June 4th, 2005 1:55 am
New 'Deep Throat' needed for Iraq, says Nixon rival
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US media needs a modern-day "Deep Throat" within the administration of President George W. Bush to reveal how America was "misled" on Iraq, former presidential contender George McGovern said.
"We need someone like that who is highly placed to tell us what's really going on. We know that we were misled on Iraq," McGovern told Fox News Radio.
McGovern, a former senator, unsuccessfully ran against Richard Nixon for the White House in 1972.
Deep Throat, revealed this week as former FBI assistant director Mark Felt, acted as a source to The Washington Post newspaper, helping to bring down Nixon's presidency over the Watergate scandal in 1974.
"I wish there were somebody of the Deep Throat time in this administration who are aware of what's going on," McGovern told Fox News Radio.
"This war in Iraq, in my opinion is worse than anything Nixon did. I think Nixon deserved to be expelled from office in view of the cover-up that he carried on and the laws that he violated.
"But we have an administration in power now that led us to a war that is internationally illegal; it's a war that we are fighting with a country that has no threat to us that has nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks.
McGovern said Nixon was undoubtedly "tricky," but said of Bush: "This man claims to be Christian, following the will of God, and then he misleads the whole nation on a totally fraudulent enterprise in Iraq that we should have never been attached to."
Monday, June 06, 2005
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Aljazeera.Net - Pentagon confirms Quran desecration
Aljazeera.Net - Pentagon confirms Quran desecration
Pentagon confirms Quran desecration
Saturday 04 June 2005, 18:52 Makka Time, 15:52 GMT
Newsweek retracted its claim the Quran was desecrated
Related:
Protesters decry alleged Quran abuse
US military tells of Quran mishandling
FBI memo tells of Quran incident
Britons protest over Quran scandal
Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback
The Pentagon confirmed for the first time on Friday that a US soldier deliberately kicked a Guantanamo Bay prisoner's Muslim holy book in violation of the military's rules for handling the Quran.
In other confirmed incidents, prison guards threw water balloons into a cell block to cause an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; a guard's urine splashed on a detainee and his Quran; an interrogator stepped on a Quran during an interrogation; and a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.
The findings are among results of an investigation last month by Brigadier-General Jay Hood, commander of the detention centre in southeastern Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report - later retracted - that a US soldier had flushed a Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet.
The story stirred worldwide controversy, and the Bush administration blamed it for demonstrations in Afghanistan that killed at least 16 people.
Last week, Hood disclosed he had confirmed five cases of mishandling of the Quran, but he refused to provide details.
Five cases
In the incident involving urine, which took place in March, Southern Command said a guard left his post and urinated near an air vent and "the wind blew his urine through the vent" and into a cell block.
Guantanamo prisoners said the
desecrations began in 2002
It said a detainee told guards the urine "splashed on him and his Quran". The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Quran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners.
Southern Command said a civilian contractor interrogator, who was later fired, apologised in July 2003 to a detainee for stepping on his Quran.
In August 2003, prisoners' Qurans became wet when night-shift guards threw water balloons in a cell block, the statement said. In February 2002, guards kicked a prisoner's Quran, it added.
In the fifth confirmed incident of mishandling a Quran, Southern Command said a prisoner in August 2003 complained that a two-word obscenity had been written in English in his Quran.
Southern Command said it was possible a guard had written the words, but equally possible the prisoner himself had done, but they did not offer any explanation of his possible motive.
Riots, protests
Allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay have stirred anti-American passions in many Muslim nations.
Iraqis walk on US and Israeli
flags in protest
Pentagon officials have insisted the problems were relatively minor, and US commanders have gone to great lengths to enable detainees to practice their religion in captivity.
Hood said last week he found no credible evidence a Quran was ever flushed down a toilet. He said a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hood's investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration.
Flushing investigated
The unidentified prisoner, re-interviewed at Guantanamo on 14 May, said he had heard talk of guards mishandling religious articles but did not witness any such acts, Hood said.
The Pentagon says there is no
evidence of flushing of the Quran
The prisoner also stated that he personally had not been mistreated but that he heard fellow inmates talk of being beaten or otherwise mistreated.
The general said he could not speculate on why the prisoner did not repeat his earlier statement about a guard flushing a Quran in a toilet. The statement was contained in a 1 August 2002 FBI summary of an FBI agent's 22 July interrogation of the prisoner. A revised version of the summary was made public this week.
The prisoner did not specifically recant his earlier allegation, since Hood said the prisoner was not asked in the 14 May interview whether he had made the specific statement in 2002 as reported by the FBI. Instead he was asked more broadly whether he had seen the Quran "defiled, desecrated or mishandled".
"He allowed as how he hadn't, but he heard that guards at some other point in time had done this," Hood said, adding that this allegation from the 2002 FBI report was the only one Hood found that involved a toilet.
"I'd like you to know that we have found no credible evidence that a member of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay ever flushed a Quran down a toilet," Hood said.
Thirteen incidents
"We did identify 13 incidents of alleged mishandling of the Quran by Joint Task Force personnel. Ten of those were by a guard and three by interrogators."
Of the 13 alleged incidents, five were substantiated, he said. Four were by guards and one was by an interrogator. Hood said the five cases "could be broadly defined as mishandling" of the holy book, but he refused to discuss details.
In three of the five cases, the mishandling appears to have been deliberate. In the other two, it apparently was accidental.
Pentagon confirms Quran desecration
Saturday 04 June 2005, 18:52 Makka Time, 15:52 GMT
Newsweek retracted its claim the Quran was desecrated
Related:
Protesters decry alleged Quran abuse
US military tells of Quran mishandling
FBI memo tells of Quran incident
Britons protest over Quran scandal
Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback
The Pentagon confirmed for the first time on Friday that a US soldier deliberately kicked a Guantanamo Bay prisoner's Muslim holy book in violation of the military's rules for handling the Quran.
In other confirmed incidents, prison guards threw water balloons into a cell block to cause an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; a guard's urine splashed on a detainee and his Quran; an interrogator stepped on a Quran during an interrogation; and a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.
The findings are among results of an investigation last month by Brigadier-General Jay Hood, commander of the detention centre in southeastern Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report - later retracted - that a US soldier had flushed a Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet.
The story stirred worldwide controversy, and the Bush administration blamed it for demonstrations in Afghanistan that killed at least 16 people.
Last week, Hood disclosed he had confirmed five cases of mishandling of the Quran, but he refused to provide details.
Five cases
In the incident involving urine, which took place in March, Southern Command said a guard left his post and urinated near an air vent and "the wind blew his urine through the vent" and into a cell block.
Guantanamo prisoners said the
desecrations began in 2002
It said a detainee told guards the urine "splashed on him and his Quran". The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Quran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners.
Southern Command said a civilian contractor interrogator, who was later fired, apologised in July 2003 to a detainee for stepping on his Quran.
In August 2003, prisoners' Qurans became wet when night-shift guards threw water balloons in a cell block, the statement said. In February 2002, guards kicked a prisoner's Quran, it added.
In the fifth confirmed incident of mishandling a Quran, Southern Command said a prisoner in August 2003 complained that a two-word obscenity had been written in English in his Quran.
Southern Command said it was possible a guard had written the words, but equally possible the prisoner himself had done, but they did not offer any explanation of his possible motive.
Riots, protests
Allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay have stirred anti-American passions in many Muslim nations.
Iraqis walk on US and Israeli
flags in protest
Pentagon officials have insisted the problems were relatively minor, and US commanders have gone to great lengths to enable detainees to practice their religion in captivity.
Hood said last week he found no credible evidence a Quran was ever flushed down a toilet. He said a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hood's investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration.
Flushing investigated
The unidentified prisoner, re-interviewed at Guantanamo on 14 May, said he had heard talk of guards mishandling religious articles but did not witness any such acts, Hood said.
The Pentagon says there is no
evidence of flushing of the Quran
The prisoner also stated that he personally had not been mistreated but that he heard fellow inmates talk of being beaten or otherwise mistreated.
The general said he could not speculate on why the prisoner did not repeat his earlier statement about a guard flushing a Quran in a toilet. The statement was contained in a 1 August 2002 FBI summary of an FBI agent's 22 July interrogation of the prisoner. A revised version of the summary was made public this week.
The prisoner did not specifically recant his earlier allegation, since Hood said the prisoner was not asked in the 14 May interview whether he had made the specific statement in 2002 as reported by the FBI. Instead he was asked more broadly whether he had seen the Quran "defiled, desecrated or mishandled".
"He allowed as how he hadn't, but he heard that guards at some other point in time had done this," Hood said, adding that this allegation from the 2002 FBI report was the only one Hood found that involved a toilet.
"I'd like you to know that we have found no credible evidence that a member of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay ever flushed a Quran down a toilet," Hood said.
Thirteen incidents
"We did identify 13 incidents of alleged mishandling of the Quran by Joint Task Force personnel. Ten of those were by a guard and three by interrogators."
Of the 13 alleged incidents, five were substantiated, he said. Four were by guards and one was by an interrogator. Hood said the five cases "could be broadly defined as mishandling" of the holy book, but he refused to discuss details.
In three of the five cases, the mishandling appears to have been deliberate. In the other two, it apparently was accidental.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?
The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?: "Today is June 1, 2005
27 days since congressional request for investigation.
The Downing Street 'Memo' is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002—a full eight months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005, but to date US media coverage has been limited. This site is intended to act as a resource for anyone who wants to understand the facts revealed in this document.
The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was 'fixed' to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of 'war as a last resort' were at odds with their privately stated intentions.
Congressman John Conyers is calling on American citizens to sign on to a letter to the President that demands a response to questions originally posed by Conyers and 88 other members of Congress in a similar letter dated May 5, 2005. Conyers has committed to personally delivering the letter to the White House when it garners 100,000 citizen signatures.
Let's help him get there. Follow this link to sign.
When asked, British officials 'did not dispute the document's authenticity.' and a senior American official has described it as 'absolutely accurate.' Yet the Bush administration continues to simultaneously sidestep the issue while attempting to cast doubt on the memo’s authenticity.
Nobody wants to go to war. We trust our leaders to shed blood in our name only when absolutely necessary. But the facts revealed by the Downing Street Memo force us to ask ourselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
More than two years after the start of the Iraq War, Americans are just learning that our government was dead set on invasion, even while it claimed to be pursuing diplomacy. Please join us in demanding that we get to the bottom of this issue.
"
27 days since congressional request for investigation.
The Downing Street 'Memo' is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002—a full eight months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005, but to date US media coverage has been limited. This site is intended to act as a resource for anyone who wants to understand the facts revealed in this document.
The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was 'fixed' to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of 'war as a last resort' were at odds with their privately stated intentions.
Congressman John Conyers is calling on American citizens to sign on to a letter to the President that demands a response to questions originally posed by Conyers and 88 other members of Congress in a similar letter dated May 5, 2005. Conyers has committed to personally delivering the letter to the White House when it garners 100,000 citizen signatures.
Let's help him get there. Follow this link to sign.
When asked, British officials 'did not dispute the document's authenticity.' and a senior American official has described it as 'absolutely accurate.' Yet the Bush administration continues to simultaneously sidestep the issue while attempting to cast doubt on the memo’s authenticity.
Nobody wants to go to war. We trust our leaders to shed blood in our name only when absolutely necessary. But the facts revealed by the Downing Street Memo force us to ask ourselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
More than two years after the start of the Iraq War, Americans are just learning that our government was dead set on invasion, even while it claimed to be pursuing diplomacy. Please join us in demanding that we get to the bottom of this issue.
"
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The Downing Street Memo
The Downing Street Memo
Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
May 27, 2005
Dear Friend:
As many of you are aware, a classified memo was recently disclosed in Great Britain that I believe has serious ramifications for the integrity of the United States Government. Dubbed the “Downing Street Memo,” but actually comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top British government officials, the memo casts serious doubt on many of the contentions of the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war. With over 1,600 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and over $200 billion in taxpayer funds going to this war effort, we cannot afford to stand by any longer.
Along with 88 of my colleagues, I wrote to the President requesting answers about this grave matter. Thus far, our search for the truth has been stonewalled and I need your help. I believe the American people deserve answers about this matter and should demand directly that the President tell the truth about the memo. To that end, I am asking you to sign on to a letter to the President requesting he answer the questions posed to him by 89 Members of Congress.
I will personally insure that this letter is delivered to the White House.
You can read the letter here and sign on to it below. You and I know the White House is just hoping that this matter will fade away, but in a few short weeks, with our steadfastness, the memo has found its way into leading newspapers and White House press briefings. With your help, we can hold this Administration accountable.
Please pass on this important letter to your friends and colleagues, and ask them to sign as well.
Thank you for your help and support.
John Conyers, Jr.
Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
May 27, 2005
Dear Friend:
As many of you are aware, a classified memo was recently disclosed in Great Britain that I believe has serious ramifications for the integrity of the United States Government. Dubbed the “Downing Street Memo,” but actually comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top British government officials, the memo casts serious doubt on many of the contentions of the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war. With over 1,600 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and over $200 billion in taxpayer funds going to this war effort, we cannot afford to stand by any longer.
Along with 88 of my colleagues, I wrote to the President requesting answers about this grave matter. Thus far, our search for the truth has been stonewalled and I need your help. I believe the American people deserve answers about this matter and should demand directly that the President tell the truth about the memo. To that end, I am asking you to sign on to a letter to the President requesting he answer the questions posed to him by 89 Members of Congress.
I will personally insure that this letter is delivered to the White House.
You can read the letter here and sign on to it below. You and I know the White House is just hoping that this matter will fade away, but in a few short weeks, with our steadfastness, the memo has found its way into leading newspapers and White House press briefings. With your help, we can hold this Administration accountable.
Please pass on this important letter to your friends and colleagues, and ask them to sign as well.
Thank you for your help and support.
John Conyers, Jr.
Friday, May 27, 2005
The Secret Downing Street Memo: Where We Are Going
Blogged by JC on 05.09.05 @ 10:55 PM ET
The Secret Downing Street Memo
Where We Are Going
On talk radio today, and on the Internet, there is a palpable frustration about the lack of mainstream media (or as many appropriately call it, "corporate media") coverage of the secret Downing Street memo. I share this frustration. In my view, it is inexcusable that the cable news networks and the major newspapers have failed thus far to give this story the attention it deserves. At its core, the disclosure represents a vindication of the assertions of all of us who opposed the war, and truth-telling former Administration officials who were smeared for daring to provide the public the information it is entitled to. More importantly, it shows an Administration that appears to have lied to the American people and their elected representatives, while simultaneously telling the truth to the representatives of the British people, about the most grave matter for any nation -- the decision to go to war.
To be sure, there is more coverage in the last three days about this than in the previous week. A new story by Knight-Ridder puts an appropriate context on the letter I circulated, and -- while scant -- CNN at least saw fit to mention the letter over the weekend.
However, if you will excuse the sports analogy (the NBA playoffs are in full swing and my Detroit Pistons are the defending champions), in basketball, it is frequently the case that a team will feel it is getting a series of unfair calls from the referees, and will expend so much energy worrying about the lack of fairness, that it loses track of its game plan.
A smart team, on the other hand, will adopt a two-tier strategy. They will work the refs, meaning complain about the calls, and try to urge the officials to do better. But, more importantly, they will simply play harder so that the bad calls will not be outcome determinative.
How does this apply to the situation at hand? As Eric Alterman has noted in his book What Liberal Media?, the right-wing has made its fortunes by loudly complaining when the media fails to do its bidding or -- as Alterman dubs it -- "working the refs". We must do the same. In letters to the editor, newspaper ombudsmen, calls to talk radio, and diaries on liberal websites, we must loudly decry the media's failure to cover this important story. Please continue to do your part to bring this story to the attention of the cable networks and major newspapers, as well as your elected representatives. Don't give up. I assure you I will press ahead in every way to get this story this coverage and context it deserves.
More importantly, we must put aside the dereliction of duty of the corporate media and simply fight harder for our nation. A media that fails to serve the public interest cannot be our source of validation or our barometer of political success. We must continue to beat the drum on talk radio, liberal websites and other alternative media. When you see the furor this story generates in the alternative media, that should be sufficient for you to know that many, many people recognize this serious breach of the public trust for what it is.
While a lack of mainstream media attention makes the fight for a more progressive and free America more difficult, it does not make the shift that is occurring any less inevitable. Politics is cyclical. The way things are now is not the way they will be in the near future. Let's fight to make that change happen as soon as possible.
The Secret Downing Street Memo
Where We Are Going
On talk radio today, and on the Internet, there is a palpable frustration about the lack of mainstream media (or as many appropriately call it, "corporate media") coverage of the secret Downing Street memo. I share this frustration. In my view, it is inexcusable that the cable news networks and the major newspapers have failed thus far to give this story the attention it deserves. At its core, the disclosure represents a vindication of the assertions of all of us who opposed the war, and truth-telling former Administration officials who were smeared for daring to provide the public the information it is entitled to. More importantly, it shows an Administration that appears to have lied to the American people and their elected representatives, while simultaneously telling the truth to the representatives of the British people, about the most grave matter for any nation -- the decision to go to war.
To be sure, there is more coverage in the last three days about this than in the previous week. A new story by Knight-Ridder puts an appropriate context on the letter I circulated, and -- while scant -- CNN at least saw fit to mention the letter over the weekend.
However, if you will excuse the sports analogy (the NBA playoffs are in full swing and my Detroit Pistons are the defending champions), in basketball, it is frequently the case that a team will feel it is getting a series of unfair calls from the referees, and will expend so much energy worrying about the lack of fairness, that it loses track of its game plan.
A smart team, on the other hand, will adopt a two-tier strategy. They will work the refs, meaning complain about the calls, and try to urge the officials to do better. But, more importantly, they will simply play harder so that the bad calls will not be outcome determinative.
How does this apply to the situation at hand? As Eric Alterman has noted in his book What Liberal Media?, the right-wing has made its fortunes by loudly complaining when the media fails to do its bidding or -- as Alterman dubs it -- "working the refs". We must do the same. In letters to the editor, newspaper ombudsmen, calls to talk radio, and diaries on liberal websites, we must loudly decry the media's failure to cover this important story. Please continue to do your part to bring this story to the attention of the cable networks and major newspapers, as well as your elected representatives. Don't give up. I assure you I will press ahead in every way to get this story this coverage and context it deserves.
More importantly, we must put aside the dereliction of duty of the corporate media and simply fight harder for our nation. A media that fails to serve the public interest cannot be our source of validation or our barometer of political success. We must continue to beat the drum on talk radio, liberal websites and other alternative media. When you see the furor this story generates in the alternative media, that should be sufficient for you to know that many, many people recognize this serious breach of the public trust for what it is.
While a lack of mainstream media attention makes the fight for a more progressive and free America more difficult, it does not make the shift that is occurring any less inevitable. Politics is cyclical. The way things are now is not the way they will be in the near future. Let's fight to make that change happen as soon as possible.
The Downing Street Memo: Bush lied!
May 19, 2005
Juan Cole on Salon, by way of introduction to that Downing Street Memo
Link: Salon.com News | The lies that led to war.
I love Juan Cole's blog, and it is neat to have his clear-headed words on this topic too.
The lies that led to war
A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq -- and lied about it to the American people. The full gravity of his offense has not yet sunk in.
By Juan Cole
May 19, 2005 | When Newsweek's source admitted that he had misidentified the government document in which he had seen an account of Quran desecration at Guantánamo prison, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"
Di Rita could have said the same things about his bosses in the Bush administration.
Tens of thousands of people are dead in Iraq, including more than 1,600 U.S. soldiers and Marines, because of false allegations made by President George W. Bush and Di Rita's more immediate boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and equally imaginary active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made unfounded allegations that led to the continuing disaster in Iraq, much of which is now an economic and military no man's land beset by bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and political gridlock.
And we now know, thanks to a leaked British memo concerning the head of British intelligence, that the Bush administration -- contrary to its explicit denials -- had already made up its mind to attack Iraq and "fixed" those bogus allegations to support its decision. In short, Bush and his top officials lied about Iraq.
Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make. It should never be approached in a cavalier fashion. American lives, the prestige and influence of the country, international relations, the health of its defenses, and the future of the next generation are at stake. Yet every single piece of evidence we now have confirms that George W. Bush, who was obsessed with unseating Saddam Hussein even before 9/11, recklessly used the opportunity presented by the terror attacks to march the country to war, fixing the intelligence to justify his decision, and lying to the American people about the reasons for the war. In other times, this might have been an impeachable offense.
The media circus around the Newsweek story arrived in time to further divert attention from the explosive British memorandum. Although the leaked Downing Street memo, published by the London Times on May 1, revealed the deeply dishonest and manipulative way that the Bush administration took the United States (and the United Kingdom) to war against Iraq, the American press corps studiously ignored it for two weeks.
The memo reported a July 2002 meeting of key British Cabinet and other officials, held when Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British intelligence service, MI6, returned from a trip to Washington. It revealed that the decision to go to war had already been made by that point: "Military action was now seen as inevitable," the notes by British national security aide Matthew Rycroft revealed. Dearlove reported, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Members of the British Cabinet were worried by the news, the memo shows, since they knew that the case against Iraq was tissue-thin in international law and that there were several more egregious sinners in the weapons area than Iraq. Because the United Kingdom, unlike the United States, is a member of the International Criminal Court, its officials had to worry about being tried for war crimes if they became involved in an illegal war of aggression launched by Bush and lacking U.N. Security Council sanction. Prime Minister Tony Blair put his hopes in a ploy. He thought that Bush should arrange for the United Nations to demand a return to Iraq of weapons inspectors, with the hope that Saddam Hussein would refuse, thus creating a legal justification for war acceptable to the international community.
[...]
Go read the whole thing!
Juan Cole on Salon, by way of introduction to that Downing Street Memo
Link: Salon.com News | The lies that led to war.
I love Juan Cole's blog, and it is neat to have his clear-headed words on this topic too.
The lies that led to war
A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq -- and lied about it to the American people. The full gravity of his offense has not yet sunk in.
By Juan Cole
May 19, 2005 | When Newsweek's source admitted that he had misidentified the government document in which he had seen an account of Quran desecration at Guantánamo prison, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"
Di Rita could have said the same things about his bosses in the Bush administration.
Tens of thousands of people are dead in Iraq, including more than 1,600 U.S. soldiers and Marines, because of false allegations made by President George W. Bush and Di Rita's more immediate boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and equally imaginary active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made unfounded allegations that led to the continuing disaster in Iraq, much of which is now an economic and military no man's land beset by bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and political gridlock.
And we now know, thanks to a leaked British memo concerning the head of British intelligence, that the Bush administration -- contrary to its explicit denials -- had already made up its mind to attack Iraq and "fixed" those bogus allegations to support its decision. In short, Bush and his top officials lied about Iraq.
Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make. It should never be approached in a cavalier fashion. American lives, the prestige and influence of the country, international relations, the health of its defenses, and the future of the next generation are at stake. Yet every single piece of evidence we now have confirms that George W. Bush, who was obsessed with unseating Saddam Hussein even before 9/11, recklessly used the opportunity presented by the terror attacks to march the country to war, fixing the intelligence to justify his decision, and lying to the American people about the reasons for the war. In other times, this might have been an impeachable offense.
The media circus around the Newsweek story arrived in time to further divert attention from the explosive British memorandum. Although the leaked Downing Street memo, published by the London Times on May 1, revealed the deeply dishonest and manipulative way that the Bush administration took the United States (and the United Kingdom) to war against Iraq, the American press corps studiously ignored it for two weeks.
The memo reported a July 2002 meeting of key British Cabinet and other officials, held when Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British intelligence service, MI6, returned from a trip to Washington. It revealed that the decision to go to war had already been made by that point: "Military action was now seen as inevitable," the notes by British national security aide Matthew Rycroft revealed. Dearlove reported, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Members of the British Cabinet were worried by the news, the memo shows, since they knew that the case against Iraq was tissue-thin in international law and that there were several more egregious sinners in the weapons area than Iraq. Because the United Kingdom, unlike the United States, is a member of the International Criminal Court, its officials had to worry about being tried for war crimes if they became involved in an illegal war of aggression launched by Bush and lacking U.N. Security Council sanction. Prime Minister Tony Blair put his hopes in a ploy. He thought that Bush should arrange for the United Nations to demand a return to Iraq of weapons inspectors, with the hope that Saddam Hussein would refuse, thus creating a legal justification for war acceptable to the international community.
[...]
Go read the whole thing!
The Downing memo: Bush lied!!
Just in at CNN
by RetLtCol
Wed May 11th, 2005 at 18:57:00 PDT
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.
The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1."
Goes with bumper sticker I saw last week.
"Impeach the Lying Son of a Bush!!!"
E-Mail your member of congress and senators!!!
by RetLtCol
Wed May 11th, 2005 at 18:57:00 PDT
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.
The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1."
Goes with bumper sticker I saw last week.
"Impeach the Lying Son of a Bush!!!"
E-Mail your member of congress and senators!!!
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Under the Bush Crime Family
Under the Bush Crime Family:
Amnesty International ranked US the top torturer country in the world. US leads the world in committing acts of torture, curbing civil rights, killer of innocent people, etc.
Another day I was watching a film named "Pra frente Brasil". This movie was filmed in the seventies. The movie was about the military ditatorship that ruled Brazil for about twenty years. The movie showed how a innocent family was distroyed by the military special forces.
This special force use to get money from the corporations to get funded, and it's speciality was to torture and kill the so called guerrilas or terrorists (which were patriots whose only fault was to be
against the ditatorship).
I was shocked when in one of the meetings betwween the businessmen and the special force, the guy who was teaching torture was no other than a CIA guy.
So this US torture in Iraq, Afghan and in Guantanamo is nothing new. US is exporting torture for more than 40 years to his ditactors friend.
Amnesty International ranked US the top torturer country in the world. US leads the world in committing acts of torture, curbing civil rights, killer of innocent people, etc.
Another day I was watching a film named "Pra frente Brasil". This movie was filmed in the seventies. The movie was about the military ditatorship that ruled Brazil for about twenty years. The movie showed how a innocent family was distroyed by the military special forces.
This special force use to get money from the corporations to get funded, and it's speciality was to torture and kill the so called guerrilas or terrorists (which were patriots whose only fault was to be
against the ditatorship).
I was shocked when in one of the meetings betwween the businessmen and the special force, the guy who was teaching torture was no other than a CIA guy.
So this US torture in Iraq, Afghan and in Guantanamo is nothing new. US is exporting torture for more than 40 years to his ditactors friend.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Downing Street Memo, a Crime is Documented
Downing Street Memo, a Crime is Documented
Downing Street Secret Memo
The Evidence We Need to End the Bush Presidency
Home
Act for Justice
Real War Heroes
Iraq News
Justice in Palestine
Links to Justice
Pelosi & War Crimes
Republicans Say...
Downing Street Memo
Search this Website
Talk to Tom Joad
Real War Heroes
Those who resist
While there is little doubt that a great crime was hatched by the U.S. & British authorities in commencing a war of aggression against a sovereign state for bogus reasons, there was not a "smoking gun" but rather a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Until now. If all goes well, if there is any justice left in the United States, this memo will become widely known here as it is already widely known in Europe, and the crimes described therein will be the basis for charges of impeachment brought against President Bush. This will take patience, persistence, and much effort on the part of ordinary people, but it must be done. Our action is the only thing that will end the illegal occupation of Iraq, and prevent a similar war in the very near future.
This memo, is the Pentagon Papers of our time. It describes that the "facts were being fixed" to justify an invasion of Iraq.
Below is the Full Text of the Downing Street Memo, also known as the "Rycroft Memo".
Read here for an article by James McGovern on the "Fixed Facts" in the Memo, and what this means.
Another commentary by Greg Palast can be found here.
And while the Democratic leadership (is that an oxymoron?) has been mostly silent on the issue, 89 House members have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about the issues it brings up.
Remember, the same Bush administration that was obsessed with regime change in Iraq had key advisors that at an earlier time had urged military aid to Saddam during the bloodiest time of his career, during the Iran/Iraq war. See the story on Daniel Pipes .
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Downing Street Secret Memo
The Evidence We Need to End the Bush Presidency
Home
Act for Justice
Real War Heroes
Iraq News
Justice in Palestine
Links to Justice
Pelosi & War Crimes
Republicans Say...
Downing Street Memo
Search this Website
Talk to Tom Joad
Real War Heroes
Those who resist
While there is little doubt that a great crime was hatched by the U.S. & British authorities in commencing a war of aggression against a sovereign state for bogus reasons, there was not a "smoking gun" but rather a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Until now. If all goes well, if there is any justice left in the United States, this memo will become widely known here as it is already widely known in Europe, and the crimes described therein will be the basis for charges of impeachment brought against President Bush. This will take patience, persistence, and much effort on the part of ordinary people, but it must be done. Our action is the only thing that will end the illegal occupation of Iraq, and prevent a similar war in the very near future.
This memo, is the Pentagon Papers of our time. It describes that the "facts were being fixed" to justify an invasion of Iraq.
Below is the Full Text of the Downing Street Memo, also known as the "Rycroft Memo".
Read here for an article by James McGovern on the "Fixed Facts" in the Memo, and what this means.
Another commentary by Greg Palast can be found here.
And while the Democratic leadership (is that an oxymoron?) has been mostly silent on the issue, 89 House members have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about the issues it brings up.
Remember, the same Bush administration that was obsessed with regime change in Iraq had key advisors that at an earlier time had urged military aid to Saddam during the bloodiest time of his career, during the Iran/Iraq war. See the story on Daniel Pipes .
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Daily Kos :: Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover Story
Daily Kos :: Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover Story
Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover Story
by Apian
Tue May 10th, 2005 at 15:17:37 PDT
It's a great day to be alive. Readers are demanding that the Washington Post cover the story of the Downing Street evidence, and the paper is refusing. Not because the evidence is unauthenticated ior unnewsworthy. But because it is that explosive and damning. A story too big to cover?
There is a news blackout on the UK's Attorney General's opinion on the illegality of the war on Iraq, and liability for prosecution in the International Criminal Court. Bush's fatal error in the rush to war was that he did not order Blair to un-sign the UK membership in the ICC. If Blair is brought up on war crimes charges, his ally will also be tried. Either Tony Blair takes the fall, or he starts naming names.
As it was Downing Street that released both the minutes of the July 23, 2002 war intelligence meeting, and the Goldsmith opinion, it looks like Blair is prepared to name names. In spite of the WaPo’s refusal to cover the Goldsmith legal opinion, the news is getting through this blockade. The reaction is a call for impeachment and prosecution for war crimes. These are interesting times to live through.
Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover Story
by Apian
Tue May 10th, 2005 at 15:17:37 PDT
It's a great day to be alive. Readers are demanding that the Washington Post cover the story of the Downing Street evidence, and the paper is refusing. Not because the evidence is unauthenticated ior unnewsworthy. But because it is that explosive and damning. A story too big to cover?
There is a news blackout on the UK's Attorney General's opinion on the illegality of the war on Iraq, and liability for prosecution in the International Criminal Court. Bush's fatal error in the rush to war was that he did not order Blair to un-sign the UK membership in the ICC. If Blair is brought up on war crimes charges, his ally will also be tried. Either Tony Blair takes the fall, or he starts naming names.
As it was Downing Street that released both the minutes of the July 23, 2002 war intelligence meeting, and the Goldsmith opinion, it looks like Blair is prepared to name names. In spite of the WaPo’s refusal to cover the Goldsmith legal opinion, the news is getting through this blockade. The reaction is a call for impeachment and prosecution for war crimes. These are interesting times to live through.
Bush's approval rating hits a low
May 24th, 2005 2:16 pm
Bush's approval rating on crucial issues hits a low
By Susan Page / USA Today
WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
Satisfaction with congressional Republicans also has sagged. By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since the GOP won control of both houses of Congress in 1994.
USA TODAY/CNN/GALLUP POLL
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 50%
No opinion: 4%
Full Poll Results
Americans express more concern about the price of gas than they do about the high-profile dispute over Democrats' filibuster of Bush's judicial nominations, the survey shows. And they are holding Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, responsible for their unease about the economy and Iraq.
"If people are not happy with the way things are going, the people in charge get the heat," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. A Pew poll released Thursday showed similar trends.
"We don't get caught up in week-by-week polling," White House press secretary Scott McClellan says. Bush "is going to remain focused on the big priorities and build on the progress we're making" on job creation and "spreading freedom."
In the sample of 1,006 adults, 36% call themselves Democrats, 29% Republicans. Including those who "lean" toward a party, 51% are Democrats, 40% Republicans. The survey isn't "weighted" for party ID, which fluctuates from poll to poll. Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, says the poll findings are "dubious" because the breakdown "does not accurately reflect the partisan makeup of America."
Bush's overall approval rating was 46%, down 4 percentage points since early May but higher than the 45% low in March. On specific issues, 40% approved of his handling of Iraq and the economy, 33% of his handling of Social Security.
Only on handling terrorism did Bush receive a net positive rating: 55% approve, 40% disapprove.
Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Bush is losing ground on "big, defining issues," including the economy and Iraq. "On Social Security, he's moved from being the person offering interesting ideas to the guy who wants to cut Social Security benefits."
Republican pollster David Winston says gas prices and Iraq violence have "unsettled the electorate" and affected Bush's standing.
There are red flags for Bush on two standard measures of a president's political health. The proportion that says he has "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have" fell to a new low of 52%. A record 57% say they disagree with him on the issues that matter the most to them.
On the filibuster confrontation — defused by a compromise announced late Monday — those surveyed favored the Democrats by 48%-40%. But they saw merit in the arguments of each side. A 53% majority say the filibuster — the ability of at least 41 senators to continue debate and delay a vote — should be preserved. Still, 69% wanted the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on judicial nominees.
Interest in the issue wasn't particularly high, though. A 57% majority wasn't following the news on filibusters closely; more than one in three weren't following it at all.
Other items in this section
Mike's Letter
Latest News
In The News
More of Mike's Latest News
May 24th, 2005 9:20 pm
'Nightline' to Honor 'The Fallen'
May 24th, 2005 8:58 pm
CIA Employees May Testify in Navy Case
May 24th, 2005 7:31 pm
The Believer
May 24th, 2005 6:51 pm
Contracting Rush For Security Led To Waste, Abuse
May 24th, 2005 5:10 pm
AP: Records Reveal Guantanamo Stories
May 24th, 2005 4:47 pm
Congressman Slams Maher Over Army Remark
May 24th, 2005 4:21 pm
Seattle students picket military recruiters
May 24th, 2005 4:13 pm
UW-Stout chancellor blocks ROTC from campus
May 24th, 2005 3:36 pm
Laura Bush Endorses Mubarak's Ballot Plan
May 24th, 2005 2:38 pm
Leaving the Army not an easy decision, but it's an increasingly common one
Mike's Latest News Archive
Suggestions / Ideas
If you have an idea or suggestion for our News section, please CLICK HERE
Bush's approval rating on crucial issues hits a low
By Susan Page / USA Today
WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
Satisfaction with congressional Republicans also has sagged. By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since the GOP won control of both houses of Congress in 1994.
USA TODAY/CNN/GALLUP POLL
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 50%
No opinion: 4%
Full Poll Results
Americans express more concern about the price of gas than they do about the high-profile dispute over Democrats' filibuster of Bush's judicial nominations, the survey shows. And they are holding Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, responsible for their unease about the economy and Iraq.
"If people are not happy with the way things are going, the people in charge get the heat," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. A Pew poll released Thursday showed similar trends.
"We don't get caught up in week-by-week polling," White House press secretary Scott McClellan says. Bush "is going to remain focused on the big priorities and build on the progress we're making" on job creation and "spreading freedom."
In the sample of 1,006 adults, 36% call themselves Democrats, 29% Republicans. Including those who "lean" toward a party, 51% are Democrats, 40% Republicans. The survey isn't "weighted" for party ID, which fluctuates from poll to poll. Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, says the poll findings are "dubious" because the breakdown "does not accurately reflect the partisan makeup of America."
Bush's overall approval rating was 46%, down 4 percentage points since early May but higher than the 45% low in March. On specific issues, 40% approved of his handling of Iraq and the economy, 33% of his handling of Social Security.
Only on handling terrorism did Bush receive a net positive rating: 55% approve, 40% disapprove.
Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Bush is losing ground on "big, defining issues," including the economy and Iraq. "On Social Security, he's moved from being the person offering interesting ideas to the guy who wants to cut Social Security benefits."
Republican pollster David Winston says gas prices and Iraq violence have "unsettled the electorate" and affected Bush's standing.
There are red flags for Bush on two standard measures of a president's political health. The proportion that says he has "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have" fell to a new low of 52%. A record 57% say they disagree with him on the issues that matter the most to them.
On the filibuster confrontation — defused by a compromise announced late Monday — those surveyed favored the Democrats by 48%-40%. But they saw merit in the arguments of each side. A 53% majority say the filibuster — the ability of at least 41 senators to continue debate and delay a vote — should be preserved. Still, 69% wanted the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on judicial nominees.
Interest in the issue wasn't particularly high, though. A 57% majority wasn't following the news on filibusters closely; more than one in three weren't following it at all.
Other items in this section
Mike's Letter
Latest News
In The News
More of Mike's Latest News
May 24th, 2005 9:20 pm
'Nightline' to Honor 'The Fallen'
May 24th, 2005 8:58 pm
CIA Employees May Testify in Navy Case
May 24th, 2005 7:31 pm
The Believer
May 24th, 2005 6:51 pm
Contracting Rush For Security Led To Waste, Abuse
May 24th, 2005 5:10 pm
AP: Records Reveal Guantanamo Stories
May 24th, 2005 4:47 pm
Congressman Slams Maher Over Army Remark
May 24th, 2005 4:21 pm
Seattle students picket military recruiters
May 24th, 2005 4:13 pm
UW-Stout chancellor blocks ROTC from campus
May 24th, 2005 3:36 pm
Laura Bush Endorses Mubarak's Ballot Plan
May 24th, 2005 2:38 pm
Leaving the Army not an easy decision, but it's an increasingly common one
Mike's Latest News Archive
Suggestions / Ideas
If you have an idea or suggestion for our News section, please CLICK HERE
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Bush and Blair Iraq war plan, 23/July/02
May 6th, 2005 7:37 pm
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Anti-Castro Tom DeLay smokes "Cuban cigar"
Michael Moore - Must Read
W E B E X C L U S I V E
But Did He Inhale?
Anti-Castro Majority Leader Tom DeLay enjoys a fine Cuban cigar
By KAREN TUMULTY
ZIV KOREN / POLARIS
SMOOTH: The Cuban in Question
Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2005
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, according to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a cigar is an economic prop to a brutal totalitarian regime. Arguing against loosening sanctions against Cuba last year, DeLay warned that Fidel Castro "will take the money. Every dime that finds its way into Cuba first finds its way into Fidel Castro's blood-thirsty hands.... American consumers will get their fine cigars and their cheap sugar, but at the cost of our national honor."
DeLay has long been one of Congress' most vocal critics of what he calls Castro's "thugocracy," which is why some sharp-eyed TIME readers were surprised last week to see a photo of the Majority Leader smoking one of Cuba's best—a Hoyo de Monterrey double corona, which generally costs about $25 when purchased overseas and is not available in this country. The cigar's label clearly states that it was made in "Habana." The photo was taken in Jerusalem on July 28, 2003, during a meeting between DeLay and the Republican Jewish Coalition at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
"Generally, the Hoyo de Monterrey is considered a very good cigar, especially in those oversizes," says Gregory Mottola, tasting coordinator for Cigar Aficionado magazine. A review of the Hoyo de Monterrey double corona on the website www.topcubans.com raves: "Love at first sight. The beauty of the stick, is matched by it's (sic) paradisiacal even roundness in the smoke. The Hoyo sweet tastes (crushed cacao/coffee, Moroccan leather), give this cigar a childish naughtiness character. This is a smoke full of prestige and smooth class."
DeLay's smoke may have run afoul of his principles, but it did not violate U.S. regulations at the time. However, it would now. Last September, the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control tightened its prohibitions against U.S. citizens importing or consuming Cuban cigars. Even Americans licensed to bring back up to $100 worth of Cuban goods are no longer allowed to include tobacco products in what they carry. The regulation also noted that Americans are barred not only from purchasing Cuban goods in foreign countries, but also from consuming them in those countries.
Asked about the Majority Leader's consumption of a Cuban cigar, his spokesman Dan Allen replied there has been "no change in our Cuban policy."
W E B E X C L U S I V E
But Did He Inhale?
Anti-Castro Majority Leader Tom DeLay enjoys a fine Cuban cigar
By KAREN TUMULTY
ZIV KOREN / POLARIS
SMOOTH: The Cuban in Question
Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2005
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, according to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a cigar is an economic prop to a brutal totalitarian regime. Arguing against loosening sanctions against Cuba last year, DeLay warned that Fidel Castro "will take the money. Every dime that finds its way into Cuba first finds its way into Fidel Castro's blood-thirsty hands.... American consumers will get their fine cigars and their cheap sugar, but at the cost of our national honor."
DeLay has long been one of Congress' most vocal critics of what he calls Castro's "thugocracy," which is why some sharp-eyed TIME readers were surprised last week to see a photo of the Majority Leader smoking one of Cuba's best—a Hoyo de Monterrey double corona, which generally costs about $25 when purchased overseas and is not available in this country. The cigar's label clearly states that it was made in "Habana." The photo was taken in Jerusalem on July 28, 2003, during a meeting between DeLay and the Republican Jewish Coalition at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
"Generally, the Hoyo de Monterrey is considered a very good cigar, especially in those oversizes," says Gregory Mottola, tasting coordinator for Cigar Aficionado magazine. A review of the Hoyo de Monterrey double corona on the website www.topcubans.com raves: "Love at first sight. The beauty of the stick, is matched by it's (sic) paradisiacal even roundness in the smoke. The Hoyo sweet tastes (crushed cacao/coffee, Moroccan leather), give this cigar a childish naughtiness character. This is a smoke full of prestige and smooth class."
DeLay's smoke may have run afoul of his principles, but it did not violate U.S. regulations at the time. However, it would now. Last September, the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control tightened its prohibitions against U.S. citizens importing or consuming Cuban cigars. Even Americans licensed to bring back up to $100 worth of Cuban goods are no longer allowed to include tobacco products in what they carry. The regulation also noted that Americans are barred not only from purchasing Cuban goods in foreign countries, but also from consuming them in those countries.
Asked about the Majority Leader's consumption of a Cuban cigar, his spokesman Dan Allen replied there has been "no change in our Cuban policy."
Friday, April 29, 2005
Congree Passes Budget with Cuts in Medicaaid and in Taxes
Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!
April 29th, 2005 1:28 pm
Congress Passes Budget With Cuts in Medicaid and in Taxes
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg / New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 28 - The House and Senate broke a lengthy impasse over federal spending Thursday night, narrowly adopting a $2.56 trillion federal budget for 2006 that aims to trim the growth of Medicaid by $10 billion over five years, add $106 billion in tax cuts and clear the way for oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.
The back-to-back votes - 214 to 211 in the House and 52 to 47 in the Senate - ran mostly along party lines. As the roll was called in the Senate, shortly before midnight, Vice President Dick Cheney sat in the chamber, ready to cast his vote to break a tie, if necessary.
The passage came just hours after House and Senate negotiators reached a budget deal, resolving differences that revolved largely around Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. The budget resolution instructs lawmakers to freeze spending in most domestic programs, but not for the military and for domestic security.
Congress has failed to adopt a budget for two of the last three years, and Republican leaders hailed the votes as a victory. With the federal deficit at a record level, President Bush and Congressional Republicans - prodded by fiscal conservatives in their party - have promised to rein in government spending. Adopting a budget was a test of their ability to make good on that vow.
At his news conference Thursday night, moments after the House passed the budget but before the Senate voted, Mr. Bush cited the resolution as an example of his ability to get things done on Capitol Hill.
"There's the budget agreement," the president said, "and I'm grateful for that. It shows we are making progress."
Earlier in the evening, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, called the spending plan " the best since the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997."
Shortly before the House began its vote, Mr. DeLay said, "This is the budget the American people voted for when they returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican president to the White House last November."
Democrats derided the budget as misguided, saying it would slash spending on programs for the most vulnerable members of society, give lavish tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, force veterans to spend more on health care and deepen the deficit, instead of reducing it, as Republicans contend it will.
The House Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, called it "a missed opportunity" and "an assault on our values." Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Senate Budget committee, called it "a mistake for the country."
Although the budget resolution is nonbinding, it is important because it provides an economic blueprint that lawmakers can use to pass specific tax and spending legislation later in the year. For instance, the resolution assumes $106 billion in tax cuts over the next five years, and explicitly directs Congress to enact legislation providing for $70 billion of those cuts. The intent, its authors say, is to extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts on capital gains and dividend income.
The budget resolution also directs lawmakers to come up with $2.4 billion in energy revenues - a provision that Congress can use to pass legislation opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
"It's high time," said one leading advocate of drilling, Senator Pete V. Domenici, the New Mexico Republican and chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has led the fight in Congress to open the refuge, gave the thumbs-up sign and said, "Love it!"
But in the House, the drilling provision drew objections from some Republicans who voted against the budget because they opposed opening the Arctic refuge to oil exploration, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said. Mr. Hastert seemed unruffled when asked about the closeness of the vote. "But we won," he said.
In the Senate, three Republicans - Senators George V. Voinovich and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - joined with 43 Democrats and one independent to oppose the plan. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, was absent.
This year is the first time since 1997 that Congress has used the budget to trim the explosive growth of so-called entitlement programs, particularly Medicaid. It directs lawmakers to reduce the growth of entitlements - including farm subsidies and a federal pensions guarantee as well as Medicaid - by a total of $35 billion over the next five years.
Mr. Bush originally proposed a $51 billion reduction. The architects of the Congressional budget say the $35 million is significant nonetheless.
"This is a major step," Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said of the entitlement trims.
Mr. Gregg and his House counterpart, Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa, say the budget will fulfill Mr. Bush's goal of cutting the federal deficit in half over five years, bringing the figure down to $210 billion in 2010.
Democrats dismiss that contention as flawed, saying the budget ignores shortfalls in Medicare, the health insurance plan for the elderly, as well as the cost of the war in Iraq.
"We now face record budget deficits, and we face them for as far as the eye can see," Senator Conrad said, pointing to charts that resembled a flood of red ink.
Democrats also said the budget would be devastating to poor people who depend on programs like Medicaid.
"We're attacking the most vulnerable in our society," Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, said.
Some moderate Republicans, led by Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, agreed, and the resulting dispute over Medicaid threatened to derail the entire budget process. When the budget passed the Senate last month, Mr. Smith led a successful effort to eliminate any spending reductions on Medicaid and instead create a bipartisan commission to study the future of the program.
Mr. Smith's proposal passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote. But the House budget recommended steep cuts in the growth of Medicaid, setting off a dispute between the two chambers. That prompted weeks of intense negotiations On Thursday, Mr. Smith said that he had agreed to the demands of the Republican Senate leadership for $10 billion less in Medicaid spending growth and that White House officials had agreed to create a bipartisan commission that would probably finish its work in 18 months."
April 29th, 2005 1:28 pm
Congress Passes Budget With Cuts in Medicaid and in Taxes
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg / New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 28 - The House and Senate broke a lengthy impasse over federal spending Thursday night, narrowly adopting a $2.56 trillion federal budget for 2006 that aims to trim the growth of Medicaid by $10 billion over five years, add $106 billion in tax cuts and clear the way for oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.
The back-to-back votes - 214 to 211 in the House and 52 to 47 in the Senate - ran mostly along party lines. As the roll was called in the Senate, shortly before midnight, Vice President Dick Cheney sat in the chamber, ready to cast his vote to break a tie, if necessary.
The passage came just hours after House and Senate negotiators reached a budget deal, resolving differences that revolved largely around Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. The budget resolution instructs lawmakers to freeze spending in most domestic programs, but not for the military and for domestic security.
Congress has failed to adopt a budget for two of the last three years, and Republican leaders hailed the votes as a victory. With the federal deficit at a record level, President Bush and Congressional Republicans - prodded by fiscal conservatives in their party - have promised to rein in government spending. Adopting a budget was a test of their ability to make good on that vow.
At his news conference Thursday night, moments after the House passed the budget but before the Senate voted, Mr. Bush cited the resolution as an example of his ability to get things done on Capitol Hill.
"There's the budget agreement," the president said, "and I'm grateful for that. It shows we are making progress."
Earlier in the evening, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, called the spending plan " the best since the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997."
Shortly before the House began its vote, Mr. DeLay said, "This is the budget the American people voted for when they returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican president to the White House last November."
Democrats derided the budget as misguided, saying it would slash spending on programs for the most vulnerable members of society, give lavish tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, force veterans to spend more on health care and deepen the deficit, instead of reducing it, as Republicans contend it will.
The House Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, called it "a missed opportunity" and "an assault on our values." Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Senate Budget committee, called it "a mistake for the country."
Although the budget resolution is nonbinding, it is important because it provides an economic blueprint that lawmakers can use to pass specific tax and spending legislation later in the year. For instance, the resolution assumes $106 billion in tax cuts over the next five years, and explicitly directs Congress to enact legislation providing for $70 billion of those cuts. The intent, its authors say, is to extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts on capital gains and dividend income.
The budget resolution also directs lawmakers to come up with $2.4 billion in energy revenues - a provision that Congress can use to pass legislation opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
"It's high time," said one leading advocate of drilling, Senator Pete V. Domenici, the New Mexico Republican and chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has led the fight in Congress to open the refuge, gave the thumbs-up sign and said, "Love it!"
But in the House, the drilling provision drew objections from some Republicans who voted against the budget because they opposed opening the Arctic refuge to oil exploration, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said. Mr. Hastert seemed unruffled when asked about the closeness of the vote. "But we won," he said.
In the Senate, three Republicans - Senators George V. Voinovich and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - joined with 43 Democrats and one independent to oppose the plan. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, was absent.
This year is the first time since 1997 that Congress has used the budget to trim the explosive growth of so-called entitlement programs, particularly Medicaid. It directs lawmakers to reduce the growth of entitlements - including farm subsidies and a federal pensions guarantee as well as Medicaid - by a total of $35 billion over the next five years.
Mr. Bush originally proposed a $51 billion reduction. The architects of the Congressional budget say the $35 million is significant nonetheless.
"This is a major step," Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said of the entitlement trims.
Mr. Gregg and his House counterpart, Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa, say the budget will fulfill Mr. Bush's goal of cutting the federal deficit in half over five years, bringing the figure down to $210 billion in 2010.
Democrats dismiss that contention as flawed, saying the budget ignores shortfalls in Medicare, the health insurance plan for the elderly, as well as the cost of the war in Iraq.
"We now face record budget deficits, and we face them for as far as the eye can see," Senator Conrad said, pointing to charts that resembled a flood of red ink.
Democrats also said the budget would be devastating to poor people who depend on programs like Medicaid.
"We're attacking the most vulnerable in our society," Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, said.
Some moderate Republicans, led by Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, agreed, and the resulting dispute over Medicaid threatened to derail the entire budget process. When the budget passed the Senate last month, Mr. Smith led a successful effort to eliminate any spending reductions on Medicaid and instead create a bipartisan commission to study the future of the program.
Mr. Smith's proposal passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote. But the House budget recommended steep cuts in the growth of Medicaid, setting off a dispute between the two chambers. That prompted weeks of intense negotiations On Thursday, Mr. Smith said that he had agreed to the demands of the Republican Senate leadership for $10 billion less in Medicaid spending growth and that White House officials had agreed to create a bipartisan commission that would probably finish its work in 18 months."
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Tom DeLay Daily Contact with Lobbyst
Bloglines | Subscribe
April 27th, 2005 11:53 am
Records Show DeLay, Lobbyist Daily Contact
By Sharon Theimer / Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Over two years, Rep. Tom DeLay had at least two dozen discussions with a lobbyist working to keep a U.S. territory's factories free from new labor laws. The lobbyist contributed to the House leader's campaigns and arranged travel for him.
Records show that DeLay's staff spoke with the lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, or his team almost daily during this period.
DeLay's office kept Abramoff, now under criminal investigation, routinely apprised of congressional efforts to block new regulations on his client, the Northern Mariana Islands.
Questions have been raised about whether Abramoff himself paid for some of DeLay's foreign trips in violation of House rules. DeLay maintains they were properly financed by trip sponsors.
Abramoff's firm reported it drafted legislative materials for DeLay, and Abramoff boasted to island leaders he could use his close ties to Republican leaders to block legislation from receiving a House vote.
"Getting the bill off the schedule for next week, however, should enable us to use our connections within the Leadership to ensure that ... it will not come to the floor," Abramoff wrote the islands in September 1996.
The Northern Marianas billing and correspondence records of Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Preston Gates, were obtained by The Associated Press under an open records request approved by the island government.
They provide a day-by-day account of the lobbyist's campaign of fundraising, trip-providing and schmoozing with lawmakers in both parties aimed at, among other things, getting Congress to block Clinton administration efforts to regulate alleged "sweatshop" garment factories in the Northern Marianas. Those rules were never enacted.
DeLay, R-Texas, is now the House majority leader, but back then he was the No. 3 official in the House. His job as majority whip involved counting the way lawmakers intended to vote, which often influenced when legislation would come to a vote in the GOP-led Congress. Though Abramoff billed the island for contacts with dozens of lawmakers, DeLay's office was among the most frequently listed in the billing records.
An Abramoff spokesman said Tuesday the records confirm the lobbyist earned his pay. "Mr. Abramoff and his team worked tirelessly on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands and achieved tremendous results," Andrew Blum said.
DeLay's office said Tuesday he made decisions on the merits, not because of Abramoff's largesse or lobbying. "People know that Majority Leader DeLay stands on principles and bases his voting decisions on the merits," spokesman Dan Allen said.
The documents show that Abramoff's firm and the House Ethics Committee began having concerns as early as 1996 about Abramoff's arrangement of numerous trips for congressional members to the Pacific islands and how they were being paid for.
Abramoff billed numerous trips to his personal credit card or the firm, the records state, and then he later pressed the islands to reimburse him to avoid violating the new ban on lobbyists giving gifts to House members.
"I am under pressure here since the firm, under the gift ban rules, is not allowed to be out of pocket too long on the costs of congressional member and staff travel," Abramoff wrote in November 1996.
Though a tiny set of U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean with a population of about 80,000, Abramoff's client received constant attention - often numerous contacts in a week - from DeLay's staff in the mid- to late 1990s, the records show.
DeLay himself met or talked with Abramoff at least two dozen times in 1996 and 1997, when Abramoff's work for the islands got under way, the records show.
DeLay aides were in far more frequent contact, often talking day to day with Abramoff and his team of lobbyists, which charged the Northern Marianas $3 million in lobbying fees between October 1996 and October 1997.
On one trip that Abramoff arranged for DeLay and his staff to take to Russia in August 1997, the lobbyist billed the Northern Marianas for 20 hours of interactions with DeLay and his staff even though the trip was supposed to focus on Russian affairs, the records show.
Legislative dealings with DeLay's office were frequently sandwiched around campaign contributions, golf outings or trips provided or arranged by Abramoff for lawmakers, including some for DeLay.
For instance, the lobbyist and his wife gave maximum $5,000 donations each to DeLay's leadership political action committee on Jan. 14, 1997, about two months before DeLay met with the island's governor during a Washington visit and gave a glowing speech about the islands.
One of DeLay's top congressional aides at the time, Tony Rudy, e-mailed Abramoff a copy of remarks DeLay made to the full House on March 19, 1997, praising the islands as a "model of reform."
Abramoff also arranged for DeLay and his wife to visit the Mariana Islands during the 1997 Christmas break. Earlier that month, two DeLay staffers went to the islands as well, the records show.
In April, 1996, two donors from the islands gave $2,000 each to DeLay's campaign. In June 6, 1996, Abramoff gave a $2,000 donation in the name of DeLay's office to a charity golf tournament.
And a month after Abramoff wrote the islands about getting legislation they opposed blocked in the House, the political action committee for Abramoff's firm donated $500 to DeLay's campaign in October 1996.
The records show Abramoff's lobbying team sometimes billed the client to attend Republican fundraisers, such as one in August 1996 for Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
In June 1997, he reported to the islands that he went to the U.S. Open golf tournament "with a number of our congressional staffer friends."
He credited the numerous trips he arranged to the islands with fending off the new labor rules the Clinton administration and some congressional Democrats were seeking.
"There is no doubt that trips to the CNMI (islands) are one of the most effective ways to build permanent friends on the Hill," the firm wrote the island government in a lobbying plan in February 1998.
Some of the lawmakers Abramoff arranged to travel to the islands included Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Brian Bilbray, both California Republicans, and Ralph Hall, a Texas Democrat.
April 27th, 2005 11:53 am
Records Show DeLay, Lobbyist Daily Contact
By Sharon Theimer / Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Over two years, Rep. Tom DeLay had at least two dozen discussions with a lobbyist working to keep a U.S. territory's factories free from new labor laws. The lobbyist contributed to the House leader's campaigns and arranged travel for him.
Records show that DeLay's staff spoke with the lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, or his team almost daily during this period.
DeLay's office kept Abramoff, now under criminal investigation, routinely apprised of congressional efforts to block new regulations on his client, the Northern Mariana Islands.
Questions have been raised about whether Abramoff himself paid for some of DeLay's foreign trips in violation of House rules. DeLay maintains they were properly financed by trip sponsors.
Abramoff's firm reported it drafted legislative materials for DeLay, and Abramoff boasted to island leaders he could use his close ties to Republican leaders to block legislation from receiving a House vote.
"Getting the bill off the schedule for next week, however, should enable us to use our connections within the Leadership to ensure that ... it will not come to the floor," Abramoff wrote the islands in September 1996.
The Northern Marianas billing and correspondence records of Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Preston Gates, were obtained by The Associated Press under an open records request approved by the island government.
They provide a day-by-day account of the lobbyist's campaign of fundraising, trip-providing and schmoozing with lawmakers in both parties aimed at, among other things, getting Congress to block Clinton administration efforts to regulate alleged "sweatshop" garment factories in the Northern Marianas. Those rules were never enacted.
DeLay, R-Texas, is now the House majority leader, but back then he was the No. 3 official in the House. His job as majority whip involved counting the way lawmakers intended to vote, which often influenced when legislation would come to a vote in the GOP-led Congress. Though Abramoff billed the island for contacts with dozens of lawmakers, DeLay's office was among the most frequently listed in the billing records.
An Abramoff spokesman said Tuesday the records confirm the lobbyist earned his pay. "Mr. Abramoff and his team worked tirelessly on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands and achieved tremendous results," Andrew Blum said.
DeLay's office said Tuesday he made decisions on the merits, not because of Abramoff's largesse or lobbying. "People know that Majority Leader DeLay stands on principles and bases his voting decisions on the merits," spokesman Dan Allen said.
The documents show that Abramoff's firm and the House Ethics Committee began having concerns as early as 1996 about Abramoff's arrangement of numerous trips for congressional members to the Pacific islands and how they were being paid for.
Abramoff billed numerous trips to his personal credit card or the firm, the records state, and then he later pressed the islands to reimburse him to avoid violating the new ban on lobbyists giving gifts to House members.
"I am under pressure here since the firm, under the gift ban rules, is not allowed to be out of pocket too long on the costs of congressional member and staff travel," Abramoff wrote in November 1996.
Though a tiny set of U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean with a population of about 80,000, Abramoff's client received constant attention - often numerous contacts in a week - from DeLay's staff in the mid- to late 1990s, the records show.
DeLay himself met or talked with Abramoff at least two dozen times in 1996 and 1997, when Abramoff's work for the islands got under way, the records show.
DeLay aides were in far more frequent contact, often talking day to day with Abramoff and his team of lobbyists, which charged the Northern Marianas $3 million in lobbying fees between October 1996 and October 1997.
On one trip that Abramoff arranged for DeLay and his staff to take to Russia in August 1997, the lobbyist billed the Northern Marianas for 20 hours of interactions with DeLay and his staff even though the trip was supposed to focus on Russian affairs, the records show.
Legislative dealings with DeLay's office were frequently sandwiched around campaign contributions, golf outings or trips provided or arranged by Abramoff for lawmakers, including some for DeLay.
For instance, the lobbyist and his wife gave maximum $5,000 donations each to DeLay's leadership political action committee on Jan. 14, 1997, about two months before DeLay met with the island's governor during a Washington visit and gave a glowing speech about the islands.
One of DeLay's top congressional aides at the time, Tony Rudy, e-mailed Abramoff a copy of remarks DeLay made to the full House on March 19, 1997, praising the islands as a "model of reform."
Abramoff also arranged for DeLay and his wife to visit the Mariana Islands during the 1997 Christmas break. Earlier that month, two DeLay staffers went to the islands as well, the records show.
In April, 1996, two donors from the islands gave $2,000 each to DeLay's campaign. In June 6, 1996, Abramoff gave a $2,000 donation in the name of DeLay's office to a charity golf tournament.
And a month after Abramoff wrote the islands about getting legislation they opposed blocked in the House, the political action committee for Abramoff's firm donated $500 to DeLay's campaign in October 1996.
The records show Abramoff's lobbying team sometimes billed the client to attend Republican fundraisers, such as one in August 1996 for Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
In June 1997, he reported to the islands that he went to the U.S. Open golf tournament "with a number of our congressional staffer friends."
He credited the numerous trips he arranged to the islands with fending off the new labor rules the Clinton administration and some congressional Democrats were seeking.
"There is no doubt that trips to the CNMI (islands) are one of the most effective ways to build permanent friends on the Hill," the firm wrote the island government in a lobbying plan in February 1998.
Some of the lawmakers Abramoff arranged to travel to the islands included Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Brian Bilbray, both California Republicans, and Ralph Hall, a Texas Democrat.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Justice Sunday
Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!
Is Rice Obstructing the Bolton Investigation?
A very serious allegation buried in a story in today’s Washington Post:
On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told her senior staff she was disappointed about the stream of allegations [about John Bolton] and said she did not want any information coming out of the department that could adversely affect the nomination, said officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
18 U.S.C. Section 1505:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede…the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress–
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
This is serious enough that a reporter covering the State Department should inquire about Rice’s conduct. What, exactly, did Rice tell her subordinates? How is this consistent with their full cooperation with a Congressional inquiry.
Posted by Judd April 20th, 2005 8:54 am
Permalink | Comment (73)
Filed Under: Congress, International Relations
73 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-trackback.php/678
1.
These people are bullies, plain and simple. They are willing to blow democratic principles out of the water to get what they want. The opposition needs to stand up to them, punch hard and true right square in the face, continuously if necessary. Tempers will flare, blood will be shed, but isn’t this country worth it! Fight them until they back down. Bullies always back down because they’re wrong, we just need a few good members of Congress to step in the ring.
Comment by Jay — April 20th, 2005 @ 9:26 am
2.
Anyone who thinks that this will be ‘investigated’ is seriously fooling themselves. If there is one thing that should have been learned in the last 5 years, it’s that criminals that investigate criminals always find out, hey!, we’re innocent! Really! Would we lie to you??? Come on folks, blogger and real investigations could find, not only the ’smoking gun’, but they could find in the hand of l’il Ms. Rice with her finger on the trigger about to squeeze off another round and the line would be thusly: “What are you going to believe, us, or your lying eyes?”
Comment by Jim — April 20th, 2005 @ 9:30 am
3.
There is a difference between ‘not obstructing’ and ‘not volunteering’. I don’t see anything wrong with Rice instructing people not to get ahead of the Senate in their investigation. If she meant that people should not respond to Senate requests, then she is in the wrong. If she meant that she didn’t want people volunteering information before it was requested (unless illegal activity was found) then she was in the right, and it is the same as we did during democratic administrations.
Of course, it is usually best to provide the bad information to the Senate in advance of the hearings rather than making them dig for it, but that isn’t how this administration works and it is contributing to Bolton’s problems.
Comment by Caitlyn Antrim — April 20th, 2005 @ 9:54 am
4.
Oh come on Caitlyn, what do you think she meant?
Comment by mudkitty — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:05 am
5.
I have no doubt that Condi Rice would go TO ANY LENGTHS to confirm the President’s nominee. Her devotion is, always has been, and always will be to George Bush first and foremost.
She exists to serve Bush. Not this country. That was made abundantly clear in the 9.11 hearings wherein her obvious goal was to protect the President from ctiticism. Not to honestly discuss issues that led to the attack.
She has no more interest in public service than she has in collecting stamps.
Comment by Victoria — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:11 am
6.
Victoria is exactly right. Remember when Condi accidentally referred to George Bush as “my husband"? She’s in love!
Comment by Audrey — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:33 am
7.
Condi is just protecting her boss. I don’t think it’s right, they both should be history. Unfortunately we are a country w/ 59 mil idiots so I’m not surprised by her actions either.
Happy 4/20 everyone!!!
Comment by kindness — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:40 am
8.
4 20. cool
Comment by Jim — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:53 am
9.
She was picked for one reason - to toe the line and do what Rove/Bush say to do: support all the policies, support the people they choose, and don’t ask questions. Powell gave them shit, and they will not have that from the help.
Comment by Flamethrower — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:05 am
10.
Condi Rice speaks out against Russia’s lack of an ‘independent free press’…
Her love of a free press must have inspired the Bush admin to create and distribute fake news segments to American media outlets.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=3&u=/nm/20050420/wl_nm/russia_usa_rice_dc
Comment by Victoria — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:16 am
11.
No! She’s not obstructing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Condi fan but in this case Condi’s undermining Bolton. By saying what she did she signaled there’s dirt on the guy. She doesn’t like Bolton. Cheney tried to plant him in her office and she didn’t want him reporting back to Cheney on every little thing. She also doesn’t want Bolton at the UN. So GW is going to have to pick who he loves most - Cheney or Condi.
Just the fact that she and not Bush announced his nomination was a signal that she’s got a slight edge. For now.
Comment by Maezeppa — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:34 am
12.
Bush praised Lincoln yesterday. The way Lincoln prevailed in 1864-1865 was by aggressively pressing the offensive against the Confederacy ON ALL FRONTS SIMULTANEOUSLY.
The Confederacy couldn’t fight that many battles at once, everywhere, and collapsed.
The only hope for the U.S. democracy is for Republican patriots to turn against the Bushco war on democracy. The Democratic party can’t fight all these battles on all these fronts simultaneously. Rice, Bolton, Blackbridge, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rove are all vulnerable, exposed. But like Sherman and Grant that march at the head of juggernauts gobbling their opposition.
Unless rank and file Republicans “desert” their fascist party and side with the opposition in these skirmishes and confrontations – like Voinovitch did yesterday – the juggernaut will roll right over our country and democracy as we have known it will collapse.
Look what happened to the Sioux.
Comment by flotron — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:44 am
13.
Winston Churchill:
I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
- First Address as Prime Minister, May 13 1940.
Comment by bascombe — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
14.
I do not at all underrate the severity of the ordeal which lies before us; but I believe our countrymen will show themselves capable of standing up to it, like the brave men of Barcelona, and will be able to stand up to it, and carry on in spite of it, at least as well as any other people in the world. Much will depend upon this; every man and every woman will have the chance to show the finest qualities of their race, and render the highest service to their cause. For all of us, at this time, whatever our sphere, our station, our occupation or our duties, it will be a help to remember the famous lines: He nothing common did or mean, Upon that memorable scene.
- Winston Churchill, “Their Finest Hour", June 18 1940.
Comment by bascombe — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:07 pm
15.
The Republican Party appears to be “drunk with power". If it fails to reign in Tom DeLay and tuck him quietly away, it may well find itself no longer the majority. Frist, also, needs to be careful of his utterances to the media … “our voice is not being heard"?? The voice of the American people have not been heard since Bush & Company took over this country!
Comment by Marva — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:33 pm
16.
Ive watched the hearings and was aghast when Senator Lugar began the vote, and I’m very relieved that Senator Joe Biden spoke so forcefully at the outset and redoubled his remarks to the chairman. For a short while there I thought well, here go the republicans again, they arent going to consider their actions they’re going to do this, even Senator Hagel’s remark that he may note vote for the nominee on the full vote didnt account for much, knowing the greater body of course has the greater numbers of members who atleast on a party line are more inclined to approve this nomination made by the President.
But nothing meant more to me than when a statesman was heard by the name of Voinovich!
There is serious considerations at hand here about the future of the nation and verily the world if this nominee is sent to represent you and me.
His remarks in the past are inflamatory, his conduct towrds subordinates, reprehensible, the pattern fatal to the well being of the relationship we have with the world.
Like it or not till the day the UN is ever closed down, the US will have a seat there and a voice and that voice should be in the best tradition of the State Department, and in the interest of the People, not the skewed prerogatives of the individuals on the scene at the moment.
Comment by stew — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:43 pm
17.
e-mail address edited to reflect correct spelling
Comment by stew — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
18.
If Watergate was a “cancer” on Nixon’s presidency, then Dubya’s consistent promotion of grossly incompetent (but fiercely loyal) Constitution-hating toadies is a brain tumor.
People - it’s time to stand and be counted.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
19.
Everyone can forget investigating this little allegation regarding Aunt Condi-mima…the inmates are running the asylum, remember? Who really thinks anyone will look into this, two years after we still don’t know who outed Valerie Plame?
This government, and the people who continue to support it, have so long passed from the realm of outrageous to the farcical (only to foreigners, it can’t be funny for most Americans), and Blaghdaddy is beginnig to wonder if perhaps America doesn’t deserve the leader America chooses…Prove him wrong.
Comment by Blaghdaddy — April 20th, 2005 @ 1:36 pm
20.
So what else is new? I’m not surprised about Convoluted Rice’s criminal behavior to supress the truth about John Bolt-on. G Wrong Bush-it and his mob of thugs have been breaking laws right from the start.
Comment by KEVIN SCHMIDT — April 20th, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
21.
Rice Obstructing Bolton Investigation?
Rice Obstructing Bolton Investigation?
Trackback by The Supreme Irony of Life… — April 20th, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
22.
Kindalousy Rice - wow, did she POOCH 9/11. National Security Advisor my aching butt. She’s already proved she will cover up anything - Americans be damned.
Comment by Patriot — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
23.
Well, this discussion has been entertaining to watch…but very sad! The rhetoric and the logic are shallow, childish, silly…few of the comments carry much weight, nothing but a lot of arrogant whining, especially the ‘59mill idiots’ comment! Wake up…..find a different approach because this reactionary venting isn’t convincing. Find some substance!!!
Comment by kris — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
24.
Now is the time to stand and be counted. Hey Dr. Lee……..ONE! Give me a break.
Mark
W………still the PRESIDENT
D……….still the LEADER
Comment by Mark — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:33 pm
25.
bite me kris. I stand by my 59 mil idiots statement.
Comment by kindness — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
26.
Kris, critiquing the banter is fine, but you have added zero to the debate yourself. Where are your substantive comments? I think the discussion illustrates the level of disgust pretty well, and having a forum to vent useful as far as I’m concerned.
It’s arrogant to complain about the problem when you’ve just inserted yourself as an obvious party to it.
Comment by Jay — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
27.
The thing about Democrats is they dont stand up and fight at ALL. No position and act like a dog being kicked by tucking their tal between their legs. Totally playing into “Repugnents” hands. we have a screaming guy from Vermotn leading us to no where again. My vote is put you rmoney and time in Move On and forget the Dems as far as policy goes. The whole point is…hard to stand up when you are standing up with a bunch of p**sys…Man, I really am embarrassed I am a Democrat, we need fresh blood, courage and a clean start…then we can take on the Condi’d. Delay is getting away with this as well…watch and wait.
Comment by rebe — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
28.
I hope the 59 Mil idiots get every thing they voted for. Four months into this new term and going down hill fast. My only hope at the end we never hear of the GOP again.
Comment by Willie Loucks — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
29.
CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, CONDI RICE IS A STUPID PERSON. THERE IS NO OTHER WORD FOR HER. SHE IS NOT HALF-BRIGHT, NOT SLOW, SIMPLY STUPID. DON’T GET ME STARTED.
Comment by MICHAEL R. ASHLEY — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:46 pm
30.
Hey Mark - Bush was NEVER a leader - just the spoiled scion of a ruthlessly rich family. David Koresh was more of a leader.
kris - use your real name: Ann Coulter.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
31.
Four months into this new term - look on the bright side - only 3 and a half years left! Just think all the trillions more in national debt that’s not a problem, all the wonderful nominees, the countries yet to invade, the …
Comment by Flamethrower — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
32.
Rebe, part of the problem is, it’s in our mindset to NOT be violent fascist pigs. Claiming to be “moral” and “decent” and “compassionate", then “shedding blood” as an early method to ‘get what you want’ is what THEY do, not us. If you want to make changes for the better, and in a “moral” way, you have to be the part, not just give it lip-service. Republicans talk about “morals", yet let companies set policies that starve a portion of our population, poison people and cause heinous illnesses, and shift production to 3rd worlds where they can use slave labor. We aren’t “pussies", we’re standing on the moral high-ground here. Once it get’s to the point where they (the pugs) get ‘violent’ in a real-world context, belive me.. there will be plenty of us “pussies” content to get out our guns and drive them back to the shadows they came from. But, for now, we have to keep a level head and use facts and persistence to make our point.
As far as Rice’s obstruction, she doesn’t say diddly about “don’t volunteer info", she says she doesn’t want ANY info COMING OUT OF THAT DEPARTMENT.. that’s not saying “hey, only do what you have to", that’s saying “block the info from getting out". That’s criminal.
Anyway, we know nothing will come of it. Our leaders aren’t able to get anything done because the Repugs stole the majority and refuse to lead.. they just want to pass more laws that put more of your tax dollars in the hands of corperations while making sure the richest 2% never pay taxes again..
Comment by Savantster — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
33.
Ya know, I think Condi is probably a VERY intelligent person. But she shows us repeatedly that she is more concerned with covering her boss’s ass than she is covering the American people. Now is that unusual in a political situation? NO. Does she owe us more than Bush? I think so but she obviously does not.
Comment by kindness — April 20th, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
34.
Savantster-
Possibly it’s time to rethink that mode of behaviour.
Even though we have a RIGHT WINGED media, and facsists in power, headlines still leak out about Tom DeLay’s criminal activities, Bush clamps down harder on the poor and supresses the truth about terrorism, and STILL morons like this kris idiot want something “substantive.” Any more GD substantive would be debtor’s prison. It’s time to stop being “decent” about it, and give Mark the “break” he so eagerly wants and desperately needs.
ONE.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
35.
Dr. Lee #34
I agree that it’s -almost- time, but we still have to see what’s gonna happen with the voting issues (following the commission closely). If we get some real progress on that front, we can vote the nasty folks out in 2006 and 08, then start repealing the joke laws they put in place.
If we don’t get satisfaction on voting rules, if we don’t get full disclosure on various issues (Plame, Bolton, etc), -then- I’m with ya.. completely..
TWO
Comment by Savantster — April 20th, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
36.
Savantster - it’s “almost” time. Are you kidding? It’s so past time, that on many issues it’s too late.
How’s this for substance:
It is public record that the Bush Administration stonewalled on the 9/11 invesigation and in fact fought to prevent it in the first place. Why?
They tried to keep the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief about “Bin Laden determined to Strike within the US” a secret.
They ignored warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration that terrorism in general and Bin Laden in particular was a grave concern and they did the same when the Richard Clarke’s of the world warned that the system was “flashing red” in the summer of 01.
When the dots are connected, the picture is clear. The Bush people knew that something major was about to happen, yet they did…..nothing.
Bush stays in Crawford after the 8/6 PDB warning and he jets back to D.C. for the bogus Schiavo matter.
What more needs to be said?
Comment by Jason — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
37.
Many thanks to kindness (??), Dr. Lee, Jay and company…you proved my point! I’m not a Repug, simply disappointed with the tone of the response. Jay, sorry bud…my ‘contribution’ is to encourage that we raise the level of discussion beyond ‘bite me’. If we want serious change, then we need serious discussion, not paranoia name-calling and bumper sticker slogans.
Comment by kris — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
38.
Ann: NO “level of discussion” is going to change a DAMN thing. You came in here insulting people to “raise the level of discussion?”
What EXACTLY would make you happy? Kindalousy Rice and the entire Bush “administration” are a bunch of THIEVES that LIE, and I frankly don’t care if you believe it, or not. I don’t have a video taped confession from them.
You’re very welcome - you deserved every bit of it.
Jason - do I hear a “THREE"?
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
39.
Dr. L - It’s a beautiful thing to watch, first you dig your own hole and then bury yourself…no wonder we lost and got stuck with Howard for the future. L stands for Loser. Don’t worry about making me happy, not your job.
Comment by kris — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
40.
Ann: Thanks so much for “raising the level of discussion.”
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
41.
Doesn’t that statute apply even more clearly to Scully’s threat to fire medicare actuary Foster if he revealed his estimate of the cost of the medicare drug benefit?
Comment by Upper West — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
42.
kris, you are burdened by some kind of angst today, eh? Well listen up. We may have lost the election in November. But we haven’t lost our souls. Now I don’t mean that in the religious sense. I mean that in the honor and character sense. Do those things buy or mean anything with this administration? They would probably ask you what your yearly income is, how much you contributed to their party, PACS, etc and then give an answer from that.
That is my point exactly. Rather than spend time flogging ourselves, talking about stuff helps us build on tomorrow. Don’t be so down.
There is always hope (just not with this administration).
Comment by kindness — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
43.
I think that this site is an excellent forum to toss ideas around with all walks. If we keep it civil, ask questions, give reasoned responses and differing opinions….it’s a powerful form of democracy (blogocracy?).
Kris: waste of keystrokes.
Dr. Lee: Fill me in on the meaning of One, Two, Three?
Comment by Jason — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:48 pm
44.
Jason -
I said it was time to stand and be counted (#18).
“Mark” decided that deserved an obnoxious reply (#24)
But I ain’t F***ing kidding - I ‘ve had enough of trying to reason with liars, and started counting (#34)
Savantster thinks it’s still worth while trying to get reason from zealots, but gives a tentative TWO (#35)
It sounds like you agree with me - being truthful with liars has proved pointless - we only lose more ground as the Repugs whine “Liberal press! Liberal press!” when the “liberal press” helped sell the war of conquest in Iraq. The “Liberal press” has forgotten:
Osama Bin Laden
Valery Plame
Max Cleland
Cheney’s energy task force (including Taliban representatives)
anyway…we try to be reasonable - they only get more arrogant and obnoxious. It’s time to stand up and be counted - or be ground asunder.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:03 pm
45.
Welcome to the new Orwellian world. Only the Rovian administration could screw this all up so bad. Dont the neo-cons realize that they are only sending us into a twisted downward spiral of hate and fascism? Wasn’t it US that went to war with Germany for trying to take over other countries? Isnt that why we went to war with Iraq? All this religious re-awakening, massive deception campaigns, and name calling from both sides, is turning america’s “morals” into another bought and sold commodity for the rich and the people with power. Hey KRIS> absolute power corrupts absolutely, and last time i checked people like Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and GW Bush were the heads of the hydra. Not to mention the fact that Rove will make anyone in the government dissappear if they so much as say a nasty comment about our “furher".
Although we all know Condi is guilty of obstruction, and all these other Bush appointent numbskulls are just pieces of Bush and Rove’s lil political gambit, the public KNOWS. We see it, and we cant stop it yet, but we only have to wait till 2006 or until a few SMART republicans start to grow a conscience. Hey its allready happening with the blocking of Bolton, and the hearings for DeLay. They may get away with it now, but there will be more transgressions and they cannot keep chainging the laws and rigging the game forever. The real politicians (the ones who seriously care about why they are where they are) will eventually prevail. That or China will kick our ass.
Comment by Matt — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
46.
Gotcha. I’m in for the Three spot then, wholeheartedly.
The people that appear to stand in the middle and ask for concessions from both sides in order to “elevate” the level of discourse just haven’t done enough reading yet. The Republicans are not screwing around, they play this game to win and they will destroy everything in their paths. I would like to continue on the theme that Dr. Lee started with his list of people/issues that the media has conveniently given short-shrift (ok, so they’ve ignored them)…and start a new list of people that I think have been nothing short of heroic in speaking truth to power:
Barbara Boxer
Richard Clarke
Joe Wilson
Paul O’Neill
Howard Dean
Siebel Edmonds
General Shinseki
Randi Rhodes
etc….
Comment by Jason — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:33 pm
47.
Yay Barbara Boxer!! Proud to have here here in CA.
Comment by Matt — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
48.
I agree wit Maezeppa
Everyone knows that you must be standing squarely behind a man before you can stab him in the back…
Comment by Humphrey Appleby — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
49.
“bite me kris. I stand by my 59 mil idiots statement. ”
It is a fake statistic, but don’t let that bother you.
THE LAST ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
I hope that doesn’t disturb your nightmare.
We haven’t had a legal election in five years.
28 states have no paper trail.
Diebold, ES&S, Triad – all have committed FELONIES.
John Kerry won the last election.
Al Gore won the one before him.
Unless we get our voting rights back, game over.
Quoting fake statistics in order to engage in BIGOTRY is just plain stupid.
Comment by Paul in LA — April 20th, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
50.
Why don’t Kris and Dr. Lee and friends develop some maturity and insight - not to mention some appreciation for the King’s or Queen’s English. I am not a fan of Bush - father or son - and am far left of center on issues involving human rights and limitations on government power. I do believe, though, that a ligitimate function of government is the protection of the weak from the rapacity of those holding power. Nothing is accomplished nor is anyone served by “You’re one!", “No, you’re one!” “Nuhun!”
Comment by Avi Noel — April 20th, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
51.
Kindasleezy Wheat should be in jail. Period. Along with most of this embarrasing host of morons called an administration. I’ve seen better performances at a high school play.
Comment by Black Dog — April 20th, 2005 @ 7:26 pm
52.
Some Bush defender above asked for substance. Here is substance: GM posted a billion dollar loss because they ignored the public’s demand for hybrids. Why didn’t GM bother to develop a hybrid? Because they had assurances from the Bush junta that there be plenty of oil for everyone. The public speaks, we the people. There are waiting lists for hybrids in California made by, you guessed it, our Japanese friends. So, party of W’s legacy will be the eventual bankruptcy of one of the largest corporations in the history of the planet. And, if Dopey and the boys eliminate the fillibuster, they better pray that there is never again a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress because they will eviscerate everything Dopey and his gang of whores did in their eight year feeding frenzy. Just sit back and watch the fun. Don’t stress out so much.
Comment by Mark Cannon — April 20th, 2005 @ 9:48 pm
53.
to the bushies out there.how many soldiers died when mr clinton was president.
Comment by dan savitsky — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:00 pm
54.
Rove-induced paranoia about “statesman” Voinovich. Do you think any of these guys really act independently? That would be refreshing, but my concern is that his “orders” were to make the outraged senator statement he did… then, as he recounted in his soliloquoy about Richard Holbrooke, he investigates the charges against Bolton, talks to Bolton, then decides the guy isn’t so bad… and then once he annoints the guy, then the other “hand wringers” like Chafee and Hagel go along with him. And it’s all part of the scheme. OR Voinovich actually showed some true courage and principles; apparently with Democrats muted at every turn, often by their own fear of red statery, our only hope is for Republicans to show some guts.
Comment by Bobbygoode — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
55.
Mark at #52.. try this on for size
guess it matters not
soon you’ll be taxed for the amount of air you breath since the government needs to keep air clean.. Here’s a thought, how about making corperations pay some taxes? Stop giving them all kinds of loop-holes and make them pay for what they get a TON more use out of than the average American..
Comment by Savantster — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:36 pm
56.
I appologize.. my #55 above has a link to where they are trying to tax “per mile driven” instead of “per gallon of gas", based on our shifting to Hybrids soon (since we’ll be out of oil before long)
Comment by Savantster — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:38 pm
57.
#50-
You’ve added……what, besides your opinion?
If I may move on:
We need to be more militant. We need to use there strong suit against them. We need coordinated replies to the STINKING lies we hear over and over, i.e., “liberal media.” This should uniformally answered with a consistent list of media items we would LIKE to see pursued. Just interrupt any GOP windbag as soon as the magic words get said. Another good example would be “liberal lawyers,” answered with a tidy list of GOP lawyers. “Activist judges” should be answered with “rule of law.” They loved it in Florida.
Their pride is their pain.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:42 pm
58.
Avi Neol:
EXXXXCCCUUUUUSSSSEEEE MEEEEEEEEEEE!
(I used “there” when I should have used “their.” I am but the scum under your shoe. How’s that for insight - like it now? From now on, until I feel redeemed, I am “Intern Lee.")
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:47 pm
59.
Very interesting Savantster. My concern is that there is no ‘them’ to close corporate tax loop holes. People still don’t get it. There is no government. It is ALL corporations. They are not about to raise taxes on themselves. As for getting more militant, we tried that in the ’60’s and they are still chasing us down and throwing us in prison. Remember, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Remember?? As for turning militant now, why bother? All empires end, Alexander, Napolean, Adolf, Bush. It’s time the american empire ended. Perhaps God is just after all. Let justice fall like rain from the sky. Watch the republicans destroy themselves and the country at the same time. What a legacy!!
Comment by Mark Cannon — April 21st, 2005 @ 1:16 am
60.
If you REALLY want to make a difference, instead of arguing with each other on this, or any other site, and start writing letters to the editor of your local paper, register people to vote, contribute to the state party HQ, etc.
We’re exerting an awful lot of energy on these blogs, but are we accomplishing anything, other than irritating each other?
Comment by Georgia Dem — April 21st, 2005 @ 9:04 am
61.
Georgia Dem, your point is well taken but many of us do those things anyway. This is extracurricular activity. A day-to-day ventfest if you will.
Embrace it, enjoy it, have some fun.
Comment by Jay — April 21st, 2005 @ 9:40 am
62.
I don’t mean SDS militant - not just yet, anyway. I mean shutting them up each and every time they start to spout the usual rational-discussion-ending rhetoric, such as the phrase “liberal media.”
One reason those fascists pigs have so many devotees is because they always spoke with one voice. I think a little of what’s good for the goose-step would be good for the gander.
(I’ve had several letters to the Editor printed - didn’t see any big changes. I sent money, and they didn’t spend it on a legal challenge in Ohio. We need to put it to Fox Spews and Flush Dimballs with a unified front.)
Comment by Intern Lee — April 21st, 2005 @ 9:44 am
63.
Georgia Dem
Part of our “problem” is, with the problems in 2000 which caused some concern, we started wondering if our votes actually mattered. People say “of course they do, this is America".. Ok.. so a -lot- of what happened in 2000 around the country looked ok.. it was -mostly- Florida where it came down to “stopped counting votes".
Then you have 2004.. where there is a LOT of evidence to show that the elections were totally hijacked. Several states (all with electronic voting) reported a LOT of problems.. The exit polls (used around the world as an indicator to voting problems.. NOT as a ‘predictor’ of the election like a lot of people believe) indicate a VERY HIGH probability of FRAUD in the 2004 election. Yet, no one is doing anything about that yet either. Because they (neo-cons) were able to slink in in 2000, they got bigger in 2004. Clint Curtis shows that in 2000 they were already working on it.. Also note that the -bulk- of the people against ‘paper trials’ are Repubs and neo-cons and the companies that make the machines. MOST reasonable people think paper is a GOOD idea.. will we get it? probably not for 2006 or 2008. If we don’t fix our “voting", it won’t matter how many people you bring to the polls.. a 30 second exercise by any ONE person can change all that .. flip 100s of thousands of votes (or just change names of the “winners", there’s no way to audit that either).. and without paper trails, there is NO way to verify the original votes.
you see, it’s not about “being active” anymore, it’s about our contry being hijacked by the neo-cons and right-wing fanatics. We have to step in and stop that, and soon.
Comment by Savantster — April 21st, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
64.
To get back to the original question: if she was correctly quoted, then it seems clear she is obstructing an inquiry, which generates a big: “Heavens to Mergatriod! A Bush administration official blatantly breaking the law! What a shock! It’s ALMOST as if….they run the government in secret - despite the American people instead of for the American people. Again: what a shock.”
Comment by “Just plain” Lee — April 21st, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
65.
If you haven’t already read this….I recommend that you do. It is sobering and grave, but I fear all too true:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031005_globalcorp.shtml
Comment by Jason — April 21st, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
66.
OK, some fun: Did someone mention bumper stickers? Here ya go:
B-U-S-H: Beating Up Saddam Hussein
B-U-S-H: Being Unilateral Sure Hurts
B-U-S-H: Belligerence Undermines Safe Homeland
B-U-S-H: BinLaden Unearths Safe Haven
B-U-S-H: Beefing Up the Saudi Hegemony
B-U-S-H: Blatant Use of Spin and Hyperbole
B-U-S-H: Building the United States of Halliburton
Enjoy! -Tubeman
Comment by tubeman — April 21st, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
67.
“you see, it’s not about “being active” anymore, it’s about our contry being hijacked by the neo-cons and right-wing fanatics. We have to step in and stop that, and soon.”
So - now you’re saying “enough is enough"?
Jason - a very sobering read, but not that far from what my paranoid self envisioned. My question is: lot’s of people must know about this, including John Kerry and our last (and probably THE last) freely-elected President of the United States, Bill Clinton. Why do they all stay mum?
Comment by I be Lee — April 21st, 2005 @ 8:24 pm
68.
Stand up and be counted is all well and good and accomplished much in the 19th century.
The game is SO rigged now that if you marched 1,000,000 people on Washington for one week, all you’d have are alot of dead patriots and more crowding of newly built,"privatized” prisons.
All of this ties in with Peak Oil, facism, and the continuing economic extermination of what once was the middle class or as J.P. Morgan called it,
“the nigger buffer". They’ve known about oil depletion for decades and have built dozens of these new private prisons to house the “rabble”
when it comes down to out and out rebellion, debtors prisons, gas rationing, and depression.
Comment by Bruce — April 21st, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
69.
Lee, sure they know about it. Even superhawk ultra-neocon James Woolsey has recently called for conservation and investment in alternative sources of energy (that alone should be sounding the alarm). Kerry touched on the relationship between our oil consumption and having troops stationed in the Middle East long-term, but he didn’t pound that message and I imagine the Bush ads that referenced old legislation to increase the gas tax that Kerry got behind when the economy was strong kept that message at bay. The Kerry campaign did tout a plan for kicking our oil dependence, and for alternative fuels, but they were afraid to make it a prominent issue.
We must have leadership on this issue. The transition to other sources of energy MUST start now. The resistance to these changes is powerful and well-funded….but reality has to be a part of the equation…..right?
I’m terrified for my kids. The future is indeed bleak if our leaders don’t act now!
Comment by Jason — April 21st, 2005 @ 10:10 pm
70.
What difference does voter registration make in a stolen election? We have allowed a non-elected president occupy the White House for going on six years now. What further proof do you need that the system is entirely broken? You cannot work through a broken system. We figured that out when the country re-elected Tricky Dick on the eve of indictment. How do you reason with people who knowingly allowed a crook to lead them? The people who voted for Bush will not understand how wrong they were until their children are slaughtered in some foreign hell hole and the official language of America is Spanish. It’s coming folks!
Comment by Mark Cannon — April 21st, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
71.
First of all, that woman has proven that her first and only job is to cover Bush’s rear end. She got up in front of the 9-11 commission and blatantly LIED. Why she’s not in a jail cell, preferably Guantanamo Bay, is beyond me. For her lies, Bush promoted her to Secretary of State because Colin Powell wasn’t going to do another term with people he has been quoted as describing “f****** crazies,” in which I believe him to be absolutely right. And now, in addition to frightening off anyone who might have “information which could adversely affect the nomination,” Congressman Henry Waxman is now trying to find out why “Secretary Rice” is withholding data from the Annual Terrorism Report of 2004. Of course, it’s painfully obvious WHY that’s happening: it’s a report which shows although the State Department touted having the “lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969,” Secretary Rice is trying to hide the fact that the REAL numbers show a 20-YEAR-HIGH, and which proves once again that Bush and his administration is LYING TO AMERICA, and she doesn’t want her meal ticket to look bad. Too late.
Lose Bolton. Ask questions. Seek the truth.
Comment by THE SHADOWDRAGON — April 22nd, 2005 @ 6:08 am
72.
I think they put assholes like Bolton out front to take the heat of them and their criminal activities. At least we have someone in the Intel community who knows how to run a right-wing death squad. Negroponte should be in an Latin American jail. These bastards are simply out of control.
Comment by Lee — April 22nd, 2005 @ 9:58 am
73.
Well, why don’t we just wait for Herr Gonzales to order the Justice Department to investigate this? He has sworn to uphold the law, & he wouldn’t weasel out of that, would he?
Is Rice Obstructing the Bolton Investigation?
A very serious allegation buried in a story in today’s Washington Post:
On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told her senior staff she was disappointed about the stream of allegations [about John Bolton] and said she did not want any information coming out of the department that could adversely affect the nomination, said officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
18 U.S.C. Section 1505:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede…the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress–
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
This is serious enough that a reporter covering the State Department should inquire about Rice’s conduct. What, exactly, did Rice tell her subordinates? How is this consistent with their full cooperation with a Congressional inquiry.
Posted by Judd April 20th, 2005 8:54 am
Permalink | Comment (73)
Filed Under: Congress, International Relations
73 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-trackback.php/678
1.
These people are bullies, plain and simple. They are willing to blow democratic principles out of the water to get what they want. The opposition needs to stand up to them, punch hard and true right square in the face, continuously if necessary. Tempers will flare, blood will be shed, but isn’t this country worth it! Fight them until they back down. Bullies always back down because they’re wrong, we just need a few good members of Congress to step in the ring.
Comment by Jay — April 20th, 2005 @ 9:26 am
2.
Anyone who thinks that this will be ‘investigated’ is seriously fooling themselves. If there is one thing that should have been learned in the last 5 years, it’s that criminals that investigate criminals always find out, hey!, we’re innocent! Really! Would we lie to you??? Come on folks, blogger and real investigations could find, not only the ’smoking gun’, but they could find in the hand of l’il Ms. Rice with her finger on the trigger about to squeeze off another round and the line would be thusly: “What are you going to believe, us, or your lying eyes?”
Comment by Jim — April 20th, 2005 @ 9:30 am
3.
There is a difference between ‘not obstructing’ and ‘not volunteering’. I don’t see anything wrong with Rice instructing people not to get ahead of the Senate in their investigation. If she meant that people should not respond to Senate requests, then she is in the wrong. If she meant that she didn’t want people volunteering information before it was requested (unless illegal activity was found) then she was in the right, and it is the same as we did during democratic administrations.
Of course, it is usually best to provide the bad information to the Senate in advance of the hearings rather than making them dig for it, but that isn’t how this administration works and it is contributing to Bolton’s problems.
Comment by Caitlyn Antrim — April 20th, 2005 @ 9:54 am
4.
Oh come on Caitlyn, what do you think she meant?
Comment by mudkitty — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:05 am
5.
I have no doubt that Condi Rice would go TO ANY LENGTHS to confirm the President’s nominee. Her devotion is, always has been, and always will be to George Bush first and foremost.
She exists to serve Bush. Not this country. That was made abundantly clear in the 9.11 hearings wherein her obvious goal was to protect the President from ctiticism. Not to honestly discuss issues that led to the attack.
She has no more interest in public service than she has in collecting stamps.
Comment by Victoria — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:11 am
6.
Victoria is exactly right. Remember when Condi accidentally referred to George Bush as “my husband"? She’s in love!
Comment by Audrey — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:33 am
7.
Condi is just protecting her boss. I don’t think it’s right, they both should be history. Unfortunately we are a country w/ 59 mil idiots so I’m not surprised by her actions either.
Happy 4/20 everyone!!!
Comment by kindness — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:40 am
8.
4 20. cool
Comment by Jim — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:53 am
9.
She was picked for one reason - to toe the line and do what Rove/Bush say to do: support all the policies, support the people they choose, and don’t ask questions. Powell gave them shit, and they will not have that from the help.
Comment by Flamethrower — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:05 am
10.
Condi Rice speaks out against Russia’s lack of an ‘independent free press’…
Her love of a free press must have inspired the Bush admin to create and distribute fake news segments to American media outlets.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=3&u=/nm/20050420/wl_nm/russia_usa_rice_dc
Comment by Victoria — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:16 am
11.
No! She’s not obstructing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Condi fan but in this case Condi’s undermining Bolton. By saying what she did she signaled there’s dirt on the guy. She doesn’t like Bolton. Cheney tried to plant him in her office and she didn’t want him reporting back to Cheney on every little thing. She also doesn’t want Bolton at the UN. So GW is going to have to pick who he loves most - Cheney or Condi.
Just the fact that she and not Bush announced his nomination was a signal that she’s got a slight edge. For now.
Comment by Maezeppa — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:34 am
12.
Bush praised Lincoln yesterday. The way Lincoln prevailed in 1864-1865 was by aggressively pressing the offensive against the Confederacy ON ALL FRONTS SIMULTANEOUSLY.
The Confederacy couldn’t fight that many battles at once, everywhere, and collapsed.
The only hope for the U.S. democracy is for Republican patriots to turn against the Bushco war on democracy. The Democratic party can’t fight all these battles on all these fronts simultaneously. Rice, Bolton, Blackbridge, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rove are all vulnerable, exposed. But like Sherman and Grant that march at the head of juggernauts gobbling their opposition.
Unless rank and file Republicans “desert” their fascist party and side with the opposition in these skirmishes and confrontations – like Voinovitch did yesterday – the juggernaut will roll right over our country and democracy as we have known it will collapse.
Look what happened to the Sioux.
Comment by flotron — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:44 am
13.
Winston Churchill:
I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
- First Address as Prime Minister, May 13 1940.
Comment by bascombe — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
14.
I do not at all underrate the severity of the ordeal which lies before us; but I believe our countrymen will show themselves capable of standing up to it, like the brave men of Barcelona, and will be able to stand up to it, and carry on in spite of it, at least as well as any other people in the world. Much will depend upon this; every man and every woman will have the chance to show the finest qualities of their race, and render the highest service to their cause. For all of us, at this time, whatever our sphere, our station, our occupation or our duties, it will be a help to remember the famous lines: He nothing common did or mean, Upon that memorable scene.
- Winston Churchill, “Their Finest Hour", June 18 1940.
Comment by bascombe — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:07 pm
15.
The Republican Party appears to be “drunk with power". If it fails to reign in Tom DeLay and tuck him quietly away, it may well find itself no longer the majority. Frist, also, needs to be careful of his utterances to the media … “our voice is not being heard"?? The voice of the American people have not been heard since Bush & Company took over this country!
Comment by Marva — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:33 pm
16.
Ive watched the hearings and was aghast when Senator Lugar began the vote, and I’m very relieved that Senator Joe Biden spoke so forcefully at the outset and redoubled his remarks to the chairman. For a short while there I thought well, here go the republicans again, they arent going to consider their actions they’re going to do this, even Senator Hagel’s remark that he may note vote for the nominee on the full vote didnt account for much, knowing the greater body of course has the greater numbers of members who atleast on a party line are more inclined to approve this nomination made by the President.
But nothing meant more to me than when a statesman was heard by the name of Voinovich!
There is serious considerations at hand here about the future of the nation and verily the world if this nominee is sent to represent you and me.
His remarks in the past are inflamatory, his conduct towrds subordinates, reprehensible, the pattern fatal to the well being of the relationship we have with the world.
Like it or not till the day the UN is ever closed down, the US will have a seat there and a voice and that voice should be in the best tradition of the State Department, and in the interest of the People, not the skewed prerogatives of the individuals on the scene at the moment.
Comment by stew — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:43 pm
17.
e-mail address edited to reflect correct spelling
Comment by stew — April 20th, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
18.
If Watergate was a “cancer” on Nixon’s presidency, then Dubya’s consistent promotion of grossly incompetent (but fiercely loyal) Constitution-hating toadies is a brain tumor.
People - it’s time to stand and be counted.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
19.
Everyone can forget investigating this little allegation regarding Aunt Condi-mima…the inmates are running the asylum, remember? Who really thinks anyone will look into this, two years after we still don’t know who outed Valerie Plame?
This government, and the people who continue to support it, have so long passed from the realm of outrageous to the farcical (only to foreigners, it can’t be funny for most Americans), and Blaghdaddy is beginnig to wonder if perhaps America doesn’t deserve the leader America chooses…Prove him wrong.
Comment by Blaghdaddy — April 20th, 2005 @ 1:36 pm
20.
So what else is new? I’m not surprised about Convoluted Rice’s criminal behavior to supress the truth about John Bolt-on. G Wrong Bush-it and his mob of thugs have been breaking laws right from the start.
Comment by KEVIN SCHMIDT — April 20th, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
21.
Rice Obstructing Bolton Investigation?
Rice Obstructing Bolton Investigation?
Trackback by The Supreme Irony of Life… — April 20th, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
22.
Kindalousy Rice - wow, did she POOCH 9/11. National Security Advisor my aching butt. She’s already proved she will cover up anything - Americans be damned.
Comment by Patriot — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
23.
Well, this discussion has been entertaining to watch…but very sad! The rhetoric and the logic are shallow, childish, silly…few of the comments carry much weight, nothing but a lot of arrogant whining, especially the ‘59mill idiots’ comment! Wake up…..find a different approach because this reactionary venting isn’t convincing. Find some substance!!!
Comment by kris — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
24.
Now is the time to stand and be counted. Hey Dr. Lee……..ONE! Give me a break.
Mark
W………still the PRESIDENT
D……….still the LEADER
Comment by Mark — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:33 pm
25.
bite me kris. I stand by my 59 mil idiots statement.
Comment by kindness — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
26.
Kris, critiquing the banter is fine, but you have added zero to the debate yourself. Where are your substantive comments? I think the discussion illustrates the level of disgust pretty well, and having a forum to vent useful as far as I’m concerned.
It’s arrogant to complain about the problem when you’ve just inserted yourself as an obvious party to it.
Comment by Jay — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
27.
The thing about Democrats is they dont stand up and fight at ALL. No position and act like a dog being kicked by tucking their tal between their legs. Totally playing into “Repugnents” hands. we have a screaming guy from Vermotn leading us to no where again. My vote is put you rmoney and time in Move On and forget the Dems as far as policy goes. The whole point is…hard to stand up when you are standing up with a bunch of p**sys…Man, I really am embarrassed I am a Democrat, we need fresh blood, courage and a clean start…then we can take on the Condi’d. Delay is getting away with this as well…watch and wait.
Comment by rebe — April 20th, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
28.
I hope the 59 Mil idiots get every thing they voted for. Four months into this new term and going down hill fast. My only hope at the end we never hear of the GOP again.
Comment by Willie Loucks — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
29.
CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, CONDI RICE IS A STUPID PERSON. THERE IS NO OTHER WORD FOR HER. SHE IS NOT HALF-BRIGHT, NOT SLOW, SIMPLY STUPID. DON’T GET ME STARTED.
Comment by MICHAEL R. ASHLEY — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:46 pm
30.
Hey Mark - Bush was NEVER a leader - just the spoiled scion of a ruthlessly rich family. David Koresh was more of a leader.
kris - use your real name: Ann Coulter.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
31.
Four months into this new term - look on the bright side - only 3 and a half years left! Just think all the trillions more in national debt that’s not a problem, all the wonderful nominees, the countries yet to invade, the …
Comment by Flamethrower — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
32.
Rebe, part of the problem is, it’s in our mindset to NOT be violent fascist pigs. Claiming to be “moral” and “decent” and “compassionate", then “shedding blood” as an early method to ‘get what you want’ is what THEY do, not us. If you want to make changes for the better, and in a “moral” way, you have to be the part, not just give it lip-service. Republicans talk about “morals", yet let companies set policies that starve a portion of our population, poison people and cause heinous illnesses, and shift production to 3rd worlds where they can use slave labor. We aren’t “pussies", we’re standing on the moral high-ground here. Once it get’s to the point where they (the pugs) get ‘violent’ in a real-world context, belive me.. there will be plenty of us “pussies” content to get out our guns and drive them back to the shadows they came from. But, for now, we have to keep a level head and use facts and persistence to make our point.
As far as Rice’s obstruction, she doesn’t say diddly about “don’t volunteer info", she says she doesn’t want ANY info COMING OUT OF THAT DEPARTMENT.. that’s not saying “hey, only do what you have to", that’s saying “block the info from getting out". That’s criminal.
Anyway, we know nothing will come of it. Our leaders aren’t able to get anything done because the Repugs stole the majority and refuse to lead.. they just want to pass more laws that put more of your tax dollars in the hands of corperations while making sure the richest 2% never pay taxes again..
Comment by Savantster — April 20th, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
33.
Ya know, I think Condi is probably a VERY intelligent person. But she shows us repeatedly that she is more concerned with covering her boss’s ass than she is covering the American people. Now is that unusual in a political situation? NO. Does she owe us more than Bush? I think so but she obviously does not.
Comment by kindness — April 20th, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
34.
Savantster-
Possibly it’s time to rethink that mode of behaviour.
Even though we have a RIGHT WINGED media, and facsists in power, headlines still leak out about Tom DeLay’s criminal activities, Bush clamps down harder on the poor and supresses the truth about terrorism, and STILL morons like this kris idiot want something “substantive.” Any more GD substantive would be debtor’s prison. It’s time to stop being “decent” about it, and give Mark the “break” he so eagerly wants and desperately needs.
ONE.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
35.
Dr. Lee #34
I agree that it’s -almost- time, but we still have to see what’s gonna happen with the voting issues (following the commission closely). If we get some real progress on that front, we can vote the nasty folks out in 2006 and 08, then start repealing the joke laws they put in place.
If we don’t get satisfaction on voting rules, if we don’t get full disclosure on various issues (Plame, Bolton, etc), -then- I’m with ya.. completely..
TWO
Comment by Savantster — April 20th, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
36.
Savantster - it’s “almost” time. Are you kidding? It’s so past time, that on many issues it’s too late.
How’s this for substance:
It is public record that the Bush Administration stonewalled on the 9/11 invesigation and in fact fought to prevent it in the first place. Why?
They tried to keep the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief about “Bin Laden determined to Strike within the US” a secret.
They ignored warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration that terrorism in general and Bin Laden in particular was a grave concern and they did the same when the Richard Clarke’s of the world warned that the system was “flashing red” in the summer of 01.
When the dots are connected, the picture is clear. The Bush people knew that something major was about to happen, yet they did…..nothing.
Bush stays in Crawford after the 8/6 PDB warning and he jets back to D.C. for the bogus Schiavo matter.
What more needs to be said?
Comment by Jason — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
37.
Many thanks to kindness (??), Dr. Lee, Jay and company…you proved my point! I’m not a Repug, simply disappointed with the tone of the response. Jay, sorry bud…my ‘contribution’ is to encourage that we raise the level of discussion beyond ‘bite me’. If we want serious change, then we need serious discussion, not paranoia name-calling and bumper sticker slogans.
Comment by kris — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
38.
Ann: NO “level of discussion” is going to change a DAMN thing. You came in here insulting people to “raise the level of discussion?”
What EXACTLY would make you happy? Kindalousy Rice and the entire Bush “administration” are a bunch of THIEVES that LIE, and I frankly don’t care if you believe it, or not. I don’t have a video taped confession from them.
You’re very welcome - you deserved every bit of it.
Jason - do I hear a “THREE"?
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
39.
Dr. L - It’s a beautiful thing to watch, first you dig your own hole and then bury yourself…no wonder we lost and got stuck with Howard for the future. L stands for Loser. Don’t worry about making me happy, not your job.
Comment by kris — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
40.
Ann: Thanks so much for “raising the level of discussion.”
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
41.
Doesn’t that statute apply even more clearly to Scully’s threat to fire medicare actuary Foster if he revealed his estimate of the cost of the medicare drug benefit?
Comment by Upper West — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
42.
kris, you are burdened by some kind of angst today, eh? Well listen up. We may have lost the election in November. But we haven’t lost our souls. Now I don’t mean that in the religious sense. I mean that in the honor and character sense. Do those things buy or mean anything with this administration? They would probably ask you what your yearly income is, how much you contributed to their party, PACS, etc and then give an answer from that.
That is my point exactly. Rather than spend time flogging ourselves, talking about stuff helps us build on tomorrow. Don’t be so down.
There is always hope (just not with this administration).
Comment by kindness — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
43.
I think that this site is an excellent forum to toss ideas around with all walks. If we keep it civil, ask questions, give reasoned responses and differing opinions….it’s a powerful form of democracy (blogocracy?).
Kris: waste of keystrokes.
Dr. Lee: Fill me in on the meaning of One, Two, Three?
Comment by Jason — April 20th, 2005 @ 5:48 pm
44.
Jason -
I said it was time to stand and be counted (#18).
“Mark” decided that deserved an obnoxious reply (#24)
But I ain’t F***ing kidding - I ‘ve had enough of trying to reason with liars, and started counting (#34)
Savantster thinks it’s still worth while trying to get reason from zealots, but gives a tentative TWO (#35)
It sounds like you agree with me - being truthful with liars has proved pointless - we only lose more ground as the Repugs whine “Liberal press! Liberal press!” when the “liberal press” helped sell the war of conquest in Iraq. The “Liberal press” has forgotten:
Osama Bin Laden
Valery Plame
Max Cleland
Cheney’s energy task force (including Taliban representatives)
anyway…we try to be reasonable - they only get more arrogant and obnoxious. It’s time to stand up and be counted - or be ground asunder.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:03 pm
45.
Welcome to the new Orwellian world. Only the Rovian administration could screw this all up so bad. Dont the neo-cons realize that they are only sending us into a twisted downward spiral of hate and fascism? Wasn’t it US that went to war with Germany for trying to take over other countries? Isnt that why we went to war with Iraq? All this religious re-awakening, massive deception campaigns, and name calling from both sides, is turning america’s “morals” into another bought and sold commodity for the rich and the people with power. Hey KRIS> absolute power corrupts absolutely, and last time i checked people like Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and GW Bush were the heads of the hydra. Not to mention the fact that Rove will make anyone in the government dissappear if they so much as say a nasty comment about our “furher".
Although we all know Condi is guilty of obstruction, and all these other Bush appointent numbskulls are just pieces of Bush and Rove’s lil political gambit, the public KNOWS. We see it, and we cant stop it yet, but we only have to wait till 2006 or until a few SMART republicans start to grow a conscience. Hey its allready happening with the blocking of Bolton, and the hearings for DeLay. They may get away with it now, but there will be more transgressions and they cannot keep chainging the laws and rigging the game forever. The real politicians (the ones who seriously care about why they are where they are) will eventually prevail. That or China will kick our ass.
Comment by Matt — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
46.
Gotcha. I’m in for the Three spot then, wholeheartedly.
The people that appear to stand in the middle and ask for concessions from both sides in order to “elevate” the level of discourse just haven’t done enough reading yet. The Republicans are not screwing around, they play this game to win and they will destroy everything in their paths. I would like to continue on the theme that Dr. Lee started with his list of people/issues that the media has conveniently given short-shrift (ok, so they’ve ignored them)…and start a new list of people that I think have been nothing short of heroic in speaking truth to power:
Barbara Boxer
Richard Clarke
Joe Wilson
Paul O’Neill
Howard Dean
Siebel Edmonds
General Shinseki
Randi Rhodes
etc….
Comment by Jason — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:33 pm
47.
Yay Barbara Boxer!! Proud to have here here in CA.
Comment by Matt — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
48.
I agree wit Maezeppa
Everyone knows that you must be standing squarely behind a man before you can stab him in the back…
Comment by Humphrey Appleby — April 20th, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
49.
“bite me kris. I stand by my 59 mil idiots statement. ”
It is a fake statistic, but don’t let that bother you.
THE LAST ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
I hope that doesn’t disturb your nightmare.
We haven’t had a legal election in five years.
28 states have no paper trail.
Diebold, ES&S, Triad – all have committed FELONIES.
John Kerry won the last election.
Al Gore won the one before him.
Unless we get our voting rights back, game over.
Quoting fake statistics in order to engage in BIGOTRY is just plain stupid.
Comment by Paul in LA — April 20th, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
50.
Why don’t Kris and Dr. Lee and friends develop some maturity and insight - not to mention some appreciation for the King’s or Queen’s English. I am not a fan of Bush - father or son - and am far left of center on issues involving human rights and limitations on government power. I do believe, though, that a ligitimate function of government is the protection of the weak from the rapacity of those holding power. Nothing is accomplished nor is anyone served by “You’re one!", “No, you’re one!” “Nuhun!”
Comment by Avi Noel — April 20th, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
51.
Kindasleezy Wheat should be in jail. Period. Along with most of this embarrasing host of morons called an administration. I’ve seen better performances at a high school play.
Comment by Black Dog — April 20th, 2005 @ 7:26 pm
52.
Some Bush defender above asked for substance. Here is substance: GM posted a billion dollar loss because they ignored the public’s demand for hybrids. Why didn’t GM bother to develop a hybrid? Because they had assurances from the Bush junta that there be plenty of oil for everyone. The public speaks, we the people. There are waiting lists for hybrids in California made by, you guessed it, our Japanese friends. So, party of W’s legacy will be the eventual bankruptcy of one of the largest corporations in the history of the planet. And, if Dopey and the boys eliminate the fillibuster, they better pray that there is never again a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress because they will eviscerate everything Dopey and his gang of whores did in their eight year feeding frenzy. Just sit back and watch the fun. Don’t stress out so much.
Comment by Mark Cannon — April 20th, 2005 @ 9:48 pm
53.
to the bushies out there.how many soldiers died when mr clinton was president.
Comment by dan savitsky — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:00 pm
54.
Rove-induced paranoia about “statesman” Voinovich. Do you think any of these guys really act independently? That would be refreshing, but my concern is that his “orders” were to make the outraged senator statement he did… then, as he recounted in his soliloquoy about Richard Holbrooke, he investigates the charges against Bolton, talks to Bolton, then decides the guy isn’t so bad… and then once he annoints the guy, then the other “hand wringers” like Chafee and Hagel go along with him. And it’s all part of the scheme. OR Voinovich actually showed some true courage and principles; apparently with Democrats muted at every turn, often by their own fear of red statery, our only hope is for Republicans to show some guts.
Comment by Bobbygoode — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
55.
Mark at #52.. try this on for size
guess it matters not
soon you’ll be taxed for the amount of air you breath since the government needs to keep air clean.. Here’s a thought, how about making corperations pay some taxes? Stop giving them all kinds of loop-holes and make them pay for what they get a TON more use out of than the average American..
Comment by Savantster — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:36 pm
56.
I appologize.. my #55 above has a link to where they are trying to tax “per mile driven” instead of “per gallon of gas", based on our shifting to Hybrids soon (since we’ll be out of oil before long)
Comment by Savantster — April 20th, 2005 @ 10:38 pm
57.
#50-
You’ve added……what, besides your opinion?
If I may move on:
We need to be more militant. We need to use there strong suit against them. We need coordinated replies to the STINKING lies we hear over and over, i.e., “liberal media.” This should uniformally answered with a consistent list of media items we would LIKE to see pursued. Just interrupt any GOP windbag as soon as the magic words get said. Another good example would be “liberal lawyers,” answered with a tidy list of GOP lawyers. “Activist judges” should be answered with “rule of law.” They loved it in Florida.
Their pride is their pain.
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:42 pm
58.
Avi Neol:
EXXXXCCCUUUUUSSSSEEEE MEEEEEEEEEEE!
(I used “there” when I should have used “their.” I am but the scum under your shoe. How’s that for insight - like it now? From now on, until I feel redeemed, I am “Intern Lee.")
Comment by Dr. Lee — April 20th, 2005 @ 11:47 pm
59.
Very interesting Savantster. My concern is that there is no ‘them’ to close corporate tax loop holes. People still don’t get it. There is no government. It is ALL corporations. They are not about to raise taxes on themselves. As for getting more militant, we tried that in the ’60’s and they are still chasing us down and throwing us in prison. Remember, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Remember?? As for turning militant now, why bother? All empires end, Alexander, Napolean, Adolf, Bush. It’s time the american empire ended. Perhaps God is just after all. Let justice fall like rain from the sky. Watch the republicans destroy themselves and the country at the same time. What a legacy!!
Comment by Mark Cannon — April 21st, 2005 @ 1:16 am
60.
If you REALLY want to make a difference, instead of arguing with each other on this, or any other site, and start writing letters to the editor of your local paper, register people to vote, contribute to the state party HQ, etc.
We’re exerting an awful lot of energy on these blogs, but are we accomplishing anything, other than irritating each other?
Comment by Georgia Dem — April 21st, 2005 @ 9:04 am
61.
Georgia Dem, your point is well taken but many of us do those things anyway. This is extracurricular activity. A day-to-day ventfest if you will.
Embrace it, enjoy it, have some fun.
Comment by Jay — April 21st, 2005 @ 9:40 am
62.
I don’t mean SDS militant - not just yet, anyway. I mean shutting them up each and every time they start to spout the usual rational-discussion-ending rhetoric, such as the phrase “liberal media.”
One reason those fascists pigs have so many devotees is because they always spoke with one voice. I think a little of what’s good for the goose-step would be good for the gander.
(I’ve had several letters to the Editor printed - didn’t see any big changes. I sent money, and they didn’t spend it on a legal challenge in Ohio. We need to put it to Fox Spews and Flush Dimballs with a unified front.)
Comment by Intern Lee — April 21st, 2005 @ 9:44 am
63.
Georgia Dem
Part of our “problem” is, with the problems in 2000 which caused some concern, we started wondering if our votes actually mattered. People say “of course they do, this is America".. Ok.. so a -lot- of what happened in 2000 around the country looked ok.. it was -mostly- Florida where it came down to “stopped counting votes".
Then you have 2004.. where there is a LOT of evidence to show that the elections were totally hijacked. Several states (all with electronic voting) reported a LOT of problems.. The exit polls (used around the world as an indicator to voting problems.. NOT as a ‘predictor’ of the election like a lot of people believe) indicate a VERY HIGH probability of FRAUD in the 2004 election. Yet, no one is doing anything about that yet either. Because they (neo-cons) were able to slink in in 2000, they got bigger in 2004. Clint Curtis shows that in 2000 they were already working on it.. Also note that the -bulk- of the people against ‘paper trials’ are Repubs and neo-cons and the companies that make the machines. MOST reasonable people think paper is a GOOD idea.. will we get it? probably not for 2006 or 2008. If we don’t fix our “voting", it won’t matter how many people you bring to the polls.. a 30 second exercise by any ONE person can change all that .. flip 100s of thousands of votes (or just change names of the “winners", there’s no way to audit that either).. and without paper trails, there is NO way to verify the original votes.
you see, it’s not about “being active” anymore, it’s about our contry being hijacked by the neo-cons and right-wing fanatics. We have to step in and stop that, and soon.
Comment by Savantster — April 21st, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
64.
To get back to the original question: if she was correctly quoted, then it seems clear she is obstructing an inquiry, which generates a big: “Heavens to Mergatriod! A Bush administration official blatantly breaking the law! What a shock! It’s ALMOST as if….they run the government in secret - despite the American people instead of for the American people. Again: what a shock.”
Comment by “Just plain” Lee — April 21st, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
65.
If you haven’t already read this….I recommend that you do. It is sobering and grave, but I fear all too true:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031005_globalcorp.shtml
Comment by Jason — April 21st, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
66.
OK, some fun: Did someone mention bumper stickers? Here ya go:
B-U-S-H: Beating Up Saddam Hussein
B-U-S-H: Being Unilateral Sure Hurts
B-U-S-H: Belligerence Undermines Safe Homeland
B-U-S-H: BinLaden Unearths Safe Haven
B-U-S-H: Beefing Up the Saudi Hegemony
B-U-S-H: Blatant Use of Spin and Hyperbole
B-U-S-H: Building the United States of Halliburton
Enjoy! -Tubeman
Comment by tubeman — April 21st, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
67.
“you see, it’s not about “being active” anymore, it’s about our contry being hijacked by the neo-cons and right-wing fanatics. We have to step in and stop that, and soon.”
So - now you’re saying “enough is enough"?
Jason - a very sobering read, but not that far from what my paranoid self envisioned. My question is: lot’s of people must know about this, including John Kerry and our last (and probably THE last) freely-elected President of the United States, Bill Clinton. Why do they all stay mum?
Comment by I be Lee — April 21st, 2005 @ 8:24 pm
68.
Stand up and be counted is all well and good and accomplished much in the 19th century.
The game is SO rigged now that if you marched 1,000,000 people on Washington for one week, all you’d have are alot of dead patriots and more crowding of newly built,"privatized” prisons.
All of this ties in with Peak Oil, facism, and the continuing economic extermination of what once was the middle class or as J.P. Morgan called it,
“the nigger buffer". They’ve known about oil depletion for decades and have built dozens of these new private prisons to house the “rabble”
when it comes down to out and out rebellion, debtors prisons, gas rationing, and depression.
Comment by Bruce — April 21st, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
69.
Lee, sure they know about it. Even superhawk ultra-neocon James Woolsey has recently called for conservation and investment in alternative sources of energy (that alone should be sounding the alarm). Kerry touched on the relationship between our oil consumption and having troops stationed in the Middle East long-term, but he didn’t pound that message and I imagine the Bush ads that referenced old legislation to increase the gas tax that Kerry got behind when the economy was strong kept that message at bay. The Kerry campaign did tout a plan for kicking our oil dependence, and for alternative fuels, but they were afraid to make it a prominent issue.
We must have leadership on this issue. The transition to other sources of energy MUST start now. The resistance to these changes is powerful and well-funded….but reality has to be a part of the equation…..right?
I’m terrified for my kids. The future is indeed bleak if our leaders don’t act now!
Comment by Jason — April 21st, 2005 @ 10:10 pm
70.
What difference does voter registration make in a stolen election? We have allowed a non-elected president occupy the White House for going on six years now. What further proof do you need that the system is entirely broken? You cannot work through a broken system. We figured that out when the country re-elected Tricky Dick on the eve of indictment. How do you reason with people who knowingly allowed a crook to lead them? The people who voted for Bush will not understand how wrong they were until their children are slaughtered in some foreign hell hole and the official language of America is Spanish. It’s coming folks!
Comment by Mark Cannon — April 21st, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
71.
First of all, that woman has proven that her first and only job is to cover Bush’s rear end. She got up in front of the 9-11 commission and blatantly LIED. Why she’s not in a jail cell, preferably Guantanamo Bay, is beyond me. For her lies, Bush promoted her to Secretary of State because Colin Powell wasn’t going to do another term with people he has been quoted as describing “f****** crazies,” in which I believe him to be absolutely right. And now, in addition to frightening off anyone who might have “information which could adversely affect the nomination,” Congressman Henry Waxman is now trying to find out why “Secretary Rice” is withholding data from the Annual Terrorism Report of 2004. Of course, it’s painfully obvious WHY that’s happening: it’s a report which shows although the State Department touted having the “lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969,” Secretary Rice is trying to hide the fact that the REAL numbers show a 20-YEAR-HIGH, and which proves once again that Bush and his administration is LYING TO AMERICA, and she doesn’t want her meal ticket to look bad. Too late.
Lose Bolton. Ask questions. Seek the truth.
Comment by THE SHADOWDRAGON — April 22nd, 2005 @ 6:08 am
72.
I think they put assholes like Bolton out front to take the heat of them and their criminal activities. At least we have someone in the Intel community who knows how to run a right-wing death squad. Negroponte should be in an Latin American jail. These bastards are simply out of control.
Comment by Lee — April 22nd, 2005 @ 9:58 am
73.
Well, why don’t we just wait for Herr Gonzales to order the Justice Department to investigate this? He has sworn to uphold the law, & he wouldn’t weasel out of that, would he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
