITE TRASH UNIT OF THE GOP
ABRAMOFF IS SUBPOENAED IN MURDER CASE
Gosh! It seems that GOP who aren't dumb, lazy or who steal other's work like to dabble in crime on a larger level.
Another great find on RAW STORY.COM LS
SUN SENTINEL PIECE ON ABRAMOFF SUBPOENA
TOM DELAY LOSES LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON IN TEXAS
Only indicted felons have to give up their concealed weapons in this gun slinging state... This must be a real blow to the bug man's manhood. Actually the dude probably has a rather small and limp...never mind...not going to vulgar land here, though it is rather tempting and could be fun. After all, it is undignified, petty, irrelevant and not worthy of the party who prefers to take the higher ground, even though it has cost us two elections. LS
RAW STORY ON DELAY LOSING HIS LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED GUN IN TEXAS
Here in a GOP orchestrated, gerrymandered and election rigged HappyStupidLand U.S.A, Bush says he does not have to be in compliance with conditions set forth by the reauthorized Patriot Act, specifically the part that requires him to inform Congress about how the FBI is using their expanded police power. Click your heels and put on those armbands folks. Or you could roll up your sleeves and beat the bully back into the coward's corner. LS
I found this piece on the Boston Globe via BUZZ FLASH.COM
Excerpt:
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.
BOSTON GLOBE PIECE ON BUSH ADDENDUM TO THE REAUTHORIZED PATRIOT ACT
MAUREEN DOWD (OF THE NEW YORK TIMES) PIECE THAT HAS RUMSFELD TRASHING HER
This is one of Maureen's finest pieces. LS
Found via BUZZ FLASH.COM on TOPPLE BUSH.COM
Fly Into a Building? Who Could Imagine?
by Maureen Dowd
The New York Times
March 22, 2006
Excerpts:
We could have cracked the 9/11 plot if the F.B.I. wasn't run by dunces. Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers got a break because according to the testimony of the officer, Harry Samit, a better-run bureau could have broken the case even without the terrorist's confession -- maybe F.B.I. officers should have shot him with some paintballs.
On Sept. 10, 2001, Mr. Samit confided to a colleague that he was "desperate to get into Moussaoui's computer." He never heard back from the F.B.I.'s bin Laden unit before 9/11 -- what did the unit have to do that was more pressing than catching bin Laden? And he was obstructed by officials in F.B.I. headquarters here, whom he labeled "criminally negligent."
Even though Condi Rice told the 9/11 commission that "no one could have imagined" terrorists' slamming a plane into the World Trade Center, an F.B.I. officer did. Officer Samit testified that a colleague, Greg Jones, tried to light a fire under Mr. Maltbie by urging him to "prevent Zacarias Moussaoui from flying a plane into the World Trade Center."
Missing 9/11, missing Katrina, mangling Iraq, racking up a $9 trillion debt -- those things don't cause officials to lose their jobs. Only saying something honest -- as prescient Gen. Eric Shinseki did -- can get you a one-way ticket to Palookaville.
Rummy told reporters last week that the military was preparing for a civil war in Iraq, but he did not consider it a civil war yet -- even though he acknowledged it was hard to tell exactly when chaos tipped into civil war.
"I don't think it'll look like the United States' Civil War," he added sanguinely. Yeah. At Fort Sumter, Lincoln let the enemy fire first. So the defense secretary believes if the body count stays below the Civil War era's 600,000, Iraq will achieve a healthy blue-state, red-state democracy?
Topplebush.com
Posted: March 23, 2006
MORE ON KINGS, DICTATORS AND BULLIES
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDS TO HOUSE QUESTIONS ON WIRE TAPPING
In a nutshell the Bush Justice Dept. says it is AOK to spy on Americans without warrants. RAW STORY.COM broke this story. LS
Excerpt:
At their core, the responses echo previous assessments by the Bush Justice Department which maintain that the eavesdropping program was legal and met the demands of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"The FISA court of review discussed the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance in 2002, twenty-four years after FISA was enacted," the authors write.
The responses provide little new information about the program. The Attorney General refused to disclose how many Americans were spied upon, and declined to provide specifics on how "terrorists" are defined. Critics of the program say it is ripe for abuse and violates federal law.
RAW STORY PIECE ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE ON WIRE TAPPING
NEWS FROM THE LAZY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LYING AND THE MEDIOCRE WING OF THE GOP:
RIGHT WING BLOGGER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST RESIGNS AFTER LIBERAL BLOGGERS CAUGHT HIM PLAGIARIZING
MEDIA MATTERS ON RIGHT WING PLAGIARIZING BLOGGER
The DAILY KOS has covered this issue in detail. Scroll down to see piece on Ben Domenech, the right wing blogger who steals other writers' work because he is either too dumb or lazy or smugly entitled to do the research and write his own pieces. A perfect fit, indeed, for a Bush role model. How much did the WaPo pay you cheater dude? LS
HOLIER THAN THOU SANTORUM OF PENNSYLVANIA SAID TO HAVE FUNNELED CHARITY MONEY TO FAITH BASED GROUP KNOWN FOR ITS POLITICAL ACTIVITY
Political activity that promotes right wing "christian" ideology, also known as the Taliban Wing of the GOP. LS
Found on pnionline.com via THE HUFFINGTON POST
SANTORUM FUNNELED MONEY TO POLITICALLY ACTIVE FAITH BASED GROUP
NEWS FROM THE SLEAZY LOW LIFE CRIME AND WHITE TRASH UNIT OF THE GOP
ABRAMOFF IS SUBPOENAED IN MURDER CASE
Gosh! It seems that GOP who aren't dumb, lazy or who steal other's work like to dabble in crime on a larger level.
Another great find on RAW STORY.COM LS
SUN SENTINEL PIECE ON ABRAMOFF SUBPOENA
TOM DELAY LOSES LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON IN TEXAS
Only indicted felons have to give up their concealed weapons in this gun slinging state... This must be a real blow to the bug man's manhood. Actually the dude probably has a rather small and limp...never mind...not going to vulgar land here, though it is rather tempting and could be fun. After all, it is undignified, petty, irrelevant and not worthy of the party who prefers to take the higher ground, even though it has cost us two elections. LS
RAW STORY ON DELAY LOSING HIS LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED GUN IN TEXAS
Thursday, March 23, 2006
THE BUSH GOP WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO REMAIN IN POWER
....Because they have an agenda that is self serving, corporate/money driven and anti-American. If you want to understand how the GOP operates, read the articles on the Enron trial in the New York Times Business Section today. Sorry that I don't have the URL handy but you can find it if you really want to. LS
FORMER WHITE HOUSE INSIDER CRITICIZES BUSH & CO.'S BUNGLING OF IRAQ'S RECONSTRUCTION.
Another boring Bush loyalist jumps ship. Do they do so on principle or to save their pathetic derrieres? I found this piece on Newsweek.com. LS
NEWSWEEK ARTICLE ON BREAKING THE SILENCE
MOTHER BUSH'S DONATION TO KATRINA VICTIMS IS EARMARKED FOR ONE OF HER SON'S COMPANIES
This is what the likes of the Bush people do. Mother Bush, your spoiled, incompetent, self serving, entitled and lazy boys will have more money than they know what to do with and so will your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Could you not, for once, open up your money infested heart and spread just a tiny modicum of wealth to those who are oh so far, far and far less fortunate than you will ever be. Even if the global economy should collapse you would merely get knocked down to the status of being average rich rather than filthy rich. And being filthy rich, as you know, has its challenges and extraordinary problems. I won't go there, but you know what I am talking about....As a mother myself I find it disappointing and disheartening that you expect so little from your sons, their wives and your grandchildren in terms of their willingness to willingly undergo any personal and financial sacrifice for a greater cause. In enabling your husband's quest for greed and money you have shamelessly sold your children's and their children's souls to the devil, mother, despite the fact that y'all show up for church on Sunday. Problem is - you sold our souls, too.... and my/our children will pay, but not yours. And for that, I will always loathe your ilk. LS
RAW STORY PIECE ON MOTHER BUSH DONATION'S TO "KATRINA VICTIMS"
ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE BUSH FAMILY PROFITS GRANDLY FROM THE MISERY OF OTHERS - THIS ONE IS BUSH INFLICTED - THE WAR IN IRAQ
RAW STORY PIECE ON BUSH UNCLE PROFITING FROM WAR IN IRAQ
Following is another piece on the bush uncle in the Los Angles times, sent by Ken today. Greed and corruption seem to be a common trait in the bush family gene pool. LS
From the Los Angeles Times
Bush's Uncle Earned Millions in War Firm Sale
An SEC filing shows William H.T. Bush collected about $1.9 million in cash, plus stock valued at $800,000, from the deal.
By Walter F. Roche Jr.
Times Staff Writer
LA TIMES ON BUSH UNCLE PROFITEER
THE GOP IS GETTING SCARED AND WHEN THEY ARE SCARED THEY GET EXTRAORDINARILY MEAN, AND OVER THE TOP SCARY. THEY WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO STAY IN POWER. THE GOP CLEARLY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR OUR WAY OF LIFE. THEY ARE POLITICAL ANIMALS DRIVEN BY EXTREMIST IDEOLOGY THAT UNDERMINES THE UNDERPINNINGS OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
Ken sent this piece from Mr. Tim Grieve of Salon.com. SEE BELOW, TOO, FOR ANOTHER GOP ATTACK ON OUR PARTY THAT LIES AHEAD....LS
George W. Bush, 2.0
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ (Paid registration required)
SALON PIECE HERE
"Democrat leaders' talk of censure and impeachment isn't about the law or the president doing anything wrong. It's about the fact that Democrat leaders don't want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal."
That's the pitch Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman made in a fundraising solicitation sent to GOP supporters today. And when we saw it, we thought of it as little more than a particularly stark example of the straw-man politics favored by George W. Bush. Yes, Russ Feingold and John Conyers and a few of their allies are talking about things like censure and impeachment, but they're not what you'd call "Democrat leaders"
-- a group that's distinguished by, as much as anything, its members'
unwillingness to talk about such things. And if there are "tools" for fighting terrorism that "Democrat leaders" don't want America to have, we'd sure like to know what they are: Virtually every Democrat we've heard says, "Keep spying on suspected terrorists -- just follow the law when you do."
So straw men? They're everywhere. But Newsweek's Howard Fineman suggests that there's something else going on here, too. With the "educator in chief" business not working -- at some point, even Bush's advisors have to realize that the problem with Iraq isn't that the president hasn't explained it enough -- the White House is making a pivot to Plan B: Forget the Global War on Terror; now it's time for the War Against Terrorists Inside the Homeland. And as part of the usual "with us or with the terrorists" theme, the War Against Terrorists Inside the Homeland also means the War Against the Traitor Media and those Spineless, Security-Hating Democrats, Too.
As Fineman explains it, the White House and the GOP are fixing to set up Bush as some sort of tough-guy cop fighting against the "wussie lovers of legalistic niceties that get in the way of investigations and MSM news organizations that focus obsessively on explosions and mayhem in Iraq, even as they print or broadcast classified information and ask nasty, argumentative questions at hastily called press conferences." The underlying strategy: Move away from all the Iraq talk and get back to the question of homeland security.
Now, we'll admit that we're not sure how this is different from what the Bush administration has been doing all along. Dick Cheney used to complain that John Kerry wanted to show terrorists our "softer side." Cheney and Bush both talk often about the Democrats' "pre-9/11 mindset," and Karl Rove has been known to say that Democrats want only "therapy and understanding"
for those who attacked the United States.
But the White House has to do something -- a bounce from new blood on the staff can only do so much -- and there aren't many storylines available at this late date. "It takes some chutzpah to do this rewrite, given the latest run of stories about the pre-9/11 terrorism signals that were missed by the new Bush administration," Fineman writes. "But the White House's strategic bet -- and it's a pretty good one -- is that Bush has a better chance of playing Tough Cop than any prominent figure in the Democratic Party, in or out of Congress."
-- Tim Grieve
AS A FOLLOW UP TO THE ARTICLE ABOVE, BELOW IS A PIECE RECEIVED FROM A FELLOW DEM WHO SOMEHOW RECEIVED THE INFO FROM THE GOP.
(Sorry folks, but I refuse to spend the time it takes to do the html thing to enable the links to the sources quoted below. LS)
Message to GOP Party Members from Ken Mehlman
The word is out. Their position is clear. Last week, Sen. Russ Feingold floated a reckless plan to censure the President, and some Democrat leaders have ecstatically jumped on Feingold's bandwagon.
And, if they gain even more power in November, they won't stop there.
Feingold says that censure actually represents "moderation" and calls the terrorist surveillance program an impeachable offense. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, fails to rule out impeachment if Democrats retake Congress. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin is talking "high crimes and misdemeanors." And 31 House Democrats are calling for a committee to look into impeachment. Their leader? John Conyers, who would become House Judiciary Committee chairman under Democrat control.
The Democrats' plan for 2006? Take the House and Senate, and impeach the President. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want? If your answer is a resounding "NO", I need you to make an urgent contribution to help us win this fight.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
Democrat leaders' talk of censure and impeachment isn't about the law or the President doing anything wrong. It's about the fact that Democrat leaders don't want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal. Your immediate action will send these reckless Democrats a message and help preserve our Republican majorities.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
And what happens if we stand on the sidelines, and give the likes of Russ Feingold, John Kerry, and John Conyers control of Congress? Here's what the The Wall Street Journal says: "In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. ... [E]veryone should understand that censure and impeachment are important -- and so far the only -- parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress."
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
The world is watching. Using every tool at our disposal to fight terrorists should not be a partisan issue. Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. Russ Feingold's censure resolution and Democrat talk of impeachment have raised the stakes for 2006. Make your contribution, sign the petition, and help make sure this fight is won.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
FORMER WHITE HOUSE INSIDER CRITICIZES BUSH & CO.'S BUNGLING OF IRAQ'S RECONSTRUCTION.
Another boring Bush loyalist jumps ship. Do they do so on principle or to save their pathetic derrieres? I found this piece on Newsweek.com. LS
NEWSWEEK ARTICLE ON BREAKING THE SILENCE
MOTHER BUSH'S DONATION TO KATRINA VICTIMS IS EARMARKED FOR ONE OF HER SON'S COMPANIES
This is what the likes of the Bush people do. Mother Bush, your spoiled, incompetent, self serving, entitled and lazy boys will have more money than they know what to do with and so will your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Could you not, for once, open up your money infested heart and spread just a tiny modicum of wealth to those who are oh so far, far and far less fortunate than you will ever be. Even if the global economy should collapse you would merely get knocked down to the status of being average rich rather than filthy rich. And being filthy rich, as you know, has its challenges and extraordinary problems. I won't go there, but you know what I am talking about....As a mother myself I find it disappointing and disheartening that you expect so little from your sons, their wives and your grandchildren in terms of their willingness to willingly undergo any personal and financial sacrifice for a greater cause. In enabling your husband's quest for greed and money you have shamelessly sold your children's and their children's souls to the devil, mother, despite the fact that y'all show up for church on Sunday. Problem is - you sold our souls, too.... and my/our children will pay, but not yours. And for that, I will always loathe your ilk. LS
RAW STORY PIECE ON MOTHER BUSH DONATION'S TO "KATRINA VICTIMS"
ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE BUSH FAMILY PROFITS GRANDLY FROM THE MISERY OF OTHERS - THIS ONE IS BUSH INFLICTED - THE WAR IN IRAQ
RAW STORY PIECE ON BUSH UNCLE PROFITING FROM WAR IN IRAQ
Following is another piece on the bush uncle in the Los Angles times, sent by Ken today. Greed and corruption seem to be a common trait in the bush family gene pool. LS
From the Los Angeles Times
Bush's Uncle Earned Millions in War Firm Sale
An SEC filing shows William H.T. Bush collected about $1.9 million in cash, plus stock valued at $800,000, from the deal.
By Walter F. Roche Jr.
Times Staff Writer
LA TIMES ON BUSH UNCLE PROFITEER
THE GOP IS GETTING SCARED AND WHEN THEY ARE SCARED THEY GET EXTRAORDINARILY MEAN, AND OVER THE TOP SCARY. THEY WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO STAY IN POWER. THE GOP CLEARLY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR OUR WAY OF LIFE. THEY ARE POLITICAL ANIMALS DRIVEN BY EXTREMIST IDEOLOGY THAT UNDERMINES THE UNDERPINNINGS OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
Ken sent this piece from Mr. Tim Grieve of Salon.com. SEE BELOW, TOO, FOR ANOTHER GOP ATTACK ON OUR PARTY THAT LIES AHEAD....LS
George W. Bush, 2.0
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ (Paid registration required)
SALON PIECE HERE
"Democrat leaders' talk of censure and impeachment isn't about the law or the president doing anything wrong. It's about the fact that Democrat leaders don't want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal."
That's the pitch Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman made in a fundraising solicitation sent to GOP supporters today. And when we saw it, we thought of it as little more than a particularly stark example of the straw-man politics favored by George W. Bush. Yes, Russ Feingold and John Conyers and a few of their allies are talking about things like censure and impeachment, but they're not what you'd call "Democrat leaders"
-- a group that's distinguished by, as much as anything, its members'
unwillingness to talk about such things. And if there are "tools" for fighting terrorism that "Democrat leaders" don't want America to have, we'd sure like to know what they are: Virtually every Democrat we've heard says, "Keep spying on suspected terrorists -- just follow the law when you do."
So straw men? They're everywhere. But Newsweek's Howard Fineman suggests that there's something else going on here, too. With the "educator in chief" business not working -- at some point, even Bush's advisors have to realize that the problem with Iraq isn't that the president hasn't explained it enough -- the White House is making a pivot to Plan B: Forget the Global War on Terror; now it's time for the War Against Terrorists Inside the Homeland. And as part of the usual "with us or with the terrorists" theme, the War Against Terrorists Inside the Homeland also means the War Against the Traitor Media and those Spineless, Security-Hating Democrats, Too.
As Fineman explains it, the White House and the GOP are fixing to set up Bush as some sort of tough-guy cop fighting against the "wussie lovers of legalistic niceties that get in the way of investigations and MSM news organizations that focus obsessively on explosions and mayhem in Iraq, even as they print or broadcast classified information and ask nasty, argumentative questions at hastily called press conferences." The underlying strategy: Move away from all the Iraq talk and get back to the question of homeland security.
Now, we'll admit that we're not sure how this is different from what the Bush administration has been doing all along. Dick Cheney used to complain that John Kerry wanted to show terrorists our "softer side." Cheney and Bush both talk often about the Democrats' "pre-9/11 mindset," and Karl Rove has been known to say that Democrats want only "therapy and understanding"
for those who attacked the United States.
But the White House has to do something -- a bounce from new blood on the staff can only do so much -- and there aren't many storylines available at this late date. "It takes some chutzpah to do this rewrite, given the latest run of stories about the pre-9/11 terrorism signals that were missed by the new Bush administration," Fineman writes. "But the White House's strategic bet -- and it's a pretty good one -- is that Bush has a better chance of playing Tough Cop than any prominent figure in the Democratic Party, in or out of Congress."
-- Tim Grieve
AS A FOLLOW UP TO THE ARTICLE ABOVE, BELOW IS A PIECE RECEIVED FROM A FELLOW DEM WHO SOMEHOW RECEIVED THE INFO FROM THE GOP.
(Sorry folks, but I refuse to spend the time it takes to do the html thing to enable the links to the sources quoted below. LS)
Message to GOP Party Members from Ken Mehlman
The word is out. Their position is clear. Last week, Sen. Russ Feingold floated a reckless plan to censure the President, and some Democrat leaders have ecstatically jumped on Feingold's bandwagon.
And, if they gain even more power in November, they won't stop there.
Feingold says that censure actually represents "moderation" and calls the terrorist surveillance program an impeachable offense. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, fails to rule out impeachment if Democrats retake Congress. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin is talking "high crimes and misdemeanors." And 31 House Democrats are calling for a committee to look into impeachment. Their leader? John Conyers, who would become House Judiciary Committee chairman under Democrat control.
The Democrats' plan for 2006? Take the House and Senate, and impeach the President. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want? If your answer is a resounding "NO", I need you to make an urgent contribution to help us win this fight.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
Democrat leaders' talk of censure and impeachment isn't about the law or the President doing anything wrong. It's about the fact that Democrat leaders don't want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal. Your immediate action will send these reckless Democrats a message and help preserve our Republican majorities.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
And what happens if we stand on the sidelines, and give the likes of Russ Feingold, John Kerry, and John Conyers control of Congress? Here's what the The Wall Street Journal says: "In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. ... [E]veryone should understand that censure and impeachment are important -- and so far the only -- parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress."
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
The world is watching. Using every tool at our disposal to fight terrorists should not be a partisan issue. Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. Russ Feingold's censure resolution and Democrat talk of impeachment have raised the stakes for 2006. Make your contribution, sign the petition, and help make sure this fight is won.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
HOW CONSERVATIVES ENABLED A MONSTER
After listening to radio talk show hosts on Lou Dobbs last night, including Randi Rhodes of Air America Radio, I finally get it, thanks to the information presented on the show. The Bush Administration, probably encouraged by the likes of the Carlyle Group, is trying to merge the globe into a series of competitive corporate entities. No principles are involved here. It is all bottom line driven. You know, the hard, cold and cruel world of profit and loss where many work hard for little while a few profit immeasurably. The well-known and accepted model of the survival of the fittest will indeed prevail (except when the Bushies are pushing intelligent design to another group to manipulate them….) Well, never mind that for now.
It is appallingly obvious that nothing matters to the Bush & Co. folks except for money. Cheap labor is imported into the U.S. while our high tech, brainy and highly paid jobs are outsourced to countries that pay low wages. It is all about abolishing unions in exchange for the other extreme of slave labor. I think you get how the rest of the scenario will play out for we average Joes and Janes. Who would benefit from such an evildoing and heinous act? I think you know the answer to that.
If you are complacent it is time to become informed. Turn off the stupid and mind numbing idiot box of TV entertainment. If you are lazy, get off the couch and move your derriere to action. If you are not compelled to become involved for yourself, think about your children, grandchildren and the generations that will follow us. We owe it to them to protest and act. There will be hell to pay if we do nothing.
Any Democrat in office who is complicit with this cynical and destructive agenda needs to be fired on the spot along with Bush , Cheney & Co. The sooner the better for all of us in the lower 98 percentile of wealth. LS
MOVING ON TO OTHER ISSUES IN THE MISERABLE DOG DAYS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
"NOTES FOR CONVERTS"
Jane Smiley wrote an extensive, excoriating and sometimes humorous diatribe on conservatives who are presently outraged at and are consequently fleeing from Bush. Smiley admonishes the group, berating them for creating, enabling and empowering the Bush monster from whom they now they are trying to escape. Smiley asserts that the group is running away because it thinks Bush is a loser now, yet conservatives do not truly understand why he is losing. Smiley informs the pathetic conservatives that Bush is losing because the ideas they sanction are self-destructive, suicidal and immoral My sentiments exactly! I found this amazing piece on The Huffington Post. No one could have said it better than Smiley. LS
Excerpts:
President Bush is your creation. When the US Supreme Court humiliated itself in 2000 by handing the presidency to Bush even though two of the justices (Scalia and Thomas) had open conflicts of interest, you did not object. When the Bush administration adopted an "Anything but Clinton" policy that resulted in ignoring and dismissing all warnings of possible terrorist attacks on US soil, you went along with and made excuses for Bush. When the Bush administration allowed the corrupt Enron corporation to swindle California ratepayers and taxpayers in a last ditch effort to balance their books in 2001, you laughed at the Californians and ignored the links between Enron and the administration. When it was evident that the evidence for the war in Iraq was cooked and that State Department experts on the Middle East were not behind the war and so it was going to be run as an exercise in incompetence, you continued to attack those who were against the war in vicious terms and to defend policies that simply could not work. On intelligent design, global warming, doctoring of scientific results to reflect ideology, corporate tax giveaways, the K Street project, the illegal redistricting of Texas, torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the Terry Schiavo fiasco, and the cronyism that led to the destruction of New Orleans you have failed to speak out with integrity or honesty, preferring power to truth at every turn. Bush does what he wants because you have let him.
Your ideas and your policies have promoted selfishness, greed, short-term solutions, bullying, and pain for others. You have looked in the faces of children and denied the existence of a "common good". You have disdained and denied the idea of "altruism". At one time, our bureaucracy was full of people who had gone into government service or scientific research for altruistic reasons--I knew, because I knew some of them. You have driven them out and replaced them with vindictive ignoramuses. You have lied over and over about your motives, for example, making laws that hurt people and calling it "originalist interpretations of the Constitution" (conveniently ignoring the Ninth Amendment). You have increased the powers of corporations at the expense of every other sector in the nation and actively defied any sort of regulation that would require these corporations to treat our world with care and respect. You have made economic growth your deity, and in doing so, you have accelerated the power of the corporations to destroy the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice caps, the rainforests, and the climate. You have produced CEOs in charge of lots of resources and lots of people who have no more sense of reciprocity or connection or responsibility than George W. Bush.
JANE SMILEY PIECE ON THE HUFFINGTON POST
MOVING ON TO BUSH CRONYVILLE, FIXED JUDGES AND A MIDDLE INDEX FINGER POINTED AT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
JUDGE FOR LIBBY CASE IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN APPOINTED BUSH HACK
According to Raw Story, a former FBI whistleblower files against judge (who happens to be trying the Libby case ) over secrecy issues. Remember Sibel Edmonds, a Middle Eastern language specialist for the FBI, hired after 9/11? Ms. Edmonds had discovered that the FBI had done shoddy work but of course she was fired after she reported the agency had dropped the ball on security and hence the U.S. became vulnerable to a 9/11 attack. The judge who threw out her case, based upon his interpretation of the government's state secrets privilege, is none other than the recently appointed judge in the Scooter Libby trial. Another slam dunk on corrupted cronyism for the Bush Administration. LS
RAW STORY ON FBI WHISTLEBLOWER FILING AGAINST JUDGE
GET USED TO LIVING IN MCCARTHYVILLE
EDITOR OF VERMONT PAPER FIRED FOR RUNNING DEMOCRAT'S COLUMN
I found this very disturbing yet not surprising piece on Raw Story.com
RAW STORY ON FIRED EDITOR
MOVING ON TO LIFE IN BUSH WORLD WITH NO SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH, POLITICS AND STATE
FEDERAL GRANTS GO TO BUSH ALLIES ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Grant awards have gone political under Bush. To make matters worse, the recipients are not required to comply with civil rights statutes and could therefore discriminate against certain groups. I found the appalling revelation, written by By Thomas B. Edsall of The Washington Post on Truthout.org
Excerpt:
In a Dec. 12, 2002, executive order, Bush addressed one of the major concerns of religious groups considering applying for public money. Bush declared that religious groups receiving federal grants would not be required to comply with certain civil rights statutes, and could discriminate by hiring employees of specific religious faiths.
Skepticism about the distribution of money under the religion-based initiatives abounds in both parties.
Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.), chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources, said the effort "has gone political."
"Quite frankly, part of the reason it went political is because we can't sell it unless we can show Republicans a political advantage to it, because it's not our base," he said, referring to the fact that many of those receiving social services are Democratic voters.
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.) was more outspoken. "I believe ultimately this will be seen as one of the largest patronage programs in American history," he said.
TRUTHOUT.ORG PIECE ON FEDERAL GRANTS
AND THEN THERE IS LIFE IN BUSH LIARSVILLE
ALL OF A SUDDEN WHITE HOUSE FOUND EMAILS RELEVANT TO LIBBY CASE.
Gee whiz. Anyone astounded? LS
Another great find on Truthout.org by Jason Leopold
Excerpt:
“In an abundance of caution,” Fitzgerald's January 23 letter to Libby's defense team states, “we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.”
Sources close to the case said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales withheld numerous emails from Fitzgerald’s probe citing “executive privilege” and “national security” concerns. These sources said that as of Friday there are still some emails that have not been turned over to Fitzgerald because they contain classified information in addition to references about the Wilsons.
TRUTHOUT.ORG ON WHITE HOUSE EMAIL IN LIBBY CASE
MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS ON TO BUSH'S RHETORICAL DECEPTION.
At least some of them are. But not all. LS
This is a wonderful piece posted by Frank James on the the Chicago Tribune.com via BUZZ FLASH.COM
Excerpt:
I've listened in Washington to many critics of the president's prosecution of the war on terror for several years now. Not once have I heard any of them minimize the threat represented by al Qaeda or its shadowy allies.
Serious critics ranging from Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterror official to former (and future) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have all ascribed to al Qaeda the same vast ambitions and strategic designs the president does.
Even Howard Dean, when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003, said: "I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein."
AS IF THE PIECES MENTIONED ABOVE AREN'T BAD ENOUGH, HERE IS SOMETHING EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY TROUBLING. IF TRUE, WE ARE SO FINANCIALLY SCREWED, THANKS TO THE MONSTERS IN CHIEF.
SAUDIS AND UAE CONSIDER SWITCHING OIL DOLLAR RESERVES TO EURO
I found this on Middle East Forex News.com via BUZZ FLASH.COM
MIDDLE EAST FOREX.COM PIECE ON SAUDI AND UAE DOLLAR RESERVES TO EURO
It is appallingly obvious that nothing matters to the Bush & Co. folks except for money. Cheap labor is imported into the U.S. while our high tech, brainy and highly paid jobs are outsourced to countries that pay low wages. It is all about abolishing unions in exchange for the other extreme of slave labor. I think you get how the rest of the scenario will play out for we average Joes and Janes. Who would benefit from such an evildoing and heinous act? I think you know the answer to that.
If you are complacent it is time to become informed. Turn off the stupid and mind numbing idiot box of TV entertainment. If you are lazy, get off the couch and move your derriere to action. If you are not compelled to become involved for yourself, think about your children, grandchildren and the generations that will follow us. We owe it to them to protest and act. There will be hell to pay if we do nothing.
Any Democrat in office who is complicit with this cynical and destructive agenda needs to be fired on the spot along with Bush , Cheney & Co. The sooner the better for all of us in the lower 98 percentile of wealth. LS
MOVING ON TO OTHER ISSUES IN THE MISERABLE DOG DAYS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
"NOTES FOR CONVERTS"
Jane Smiley wrote an extensive, excoriating and sometimes humorous diatribe on conservatives who are presently outraged at and are consequently fleeing from Bush. Smiley admonishes the group, berating them for creating, enabling and empowering the Bush monster from whom they now they are trying to escape. Smiley asserts that the group is running away because it thinks Bush is a loser now, yet conservatives do not truly understand why he is losing. Smiley informs the pathetic conservatives that Bush is losing because the ideas they sanction are self-destructive, suicidal and immoral My sentiments exactly! I found this amazing piece on The Huffington Post. No one could have said it better than Smiley. LS
Excerpts:
President Bush is your creation. When the US Supreme Court humiliated itself in 2000 by handing the presidency to Bush even though two of the justices (Scalia and Thomas) had open conflicts of interest, you did not object. When the Bush administration adopted an "Anything but Clinton" policy that resulted in ignoring and dismissing all warnings of possible terrorist attacks on US soil, you went along with and made excuses for Bush. When the Bush administration allowed the corrupt Enron corporation to swindle California ratepayers and taxpayers in a last ditch effort to balance their books in 2001, you laughed at the Californians and ignored the links between Enron and the administration. When it was evident that the evidence for the war in Iraq was cooked and that State Department experts on the Middle East were not behind the war and so it was going to be run as an exercise in incompetence, you continued to attack those who were against the war in vicious terms and to defend policies that simply could not work. On intelligent design, global warming, doctoring of scientific results to reflect ideology, corporate tax giveaways, the K Street project, the illegal redistricting of Texas, torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the Terry Schiavo fiasco, and the cronyism that led to the destruction of New Orleans you have failed to speak out with integrity or honesty, preferring power to truth at every turn. Bush does what he wants because you have let him.
Your ideas and your policies have promoted selfishness, greed, short-term solutions, bullying, and pain for others. You have looked in the faces of children and denied the existence of a "common good". You have disdained and denied the idea of "altruism". At one time, our bureaucracy was full of people who had gone into government service or scientific research for altruistic reasons--I knew, because I knew some of them. You have driven them out and replaced them with vindictive ignoramuses. You have lied over and over about your motives, for example, making laws that hurt people and calling it "originalist interpretations of the Constitution" (conveniently ignoring the Ninth Amendment). You have increased the powers of corporations at the expense of every other sector in the nation and actively defied any sort of regulation that would require these corporations to treat our world with care and respect. You have made economic growth your deity, and in doing so, you have accelerated the power of the corporations to destroy the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice caps, the rainforests, and the climate. You have produced CEOs in charge of lots of resources and lots of people who have no more sense of reciprocity or connection or responsibility than George W. Bush.
JANE SMILEY PIECE ON THE HUFFINGTON POST
MOVING ON TO BUSH CRONYVILLE, FIXED JUDGES AND A MIDDLE INDEX FINGER POINTED AT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
JUDGE FOR LIBBY CASE IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN APPOINTED BUSH HACK
According to Raw Story, a former FBI whistleblower files against judge (who happens to be trying the Libby case ) over secrecy issues. Remember Sibel Edmonds, a Middle Eastern language specialist for the FBI, hired after 9/11? Ms. Edmonds had discovered that the FBI had done shoddy work but of course she was fired after she reported the agency had dropped the ball on security and hence the U.S. became vulnerable to a 9/11 attack. The judge who threw out her case, based upon his interpretation of the government's state secrets privilege, is none other than the recently appointed judge in the Scooter Libby trial. Another slam dunk on corrupted cronyism for the Bush Administration. LS
RAW STORY ON FBI WHISTLEBLOWER FILING AGAINST JUDGE
GET USED TO LIVING IN MCCARTHYVILLE
EDITOR OF VERMONT PAPER FIRED FOR RUNNING DEMOCRAT'S COLUMN
I found this very disturbing yet not surprising piece on Raw Story.com
RAW STORY ON FIRED EDITOR
MOVING ON TO LIFE IN BUSH WORLD WITH NO SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH, POLITICS AND STATE
FEDERAL GRANTS GO TO BUSH ALLIES ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Grant awards have gone political under Bush. To make matters worse, the recipients are not required to comply with civil rights statutes and could therefore discriminate against certain groups. I found the appalling revelation, written by By Thomas B. Edsall of The Washington Post on Truthout.org
Excerpt:
In a Dec. 12, 2002, executive order, Bush addressed one of the major concerns of religious groups considering applying for public money. Bush declared that religious groups receiving federal grants would not be required to comply with certain civil rights statutes, and could discriminate by hiring employees of specific religious faiths.
Skepticism about the distribution of money under the religion-based initiatives abounds in both parties.
Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.), chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources, said the effort "has gone political."
"Quite frankly, part of the reason it went political is because we can't sell it unless we can show Republicans a political advantage to it, because it's not our base," he said, referring to the fact that many of those receiving social services are Democratic voters.
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.) was more outspoken. "I believe ultimately this will be seen as one of the largest patronage programs in American history," he said.
TRUTHOUT.ORG PIECE ON FEDERAL GRANTS
AND THEN THERE IS LIFE IN BUSH LIARSVILLE
ALL OF A SUDDEN WHITE HOUSE FOUND EMAILS RELEVANT TO LIBBY CASE.
Gee whiz. Anyone astounded? LS
Another great find on Truthout.org by Jason Leopold
Excerpt:
“In an abundance of caution,” Fitzgerald's January 23 letter to Libby's defense team states, “we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.”
Sources close to the case said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales withheld numerous emails from Fitzgerald’s probe citing “executive privilege” and “national security” concerns. These sources said that as of Friday there are still some emails that have not been turned over to Fitzgerald because they contain classified information in addition to references about the Wilsons.
TRUTHOUT.ORG ON WHITE HOUSE EMAIL IN LIBBY CASE
MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS ON TO BUSH'S RHETORICAL DECEPTION.
At least some of them are. But not all. LS
This is a wonderful piece posted by Frank James on the the Chicago Tribune.com via BUZZ FLASH.COM
Excerpt:
I've listened in Washington to many critics of the president's prosecution of the war on terror for several years now. Not once have I heard any of them minimize the threat represented by al Qaeda or its shadowy allies.
Serious critics ranging from Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterror official to former (and future) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have all ascribed to al Qaeda the same vast ambitions and strategic designs the president does.
Even Howard Dean, when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003, said: "I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein."
AS IF THE PIECES MENTIONED ABOVE AREN'T BAD ENOUGH, HERE IS SOMETHING EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY TROUBLING. IF TRUE, WE ARE SO FINANCIALLY SCREWED, THANKS TO THE MONSTERS IN CHIEF.
SAUDIS AND UAE CONSIDER SWITCHING OIL DOLLAR RESERVES TO EURO
I found this on Middle East Forex News.com via BUZZ FLASH.COM
MIDDLE EAST FOREX.COM PIECE ON SAUDI AND UAE DOLLAR RESERVES TO EURO
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
DOG DAYS OF LIFE IN AMERICA UNDER BUSH
Must we suffer through 3 more years of Bush imposed hell? One election was obviously stolen, one was systematically manipulated and we the American people in the lower 98 percentile are paying dearly for the Bush neocon coup d'etat. Even Sandra Day O'Connor probably regrets her Supreme Court decision in appointing Bush President in 2000. Retired military are coming forward to speak against the neocon war in Iraq. Military who are not retired are quietly expressing their concerns to Congressman Murtha. Fortunately the mainstream media is slowly waking up to the fact that something is terribly and horribly wrong in Washington. Lou Dobbs on CNN has been relentless in his exposes of corporate corruption and greed, empowered naturally by none other than the Bush Administration. Keith Olbermann has also had enough of Bush spin, fabrication and outright lies and says as much on his Countdown program on MSNBC. The New York Times has regained its ethical stamina after the departure of neocon hack "journalist" Judith Miller. The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have also regained a modicum of professionalism and courage in reporting hard facts, though I read somewhere today that the WAPO has hired a conservative blogger to offset Dan Froomkin who is perceived as "liberal" because he writes the truth. Actually, I looked up that "somewhere" and it is HERE
On to the dog days of Bush. LS
PRIOR TO THE WAR IRAQI DIPLOMAT TOLD CIA THERE WERE NO WMD
Of course there weren't. I found this piece on the mainstream media's MSNBC site.
MSNBC PIECE ON SADDAM'S FOREIGN MINISTER AND INTELLIGENCE ON WMD
HELEN THOMAS GRILLS BUSH ON WAR
Bush must be really desperate if he is allowing reporters who are not fake shams like the Gannon & Co. types or those who are hired cheerleaders for neocon ideology, to actually ask him a question. After five years, a journalist has both the opportunity and the courage to demand answers from the liar in chief. You go girl, Miss Helen!
I found this on Editor and Publisher.com via Buzz Flash.com LS
EDITOR AND PUBLISHER PIECE ON THOMAS
"STILL OPTIMISTIC ABOUT IRAQ? YOU JUST MIGHT BE A FANATIC."
Ken sent this great piece by Arianna Huffington on The Huffington Post.com
Excerpt:
As I put it in a May 2003 column, just weeks after the president's upbeat -- and wildly inaccurate -- Mission Accomplished moment:
"The defining trait of the fanatic -- be it a Marxist, a fascist, or, gulp, a Wolfowitz -- is the utter refusal to allow anything as piddling as evidence to get in the way of an unshakable belief. Bush and his fellow fanatics are the political equivalent of those yogis who can hold their breath and go without air for hours. Such is their mental control, they can go without truth for, well, years. Because, in their minds, they're always right. Oopso facto."
This idea formed the basis for my last book, Fanatics and Fools (the Fools being the enablers in the Democratic Party). And Bush and Cheney's statements around the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq have only reinforced my diagnosis: this administration is teeming with zealots for whom evidence is little more than an obstacle on their chosen course.
This evidence-be-damned fanaticism has been front and center as the White House tries to put a positive spin on what the president called "the beginning of the liberation of Iraq." Which is kind of like saying that my wedding was the beginning of my divorce.
HUFFINTON POST PIECE ON IRAQ HERE
TIME APPROPRIATE BUMPER STICKERS
A friend and colleague at work received the following bumper sticker slogans from her sister-in-law who spent 3 months in Palestine as a peace observer. LS
BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED
YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION
IF YOU SUPPORTED BUSH
A YELLOW RIBBON WON'T MAKE UP FOR IT
AT LEAST IN VIETNAM
BUSH HAD AN EXIT STRATEGY
SEND THE TWINS
POVERTY, HEALTHCARE & HOMELESSNESS
ARE MORAL ISSUES
BUSH LIED
AND YOU KNOW IT
RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM
A THREAT ABROAD
A THREAT AT HOME
GOD BLESS EVERYONE
(No exceptions)
BUSH SPENT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY
ON HIS WAR
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PATRIOT TO PROTECT
HIS COUNTRY FROM ITS GOVERNMENT
(Thomas Payne)
Election 2004
"TIS THE TIME'S PLAGUE
WHEN MADMEN LEAD THE BLIND"
William Shakespeare (King Lear)
IF YOU SUPPORT BUSH'S WAR
WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?
I'D RATHER HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO SCREWED HIS
INTERN THAN ONE WHO SCREWED HIS COUNTRY
JESUS WAS A SOCIAL ACTIVIST LIBERAL
DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM
Thomas Jefferson
NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED
ANNOY A CONSERVATIVE
THINK FOR YOURSELF
VISUALIZE
IMPEACHMENT
GEORGE W. BUSH - MAKING TERRORISTS FASTER
THAN HE CAN KILL THEM
REBUILD IRAQ?
WHY NOT SPEND 87 BILLION ON AMERICA?
THE LAST TIME RELIGION CONTROLLED POLITICS
PEOPLE GOT BURNED AT THE STAKE
HOW ON EARTH CAN 59,411,287 PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?
DOESN'T OUR CHILDREN'S CREDIT CARD HAVE A LIMIT?
On to the dog days of Bush. LS
PRIOR TO THE WAR IRAQI DIPLOMAT TOLD CIA THERE WERE NO WMD
Of course there weren't. I found this piece on the mainstream media's MSNBC site.
MSNBC PIECE ON SADDAM'S FOREIGN MINISTER AND INTELLIGENCE ON WMD
HELEN THOMAS GRILLS BUSH ON WAR
Bush must be really desperate if he is allowing reporters who are not fake shams like the Gannon & Co. types or those who are hired cheerleaders for neocon ideology, to actually ask him a question. After five years, a journalist has both the opportunity and the courage to demand answers from the liar in chief. You go girl, Miss Helen!
I found this on Editor and Publisher.com via Buzz Flash.com LS
EDITOR AND PUBLISHER PIECE ON THOMAS
"STILL OPTIMISTIC ABOUT IRAQ? YOU JUST MIGHT BE A FANATIC."
Ken sent this great piece by Arianna Huffington on The Huffington Post.com
Excerpt:
As I put it in a May 2003 column, just weeks after the president's upbeat -- and wildly inaccurate -- Mission Accomplished moment:
"The defining trait of the fanatic -- be it a Marxist, a fascist, or, gulp, a Wolfowitz -- is the utter refusal to allow anything as piddling as evidence to get in the way of an unshakable belief. Bush and his fellow fanatics are the political equivalent of those yogis who can hold their breath and go without air for hours. Such is their mental control, they can go without truth for, well, years. Because, in their minds, they're always right. Oopso facto."
This idea formed the basis for my last book, Fanatics and Fools (the Fools being the enablers in the Democratic Party). And Bush and Cheney's statements around the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq have only reinforced my diagnosis: this administration is teeming with zealots for whom evidence is little more than an obstacle on their chosen course.
This evidence-be-damned fanaticism has been front and center as the White House tries to put a positive spin on what the president called "the beginning of the liberation of Iraq." Which is kind of like saying that my wedding was the beginning of my divorce.
HUFFINTON POST PIECE ON IRAQ HERE
TIME APPROPRIATE BUMPER STICKERS
A friend and colleague at work received the following bumper sticker slogans from her sister-in-law who spent 3 months in Palestine as a peace observer. LS
BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED
YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION
IF YOU SUPPORTED BUSH
A YELLOW RIBBON WON'T MAKE UP FOR IT
AT LEAST IN VIETNAM
BUSH HAD AN EXIT STRATEGY
SEND THE TWINS
POVERTY, HEALTHCARE & HOMELESSNESS
ARE MORAL ISSUES
BUSH LIED
AND YOU KNOW IT
RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM
A THREAT ABROAD
A THREAT AT HOME
GOD BLESS EVERYONE
(No exceptions)
BUSH SPENT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY
ON HIS WAR
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PATRIOT TO PROTECT
HIS COUNTRY FROM ITS GOVERNMENT
(Thomas Payne)
Election 2004
"TIS THE TIME'S PLAGUE
WHEN MADMEN LEAD THE BLIND"
William Shakespeare (King Lear)
IF YOU SUPPORT BUSH'S WAR
WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?
I'D RATHER HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO SCREWED HIS
INTERN THAN ONE WHO SCREWED HIS COUNTRY
JESUS WAS A SOCIAL ACTIVIST LIBERAL
DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM
Thomas Jefferson
NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED
ANNOY A CONSERVATIVE
THINK FOR YOURSELF
VISUALIZE
IMPEACHMENT
GEORGE W. BUSH - MAKING TERRORISTS FASTER
THAN HE CAN KILL THEM
REBUILD IRAQ?
WHY NOT SPEND 87 BILLION ON AMERICA?
THE LAST TIME RELIGION CONTROLLED POLITICS
PEOPLE GOT BURNED AT THE STAKE
HOW ON EARTH CAN 59,411,287 PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?
DOESN'T OUR CHILDREN'S CREDIT CARD HAVE A LIMIT?
Monday, March 20, 2006
A MUST READ ON GEORGE, DICK, IRAQ, THE SAUDIS AND OIL
The extraordinary piece is written by Mr. Greg Palast for the UK Guardian. LS
Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED
by Greg Palast
for The Guardian
20 March 2006
Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq's border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.
But don't kid yourself -- Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you've forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman Ari Fleisher's original announcement, three years ago, launching of what he called,
"Operation
Iraqi
Liberation."
O.I.L. How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling boys in the White House change it to "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the 101st Airborne wasn't sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq's OIF.
"It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC."
Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get MORE of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing TOO MUCH of it.
You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping LESS of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.
It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just LOVE it.
Dick and George didn't want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less. I know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.
No so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick's ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 -- compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it's been a good war for Big Oil.
As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq's occupation oil minister; the conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.
In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it wasn't America's mission, nor the Iraqis'. It was an Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.
**********
On June 6, Penguin Dutton will release GREG PALAST'S NEW BOOK, "ARMED MADHOUSE: DISPATCHES FROM THE FRONT LINES OF THE CLASS WAR." Order it today -- and view his investigative reports for Harper's Magazine and BBC television's Newsnight -- at www.GregPalast.com
Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED
by Greg Palast
for The Guardian
20 March 2006
Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq's border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.
But don't kid yourself -- Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you've forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman Ari Fleisher's original announcement, three years ago, launching of what he called,
"Operation
Iraqi
Liberation."
O.I.L. How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling boys in the White House change it to "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the 101st Airborne wasn't sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq's OIF.
"It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC."
Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get MORE of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing TOO MUCH of it.
You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping LESS of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.
It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just LOVE it.
Dick and George didn't want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less. I know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.
No so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick's ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 -- compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it's been a good war for Big Oil.
As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq's occupation oil minister; the conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.
In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it wasn't America's mission, nor the Iraqis'. It was an Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.
**********
On June 6, Penguin Dutton will release GREG PALAST'S NEW BOOK, "ARMED MADHOUSE: DISPATCHES FROM THE FRONT LINES OF THE CLASS WAR." Order it today -- and view his investigative reports for Harper's Magazine and BBC television's Newsnight -- at www.GregPalast.com
Thursday, March 16, 2006
THE TALIBAN WING OF THE GOP IS GETTING MORE EXTREME
NOT ONLY DOES THE GOP DESPISE THE POOR, THEY ALSO SHOW COMPLETE CONTEMPT FOR WOMEN WHO ARE COMFORTABLE WITH AND HAVE HEALTHY ATTITUDES TOWARD THEIR SEXUALITY.
MISSOURI HOUSE PASSES BILL THAT PROHIBITS STATE FUNDING FOR CONTRACEPTIVES.
A friend of mine forwarded this piece to me today from the Kansas City Star.
By the way, Pat Buchanan (not exactly one of our liberal or even moderate soul mates) announced last night on Chris Matthew's HARDBALL that Bush will probably hit Iran in October in order to boost the GOP approval ratings. Tell me that I am dreaming. Even the hard nosed and, in my opinion, a closet cheerleader for the GOP, Chris said "I can't believe I am hearing this. " Me neither, at least on the mainstream media. Things are pretty much out of control, don’t you think? LS
MISSOURI HOUSE PASSES BILL PROHIBITING FUNDING FOR BIRTH CONTROL
WOMEN BLOGGERS IN TALABAN GOP RED STATES CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
As we well should be. Next our daughters or granddaughters will be required drop out of school at 13, wear head coverings, long skirts and walk behind their husbands. House of Bush. House of Saud . Or, rather, is it House of Saud, House of Bush? Either way, the imperative seems to be: let ignorance and so-called religious ideology prevail over law and a constitutional government. LS
RAW STORY PIECE ON RED STATE WOMEN BLOGGERS HERE
CLEAR CHANNEL WON'T POST BILLBOARD THAT UPSETS A GOP CONGRESSMAN WHO IS A RECEPIENT OF FUNDING FROM TOM DELAY
ho hum. what else is new under the GOP regime?
BUZZ FLASH.COM ON CLEAR CHANNEL HERE
DID BUSH SIGN BILL THAT DID NOT PASS THE HOUSE?
Rep. Waxman thinks so. I found the article on Raw Story.com LS
RAW STORY PIECE ON WAXMAN HERE
ABRAMOFF SENDS FRIENDS PLEA FOR CHARACTER REFERENCES
Come on GOP whores…give your pimping money source a break. LS
Found on The Huffington Post
HUFFINGTON POST PIECE ON ABRAMOFF
ON DOMESTIC SPYING
Sarah sent the ACLU video below today…a must see. LS
ACLU VIDEO ON DOMESTIC SPYING HERE
I close tonight with another piece sent by Sarah. LS
On the Bible and the Constitution
On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said:
"Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the
Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
The room erupted into applause
MISSOURI HOUSE PASSES BILL THAT PROHIBITS STATE FUNDING FOR CONTRACEPTIVES.
A friend of mine forwarded this piece to me today from the Kansas City Star.
By the way, Pat Buchanan (not exactly one of our liberal or even moderate soul mates) announced last night on Chris Matthew's HARDBALL that Bush will probably hit Iran in October in order to boost the GOP approval ratings. Tell me that I am dreaming. Even the hard nosed and, in my opinion, a closet cheerleader for the GOP, Chris said "I can't believe I am hearing this. " Me neither, at least on the mainstream media. Things are pretty much out of control, don’t you think? LS
MISSOURI HOUSE PASSES BILL PROHIBITING FUNDING FOR BIRTH CONTROL
WOMEN BLOGGERS IN TALABAN GOP RED STATES CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
As we well should be. Next our daughters or granddaughters will be required drop out of school at 13, wear head coverings, long skirts and walk behind their husbands. House of Bush. House of Saud . Or, rather, is it House of Saud, House of Bush? Either way, the imperative seems to be: let ignorance and so-called religious ideology prevail over law and a constitutional government. LS
RAW STORY PIECE ON RED STATE WOMEN BLOGGERS HERE
CLEAR CHANNEL WON'T POST BILLBOARD THAT UPSETS A GOP CONGRESSMAN WHO IS A RECEPIENT OF FUNDING FROM TOM DELAY
ho hum. what else is new under the GOP regime?
BUZZ FLASH.COM ON CLEAR CHANNEL HERE
DID BUSH SIGN BILL THAT DID NOT PASS THE HOUSE?
Rep. Waxman thinks so. I found the article on Raw Story.com LS
RAW STORY PIECE ON WAXMAN HERE
ABRAMOFF SENDS FRIENDS PLEA FOR CHARACTER REFERENCES
Come on GOP whores…give your pimping money source a break. LS
Found on The Huffington Post
HUFFINGTON POST PIECE ON ABRAMOFF
ON DOMESTIC SPYING
Sarah sent the ACLU video below today…a must see. LS
ACLU VIDEO ON DOMESTIC SPYING HERE
I close tonight with another piece sent by Sarah. LS
On the Bible and the Constitution
On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said:
"Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the
Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
The room erupted into applause
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
THE BUSH/GOP OVERALL MESS
SENIOR DIPLOMATIC BRITISH ENVOY TELLS BLAIR U.S. STRATEGY IN IRAQ IS A MESS
Yes, we knew it would be a mess with Bush at the helm. All congressmen and women who endorsed and supported this war need to be fired in 2006 and in 2008. They are rubberstamping spineless cowards for allowing Bush to mislead them. No excuses accepted. Fire them, fire them, and fire them, please. LS
A great find courtesy of RAW STORY.COM
Excerpt:
John Sawers, Mr. Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".
That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes'," he concluded.
UK GUARDIAN PIECE ON THE MESS IN IRAQ HERE
DUBAI FIRM WILL CONTROL PORT IN MIAMI
There will no doubt be some rather dirty and sleazy back alley deals taking place among the Bush people and its rubberstamping GOP elected and hired money mongering hacks to let this Dubai deal sneak through, though the Bush people will insist to the American people the plug has been pulled on the deal. I smell a huge revolting rat. Too much money is at stake and the Carlyle group is a player here. I found the article on YAHOO.NEWS COM via RAW STORY.COM LS
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON - The Dubai-owned company that promised to surrender its U.S. port operations has no immediate plans to sell its U.S. subsidiary's interests at Miami's seaport, a senior executive wrote Monday in a private e-mail to business associates.
YAHOO NEWS PIECE: DUBAI FIRM DEAL NOT DEAD
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ports_security
FIND OUT WHAT BIG DADDIES BUSH AND ROVE HAVE ON YOU
This is straight from the mainstream media, U.S. News and World Report. LS
US NEWS PIECE ON FINDING OUT WHAT UNCLE SAM HAS ON YOU
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH, WHAT THE HELL IS OUR PARTY'S RESPONSE AND SOLUTION TO THE MAYHEM VISITED UPON US BY THE GOP?
Senator Feingold says Democrats are cowering to Bush. If this is true, fire their sorry derrieres, too. What a disgrace. LS
FEINGOLD SAYS DEMS COWERING TO BUSH
Yes, we knew it would be a mess with Bush at the helm. All congressmen and women who endorsed and supported this war need to be fired in 2006 and in 2008. They are rubberstamping spineless cowards for allowing Bush to mislead them. No excuses accepted. Fire them, fire them, and fire them, please. LS
A great find courtesy of RAW STORY.COM
Excerpt:
John Sawers, Mr. Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".
That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes'," he concluded.
UK GUARDIAN PIECE ON THE MESS IN IRAQ HERE
DUBAI FIRM WILL CONTROL PORT IN MIAMI
There will no doubt be some rather dirty and sleazy back alley deals taking place among the Bush people and its rubberstamping GOP elected and hired money mongering hacks to let this Dubai deal sneak through, though the Bush people will insist to the American people the plug has been pulled on the deal. I smell a huge revolting rat. Too much money is at stake and the Carlyle group is a player here. I found the article on YAHOO.NEWS COM via RAW STORY.COM LS
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON - The Dubai-owned company that promised to surrender its U.S. port operations has no immediate plans to sell its U.S. subsidiary's interests at Miami's seaport, a senior executive wrote Monday in a private e-mail to business associates.
YAHOO NEWS PIECE: DUBAI FIRM DEAL NOT DEAD
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ports_security
FIND OUT WHAT BIG DADDIES BUSH AND ROVE HAVE ON YOU
This is straight from the mainstream media, U.S. News and World Report. LS
US NEWS PIECE ON FINDING OUT WHAT UNCLE SAM HAS ON YOU
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH, WHAT THE HELL IS OUR PARTY'S RESPONSE AND SOLUTION TO THE MAYHEM VISITED UPON US BY THE GOP?
Senator Feingold says Democrats are cowering to Bush. If this is true, fire their sorry derrieres, too. What a disgrace. LS
FEINGOLD SAYS DEMS COWERING TO BUSH
Monday, March 13, 2006
WHAT WILL IT BE: A DICTATORSHIP OR IMPEACHMENT?
I found a snippet of down time today to do a little browsing in the blogosphere for news of relevance; news that reinforces and reaffirms our view that the Bush Administration is not only hopelessly inept and incompetent but is, at the same time, morally bankrupt, probably is the most corrupt in history and is on a mission, fueled by greed and the will to power, to dismantle our democracy. LS
RAW STORY.COM BREAKS PIECE ON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S TIGHTENING OF ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
Essentially the Bush Administration can deny access to anyone based on its interpretation of one's sexual orientation, anti-US quips, ability to “leak” to journalists, etc.
RAW STORY PIECE ON TIGHTENED ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFO HERE
AMERICANS ARE BEGINNING TO WAKE UP TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S OVERZEALOUS USE OF SECRECY.
It is well about time. Piece found on Yahoo News.com via BUZZ FLASH.COM
Excerpt:
The poll by the AccessNorthwest research and outreach project at the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University in Pullman found that 81 percent said democracy requires government to operate openly.
Nearly seven in 10, or 69 percent, told researchers that open public records and meetings keep government honest. Nearly as many, 63 percent, said it was OK for government officials to keep records secret if they deem it necessary, and almost three-quarters, 73 percent, believe the president should "make some public records secret if it might help with the war on terrorism."
The Scripps poll was conducted from Feb. 19 to March 3. There is a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
YAHOO NEWS ON PUBLIC'S WORRY ABOUT GOVERNMENT SECRECY
FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR REAGAN SAYS BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. HE IS RATHER A RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUE
Of course he is. We progressives have known this since W. was governor of Texas. LS
Found on L.A. Times.com via Buzz Flash.com
LA TIMES PIECE ON REAGAN'S FORMER SPEECHWRITER HERE
30 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS
From the Atlanta Progressive News.com via BUZZ FLASH.COM
Excerpt:
“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.
“We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’s resolution,” Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.
ATLANTA PROGRESSIVE NEWS PIECE ON IMPEACHMENT HERE
PUBLIC NO LONGER SEES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS STRONG ON NATIONAL SECURITY
I found this piece on the Huffington Post. Americans apparently now see the Republicans as the party interested only in its political gain and or survival. They are no longer perceived as the party that is strong on national security, at least according to candidate Sherrod Brown of Ohio. (I must admit I have a problem with this guy, however, after what he did to Paul Hackett's campaign). LS
HUFFINGTON POST PIECE ON SHERROD BROWN HERE
WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH MCCAIN?
Ken sent this wonderful piece by Paul Krugman on John McCain today. I am posting only excerpts of the piece because of copyright issues. You can view the entire article on NY Times Select.com (paid registration required) or in the NYT op-ed section of today’s paper. Check out Truthout.org later in the week. They publish articles by Krugman and others. LS
The New York Times
March 13, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Right's Man
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be.
But now ˜ at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger ˜ Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.
The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.
And I'm sorry to say that this is typical of Mr. McCain. Every once in a while he makes headlines by apparently defying Mr. Bush, but he always returns to the fold, even if the abuses he railed against continue unabated.
So here's what you need to know about John McCain.
He isn't a straight talker. His flip-flopping on tax cuts, his call to send troops we don't have to Iraq and his endorsement of the South Dakota anti-abortion legislation even while claiming that he would find a way around that legislation's central provision show that he's a politician as slippery and evasive as, well, George W. Bush.
He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party.
And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line.
It's worth recalling that during the 2000 election campaign George W. Bush was widely portrayed by the news media both as a moderate and as a straight-shooter. As Mr. Bush has said, "Fool me once, shame on ˜ shame on you. Fool me ˜ you can't get fooled again."
The New York Times Company
RAW STORY.COM BREAKS PIECE ON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S TIGHTENING OF ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
Essentially the Bush Administration can deny access to anyone based on its interpretation of one's sexual orientation, anti-US quips, ability to “leak” to journalists, etc.
RAW STORY PIECE ON TIGHTENED ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFO HERE
AMERICANS ARE BEGINNING TO WAKE UP TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S OVERZEALOUS USE OF SECRECY.
It is well about time. Piece found on Yahoo News.com via BUZZ FLASH.COM
Excerpt:
The poll by the AccessNorthwest research and outreach project at the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University in Pullman found that 81 percent said democracy requires government to operate openly.
Nearly seven in 10, or 69 percent, told researchers that open public records and meetings keep government honest. Nearly as many, 63 percent, said it was OK for government officials to keep records secret if they deem it necessary, and almost three-quarters, 73 percent, believe the president should "make some public records secret if it might help with the war on terrorism."
The Scripps poll was conducted from Feb. 19 to March 3. There is a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
YAHOO NEWS ON PUBLIC'S WORRY ABOUT GOVERNMENT SECRECY
FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR REAGAN SAYS BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. HE IS RATHER A RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUE
Of course he is. We progressives have known this since W. was governor of Texas. LS
Found on L.A. Times.com via Buzz Flash.com
LA TIMES PIECE ON REAGAN'S FORMER SPEECHWRITER HERE
30 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS
From the Atlanta Progressive News.com via BUZZ FLASH.COM
Excerpt:
“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.
“We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’s resolution,” Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.
ATLANTA PROGRESSIVE NEWS PIECE ON IMPEACHMENT HERE
PUBLIC NO LONGER SEES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS STRONG ON NATIONAL SECURITY
I found this piece on the Huffington Post. Americans apparently now see the Republicans as the party interested only in its political gain and or survival. They are no longer perceived as the party that is strong on national security, at least according to candidate Sherrod Brown of Ohio. (I must admit I have a problem with this guy, however, after what he did to Paul Hackett's campaign). LS
HUFFINGTON POST PIECE ON SHERROD BROWN HERE
WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH MCCAIN?
Ken sent this wonderful piece by Paul Krugman on John McCain today. I am posting only excerpts of the piece because of copyright issues. You can view the entire article on NY Times Select.com (paid registration required) or in the NYT op-ed section of today’s paper. Check out Truthout.org later in the week. They publish articles by Krugman and others. LS
The New York Times
March 13, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Right's Man
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be.
But now ˜ at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger ˜ Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.
The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.
And I'm sorry to say that this is typical of Mr. McCain. Every once in a while he makes headlines by apparently defying Mr. Bush, but he always returns to the fold, even if the abuses he railed against continue unabated.
So here's what you need to know about John McCain.
He isn't a straight talker. His flip-flopping on tax cuts, his call to send troops we don't have to Iraq and his endorsement of the South Dakota anti-abortion legislation even while claiming that he would find a way around that legislation's central provision show that he's a politician as slippery and evasive as, well, George W. Bush.
He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party.
And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line.
It's worth recalling that during the 2000 election campaign George W. Bush was widely portrayed by the news media both as a moderate and as a straight-shooter. As Mr. Bush has said, "Fool me once, shame on ˜ shame on you. Fool me ˜ you can't get fooled again."
The New York Times Company
Saturday, March 11, 2006
THE BEGINNING OF A DICTATORSHIP BY SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR
I've been out of pocket for the last few days and will continue to be so until mid month. Ken, fortunately, is staying on top of the news and has send this staggering piece today. LS
Justice O'Connor, whose vote gave us the Bush pseudo-Presidency, is now warning us of Bush. Of all the right-wing creeps who are suddenly 'getting it' she's the one who has covered herself over in the most disgrace. While the majority of American voters knew what sheer crap Bush was, most of Bush's fond supporters - even the ones who ran the theft of Florida - did not have the power to give Bush his job. Not only did she give him that single vital vote, but an even cursory reading of the reasoning in the marjority opinion makes it obvious that there was no reasoning, just the fascistic delight in installing an unelected president 'because you can.' O'Connor was a key participant in the destruction of American democracy, and while it's nice to hear that she's changed her opinion of Bush, everything else she ever did in her career is overshadowed by this one utterly villainous vote. -K
Breaking: Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP, DeLay, Cornyn, and warns of the "beginnings" of dictatorship
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002903.html
PNIONLINE.COM.HERE OR READ BELOW
NPR's Nina Totenberg aired an amazing story this morning about a talk that just-resigned Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave at Georgetown University. The first woman to serve on the High Court wouldn't allow her actual words to be broadcast, and that's a shame, because -- based on Totenberg's report -- every American needs to hear what she said. The Reagan appointee who became a moderate and an American icon -- Bush v. Gore notwithstanding (the one act that can never be 'notwithstanding'. -K) -- all but named names in thinly veiled attacks on former House majority leader Tom DeLay and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and ended with a stunning warning.
(UPDATE: Here's a full transcript from Raw Story
O'Connor told her Georgetown audience that judges can make presidents, Congress and governors "really really mad," and that if judges don't make people angry, they aren't doing their job. But she said judicial effectiveness is "premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts." While hailing the American system of rights and privileges, she noted that these don't protect the judiciary, that "people do":
Then, she took aim at former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. She didnít name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year, when DeLay took out after the courts for its rulings on abortion, prayer, and the Terry Schiavo case. This, said OíConnor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress' one-time-only statute about Schiavo as it was written, not, said O'Connor, as the Congressman might have wished it were written. The response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint, said O'Conner, her voice dripping with sarcasm, was that the congressman blasted the courts.
It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesnít help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didnít name him, but it was Texas Sen. John Cornyn who made that statement after a Georgia judge was murdered in court and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge's home.
Now, the kicker:
OíConnor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms -- recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges stripping the courts of jurisdictions and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decision that political leaders disagree with
I, said Oí Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and formerly Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, OíConnor said we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. (How come WE all knew that the Bush v Gore decision was the beginning, and she didn't? -K)
If Georgetown or anyone else has an audiotape or videotape of the retired justice's words, we would strongly urge them to release it (with her permission). If the NPR report accurately reflects what she said, this rises to the level of President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the "military-industrial complex" -- and should be heard by all.
Justice O'Connor, whose vote gave us the Bush pseudo-Presidency, is now warning us of Bush. Of all the right-wing creeps who are suddenly 'getting it' she's the one who has covered herself over in the most disgrace. While the majority of American voters knew what sheer crap Bush was, most of Bush's fond supporters - even the ones who ran the theft of Florida - did not have the power to give Bush his job. Not only did she give him that single vital vote, but an even cursory reading of the reasoning in the marjority opinion makes it obvious that there was no reasoning, just the fascistic delight in installing an unelected president 'because you can.' O'Connor was a key participant in the destruction of American democracy, and while it's nice to hear that she's changed her opinion of Bush, everything else she ever did in her career is overshadowed by this one utterly villainous vote. -K
Breaking: Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP, DeLay, Cornyn, and warns of the "beginnings" of dictatorship
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002903.html
PNIONLINE.COM.HERE OR READ BELOW
NPR's Nina Totenberg aired an amazing story this morning about a talk that just-resigned Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave at Georgetown University. The first woman to serve on the High Court wouldn't allow her actual words to be broadcast, and that's a shame, because -- based on Totenberg's report -- every American needs to hear what she said. The Reagan appointee who became a moderate and an American icon -- Bush v. Gore notwithstanding (the one act that can never be 'notwithstanding'. -K) -- all but named names in thinly veiled attacks on former House majority leader Tom DeLay and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and ended with a stunning warning.
(UPDATE: Here's a full transcript from Raw Story
O'Connor told her Georgetown audience that judges can make presidents, Congress and governors "really really mad," and that if judges don't make people angry, they aren't doing their job. But she said judicial effectiveness is "premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts." While hailing the American system of rights and privileges, she noted that these don't protect the judiciary, that "people do":
Then, she took aim at former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. She didnít name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year, when DeLay took out after the courts for its rulings on abortion, prayer, and the Terry Schiavo case. This, said OíConnor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress' one-time-only statute about Schiavo as it was written, not, said O'Connor, as the Congressman might have wished it were written. The response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint, said O'Conner, her voice dripping with sarcasm, was that the congressman blasted the courts.
It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesnít help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didnít name him, but it was Texas Sen. John Cornyn who made that statement after a Georgia judge was murdered in court and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge's home.
Now, the kicker:
OíConnor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms -- recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges stripping the courts of jurisdictions and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decision that political leaders disagree with
I, said Oí Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and formerly Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, OíConnor said we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. (How come WE all knew that the Bush v Gore decision was the beginning, and she didn't? -K)
If Georgetown or anyone else has an audiotape or videotape of the retired justice's words, we would strongly urge them to release it (with her permission). If the NPR report accurately reflects what she said, this rises to the level of President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the "military-industrial complex" -- and should be heard by all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)