wArSHINtuHN--This is yet-another lie propagated by the White House. AP underscores it in an interesting article today, headlined "Real deadline for Iraq war money is May." That's right, the president is lying again. The Pentagon can shift-funds within their $1 trillion budget (overall, almost 4% of our GDP goes to the Pentagon, unhealthy for any developed nation) without any problems until late-May, early-June. It appears that it will be May, since the House is now on-vacation/in-recess until April 16th.
In fact, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July. Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships. ...Such criticism was scarce when the GOP-controlled Congress was tardy in providing war dollars last year. At the time, there was a warning about "serious impacts" if the money was delayed further, but it came in a little-noticed letter from the White House budget office. Congress ignored the warning and went on vacation. (AP, 03.31.2007)
So, what's the difference now? If the White House can secure these funds immediately, they insure that the next administration still has to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They want to insure that we don't end a war under a GOP-administration again, just as it did in Vietnam. It's also to make sure that the war doesn't inflict the maximum-damage on the Bush administration and its legacy...what little there is.
George W. Bush--your president--wanted this additional-funding to pass around March 23rd. Not only isn't he going to get it in March, but this writer wagers it won't pass in April either. Why? The Democrats have everything to gain by letting it sit and wait until May, or even June. From maintaining a majority in Congress after 2008, to taking the White House, they seem poised to keep rewriting the bill until it's something the American public can stomach. Not passing it at all would do that job, and Bush's veto stands as a hollow-threat without any teeth or gain for its holder. You cannot make a signing-statement without a bill that's passed Congress, can you?
What more can the average American think except, "Don't pass the budget, not ever"? The majority feel this way, and as much as the mainstream media tries, it's not going to change the opinion of 2/3rd's of the public that the war in Iraq must end in 2007, 2008 at-the-latest. By tipping-his-hand and balking at a March, 2008 timetable for withdrawal, George W. Bush has told us everything we need to know. He doesn't want the war to end during his second-term, not while he's in-office.
For that reason alone, we must go that route, because anything this group of criminals doesn't want us to do is going to be the correct route. It will signal their end, and the ability to prosecute them--in or out-of-office. For those who wish impeachment, remember that it closes all-doors for further criminal prosecution. Bush's whining about passing this military appropriations bill is just-that, and a callous political-game that he has played with our lives and the lives of American troops all-along.
AP:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_go_co/iraq_funding_deadline;_ylt=Ar05KzAKaEtlzlqoBDGd3iiWwvIE
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
THE DEBATE THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN HAS A DATE: MAY 4TH, SALT LAKE CITY
Salt Lake City, Utah--Sean Hannity has done it again--opened his big, dumb, ugly American mouth again. This-time, SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson, who was talking on Doug Wright's KSL show via telephone. A call was made to Hannity.
Wow, what incredible wit by Fox's best (snicker). At least Hannity has over one month to prepare to have his ass- hipped. Rumors have it that he refuses to pay for his plane flight there--it has to be paid for by...whom? Probably KSL, but why do I think this little shithead wants to foist it on the people of Utah? Then, he can say, "It's the fault of mayor Anderson that people's tax dollars were used to fund this debate." Yeah, but it was all your idea, moron...
Oh sure, the subliterate on the right are already claiming "victory," just as they did in Iraq four-years-ago exactly. In total-seriousness: Hannity will have his ass creamed, he's dealing with a man who debates other politicians for a living. Anderson has done it his entire life. As far as anyone can tell, Sean Hannity is an expert on nothing. He looks like a lowlife hustler, a mental gimp, a walking, breathing gaffe.
This makes him radically smarter than his fanbase--all ten of them, flipping stations, surfing. Ratings are a sham on Fox News. When you look at the fact that Fox forces cable companies to carry Fox News in-order to carry their other programming, what you have is a captive audience that never chose them, never summoned their existence.
If the debate happens on May 4th (or whenever), this writer will be amazed. This will be one of the few times any of the Foxtrolls have ventured out of their little studio hovels. The reasons are clear: it isn't their turf, they won't have control of the questions, the parameters, the timing (no advertisements to cut-to), and no strawdog opponents. This will be one of the first genuine debates between a Fox commentator and a real person from the left. They can claim victory all they want, and they'll make sure that coverage is scanty, or heavily-edited, if Hannity is beaten down. This is one of life's few certainties--and the fact that Sean Hannity is going to lose miserably.
The Rocky-Hannity encounter came unexpectedly today, arising out of [a] call the mayor initiated to the Doug Wright Show. When the mayor accused Hannity of ignoring his requests for a rescheduled debate, KSL put in a call to Hannity. The Fox News commentator responded. "Is the mayor really there or is he holding a protest or having a press conference?" Hannity asked KSL. "He's right here," Doug Wright responded. "Hey, Sean, I'm right here doing the city's business," the mayor said. "Oh, it's about time," Hannity quipped.
(Salt Lake Tribune, 03.29.2007)
Wow, what incredible wit by Fox's best (snicker). At least Hannity has over one month to prepare to have his ass- hipped. Rumors have it that he refuses to pay for his plane flight there--it has to be paid for by...whom? Probably KSL, but why do I think this little shithead wants to foist it on the people of Utah? Then, he can say, "It's the fault of mayor Anderson that people's tax dollars were used to fund this debate." Yeah, but it was all your idea, moron...
Oh sure, the subliterate on the right are already claiming "victory," just as they did in Iraq four-years-ago exactly. In total-seriousness: Hannity will have his ass creamed, he's dealing with a man who debates other politicians for a living. Anderson has done it his entire life. As far as anyone can tell, Sean Hannity is an expert on nothing. He looks like a lowlife hustler, a mental gimp, a walking, breathing gaffe.
This makes him radically smarter than his fanbase--all ten of them, flipping stations, surfing. Ratings are a sham on Fox News. When you look at the fact that Fox forces cable companies to carry Fox News in-order to carry their other programming, what you have is a captive audience that never chose them, never summoned their existence.
If the debate happens on May 4th (or whenever), this writer will be amazed. This will be one of the few times any of the Foxtrolls have ventured out of their little studio hovels. The reasons are clear: it isn't their turf, they won't have control of the questions, the parameters, the timing (no advertisements to cut-to), and no strawdog opponents. This will be one of the first genuine debates between a Fox commentator and a real person from the left. They can claim victory all they want, and they'll make sure that coverage is scanty, or heavily-edited, if Hannity is beaten down. This is one of life's few certainties--and the fact that Sean Hannity is going to lose miserably.
The Salt Lake Tribune Yesterday:
Thursday, March 29, 2007
LET THE SHOWDOWN CONTINUE: SENATE OKS 2008 MILITARY APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET
Washington D.C.--And so, without the 2/3rd's majority vote, no compromises on the provisions and amendments, this budget is doomed. We can be thankful. For once, President Bush finally has to use a veto for what it's used for--a genuinely adversarial-relationship between the Executive and Congress. The vote was 51-47, and is primarily along partisan lines. This is good for a democracy, and the deadlock ensures there will be no budget for further-incursions and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as the much hoped-for invasion of Iran.
Speaking of vetoes: Both China and Russia will veto any military adventures against Iran in the UN Security Council. This is what the UN is for, mainly. It exists to check the power of renegade nations like the United States. It's there to check the powers of any nation or regime that aspires to violate the sovereignty of another nation. Again, please, do veto this appropriations bill, Mr. President. It's the one decent act of your entire pointless, destructive, and annoying tenure in the office you stole. Go away. Most sensible Americans never wanted you in the White House, and we should have had general strikes to remove you back in 2000. Your time is long-overdue for removal. The time is now to do it.
Speaking of vetoes: Both China and Russia will veto any military adventures against Iran in the UN Security Council. This is what the UN is for, mainly. It exists to check the power of renegade nations like the United States. It's there to check the powers of any nation or regime that aspires to violate the sovereignty of another nation. Again, please, do veto this appropriations bill, Mr. President. It's the one decent act of your entire pointless, destructive, and annoying tenure in the office you stole. Go away. Most sensible Americans never wanted you in the White House, and we should have had general strikes to remove you back in 2000. Your time is long-overdue for removal. The time is now to do it.
SAMPSON SLAYS THE DAGON-WORSHIPPING PHILISTINES: FORMER AIDE CONFIMS PREEMPTIVE RELEASE THAT GONZALES AND MIERS APPROVED THE US ATTORNEY FIRINGS
"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions about US attorney removals is accurate." --D. Kyle Sampson today, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AFP, 03.29.2007)
Washington D.C.--What a day it was (or wasn't if you're in the GOP)! As predicted, Arlen Specter came-out-swinging at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former-chief of staff, one D. Kyle Sampson. It has nothing-to-do with the fact that this is all surrounding his party, and the time he chaired the Judiciary Committee. Not at all. The irony is that Sampson commented he didn't think the firings were aimed-at ending corruption investigations that "hurt the administration." Afterwards, the goats will be slain.
Well sure, it wasn't so much that it hurt the administration as it really hurt the GOP and those corrupt politicians within the party-structure. That would include the Bush administration, but really doesn't, says the GOP and their allies in the mainstream press. Marx Brothers logic ensues. Gonzales hasn't gotten this kind of treatment from GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee before, as I previously-stated in this piece, but as Iraq worsens (and with it, their chances of re-election in 2008) they're going to grill him. Odd that that's what it takes: just some raw, ugly, empty political reality, re-election. Not something silly like the Constitution, not due-process and the upholding of the law, or even basic oversight. Not even some obscure appeal to patriotism. This also makes many of them criminally-minded in Congress.
And again, that's why it was New Mexico's Republican Sen. Domenici and Rep. Heather A. Wilson who pressured US Attorney David Iglesias to step-it-up on an investigation of a Democratic state politician--the White House was acting-on their 19th Century spoils policy of cronyism by complying to aid in the effort. As for the firing of Caroline Lam, the US Attorney who sank California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, sending him to prison, it was a case of simple payback to fire her. She did her job too-well, and the White House through Rove, Miers, and Gonzales, facilitated the firings. It will be interesting to see who else initiated the reasoning behind these firings, and attempted to intrude on the investigative process. They should be investigated for this kind of unethical-behavior if there is smoke.
The Justice Department admitted Wednesday that it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove's role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney's post in Arkansas for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin. Justice officials acknowledged that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark. Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that certain statements in last month's letter to Democratic lawmakers appeared to be "contradicted by department documents included in our production." That admission, only hours before Sampson's testimony, took some of the sting out of Democrats' key pieces of evidence that the administration had misled Congress. Still, Sampson provided plenty of fodder. (AP, 03.29.2007)
I don't detect any "sting" being taken-out, as most of this is news to everyone today. It begs the question too-loudly. Another assertion that seems unfounded is that none of the firings were motivated by a desire to protect the White House--a bald-lie. There was discussion about whether to terminate Fitzgerald's job, but it was wisely dropped. However, Sampson and everyone else has been wrong here too.
With the evidence we now already have--totalling some 3,283 pages--it's become obvious that the White House cannot be trusted on their word with anything and warrant thorough investigations.This would apply to all-levels of their authority, including foreign policy. We already know about the domestic-side, just ask people in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans and all the FEMA-camps. We also know that our rights have been rolled-back under the Patriot Acts. To their credit, the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress have been chipping-away at these provisions. Expect more. Reuters had this to report:
"Others in (the Justice) Department knew what I knew about the origins and timing of this enterprise," said Sampson, who Gonzales has largely blamed for the furor over the firings.But Sampson conceded he failed to help organize a more effective department response to questions from Congress earlier this year. The dismissals have triggered a firestorm, fanned by charges that the firings may have been politically motivated, as well as calls for Gonzales to step down.The administration contends the firings were justified and based largely on performance or policy difference. But recently disclosed documents also show loyalty to the administration was a factor. (Reuters, 03.29.2007)
It's interesting that Gonzales and Specter are saying the same-thing: the scandal is Sampson's fault. Why exactly is that? He didn't initiate the process, and as he stated today in hearings under oath, he didn't have the authority to do the signing-off on the actions regarding the US Attorney "hit-list." More documents and emails will be forthcoming, and they will continue to illustrate vibrantly that the Bush administration and her allies in Congress are hopelessly corrupt, and prosecutable.
Arlen Specter will continue to feign "disappointment," while everyone knows that he helped create the whole mess. That's why he's still forced to defend the Bush administration--his past-complicity with them. The most-efficient criminal enterprises suck people into their web by making them fellow travellers and co-conspirators. They make them facilitators, defenders, and advocates because they have them blackmailed with something.
Lawmakers want to shed light on why the eight US attorneys -- powerful local and regional prosecutors appointed by the president -- were fired, even as several of them were in the middle of sensitive corruption investigations."The purpose of today's hearing is not to find a smoking gun. The purpose is to build a factual base and to continue to figure out what went on," said Democratic Senator Charles Schumer. Eyebrows were raised over Gonzales's role in the affair this week when another top aide, Monica Goodling, said she would refuse to testify fearing prosecution. (AFP, 03.29.2007)
The question with Arlen Specter, John McCain, Boehner, and all the others is this: what exactly is it that they have on them? US Attorneys are a nexus to all of this, because they are the ones who can investigate and uproot corruption by office-holders, including the Executive and all inclusive within that branch. They are part of that branch, but this scandal underscores why they must be politically insulated--to keep the law supreme above all. Yesterday, in Chicago, Gonzales "ducked out" of a press conference after three-questions regarding the US Attorney firings were fielded. The affair was supposed to last 15-minutes, and one of the questions regarded the fact that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had been on the list of candidates to fire. (Chicago Sun-Times, 03.28.2007) The thaw is here.
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
Reuters Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc_4;_ylt=Ai7o8PtX6JSUOzNqq2fNxn6WwvIE
AFP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070329/pl_afp/usjusticepolitics_070329183114;_ylt=AplDrOu6F7JzeZ.H0EuXROeWwvIE
The Chicago Sun-Times Yesterday: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/316023,CST-NWS-attygen28.article
Washington D.C.--What a day it was (or wasn't if you're in the GOP)! As predicted, Arlen Specter came-out-swinging at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former-chief of staff, one D. Kyle Sampson. It has nothing-to-do with the fact that this is all surrounding his party, and the time he chaired the Judiciary Committee. Not at all. The irony is that Sampson commented he didn't think the firings were aimed-at ending corruption investigations that "hurt the administration." Afterwards, the goats will be slain.
Well sure, it wasn't so much that it hurt the administration as it really hurt the GOP and those corrupt politicians within the party-structure. That would include the Bush administration, but really doesn't, says the GOP and their allies in the mainstream press. Marx Brothers logic ensues. Gonzales hasn't gotten this kind of treatment from GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee before, as I previously-stated in this piece, but as Iraq worsens (and with it, their chances of re-election in 2008) they're going to grill him. Odd that that's what it takes: just some raw, ugly, empty political reality, re-election. Not something silly like the Constitution, not due-process and the upholding of the law, or even basic oversight. Not even some obscure appeal to patriotism. This also makes many of them criminally-minded in Congress.
And again, that's why it was New Mexico's Republican Sen. Domenici and Rep. Heather A. Wilson who pressured US Attorney David Iglesias to step-it-up on an investigation of a Democratic state politician--the White House was acting-on their 19th Century spoils policy of cronyism by complying to aid in the effort. As for the firing of Caroline Lam, the US Attorney who sank California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, sending him to prison, it was a case of simple payback to fire her. She did her job too-well, and the White House through Rove, Miers, and Gonzales, facilitated the firings. It will be interesting to see who else initiated the reasoning behind these firings, and attempted to intrude on the investigative process. They should be investigated for this kind of unethical-behavior if there is smoke.
The Justice Department admitted Wednesday that it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove's role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney's post in Arkansas for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin. Justice officials acknowledged that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark. Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that certain statements in last month's letter to Democratic lawmakers appeared to be "contradicted by department documents included in our production." That admission, only hours before Sampson's testimony, took some of the sting out of Democrats' key pieces of evidence that the administration had misled Congress. Still, Sampson provided plenty of fodder. (AP, 03.29.2007)
I don't detect any "sting" being taken-out, as most of this is news to everyone today. It begs the question too-loudly. Another assertion that seems unfounded is that none of the firings were motivated by a desire to protect the White House--a bald-lie. There was discussion about whether to terminate Fitzgerald's job, but it was wisely dropped. However, Sampson and everyone else has been wrong here too.
With the evidence we now already have--totalling some 3,283 pages--it's become obvious that the White House cannot be trusted on their word with anything and warrant thorough investigations.This would apply to all-levels of their authority, including foreign policy. We already know about the domestic-side, just ask people in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans and all the FEMA-camps. We also know that our rights have been rolled-back under the Patriot Acts. To their credit, the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress have been chipping-away at these provisions. Expect more. Reuters had this to report:
"Others in (the Justice) Department knew what I knew about the origins and timing of this enterprise," said Sampson, who Gonzales has largely blamed for the furor over the firings.But Sampson conceded he failed to help organize a more effective department response to questions from Congress earlier this year. The dismissals have triggered a firestorm, fanned by charges that the firings may have been politically motivated, as well as calls for Gonzales to step down.The administration contends the firings were justified and based largely on performance or policy difference. But recently disclosed documents also show loyalty to the administration was a factor. (Reuters, 03.29.2007)
It's interesting that Gonzales and Specter are saying the same-thing: the scandal is Sampson's fault. Why exactly is that? He didn't initiate the process, and as he stated today in hearings under oath, he didn't have the authority to do the signing-off on the actions regarding the US Attorney "hit-list." More documents and emails will be forthcoming, and they will continue to illustrate vibrantly that the Bush administration and her allies in Congress are hopelessly corrupt, and prosecutable.
Arlen Specter will continue to feign "disappointment," while everyone knows that he helped create the whole mess. That's why he's still forced to defend the Bush administration--his past-complicity with them. The most-efficient criminal enterprises suck people into their web by making them fellow travellers and co-conspirators. They make them facilitators, defenders, and advocates because they have them blackmailed with something.
Lawmakers want to shed light on why the eight US attorneys -- powerful local and regional prosecutors appointed by the president -- were fired, even as several of them were in the middle of sensitive corruption investigations."The purpose of today's hearing is not to find a smoking gun. The purpose is to build a factual base and to continue to figure out what went on," said Democratic Senator Charles Schumer. Eyebrows were raised over Gonzales's role in the affair this week when another top aide, Monica Goodling, said she would refuse to testify fearing prosecution. (AFP, 03.29.2007)
The question with Arlen Specter, John McCain, Boehner, and all the others is this: what exactly is it that they have on them? US Attorneys are a nexus to all of this, because they are the ones who can investigate and uproot corruption by office-holders, including the Executive and all inclusive within that branch. They are part of that branch, but this scandal underscores why they must be politically insulated--to keep the law supreme above all. Yesterday, in Chicago, Gonzales "ducked out" of a press conference after three-questions regarding the US Attorney firings were fielded. The affair was supposed to last 15-minutes, and one of the questions regarded the fact that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had been on the list of candidates to fire. (Chicago Sun-Times, 03.28.2007) The thaw is here.
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
Reuters Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc_4;_ylt=Ai7o8PtX6JSUOzNqq2fNxn6WwvIE
AFP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070329/pl_afp/usjusticepolitics_070329183114;_ylt=AplDrOu6F7JzeZ.H0EuXROeWwvIE
The Chicago Sun-Times Yesterday: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/316023,CST-NWS-attygen28.article
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
CINDY SHEEHAN SLAMS DNC AND MOVEON.ORG AGAIN
MICHAELMOORE.COM--I have to admit, she's been swaying me on this, though it wasn't difficult. This really nails my own experience at-the-hands of Moveon.org: "MoveOn is an autocratic organization run by a small group of elitist wannabe power-brokers; it cannot be reformed, but you can let their politburo know your feelings." I figured having just Pariser's email at the bottom was fine. He must have gotten the blow-job from the brunette-harpie I encountered at their staged-event here in South Bend in June of last-year.
Eli, you are a 27-year-old little prick. You're playing a deadly-game with the lives of American soliders and Iraqis, helping to prolong this stupid war. Like the majority of America, I want the war to end now, and to be defunded now. I understand that the votes aren't there in Congress yet--so why aren't you applying the proper pressure? You're a phony, and a liar. Quit sending me your dumb emails. This is your little ride, your ego-game, and it's begun to end. As you probably know by now, the ride will stop and people will no-longer be giving money to your dubious organization. Siding with hawks isn't working for peace, but at least you got several blow-jobs and your laundry done, as well as some home-cooking. Strangely, there are a lot of women who probably look-up to you, which is weird and simian...
Why do women love men who are completely wrongheaded? Because these men always show an egomaniacal certainty and a cocksureness, that's why. Well, stupid men and women play this dance, yes. Being uncertain of yourself is being mature, it's called being self-critical. The problem here is that the so-called "progressive movement" also contains people who are authoritarian-minded (leaders and followers) and conformist--you need leaders when you all really need to be growing-a-pair and being leaders yourselves. There can be no one--or even a core--of people who has all the answers. We all collectively have the answers, and that is the path we must take. Find your cause and your path, and take it, nobody can tell you that there is just one way. Please, Move-on, dot-org.
Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MOVEON.ORG: eli@moveon.org
Eli, you are a 27-year-old little prick. You're playing a deadly-game with the lives of American soliders and Iraqis, helping to prolong this stupid war. Like the majority of America, I want the war to end now, and to be defunded now. I understand that the votes aren't there in Congress yet--so why aren't you applying the proper pressure? You're a phony, and a liar. Quit sending me your dumb emails. This is your little ride, your ego-game, and it's begun to end. As you probably know by now, the ride will stop and people will no-longer be giving money to your dubious organization. Siding with hawks isn't working for peace, but at least you got several blow-jobs and your laundry done, as well as some home-cooking. Strangely, there are a lot of women who probably look-up to you, which is weird and simian...
Why do women love men who are completely wrongheaded? Because these men always show an egomaniacal certainty and a cocksureness, that's why. Well, stupid men and women play this dance, yes. Being uncertain of yourself is being mature, it's called being self-critical. The problem here is that the so-called "progressive movement" also contains people who are authoritarian-minded (leaders and followers) and conformist--you need leaders when you all really need to be growing-a-pair and being leaders yourselves. There can be no one--or even a core--of people who has all the answers. We all collectively have the answers, and that is the path we must take. Find your cause and your path, and take it, nobody can tell you that there is just one way. Please, Move-on, dot-org.
Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MOVEON.ORG: eli@moveon.org
Monday, March 26, 2007
Da-Da-DAH!: GONZALES' LEGAL COUNSEL AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO PLEAD THE FIFTH (NOT BEETHOVEN'S)
Washington D.C.--This won't be the first time, and it won't be the last time. Why bother when the Judiciary committees already have Sampson, Gonzales' former-chief of staff? I worried when I saw this headline at yahoo, but felt relieved when it was only this underling, one Monica Goodling. When you have to plead the Fifth, you're basically cornered.
Goodling, who is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, took a leave of absence this month. She was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides. There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February. Dowd said that a senior Justice Department official had told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying. (AP, 03.26.2007)
Yep, cornered. Somehow, I think she'll be getting a subpoena from the House next, there will be a lot more legal-wrangling, and she'll finally capitulate when confronted with other evidence. For this, if it's found to be true that she aided-and-abetted Gonzales and the White House in a criminal conspiracy, she's going to want to talk-and-talk-and-talk. They won't be able to shut her up.
What's interesting is that in other searches by this site, Goodling is described as, " MONICA GOODLING, SPOKESWOMAN FOR THE JUSTICE." This is from a March, 26th, 2004 DOJ press-release on the partial-birth abortion ban:
As President Bush has said, this law ‘will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America.’ The Justice Department will be working hard during these trials to fulfill the goal of the President and Congress to protect innocent new life from the practice of partial-birth abortion. (DOJ.gov, 03.26.2004)
So, it could be nothing, but it appears they were shifting Monica around to various-jobs at the DOJ, at least since 2004. Surely, it's more cronyism--perhaps her daddy gave the Bush campaign several-hundred thousand, or there was an endowment given to the GOP. It bears investigation, but it appears that the Senate is going to put the pressure on her and that we're all going to learn a lot about Monica Goodling in the next-few-weeks. Do you think she ever lied as a "spokeswoman"?
Like other Bush hacks, she seems to wear a lot of hats that don't entirely correspond with her titles, and she's doing considerable multi-tasking. It begs the question of whether the Bush administration has been attempting to construct a parallel-government within our own through their own system of networking that began before their occupation of our federal bureaucracy. Saturday brought these facts to everyone's attention, from 283 more-pages released from the DOJ the day-before. It all began when Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.) sent a letter of concern over the firing of US Attorney Carol Lam, the prosecutor who nailed former GOP-rep Randy "Duke" Cunningham:
The day after Seidel reported Feinstein's concerns to Justice officials including White House liaison Monica Goodling, Goodling fired off an e-mail to aides with the subject line "I hear there is a letter from Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago." "I need it ASAP. Can you pull from your system ASAP and e-mail to me?" says the e-mail. It's not clear from the documents what letter Goodling was referring to. Aides sent her a Feinstein communication about an abduction case involving someone with Philippines citizenship, but Goodling replied, "This isn't the right letter. Please keep looking." (AP, 03.24.2007)
It's thought that the letter might contain criticism of Lam's region for too-few prosecutions, so Goodling was possibly hunting for ammunition to use against Feinstein. If this is so, it's an incredible and illegal misuse of the federal bureaucracy, though it would hardly be the first time.Today, Arianna Huffington suggested impeaching Gonzales as AG--a fine idea! It would hasten the flow-of-evidence in the investigations, and bring us all closer to ridding-ourselves of a constitutional crisis that has been with us since 2000. Pleading the Fifth means the end is near for you. That "leave of absence" will be permanent. Bank on it.
Monica Goodling in 2004: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/March/04_opa_189.htm
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
AP March, 24th, 2007: http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/143541.html
Goodling, who is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, took a leave of absence this month. She was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides. There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February. Dowd said that a senior Justice Department official had told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying. (AP, 03.26.2007)
Yep, cornered. Somehow, I think she'll be getting a subpoena from the House next, there will be a lot more legal-wrangling, and she'll finally capitulate when confronted with other evidence. For this, if it's found to be true that she aided-and-abetted Gonzales and the White House in a criminal conspiracy, she's going to want to talk-and-talk-and-talk. They won't be able to shut her up.
What's interesting is that in other searches by this site, Goodling is described as, " MONICA GOODLING, SPOKESWOMAN FOR THE JUSTICE." This is from a March, 26th, 2004 DOJ press-release on the partial-birth abortion ban:
As President Bush has said, this law ‘will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America.’ The Justice Department will be working hard during these trials to fulfill the goal of the President and Congress to protect innocent new life from the practice of partial-birth abortion. (DOJ.gov, 03.26.2004)
So, it could be nothing, but it appears they were shifting Monica around to various-jobs at the DOJ, at least since 2004. Surely, it's more cronyism--perhaps her daddy gave the Bush campaign several-hundred thousand, or there was an endowment given to the GOP. It bears investigation, but it appears that the Senate is going to put the pressure on her and that we're all going to learn a lot about Monica Goodling in the next-few-weeks. Do you think she ever lied as a "spokeswoman"?
Like other Bush hacks, she seems to wear a lot of hats that don't entirely correspond with her titles, and she's doing considerable multi-tasking. It begs the question of whether the Bush administration has been attempting to construct a parallel-government within our own through their own system of networking that began before their occupation of our federal bureaucracy. Saturday brought these facts to everyone's attention, from 283 more-pages released from the DOJ the day-before. It all began when Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.) sent a letter of concern over the firing of US Attorney Carol Lam, the prosecutor who nailed former GOP-rep Randy "Duke" Cunningham:
The day after Seidel reported Feinstein's concerns to Justice officials including White House liaison Monica Goodling, Goodling fired off an e-mail to aides with the subject line "I hear there is a letter from Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago." "I need it ASAP. Can you pull from your system ASAP and e-mail to me?" says the e-mail. It's not clear from the documents what letter Goodling was referring to. Aides sent her a Feinstein communication about an abduction case involving someone with Philippines citizenship, but Goodling replied, "This isn't the right letter. Please keep looking." (AP, 03.24.2007)
It's thought that the letter might contain criticism of Lam's region for too-few prosecutions, so Goodling was possibly hunting for ammunition to use against Feinstein. If this is so, it's an incredible and illegal misuse of the federal bureaucracy, though it would hardly be the first time.Today, Arianna Huffington suggested impeaching Gonzales as AG--a fine idea! It would hasten the flow-of-evidence in the investigations, and bring us all closer to ridding-ourselves of a constitutional crisis that has been with us since 2000. Pleading the Fifth means the end is near for you. That "leave of absence" will be permanent. Bank on it.
Monica Goodling in 2004: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/March/04_opa_189.htm
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
AP March, 24th, 2007: http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/143541.html
Phil Spector
"I sold out for a pittance. It was shit, ridiculous, around $60,000. I didn't want to but I had to. Let me tell you, I couldn't live with Phillip . . . I just wanted the fuck out of there. If I wouldn't have, I would have killed him. It wasn't worth the aggravation."--Lester Sill, former business partner with Phil Spector in the Philles label.
Can we say loser saint? No, not Dave Mustaine, but Phil Spector. This little-asshole literally had Eden handed to him by the Fates, becoming a music-mogul in his twenties...and he fucked-it-up. Yes, he was the only-person who would pay for Lenny Bruce's burial, which is a pretty resounding statement on all the people who abandoned Lenny, but it's not good enough to redeem Spector. Being addicted-to-speed for over forty-years, one could imagine that Phil is gone. He was definitely psychotic once he had fame, but then he had to add amphetamine to the mix (pun intended).
It had to have begun around 64'-65' when the British invasion was basically kicking-the-shit out of the so-so R&B and rock-singles he engineered. Sometimes, he wrote a few of the songs he produced. Usually, he ripped people off and mistreated them, but that's typical of the thankfully dying music industry. He was no Sonny Bono, but at least Sonny was a real tree-hugger at the end. The "wall of sound" approach was over-hyped. While it's clever to have two-or-three bassists, guitarists, and whatnot to make for a "symphonic-sound," it sounded awfully dirty. Take Spector's remixing of the Let it Be sessions: the arrangements are overwrought and syrupy, and the tape-hiss sounds like someone was frying-chicken and it leaked into the masters. Les Paul's invention of multi-track (aka "sound-on-sound recording") has been infinitely more lasting and revolutionary to music.
In-case you didn't know it, Phil Spector is in the beginning sequence of Easy Rider. That's him buying "the powder" from Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper's characters by some airport runway. One has to wonder if it's a direct reference to the fact that Spector was a speed-freak, but the substance in the film is supposed to be cocaine. What do I think happened at his Castle mansion? I think he met up with Lanna Clarkson at the House of Blues location that he owns in L.A., and on the way to his home, an argument began. Who cares what it was over? It was an argument, and Spector is well-known for his paranoia. He began to escalate in his paranoia of Clarkson--he felt threatened by her for some reason, probably sexually. By the time they reached the Castle, he was in a state of acute paranoia, and while his chauffeur was outside, shot Clarkson spontaneously in the face. Phil is one sick man.
History: Spector pulled a pistol on the Ramones when they were doing their one album with him, End of the Century, in 1980. Spector held a gun to Dee Dee Ramone's head over too many takes with his bass-part. That's just one-of-many incidents, and the list is endless. So, on April 16th, 2007, the trial's voir dire is scheduled by the court. The trial is likely to expose that Phil Spector has been insane for decades--a minimum of thirty years--and that he has been a meth-addict for longer. It's a sad end, but who did this to him but himself? Clarkson wasn't a great actress, but she was a person, and she was only 40. She was good-looking, and by all accounts, a charming woman. At the very least, Spector is responsible in a civil sense for her death in his home. A human being is dead, and someone has to answer the "whys." Only Phil Spector knows the truth.
He strangely asserts that Clarkson shot herself spontaneously once they had entered his manse. It just doesn't wash, and you have to be wary of the statements of anyone who denigrates the victim who is no longer alive to contradict their potential murderer. The innocent don't assassinate the lives and memories of someone who has died violently. Good people don't do that. The Wagner of Rock, indeed. By referring to his possible victim to his first police interrogators as "a piece-of-shit," he's established that he has no regard for the loss of life of Lana Clarkson. Read some of the police transcript at www.thesmokinggun.com, it's pretty bizarre and unsettling, just like its subject.
Can we say loser saint? No, not Dave Mustaine, but Phil Spector. This little-asshole literally had Eden handed to him by the Fates, becoming a music-mogul in his twenties...and he fucked-it-up. Yes, he was the only-person who would pay for Lenny Bruce's burial, which is a pretty resounding statement on all the people who abandoned Lenny, but it's not good enough to redeem Spector. Being addicted-to-speed for over forty-years, one could imagine that Phil is gone. He was definitely psychotic once he had fame, but then he had to add amphetamine to the mix (pun intended).
It had to have begun around 64'-65' when the British invasion was basically kicking-the-shit out of the so-so R&B and rock-singles he engineered. Sometimes, he wrote a few of the songs he produced. Usually, he ripped people off and mistreated them, but that's typical of the thankfully dying music industry. He was no Sonny Bono, but at least Sonny was a real tree-hugger at the end. The "wall of sound" approach was over-hyped. While it's clever to have two-or-three bassists, guitarists, and whatnot to make for a "symphonic-sound," it sounded awfully dirty. Take Spector's remixing of the Let it Be sessions: the arrangements are overwrought and syrupy, and the tape-hiss sounds like someone was frying-chicken and it leaked into the masters. Les Paul's invention of multi-track (aka "sound-on-sound recording") has been infinitely more lasting and revolutionary to music.
In-case you didn't know it, Phil Spector is in the beginning sequence of Easy Rider. That's him buying "the powder" from Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper's characters by some airport runway. One has to wonder if it's a direct reference to the fact that Spector was a speed-freak, but the substance in the film is supposed to be cocaine. What do I think happened at his Castle mansion? I think he met up with Lanna Clarkson at the House of Blues location that he owns in L.A., and on the way to his home, an argument began. Who cares what it was over? It was an argument, and Spector is well-known for his paranoia. He began to escalate in his paranoia of Clarkson--he felt threatened by her for some reason, probably sexually. By the time they reached the Castle, he was in a state of acute paranoia, and while his chauffeur was outside, shot Clarkson spontaneously in the face. Phil is one sick man.
History: Spector pulled a pistol on the Ramones when they were doing their one album with him, End of the Century, in 1980. Spector held a gun to Dee Dee Ramone's head over too many takes with his bass-part. That's just one-of-many incidents, and the list is endless. So, on April 16th, 2007, the trial's voir dire is scheduled by the court. The trial is likely to expose that Phil Spector has been insane for decades--a minimum of thirty years--and that he has been a meth-addict for longer. It's a sad end, but who did this to him but himself? Clarkson wasn't a great actress, but she was a person, and she was only 40. She was good-looking, and by all accounts, a charming woman. At the very least, Spector is responsible in a civil sense for her death in his home. A human being is dead, and someone has to answer the "whys." Only Phil Spector knows the truth.
He strangely asserts that Clarkson shot herself spontaneously once they had entered his manse. It just doesn't wash, and you have to be wary of the statements of anyone who denigrates the victim who is no longer alive to contradict their potential murderer. The innocent don't assassinate the lives and memories of someone who has died violently. Good people don't do that. The Wagner of Rock, indeed. By referring to his possible victim to his first police interrogators as "a piece-of-shit," he's established that he has no regard for the loss of life of Lana Clarkson. Read some of the police transcript at www.thesmokinggun.com, it's pretty bizarre and unsettling, just like its subject.
The Lull Before the Storm...
Washington D.C.--Well folks, this is it. It's all in the hands of Congress now to deal-with this criminal administration. Already, on Sunday, we've had three GOP senators express dismay at the lies of Attorney General Gonzales and the Bush administration in-general. There isn't much to add, it's time to dance. Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached on-paper, which doesn't amount to much. If you don't have criminal-convictions, and if you don't run out a crooked office-holder and his cronies, you've accomplished nothing. As we all know, Bush II will pardon a gauntlet of his own people towards the end of his second-term, and Congress will do-its-best to make any investigations and hearings as slow as possible. This is because they want that same ability to break-the-law within the structures of the Executive.
The crisis of America is far-deeper than most of us are willing to admit, while in the backdrop, the economy is crashing. We're $150 billion dollars in foreclosures on mortgages. This is just one aspect, and there can only be a political solution to all of this--if Congress is willing to listen to we, the American people. Some of the problem is that they've listened too-much. We're a greedy culture, fixated on possessions and material-objects that are basically-worthless towards any meaning in our lives. We don't know how to live. Other cultures do, and it's because their lives are lived more-simply than ours.
We aren't responsible enough as a culture to live in this technological environment we've created, not at all. As usually happens, it will take a catastrophe--or twelve--to wake us up. Will it be in-time? As an existentialist, I don't really care, and what's going to happen based on our past-decisions is going to happen regardless of whether we "like" it or-not. This place could use some excitement anyway, and it will be entertaining to watch a lot of greedy, shallow individuals become declassed--and violently. You have to take-away everything from a man for him to realize the good-things that he had, and America has generally fit-the-bill on that count. We have never risen-to-occasion without our collective backs-to-the-wall. That's typical of most nations and groups. American isn't anything special, and never was.
The crisis of America is far-deeper than most of us are willing to admit, while in the backdrop, the economy is crashing. We're $150 billion dollars in foreclosures on mortgages. This is just one aspect, and there can only be a political solution to all of this--if Congress is willing to listen to we, the American people. Some of the problem is that they've listened too-much. We're a greedy culture, fixated on possessions and material-objects that are basically-worthless towards any meaning in our lives. We don't know how to live. Other cultures do, and it's because their lives are lived more-simply than ours.
We aren't responsible enough as a culture to live in this technological environment we've created, not at all. As usually happens, it will take a catastrophe--or twelve--to wake us up. Will it be in-time? As an existentialist, I don't really care, and what's going to happen based on our past-decisions is going to happen regardless of whether we "like" it or-not. This place could use some excitement anyway, and it will be entertaining to watch a lot of greedy, shallow individuals become declassed--and violently. You have to take-away everything from a man for him to realize the good-things that he had, and America has generally fit-the-bill on that count. We have never risen-to-occasion without our collective backs-to-the-wall. That's typical of most nations and groups. American isn't anything special, and never was.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
FORMER GONZALES AIDE TO VOLUNTARILY TESTIFY BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
"If the facts bear out that the attorney general knew much more than he admitted, he simply cannot continue as the attorney general." --Sen. Charles Schumer (D-Ny.), chair of the dismissal investigation, yesterday. (New York Times, 03.24.2007)
Washington D.C.--And he's ready to talk-and talk-and-talk, and under oath. The claims that he's "biased" and "disgruntled" are being formulated by Karl Rove and the rest of the GOP, even though they appointed and exploited him as their goat. We'll be hearing more of the claims that this is all "partisan", which is to be expected. But as these claims are made, again-and-again, they lose their potency and power. Shortly, they will have a zero-sum gain politically.
It seems on Friday that the Bush administration turned-over more documents (over 280-pages), and they are damaging. One has to wonder what their counsel was told by the Judiciary committees that made them feel compelled to do it. These internal documents illustrate that AG Alberto R. Gonzales has lied publicly--just not under oath, so we know why they're so reluctant to do so at the White House--about his very-direct involvement in the firing of seven US Attorneys. Eventually, Gonzales will be speaking again (grinning-or-not) with Sens., Leahy, Schumer, Feingold and Specter, as well as Reps. Conyers. All of it will be under oath.
As he knows from his days being a crooked appointee-judge (like Harry S. Truman), Gonzales had better have his story straight with the rest who were involved--but the there's D. Kyle Sampson, one of the other human-parachutes utilized by the dying Bush administration to save itself. It appears that Sampson contained an ACME anvil in that pouch, and he's very enthused to rebut Gonzales's lie that he engineered the firings. According to Gonzales, it seems Sampson was really the attorney general, except:
The attorney general told reporters two weeks ago that the dismissals were an "effort that was led by Mr. Sampson" and that they "never had a discussion about where things stood."The unexpected release of the latest documents came after Sampson earlier Friday informed the Senate Judiciary Committee that he will testify under oath about the matter.But while admitting that the meeting between Gonzales and Sampson took place, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse insisted there was still no proof the two discussed the upcoming firings. (AFP, 03.24.2007)
The evidence and corroborations will likely come from Sampson, if they already haven't. Upcoming-declassifications that are pressured out of the Justice Department and the White House should finish-the-job. They will prove what we already suspect. We can also expect that others within the federal bureaucracy will be stepping-forward (many already have), making this a landmark-era of whistle-blowing in American government (not-including the Valerie Plame, which isn't technically whistle-blowing). As it stands, AG Alberto Gonzales is now a confirmed liar, while his former-chief of staff is not.
Nonetheless, Sampson can expect to be hammered-at by Arlen Specter and all the other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. All-the-while, they will be going to great-pains to avoid all the difficult questions that the Bush administration should be answering daily. This is a old-trick that Specter learned as an attorney for the Warren Commission. It all gives the impression of the futility of someone lying into a mirror. Specter and his GOP colleagues should investigate themselves out of their feelings of "disappointment" (in-themselves). The hearings and investigations are proceeding as they should: with caution and a genuine-concern that the law be upheld.Considering the very-public battle this administration and former-majority has had with constitutional and legal-precedent, one could easily argue that the Judiciary committees have been too restrained, and not aggressive enough.
Perhaps Friday's release of documents by the Justice Department are related to comments reported in the New York Times the day-before, where members of Congress stated that what they got was "incomplete" and "has gaps." Also, on March 20th, the Washington Post reported that Sampson was ordered to make a list "ranking" who was loyal to the Bush administration, and who was not. One US Attorney who made the list was one Patrick Fitzgerald, but sounder-minds within the White House prevailed, and he wasn't fired during the investigation and trial of the leaks that blew the cover of CIA-operative, Valerie Plame:
The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents. The House Judiciary Committee on March 19 released 3,000 pages of documents related to the U.S. attorney firings. U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday. The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show. (Washington Post, 03.20.2007)
These revelations have certainly forced more disclosures by the Bush administration, so it again begs-the-question: what is the proverbial gun-to-the-head evidence in the possession of the Judiciary committees? Whatever it is, it's making people with no history of of cooperation or a sense of compromise in politics, to do just-that...compromise.
You have to have at least one smoking-gun for that, and I would wager that known and unknown whistle-blowers have approached the committee with that evidence--sometimes, it's going to be who they are exactly within the framework of government. It could include unimpeachable documentation of rampant criminality within the Executive branch. Someone would have to have a view of it all from-within, and Sampson fits-the-bill. Contrary to her few-proponents outside of our mainstream, crime is all you're going to get under the rubric of the "unitary-Executive." What you get is a calculated, ongoing institutionalized culture of crime. But what else is the White House for anyway? That's what pardons are for...
So, yes, the White House will continue to "support" Gonzales as attorney general, but he will eventually be fired ("resign"), to be replaced by another warm-body/parachute/goat. What's so odd is that anyone would want such a job. But then, looking into the eyes of such sundry individuals as Gonzales, one cannot help but feel that they're peering into Nietzsche's abyss. He has been very calculated about not lying under oath, only doing-so in the press where it's OK.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday. The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel changes involving United States attorneys. (New York Times, 03.24.2007)
None of this bodes well for them. It wouldn't matter who it was--well, actually, it would: if these were the actions of a Democratic administration, we would literally never hear the end of it. Triumphing over the exposure that Bill Clinton lied about oral-sex under oath for nearly ten-years tends to lose its potency. Bear-in-mind that this is from a writer who dislikes the DNC nearly-as-much as the GOP. Surely, Clinton and his administration should have been prosecuted for war-crimes in Iraq and the Balkans, as well as for numerous examples of political-cronyism and corruption. The problem is, it would have implicated Republicans and the whole aforementioned game. So, a blow-job it would be.
Exposing all that meant also exposing the GOP's criminality during the 1990s, as well as a bipartisan-collusion of what was essentially a Republican agenda under a Democratic banner. The death of the neoconservative and neoliberal "movements" (more like cults) has come. The return of American Populism has also come, reemerging like the Phoenix from the ashes of history, as history never ends. Expect conflict, but also expect some victories and reforms for grassroots progressives. The political-classes have created a mess of their own-making, and the power of domestic elites is imperiled, as it must eventually be. This is how history works. The wheel is turning, regardless of how-slowly, but it is turning. The "wealth of nations" has a tendency to shift from one-player, to-another. That's why it's best to behave while it's your turn--you will eventually be last.
AFP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070324/pl_afp/uscongresspolitics_070324165719;_ylt=AoQ1m6Ez8.YjklwkYgqpoEaMwfIEThe
Washington Post, 03.20.2007 (What a difference four-days makes!): www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902036.html
The New York Times Today: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24attorney.html?em&ex=1174881600&en=b77ce8610857d9e6&ei=5087
Washington D.C.--And he's ready to talk-and talk-and-talk, and under oath. The claims that he's "biased" and "disgruntled" are being formulated by Karl Rove and the rest of the GOP, even though they appointed and exploited him as their goat. We'll be hearing more of the claims that this is all "partisan", which is to be expected. But as these claims are made, again-and-again, they lose their potency and power. Shortly, they will have a zero-sum gain politically.
It seems on Friday that the Bush administration turned-over more documents (over 280-pages), and they are damaging. One has to wonder what their counsel was told by the Judiciary committees that made them feel compelled to do it. These internal documents illustrate that AG Alberto R. Gonzales has lied publicly--just not under oath, so we know why they're so reluctant to do so at the White House--about his very-direct involvement in the firing of seven US Attorneys. Eventually, Gonzales will be speaking again (grinning-or-not) with Sens., Leahy, Schumer, Feingold and Specter, as well as Reps. Conyers. All of it will be under oath.
As he knows from his days being a crooked appointee-judge (like Harry S. Truman), Gonzales had better have his story straight with the rest who were involved--but the there's D. Kyle Sampson, one of the other human-parachutes utilized by the dying Bush administration to save itself. It appears that Sampson contained an ACME anvil in that pouch, and he's very enthused to rebut Gonzales's lie that he engineered the firings. According to Gonzales, it seems Sampson was really the attorney general, except:
The attorney general told reporters two weeks ago that the dismissals were an "effort that was led by Mr. Sampson" and that they "never had a discussion about where things stood."The unexpected release of the latest documents came after Sampson earlier Friday informed the Senate Judiciary Committee that he will testify under oath about the matter.But while admitting that the meeting between Gonzales and Sampson took place, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse insisted there was still no proof the two discussed the upcoming firings. (AFP, 03.24.2007)
The evidence and corroborations will likely come from Sampson, if they already haven't. Upcoming-declassifications that are pressured out of the Justice Department and the White House should finish-the-job. They will prove what we already suspect. We can also expect that others within the federal bureaucracy will be stepping-forward (many already have), making this a landmark-era of whistle-blowing in American government (not-including the Valerie Plame, which isn't technically whistle-blowing). As it stands, AG Alberto Gonzales is now a confirmed liar, while his former-chief of staff is not.
Nonetheless, Sampson can expect to be hammered-at by Arlen Specter and all the other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. All-the-while, they will be going to great-pains to avoid all the difficult questions that the Bush administration should be answering daily. This is a old-trick that Specter learned as an attorney for the Warren Commission. It all gives the impression of the futility of someone lying into a mirror. Specter and his GOP colleagues should investigate themselves out of their feelings of "disappointment" (in-themselves). The hearings and investigations are proceeding as they should: with caution and a genuine-concern that the law be upheld.Considering the very-public battle this administration and former-majority has had with constitutional and legal-precedent, one could easily argue that the Judiciary committees have been too restrained, and not aggressive enough.
Perhaps Friday's release of documents by the Justice Department are related to comments reported in the New York Times the day-before, where members of Congress stated that what they got was "incomplete" and "has gaps." Also, on March 20th, the Washington Post reported that Sampson was ordered to make a list "ranking" who was loyal to the Bush administration, and who was not. One US Attorney who made the list was one Patrick Fitzgerald, but sounder-minds within the White House prevailed, and he wasn't fired during the investigation and trial of the leaks that blew the cover of CIA-operative, Valerie Plame:
The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents. The House Judiciary Committee on March 19 released 3,000 pages of documents related to the U.S. attorney firings. U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday. The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show. (Washington Post, 03.20.2007)
These revelations have certainly forced more disclosures by the Bush administration, so it again begs-the-question: what is the proverbial gun-to-the-head evidence in the possession of the Judiciary committees? Whatever it is, it's making people with no history of of cooperation or a sense of compromise in politics, to do just-that...compromise.
You have to have at least one smoking-gun for that, and I would wager that known and unknown whistle-blowers have approached the committee with that evidence--sometimes, it's going to be who they are exactly within the framework of government. It could include unimpeachable documentation of rampant criminality within the Executive branch. Someone would have to have a view of it all from-within, and Sampson fits-the-bill. Contrary to her few-proponents outside of our mainstream, crime is all you're going to get under the rubric of the "unitary-Executive." What you get is a calculated, ongoing institutionalized culture of crime. But what else is the White House for anyway? That's what pardons are for...
So, yes, the White House will continue to "support" Gonzales as attorney general, but he will eventually be fired ("resign"), to be replaced by another warm-body/parachute/goat. What's so odd is that anyone would want such a job. But then, looking into the eyes of such sundry individuals as Gonzales, one cannot help but feel that they're peering into Nietzsche's abyss. He has been very calculated about not lying under oath, only doing-so in the press where it's OK.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday. The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel changes involving United States attorneys. (New York Times, 03.24.2007)
None of this bodes well for them. It wouldn't matter who it was--well, actually, it would: if these were the actions of a Democratic administration, we would literally never hear the end of it. Triumphing over the exposure that Bill Clinton lied about oral-sex under oath for nearly ten-years tends to lose its potency. Bear-in-mind that this is from a writer who dislikes the DNC nearly-as-much as the GOP. Surely, Clinton and his administration should have been prosecuted for war-crimes in Iraq and the Balkans, as well as for numerous examples of political-cronyism and corruption. The problem is, it would have implicated Republicans and the whole aforementioned game. So, a blow-job it would be.
Exposing all that meant also exposing the GOP's criminality during the 1990s, as well as a bipartisan-collusion of what was essentially a Republican agenda under a Democratic banner. The death of the neoconservative and neoliberal "movements" (more like cults) has come. The return of American Populism has also come, reemerging like the Phoenix from the ashes of history, as history never ends. Expect conflict, but also expect some victories and reforms for grassroots progressives. The political-classes have created a mess of their own-making, and the power of domestic elites is imperiled, as it must eventually be. This is how history works. The wheel is turning, regardless of how-slowly, but it is turning. The "wealth of nations" has a tendency to shift from one-player, to-another. That's why it's best to behave while it's your turn--you will eventually be last.
AFP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070324/pl_afp/uscongresspolitics_070324165719;_ylt=AoQ1m6Ez8.YjklwkYgqpoEaMwfIEThe
Washington Post, 03.20.2007 (What a difference four-days makes!): www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902036.html
The New York Times Today: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24attorney.html?em&ex=1174881600&en=b77ce8610857d9e6&ei=5087
Friday, March 23, 2007
BAD AUTHOR TERRY MCMILLAN CONTINUES TO HUMILIATE HERSELF IN FIGHT WITH GAY-EX
"Stupidity is better kept a secret than displayed."
--Heraclitus, fragment 109, Haxton translation, 2001.
I've been following this one casually for over a two-years, and it just gets funnier: aging Terry McMillan goes to Jamaica, gets her groove on (and writes a lousy book on it that's semi-autobiographical, then made into a boring movie...), and finds later that her Jamaican husband is gay. He tells her so, hoping-for some "amicable solution," but McMillan explodes in a tirade of harassment and clearly homophobic-attacks on the man. Most of it occurs via their answering machines. The smokinggun.com has some great highlights of this, and it appears that McMillan is dead-set on harassing Jonathan Plummer.
Who's telling the truth? Certainly, it appears that Plummer is being more forthright, and his documentation of McMillan's messages are extremely-detailed, lending them a lot of credibility. McMillan claims she too has messages from Plummer, but appears not to be providing any evidence--she even paints herself as a victim, which is peculiar considering she's providing all the ammunition any critic of behavior could want. There's more to all of this: McMillan illustrates the deep-seated homophobia in Black America, one that I have witnessed first-hand on several-occasions. I have had a number of Black men tell me they would kill a relative they found to be a homosexual, and it's not an uncommon attitude in Black and subproletarian culture.
The Beef: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0322072mcmillan1.html
--Heraclitus, fragment 109, Haxton translation, 2001.
I've been following this one casually for over a two-years, and it just gets funnier: aging Terry McMillan goes to Jamaica, gets her groove on (and writes a lousy book on it that's semi-autobiographical, then made into a boring movie...), and finds later that her Jamaican husband is gay. He tells her so, hoping-for some "amicable solution," but McMillan explodes in a tirade of harassment and clearly homophobic-attacks on the man. Most of it occurs via their answering machines. The smokinggun.com has some great highlights of this, and it appears that McMillan is dead-set on harassing Jonathan Plummer.
Who's telling the truth? Certainly, it appears that Plummer is being more forthright, and his documentation of McMillan's messages are extremely-detailed, lending them a lot of credibility. McMillan claims she too has messages from Plummer, but appears not to be providing any evidence--she even paints herself as a victim, which is peculiar considering she's providing all the ammunition any critic of behavior could want. There's more to all of this: McMillan illustrates the deep-seated homophobia in Black America, one that I have witnessed first-hand on several-occasions. I have had a number of Black men tell me they would kill a relative they found to be a homosexual, and it's not an uncommon attitude in Black and subproletarian culture.
The Beef: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0322072mcmillan1.html
PLEASE, DO: BUSH THREATENS TO VETO TIMETABLE-PROVISIONED IRAQ WAR BUDGET
If you want peace, stop funding the war. If you want peace, stand for the truth."--Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.), who will probably be one of the few left-standing in Congress in 2009.
Washington D.C.--The exact name of the bill is "The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act." The president will veto the bill, though it's going to hurt him a lot more than congressional Democrats. It's a lousy bill anyway, and House Speaker Pelosi knew this, which is why this is just a step-forward. This is how politics normally works. At a vote of 218-212 (along almost purely partisan lines), a veto would be successful. Big deal. Bush and Cheney cannot stand this attention or oversight, they're simply not adept at politics. They were barely-functional under the former GOP majority that gave them a free-pass. Yes, please do, veto this bill, nobody wants it anyway. Bush is now stammering against this backdrop:
A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy. Just over an hour later, an angry Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than political theater and said that if the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, troops and their families "will face significant disruptions." (AP, 03.23.2007)
In-other-words, he's holding our troops hostage, which is nothing new. Congress could earmark appropriations to offset these so-called "Disruptions", while not funding the war any further. It would take Bush misusing earmarked-appropriations for the "disruptions" to occur. And of course, we know this has never happened in Iraq--except for the $9 billion that disappeared after Viceroy Paul Bremer left Iraq. Peter Cushing will be returning--from the dead--to Iraq as Grand Mof Tarkin (cue imperial march).
Bush has no new threats, inducements, or even very-many options left. The return of Furious George is nigh. Please, veto this bill. You seem strangely-intent on this war ending after you're out of office. Somehow, that seems assured no-matter-what, it's just that you and the GOP aren't going to like exactly how-and-when. And please, force Congress to have the Senate's Sergeant-at-arms to come rousting Harriet Miers, Sampson, Karl Rove, and others to testify before the House and Senate Judiciary committees. They have to by law, it's in the Constitution of the United States--you know, that document you said was "just a piece of paper," but swore an oath to uphold? An awful lot of damage was done to the Bush administration this-week, and it's not even over yet.
The president is calling the bill's provisions "an act of political theater." He should know, he's the worst-actor on the stage. He's accusing the supporters of the bill of "pork-spending," yet this was one of the reasons his GOP majority was voted-out in the November midterms. Even the normally credulous press noted how they were scrambling to pass as much pork as they could before the end of the do-nothing 109th Congress. The Republicans are used to this role: the boy who cried wolf who nobody listens-to anymore. We know what his fate is in the story, don't we? What's the terror-threat color? Only Fox News knows (and on-occasion, CNN):
"They set rigid restrictions that would require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal with no regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions in pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror," Bush said. "This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. As I've made clear for weeks I will veto it if it comes to my desk," Bush said. (Reuters, 03.23.2007)
The bill is coming to your desk, and we're probably going to see some subpoenas too. It's a good-thing your Vice President has experience in such an environment, but you all seem to have played all of your cards. You're sweating, and that's taboo in poker. The blustering does nothing but confirm the fears of most Americans that you and your administration are nothing but a cell of incompetent criminals and terrorists.
Indeed, please, veto this bill. Your little gambit in Shatt al-Arab river isn't going to work either, it's an obviously concocted media/propaganda event to drive the public towards another war, this time with Iran. It's not going to float, just as it didn't in your failed dry-run of June 21st, 2004. My favorite tactic of George W. Bush is his surrounding himself with a human-phalanx (Romanesque references abound with his patrician family) today.
In a brief appearance at the White House with veterans and members of military families standing in the background, Bush reiterated a standing veto threat and accused House Democrats of engaging in "political theater" that could short-change U.S. troops in the field as they seek to execute a build-up in personnel designed to contain rampant chaos and strife in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country. (Marketwatch.com, 03.23.2007)
Time is running-out for the Blair and Bush governments. We all know that no matter how much money and material get sent to Iraq, it isn't going to get any better. That would have required a genuine consensus of the community of nations with their full-participation, as well as a multi-national occupation that would have to last decades. Like other statist criminals who seize-power, the neocons will leave their destructive-mark on humanity, yet they and their ideas will hardly be remembered for much else. Their unorthodox, frail-ideologies will not survive them. Exterminate all rational thought.
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
Reuters Today: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAO000084.htm
Marketwatch Today: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/house-passes-bill-requiring-us/story.aspx?guid=%7B4F72C9E6-2F70-435E-AF75-A2FD18C9F022%7D&dist=
Washington D.C.--The exact name of the bill is "The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act." The president will veto the bill, though it's going to hurt him a lot more than congressional Democrats. It's a lousy bill anyway, and House Speaker Pelosi knew this, which is why this is just a step-forward. This is how politics normally works. At a vote of 218-212 (along almost purely partisan lines), a veto would be successful. Big deal. Bush and Cheney cannot stand this attention or oversight, they're simply not adept at politics. They were barely-functional under the former GOP majority that gave them a free-pass. Yes, please do, veto this bill, nobody wants it anyway. Bush is now stammering against this backdrop:
A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy. Just over an hour later, an angry Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than political theater and said that if the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, troops and their families "will face significant disruptions." (AP, 03.23.2007)
In-other-words, he's holding our troops hostage, which is nothing new. Congress could earmark appropriations to offset these so-called "Disruptions", while not funding the war any further. It would take Bush misusing earmarked-appropriations for the "disruptions" to occur. And of course, we know this has never happened in Iraq--except for the $9 billion that disappeared after Viceroy Paul Bremer left Iraq. Peter Cushing will be returning--from the dead--to Iraq as Grand Mof Tarkin (cue imperial march).
Bush has no new threats, inducements, or even very-many options left. The return of Furious George is nigh. Please, veto this bill. You seem strangely-intent on this war ending after you're out of office. Somehow, that seems assured no-matter-what, it's just that you and the GOP aren't going to like exactly how-and-when. And please, force Congress to have the Senate's Sergeant-at-arms to come rousting Harriet Miers, Sampson, Karl Rove, and others to testify before the House and Senate Judiciary committees. They have to by law, it's in the Constitution of the United States--you know, that document you said was "just a piece of paper," but swore an oath to uphold? An awful lot of damage was done to the Bush administration this-week, and it's not even over yet.
The president is calling the bill's provisions "an act of political theater." He should know, he's the worst-actor on the stage. He's accusing the supporters of the bill of "pork-spending," yet this was one of the reasons his GOP majority was voted-out in the November midterms. Even the normally credulous press noted how they were scrambling to pass as much pork as they could before the end of the do-nothing 109th Congress. The Republicans are used to this role: the boy who cried wolf who nobody listens-to anymore. We know what his fate is in the story, don't we? What's the terror-threat color? Only Fox News knows (and on-occasion, CNN):
"They set rigid restrictions that would require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal with no regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions in pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror," Bush said. "This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. As I've made clear for weeks I will veto it if it comes to my desk," Bush said. (Reuters, 03.23.2007)
The bill is coming to your desk, and we're probably going to see some subpoenas too. It's a good-thing your Vice President has experience in such an environment, but you all seem to have played all of your cards. You're sweating, and that's taboo in poker. The blustering does nothing but confirm the fears of most Americans that you and your administration are nothing but a cell of incompetent criminals and terrorists.
Indeed, please, veto this bill. Your little gambit in Shatt al-Arab river isn't going to work either, it's an obviously concocted media/propaganda event to drive the public towards another war, this time with Iran. It's not going to float, just as it didn't in your failed dry-run of June 21st, 2004. My favorite tactic of George W. Bush is his surrounding himself with a human-phalanx (Romanesque references abound with his patrician family) today.
In a brief appearance at the White House with veterans and members of military families standing in the background, Bush reiterated a standing veto threat and accused House Democrats of engaging in "political theater" that could short-change U.S. troops in the field as they seek to execute a build-up in personnel designed to contain rampant chaos and strife in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country. (Marketwatch.com, 03.23.2007)
Time is running-out for the Blair and Bush governments. We all know that no matter how much money and material get sent to Iraq, it isn't going to get any better. That would have required a genuine consensus of the community of nations with their full-participation, as well as a multi-national occupation that would have to last decades. Like other statist criminals who seize-power, the neocons will leave their destructive-mark on humanity, yet they and their ideas will hardly be remembered for much else. Their unorthodox, frail-ideologies will not survive them. Exterminate all rational thought.
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
Reuters Today: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAO000084.htm
Marketwatch Today: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/house-passes-bill-requiring-us/story.aspx?guid=%7B4F72C9E6-2F70-435E-AF75-A2FD18C9F022%7D&dist=
WHILE THE HOUSE APPROVES A TIMETABLE OF FALL 2008 FOR IRAQ WITHDRAWL, BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOSTERS IMAGE OF NEW TONKIN INCIDENT IN SHATT AL-ARAB RIVER
Washington D.C.--You've probably heard it--15 British sailors and marines have been "taken" by the Iranians. I wonder what they were up to? I think we know: violating Iranian-territory as they have done so since at least early-2004. The charge is that it occurred within the territorial-waters of Iraq. Do not believe this story's provenance on the Western side, and ignore the importance being attached to it, it is a minor-event. We can safely-assume that this was a timed-event authorized by the Blair and Bush governments.
Iran is in the middle of its New Year holiday when almost all government offices close. The U.S. Navy said the incident occurred just outside a long-disputed waterway called the Shatt al-Arab dividing Iraq and Iran. It came as the U.N. Security Council debates further sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program, and amid U.S. allegations that Iran is arming Shiite militias in Iraq. U.S. officials had expressed concern that with so much military hardware concentrated in the Persian Gulf, just such a small incident could spiral out of control and trigger a major armed confrontation. (AP, 03.23.2007)
And:
In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days. (ibid)
Interesting--there wasn't nearly as much uproar as this in 2004. Perhaps it just didn't "take" as a psyops program embedded within the Western media. This is going to be used as a pretext to attack Iran, you can bank on it. But, whether it is successful-or-not is to be seen. The Senate can still vote down the timetable, as well, but I think this particular incident will be inflated as part of a counterattack on Congress's moves to curtail the powers of the Executive, namely the Bush administration.
Yes, the same brow-beating in the Western press is going to chime-in...why, they already are: They say, "This is coming at a time when relations between the British/American/Western governments are tense," just as they said during the June 21, 2004 incident where eight crew-members (all British,a couple marines) were popped by the Iranian navy for violating Iranian territory illegally. This is what Iran is likely to say, and the timing of the event is interesting considering the government is in-recess for a national holiday. If you look at a map of exactly where Shatt al-Arab is, you can see that it is a route to slip commando units into Iran by heading-down towards the Persian Gulf.
A spokesman at the UK defence ministry said British forces in Iraq were using boats to train the Iraqi river patrol service, and the craft may have strayed across the maritime border by mistake. "The waterway runs over a mile wide. The border runs pretty much down the middle of it," he said. (BBC, 06.21.2004)
This is likely going to be the excuse they will trot-out again, just as coalition-forces did in 2004. Watch the excuses change. This is a test: how-many times can you be fooled? Will you pass? We know 35% of America won't. Since Lebanon didn't work, and since all the other potential pretexts didn't work, they're just running up-and-down list of other potential-sites and incidents that could spark a desired war with Iran. To their credit, Iranians appear to want to avoid this.
AP, Minutes ago: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4655993.html
BBC 06.21.2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3826179.stm
Iran is in the middle of its New Year holiday when almost all government offices close. The U.S. Navy said the incident occurred just outside a long-disputed waterway called the Shatt al-Arab dividing Iraq and Iran. It came as the U.N. Security Council debates further sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program, and amid U.S. allegations that Iran is arming Shiite militias in Iraq. U.S. officials had expressed concern that with so much military hardware concentrated in the Persian Gulf, just such a small incident could spiral out of control and trigger a major armed confrontation. (AP, 03.23.2007)
And:
In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days. (ibid)
Interesting--there wasn't nearly as much uproar as this in 2004. Perhaps it just didn't "take" as a psyops program embedded within the Western media. This is going to be used as a pretext to attack Iran, you can bank on it. But, whether it is successful-or-not is to be seen. The Senate can still vote down the timetable, as well, but I think this particular incident will be inflated as part of a counterattack on Congress's moves to curtail the powers of the Executive, namely the Bush administration.
Yes, the same brow-beating in the Western press is going to chime-in...why, they already are: They say, "This is coming at a time when relations between the British/American/Western governments are tense," just as they said during the June 21, 2004 incident where eight crew-members (all British,a couple marines) were popped by the Iranian navy for violating Iranian territory illegally. This is what Iran is likely to say, and the timing of the event is interesting considering the government is in-recess for a national holiday. If you look at a map of exactly where Shatt al-Arab is, you can see that it is a route to slip commando units into Iran by heading-down towards the Persian Gulf.
A spokesman at the UK defence ministry said British forces in Iraq were using boats to train the Iraqi river patrol service, and the craft may have strayed across the maritime border by mistake. "The waterway runs over a mile wide. The border runs pretty much down the middle of it," he said. (BBC, 06.21.2004)
This is likely going to be the excuse they will trot-out again, just as coalition-forces did in 2004. Watch the excuses change. This is a test: how-many times can you be fooled? Will you pass? We know 35% of America won't. Since Lebanon didn't work, and since all the other potential pretexts didn't work, they're just running up-and-down list of other potential-sites and incidents that could spark a desired war with Iran. To their credit, Iranians appear to want to avoid this.
AP, Minutes ago: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4655993.html
BBC 06.21.2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3826179.stm
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
HEY, CBS.
CBSUNIVERSE--Hey, CBS. Don't think I didn't notice you wouldn't cover the Senate vote (94-2) yesterday stripping the White House and AG Gonzales of the ability to fill vacant US Attorney posts without consulting them in Congress first. Why do you suck so badly at reporting the news? It's obvious why you're number three: people are noticing the disconnect in your reporting (and what goes unreported, like this vote) against news on the internet. Not even Katie Couric (or the public's irrational emotional-connection with her) is going to save your plummeting-ratings. But take-heart--it's an historic opportunity to have a real news department again, one that doesn't turn-a-profit. Yes, 60 Minutes ruined the news, I saw the Frontline series. The series is extraordinary and should be watched by all Americans.
The only thing that can fix this is law. There has to be a rollback of all the laws since Reagan that have allowed the deregulation of the FCC and the airwaves that are owned by the public, collectively. We can also fix our elections by making all political campaigning-ads for all legitimately-registered candidates FREE from any charges. That's right, the media's owners have neglected their public-responsibilities, and so did Congress during Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. A good start would be to make the Fairness Doctrine a law. But that can only be a start. There can no-longer be media conglomerates in a free society, but much of our news can be nationalized like in Canada and the UK. As we now know, things are completely totalitarian in Canada, eh. I was there man, I saw it. It's like East Germany in Toronto, trust me.
To their credit, Democrats in Congress attempted real reforms in the FCC in 1988 and 1993, but it was scuppered by a number of conservative incumbents and the GOP. You know, some of the same people who want to prolong the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they have something in-common with CBS: they all protect the president, to their eternal shame. History will not be kind to those who protected George W. Bush, and the judgements are already coming-in from the scholars. But all of this is why you're number three. Soon, nobody will watch CBS for news, and all those advertising dollars will be gone. Katie will also be gone, but that's life. We, the public, can put you all out to pasture if we have to. All we have to do is ignore you, stop-buying many of the products of your advertisers--or simply get our news from Europe and the rest of the world if we have to. Either way, reforms are coming, and they're going to stick. The party is over.
The only thing that can fix this is law. There has to be a rollback of all the laws since Reagan that have allowed the deregulation of the FCC and the airwaves that are owned by the public, collectively. We can also fix our elections by making all political campaigning-ads for all legitimately-registered candidates FREE from any charges. That's right, the media's owners have neglected their public-responsibilities, and so did Congress during Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. A good start would be to make the Fairness Doctrine a law. But that can only be a start. There can no-longer be media conglomerates in a free society, but much of our news can be nationalized like in Canada and the UK. As we now know, things are completely totalitarian in Canada, eh. I was there man, I saw it. It's like East Germany in Toronto, trust me.
To their credit, Democrats in Congress attempted real reforms in the FCC in 1988 and 1993, but it was scuppered by a number of conservative incumbents and the GOP. You know, some of the same people who want to prolong the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they have something in-common with CBS: they all protect the president, to their eternal shame. History will not be kind to those who protected George W. Bush, and the judgements are already coming-in from the scholars. But all of this is why you're number three. Soon, nobody will watch CBS for news, and all those advertising dollars will be gone. Katie will also be gone, but that's life. We, the public, can put you all out to pasture if we have to. All we have to do is ignore you, stop-buying many of the products of your advertisers--or simply get our news from Europe and the rest of the world if we have to. Either way, reforms are coming, and they're going to stick. The party is over.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE W. BUSH
Hey, asshole: you don't control whether lawmakers subpoena people who work or once worked for you. You are not the law of the land, you are merely the expediter of it, and you're lousy at doing even that. If an army of Federal Marshals and/or the Senate's Sergeant-at-arms have to drag Attorney General Gonzales and Harriet Miers, your former legal counsel before the Judiciary committees, they will do so. If Karl Rove doesn't show his face there, or any of them decline to appear, they are in-violation of the law. If tens-of-thousands of us have to drag you there, we will.
And with you meddling in all of this, making-threats, refusing to cooperate--we know it's really Cheney saying these things. We know you're all scared there at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and that the party is over. Even your so-called allies in the Senate are turning on you, and as the phony-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan reach their inevitable and disastrous ends, you will become more-and-more toxic to these shills. The jig is up. You insured it by wanting a second-term, just like Nixon. There is no way out, despite your gambler's (and drinker's) ways.
Now, today, you're threatening a "constitutional crisis." We all know that we've been in on since 2000 when you criminals stole the elections and violated the voting-rights of millions of Blacks, Hispanics, the poor, the homeless, and even our veterans. You have literally violated hundreds of federal laws, and so we must conclude that you and your administration are also too criminally ignorant to be in the White House. You never were qualified to do anything--your own father has told you this for decades, and now the reality is inescapable: you are a failure as a man. You are nothing, you are a soulless and empty-husk. You have finally hit that wall that was always waiting for you.
It's even simpler than that, though. You're going through the grieving-process. This is the first-stage: denial. The last-stage is acceptance. That's what all you bravado and threatening today amount to. You know that the fun is over, the majority have spoken, and that the forces of law and order have finally coalesced to overtake you and your co-conspirators. Richard Nixon--at least--was a man, and finally had to admit that things were over by August of 1974. You and your co-president, Richard Cheney, watched all of this first-hand back then, yet learned absolutely nothing from Watergate. Like Nixon, you and your wife look heavily-medicated. No, you're not hiding anything, your entire reign has been transparent. Transparent? Yes, because you're so incompetent that you're obvious. How else would we know about all of the illegal-acts you've authorized?
Ahem, support our troops.
You thought you could find ways around the system like Nixon, but even he concluded he screwed-up. Neither you nor Cheney can accept what even Nixon had to acknowledge: he was caught, and that his political career was effectively over. He knew that he had to step-down, or chaos would ensue. Congress is almost ready for a revolt now, it won't take much...but Rove, Gonzales and Miers not testifying will likely do the trick (in a pinch). What's hilarious about your administration is that this is of no-concern to you all. You'll risk social and political disorder to save yourselves and prolong your vampirism of the public and the state. We will keep at you until you are no more as a political entity. You are being forcibly-defanged as a result of the November 2006 midterms, and you hate it--you hate the American people, but rest-assured that the majority of us (and the world) hate you. That will be your legacy, you will be reviled for centuries. It's better to be forgotten than to be that person, oh blessed anonymity.
yours-in-Christ, Matt Janovic, an American citizen
And with you meddling in all of this, making-threats, refusing to cooperate--we know it's really Cheney saying these things. We know you're all scared there at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and that the party is over. Even your so-called allies in the Senate are turning on you, and as the phony-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan reach their inevitable and disastrous ends, you will become more-and-more toxic to these shills. The jig is up. You insured it by wanting a second-term, just like Nixon. There is no way out, despite your gambler's (and drinker's) ways.
Now, today, you're threatening a "constitutional crisis." We all know that we've been in on since 2000 when you criminals stole the elections and violated the voting-rights of millions of Blacks, Hispanics, the poor, the homeless, and even our veterans. You have literally violated hundreds of federal laws, and so we must conclude that you and your administration are also too criminally ignorant to be in the White House. You never were qualified to do anything--your own father has told you this for decades, and now the reality is inescapable: you are a failure as a man. You are nothing, you are a soulless and empty-husk. You have finally hit that wall that was always waiting for you.
It's even simpler than that, though. You're going through the grieving-process. This is the first-stage: denial. The last-stage is acceptance. That's what all you bravado and threatening today amount to. You know that the fun is over, the majority have spoken, and that the forces of law and order have finally coalesced to overtake you and your co-conspirators. Richard Nixon--at least--was a man, and finally had to admit that things were over by August of 1974. You and your co-president, Richard Cheney, watched all of this first-hand back then, yet learned absolutely nothing from Watergate. Like Nixon, you and your wife look heavily-medicated. No, you're not hiding anything, your entire reign has been transparent. Transparent? Yes, because you're so incompetent that you're obvious. How else would we know about all of the illegal-acts you've authorized?
Ahem, support our troops.
You thought you could find ways around the system like Nixon, but even he concluded he screwed-up. Neither you nor Cheney can accept what even Nixon had to acknowledge: he was caught, and that his political career was effectively over. He knew that he had to step-down, or chaos would ensue. Congress is almost ready for a revolt now, it won't take much...but Rove, Gonzales and Miers not testifying will likely do the trick (in a pinch). What's hilarious about your administration is that this is of no-concern to you all. You'll risk social and political disorder to save yourselves and prolong your vampirism of the public and the state. We will keep at you until you are no more as a political entity. You are being forcibly-defanged as a result of the November 2006 midterms, and you hate it--you hate the American people, but rest-assured that the majority of us (and the world) hate you. That will be your legacy, you will be reviled for centuries. It's better to be forgotten than to be that person, oh blessed anonymity.
yours-in-Christ, Matt Janovic, an American citizen
BUSH ADMINISTRATION ROUTED ON PATRIOT PROVISION FOR INDEFINITE US ATTORNEY APPOINTMENTS
"[This] is just a taste of what's going to be like for the next two years."
--Former House Majority leader, Tom Delay (AP, 03.20.2007)
"If you politicize the prosecutors, you politicize everybody in the whole chain of law enforcement." --Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
'In a constitutional democracy, it is not true, as one official maintained, that ''When you take the king's shilling, you do the king's bidding.'' The idea of monarchy was rejected here 200 years ago and since then, the law -not any official or ideology - has been paramount. For not instilling this precept in his stff, for failing to take care that the law reigned supreme, the President bears the responsibility.' --The Iran-Contra Report, Executive Summary, Summary of the Facts, Nov. 18, 1987.
Washington D.C.--In a vote of 94-2, the Senate overwhelmingly voted-down a hidden provision of the Patriot Act that allowed the Bush administration to appoint indefinitely any vacancies in US Attorney posts through the office of the Attorney General. This effectively curtails the powers of the standing Executive and the AG, and any future holders of those offices. Now, how's that for bipartisanship?
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors.With a 94-2 [Ed.-one of the two had to be from Indiana] vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists. (AP, 03.20.2007)
Speaking of a violation of the separation of powers, that's exactly what the GOP incumbents and the Bush administration are claiming with the new Iraq supplemental-budget bill. Of course, they're wrong, Congress has always had the power of the purse, and Republican presidents in the last 30-years have done their best of skirting it.
That's what Iran-Contra was about: the Senate passed the Boland amendment that barred the Reagan administration from any military support of the Contras in Nicaragua, so he and his advisers, aides, and nuts like Oliver North violated the law by illegally raising-funds by selling armaments and military spare-parts to...IRAN. "We don't make deals with terrorists," said the "great communicator," and his administration was basically over by 1986-87.
Meanwhile, VP Cheney our first cyborg co-president, has been rushed to the hospital for that clot in his leg. This site predicts he will resign within 2007, if not early-2008, as he hinted he might when the illegal warrantless wiretapping programs were first revealed. As it was then, the reasons cited will be for "health reasons." Well sure, if you're an arch-criminal who fears arrest all the time, you would have health concerns over time. It took massive-amounts of amphetamine, vitamins, and other homeopathic aids to keep Hitler going. But back to the Boland amendment. What was Cheney's stance on it? I think we all know, and the then congressman had this to say to the Boston Globe in 1987:
In July 1987, then-Representative Dick Cheney, the top Republican on the committee investigating the Iran-contra scandal, turned on his hearing room microphone and delivered, in his characteristically measured tone, a revolutionary claim. President Reagan and his top aides, he asserted, were free to ignore a 1982 law at the center of the scandal. Known as the Boland Amendment, it banned US assistance to anti-Marxist militants in Nicaragua. "I personally do not believe the Boland Amendment applied to the president, nor to his immediate staff," Cheney said. (Boston Globe, 11.26.2006)
This is just more of this individual's "unitary executive" myth, from a Nixon-aide who was shocked--not by crimes committed by the Executive--but that presidents could actually be held-accountable for breaking-the-law. Cheney wouldn't sign a renunciation of Reagan's actions, and even had the temerity to create his own report whose concepts were summarily ignored--until the administrations of both Bush presidencies. But Reagan got-away with it, and Congress did nothing substantial to punish the Executive and his co-conspirators. We know this is true because it is happening again in the Middle East.
All of this makes Dick Cheney and his fellow travellers an extreme anomaly, criminal-intent on usurping total power, and violent and dangerous revolutionaries with an ideology of power that is wholly un-American and alien to this nation and her traditions. Yet, Cheney asserts otherwise. It seems he doesn't read much history, and stands completely outside of the mainstream of American thought. For this, he is going to be made to suffer, and will be metabolized by our legal-process, as well as through the attrition of a new political-context that is overwhelming his own. Cheney is the real power behind all of this, the true architect of the Bush II years.
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fired_prosecutors
Boston Globe on Cheney, 11.26.2006: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/
Summary of the Iran-Contra Committe Investigation (1987):
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/PS157/assignment%20files%20public/congressional%20report%20key%20sections.htm
HOUSE JUDICIARY POSTING WHITE HOUSE US ATTORNEY FIRINGS EMAILS & DOCUMENTS ONLINE
Washington D.C.--Now, how's that for transparency? This is impressive (see link below). These are the majority of the 3,000 documents and email-transcripts turned over by the Bush administration.
They all regard the US Attorney firings, and some are pretty explosive. The House Judiciary committee knew they had these and told them so, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these communiques. Were it not for the fact that the Bush administration is on the ropes now, they would stall and drag their feet just as they continue to over the minutes of their meetings with the representatives of energy conglomerates in 2001. Those minutes probably lay out the last six-years in stunning detail--stunning because of their calculation and brazenness. The whole shithouse is going up, hallelujah.
The House Judiciary committee:
http://judiciary.house.gov/
Related note on the Illegal Warrantless Wiretap Program:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/110-DOJOPRshutdown070315.pdf
They all regard the US Attorney firings, and some are pretty explosive. The House Judiciary committee knew they had these and told them so, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these communiques. Were it not for the fact that the Bush administration is on the ropes now, they would stall and drag their feet just as they continue to over the minutes of their meetings with the representatives of energy conglomerates in 2001. Those minutes probably lay out the last six-years in stunning detail--stunning because of their calculation and brazenness. The whole shithouse is going up, hallelujah.
The House Judiciary committee:
http://judiciary.house.gov/
Related note on the Illegal Warrantless Wiretap Program:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/110-DOJOPRshutdown070315.pdf
MORE SHENANIGANS FROM MOVEON.ORG...
WWW--Yes, I still receive emails from Moveon.org, don't you? If you've ever filled-out a petition of theirs, or affiliated net activist groups, you'll find yourself getting a veritable torrent, usually requesting money. This is fine and legitimate when an organization uses the funds in a way that the donors want them used, however, there seem to be some rumblings lately amongst the activist Left on the internet. Today, I get no-less than three coordinated emails (one from Democrats.com, Voters for Peace, and the other from a group calling itself "Democracyrising.us") stating that Moveon.org is dragging-their-feet on impeachment and ending the war. Well, yeah, we know this. The last group had this to say:
MoveOn is polling its members in a biased fashion about the Iraq supplemental -- they are doing their best to manipulate their members into supporting the slow bleed in Iraq that will result if the Pelosi-Obey supplemental is approved. More than 200 members of the U.S. military have died since the Democrats had the power to end this war. How many more? How many Iraqis? If you are a member of MoveOn vote vote to oppose the supplemental and tell MoveOn to join the rest of the peace movement in pressuring the Democrats to end the war -- not to continue it.
What's wrong with the supplemental? The deadline for removal is not until August 31, 2008. And, even then loopholes will allow as many troops as President Bush wants to stay in Iraq to "capture or kill" Al Qaeda or other terrorists and to train Iraqi soldiers. These are loopholes big enough to drive a war through! The requirements for sending combat ready troops can be waived by the president so exhausted troops that are inadequately trained can be sent into this quagmire. And, the supplemental does not restrict the president regarding using the funds to attack Iran. (democracyrising.us mass-email, 03.19.2007)
They are summarily correct, and I've gotten the poll questions--they are biased and slanted towards an agenda touted by Moveon.org, which calls itself "grassroots." Still, would the other legislation even get passed? I have to play the devil's advocate here--can the anti-war bloc in Congress get a better bill passed?
But let's take a look at the term "grassroots": it means ordinary people, creating their own social-networks, their own agenda, all emerging spontaneously from them due to circumstances affecting their lives directly. It strikes me that Moveon.org might have begun as this, but surely they don't fit-into the realm of the "grassroots" at all anymore. The only point that the term seems to apply is in how they get their funding, which is from working-class and upper middle-class Americans who can afford to give. But that's where it appears to end. When they don't want to listen to their donors/members, they're asking for an early-end to their institution. People have a right to feel that Moveon.org might just be another self-perpetuating Goliath:
If you are a MoveOn member, TAKE ACTION and tell MoveOn to oppose the supplemental!
MoveOn is polling its membership in a biased fashion on whether to support or oppose the $124.1 billion Iraq supplemental. The Democratic leadership's plan for the supplemental prolongs the Iraq occupation and provides loopholes that will allow President Bush to keep as many troops as he wants to stay in Iraq to "capture or kill" Al Qaeda or other terrorists and to train Iraqi soldiers. Unfortunately, the MoveOn poll doesn't explain the issues. MoveOn has often changed their tune on Iraq, and now they are again waivering from a bold call for immediate withdrawal for purely political reasons.
It is important that MoveOn takes a stand against this supplemental and puts the principle of peace ahead of supporting the Democratic Party leadership. Please vote to "Oppose the Plan" in the MoveOn poll, and spread the word to others. Progressive members of Congress have carried the antiwar banner on Capitol Hill for years and do not approve of the Democratic leadership's plan as currently written. (votersforpeace.us mass email, 03.19.2007)
I won't recount my run-in with Moveon.org again (it's here in the archives), but I can vouch that face-to-face, they are coarse, authoritarian, and make-it-plain to those they have "invited" that they set the agenda, and that they are in-control of events. This is peculiar coming-from a group that calls itself "grassroots." From my own personal experience with them, they don't strike me as anything more than an institution bent on political power for themselves, and show a tendency towards "conventional wisdom", or that of mainstream politicians and big business. This is troubling for any group which calls itself "progressive" and "grassroots."
You cannot build a better society on a group that has a backwards approach towards rebuilding social-networks in a fragmented society. People have to reach-out to each other, and it has to occur naturally. There has to be credibility, trust, friendship, and solidarity that has substance. People have to have each other's backs, essentially. They have to be willing to bail people out from jail, to feed them, to house some of them, to really support one another. You will not find this with Moveon.org, nor very often with many of the self-proclaimed anti-war activists who currently monopolize the movement to assuage their middle-class guilt.
If you're not close with a group personally, and if you don't feel comfortable around them--quit immediately. Start your own group of friends, family, and people who really care, rather than wasting your time with the "more-liberal-than-thou" crowd of snobbish bourgies. Democrats.com has this to say:
Moveon Betrays Peace Movement
Even as hundreds of thousands were protesting the 4th anniversary of Bush's illegal and disastrous war in Iraq, Moveon was urging its 3.2 million members to support $93 billion more for Bush's War. Moveon conducted a dishonest member "poll" which deliberately left out the Barbara Lee Amendment that would limit new spending to a "fully funded withdrawal" of our troops by the end of the year. http://www.democrats.com/move-over-moveon
Moveon used its dishonest poll to claim 85% of its members support the $93 billion Supplemental.
Send a message to Moveon by voting in our poll:
http://www.democrats.com/iraq-supplemental-poll
And if you want to quit Moveon, tell them why:
http://pol.moveon.org/feedback/fb/form.html?tp=suggest
It's the little, private, persistent acts of kindness and resolve that turn the tide of an era, the smallest things. These clowns need to be jettisoned, just as the Civil Rights movement smartly did in the late-1960s--unless they decide to change their ways and truly "join" us, the "nobodies." You cannot build community out of liars, careerists, or individuals who simply covet power and the preservation of their own petty-privileges. That is a foundation built-upon mud, not by people, for people.
It is a lie that must be exposed and murdered for all time. This is all supposed to have acrimony and adversarialism. It's feeling like a social revolution again, a time that trys men's (and women's) souls. And just think, it was an ordinary woman named Cindy Sheehan who started this volley against Moveon.org around two-weeks ago. She is the real deal, and that's why she's treated poorly by the entitled and the privileged everywhere, even within the anti-war movement. Class is everything. Welcome to the movement, brothers and sisters, it's yours for-the-taking. It was always yours, now take it back. Hah, you've already begun!
MoveOn is polling its members in a biased fashion about the Iraq supplemental -- they are doing their best to manipulate their members into supporting the slow bleed in Iraq that will result if the Pelosi-Obey supplemental is approved. More than 200 members of the U.S. military have died since the Democrats had the power to end this war. How many more? How many Iraqis? If you are a member of MoveOn vote vote to oppose the supplemental and tell MoveOn to join the rest of the peace movement in pressuring the Democrats to end the war -- not to continue it.
What's wrong with the supplemental? The deadline for removal is not until August 31, 2008. And, even then loopholes will allow as many troops as President Bush wants to stay in Iraq to "capture or kill" Al Qaeda or other terrorists and to train Iraqi soldiers. These are loopholes big enough to drive a war through! The requirements for sending combat ready troops can be waived by the president so exhausted troops that are inadequately trained can be sent into this quagmire. And, the supplemental does not restrict the president regarding using the funds to attack Iran. (democracyrising.us mass-email, 03.19.2007)
They are summarily correct, and I've gotten the poll questions--they are biased and slanted towards an agenda touted by Moveon.org, which calls itself "grassroots." Still, would the other legislation even get passed? I have to play the devil's advocate here--can the anti-war bloc in Congress get a better bill passed?
But let's take a look at the term "grassroots": it means ordinary people, creating their own social-networks, their own agenda, all emerging spontaneously from them due to circumstances affecting their lives directly. It strikes me that Moveon.org might have begun as this, but surely they don't fit-into the realm of the "grassroots" at all anymore. The only point that the term seems to apply is in how they get their funding, which is from working-class and upper middle-class Americans who can afford to give. But that's where it appears to end. When they don't want to listen to their donors/members, they're asking for an early-end to their institution. People have a right to feel that Moveon.org might just be another self-perpetuating Goliath:
If you are a MoveOn member, TAKE ACTION and tell MoveOn to oppose the supplemental!
MoveOn is polling its membership in a biased fashion on whether to support or oppose the $124.1 billion Iraq supplemental. The Democratic leadership's plan for the supplemental prolongs the Iraq occupation and provides loopholes that will allow President Bush to keep as many troops as he wants to stay in Iraq to "capture or kill" Al Qaeda or other terrorists and to train Iraqi soldiers. Unfortunately, the MoveOn poll doesn't explain the issues. MoveOn has often changed their tune on Iraq, and now they are again waivering from a bold call for immediate withdrawal for purely political reasons.
It is important that MoveOn takes a stand against this supplemental and puts the principle of peace ahead of supporting the Democratic Party leadership. Please vote to "Oppose the Plan" in the MoveOn poll, and spread the word to others. Progressive members of Congress have carried the antiwar banner on Capitol Hill for years and do not approve of the Democratic leadership's plan as currently written. (votersforpeace.us mass email, 03.19.2007)
I won't recount my run-in with Moveon.org again (it's here in the archives), but I can vouch that face-to-face, they are coarse, authoritarian, and make-it-plain to those they have "invited" that they set the agenda, and that they are in-control of events. This is peculiar coming-from a group that calls itself "grassroots." From my own personal experience with them, they don't strike me as anything more than an institution bent on political power for themselves, and show a tendency towards "conventional wisdom", or that of mainstream politicians and big business. This is troubling for any group which calls itself "progressive" and "grassroots."
You cannot build a better society on a group that has a backwards approach towards rebuilding social-networks in a fragmented society. People have to reach-out to each other, and it has to occur naturally. There has to be credibility, trust, friendship, and solidarity that has substance. People have to have each other's backs, essentially. They have to be willing to bail people out from jail, to feed them, to house some of them, to really support one another. You will not find this with Moveon.org, nor very often with many of the self-proclaimed anti-war activists who currently monopolize the movement to assuage their middle-class guilt.
If you're not close with a group personally, and if you don't feel comfortable around them--quit immediately. Start your own group of friends, family, and people who really care, rather than wasting your time with the "more-liberal-than-thou" crowd of snobbish bourgies. Democrats.com has this to say:
Moveon Betrays Peace Movement
Even as hundreds of thousands were protesting the 4th anniversary of Bush's illegal and disastrous war in Iraq, Moveon was urging its 3.2 million members to support $93 billion more for Bush's War. Moveon conducted a dishonest member "poll" which deliberately left out the Barbara Lee Amendment that would limit new spending to a "fully funded withdrawal" of our troops by the end of the year. http://www.democrats.com/move-over-moveon
Moveon used its dishonest poll to claim 85% of its members support the $93 billion Supplemental.
Send a message to Moveon by voting in our poll:
http://www.democrats.com/iraq-supplemental-poll
And if you want to quit Moveon, tell them why:
http://pol.moveon.org/feedback/fb/form.html?tp=suggest
It's the little, private, persistent acts of kindness and resolve that turn the tide of an era, the smallest things. These clowns need to be jettisoned, just as the Civil Rights movement smartly did in the late-1960s--unless they decide to change their ways and truly "join" us, the "nobodies." You cannot build community out of liars, careerists, or individuals who simply covet power and the preservation of their own petty-privileges. That is a foundation built-upon mud, not by people, for people.
It is a lie that must be exposed and murdered for all time. This is all supposed to have acrimony and adversarialism. It's feeling like a social revolution again, a time that trys men's (and women's) souls. And just think, it was an ordinary woman named Cindy Sheehan who started this volley against Moveon.org around two-weeks ago. She is the real deal, and that's why she's treated poorly by the entitled and the privileged everywhere, even within the anti-war movement. Class is everything. Welcome to the movement, brothers and sisters, it's yours for-the-taking. It was always yours, now take it back. Hah, you've already begun!
Monday, March 19, 2007
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY VOWS SUBPOENAS FOR ROVE AND MIERS BY THURSDAY IN US ATTORNEY FIRING SCANDAL: CAN IT FIX AMERICA?
"We're rednecks, we're rednecks. Don't know our ass from a hole in the ground, we're rednecks, we're rednecks, keepin' the niggers [Ed.-and themselves] down." --Randy Newman, 1974, from "Good Old Boys."
WASHINGTON D.C.--It's coming. Karl Rove & Harriet Miers will finally have to make comments under oath in front of the United States Senate. This is overdue by about 4-years, but better late than...you know. It's not going to be pretty, as fart blossom usually speaks before friendly-crowds--OK, those are the only crowds any member of the Bush administration can handle, or ever commit to speaking-at. Right, there were the presidential debates, like the one in 2004 where George W. Bush had to be prompted by Rove and company through an earpiece because he's so dodderingly stupid, but that's about it. Everything else has been staged-managed by Rove and Roger Aisles. That's known as a house of cards when one cannot withstand public-scrutiny. But Leahy laid-it-out to ABC this-weekend:
"The final decision on putting on the agenda subpoenas is mine," Leahy said on ABC's "This Week." "And it will be on Thursday this week, among the subpoenas that will be voted on, will be one for Karl Rove and one for (former White House counsel) Harriet Miers, another one for her deputy." (Reuters, 03.19.2007)
It also helps the common good that today is the fourth-anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration and their allies in Congress in late-2002. Much has changed since then, and the political-context couldn't be any more different. There is only support for this war amongst the "I'm never wrong" crowd, also known as "the emotionally-retarded." Yes, now we know what percentage of a nation's population it takes to pull a people over a cliff...around 33-35%.
Now, granted, many of them are simply short-sighted greed monsters who got a wonderful windfall with Bush's tax-cuts for the wealthy, but it seems the rest don't understand that it's a bad idea to defecate where one eats. Let's simply call them for what they are: mostly white-male, 25-45, tornado-bait trailer trash. Very few women are this stupid, and only an outmoded, frontier model of manhood and citizenship could be this throwback and obsolete. Rednecks folks, rednecks. So, I would put it at 20% who are the rich and their functionaries, while around 13-15% are your basic white trash. The ultimate irony is that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the president probably hate these half-wits more than I do. But then, how can you respect anyone who's a willing-slave? The other related irony is that the poor generally hate those who help them, while respecting "leaders" like the Bush administration who mistreats them, but shows sternness and certainty.
Leahy is the last-word on the subpoenas. Not even the most arcane methods of obstructionism are going to stop this one now, especially considering that the 2006 midterm results weren't simply about Iraq or overspending. It was about the scandal-of-the-day nature of the former GOP majority. It was about Halliburton, Mark Foley, cooked intelligence from the White House, a still-missing $9 billion in Treasury funds that vanished in Iraq under Viceroy Paul Bremer, our soldiers being supplied with contaminated food and water for contracts that were no-bid and overcharged, for a war that seems to have no clear-aims or end, for the botch-job of guarding us on the day of September 11th, 2001, and endless other examples of corruption and other sundry criminal-acts by the GOP and the White House.
Today, thousands are protesting in NYC, flooding the streets of Manhattan, Mr. President. All after a weekend of protests that were nationwide, with a nexus in Washington. We are out of patience, and this war is your mistake--and ours. We allowed this to happen, but you lied to us, Congress, and the entire world. There were never WMDs in Iraq, and you knew this. But you thought that 9/11 was the opening you and PNAC wanted to have your invasion of the region. It won't work, not ever, but you don't even care about that. The war has made your war-profiteering backers unimaginably wealthy, which was the main-goal. It must be a horrible-burden.
It could be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating. If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country. In time, this violence could engulf the region. (whitehouse.gov, 03.19.2007)
That's interesting, because you're the only one asserting this, you and your administration and the Generals still active under you. They have to echo what you say because you're their boss, a relationship you're comfortable with from all those failed-business you "ran." The reality is this: diplomatists, active and retired military and geopolitical experts all say you are wrong, just as they did about WMDs before the war started. We won't take your word for it. The demonstrations are cropping-up everywhere, and gaining-in-intensity, and so are the attacks in Iraq. The consequences for our security will only worsen the longer we stay in the region.
You, Mr. President, have asserted that this would "take months" in the early-days of the war, and you were wrong then. You don't have a good batting-average, and the scales are falling-from the eyes of even the greediest, and stupidest of our citizenry. They are beginning to realize that this will ultimately effect them. Everyone knows that the US Attorney scandal is a minor crime on your list, but it's one that can take you down. That's all that matters, after all. Now you have McCain doing his bait-and-switch with you again, touring a Veteran's home in Manchester, New Hampshire--in the state that gave us Ronald Reagan. It's good that the Bush administration shifted-funds for this publicity-stunt:
Residents will be allowed to stay for up to two years while they receive job training and any needed mental health and substance abuse services. More than 200 veterans already have applied for spots, said Peter Kelleher, president of Harbor Homes, which developed the project. Most of them served in Vietnam, he told McCain during a tour of the apartments, though one veteran of the Iraq war has applied. Just days before the dedication ceremony, Buckingham Place and a shelter for homeless veterans in Manchester, N.H., learned they would not be getting $400,000 federal grants they had expected. (AP, 03.19.2007)
If only things worked this fast for veterans all-the-time! Maybe if Sen. McCain (R-Az.) could visit all of them like this...why, we'd have an adequate health care system for our veterans in every facility and VA hospital. Everyone in Congress and the White House knew conditions were deplorable in our VA hospitals, and that care for our veterans has always been inadequate, poor, and neglectful. This is by-design, and is known as "cutting the costs of war." Besides, all the politicos need those VA funds to keep their worthless wars going, and to keep the war-profiteers fed.
Forget the rhetoric: what have they all done for veterans? How hard did they try when there were openings that would have gotten results? And did any of them see Tom Cruise in "Born on the Fourth of July" (1989)? Most of us who have had veterans in our families didn't need to, we knew vets were getting-screwed our entire lives. The pleas of ignorance are lies, and these creatures should be confronted on all of the neglect of our lives, our economy, our justice system, and our soldiers. That's right, support our troops you pigs. The subpoenas can begin the fixing of all of this, our six-year constitutional crisis that is killing America, and might kill human society yet. Now is a good time to have all members of Congress under oath while they're on the floor, and in the White House while they're on-the-job, mandated by law.
Reuters on the subpoenas: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070318/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc
For the president's most-recent verbal gaffes: www.whitehouse.gov
John McCain for Bush: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail;_ylt=AhklcUIwmaeKrR_qK41OKKIGw_IE
WASHINGTON D.C.--It's coming. Karl Rove & Harriet Miers will finally have to make comments under oath in front of the United States Senate. This is overdue by about 4-years, but better late than...you know. It's not going to be pretty, as fart blossom usually speaks before friendly-crowds--OK, those are the only crowds any member of the Bush administration can handle, or ever commit to speaking-at. Right, there were the presidential debates, like the one in 2004 where George W. Bush had to be prompted by Rove and company through an earpiece because he's so dodderingly stupid, but that's about it. Everything else has been staged-managed by Rove and Roger Aisles. That's known as a house of cards when one cannot withstand public-scrutiny. But Leahy laid-it-out to ABC this-weekend:
"The final decision on putting on the agenda subpoenas is mine," Leahy said on ABC's "This Week." "And it will be on Thursday this week, among the subpoenas that will be voted on, will be one for Karl Rove and one for (former White House counsel) Harriet Miers, another one for her deputy." (Reuters, 03.19.2007)
It also helps the common good that today is the fourth-anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration and their allies in Congress in late-2002. Much has changed since then, and the political-context couldn't be any more different. There is only support for this war amongst the "I'm never wrong" crowd, also known as "the emotionally-retarded." Yes, now we know what percentage of a nation's population it takes to pull a people over a cliff...around 33-35%.
Now, granted, many of them are simply short-sighted greed monsters who got a wonderful windfall with Bush's tax-cuts for the wealthy, but it seems the rest don't understand that it's a bad idea to defecate where one eats. Let's simply call them for what they are: mostly white-male, 25-45, tornado-bait trailer trash. Very few women are this stupid, and only an outmoded, frontier model of manhood and citizenship could be this throwback and obsolete. Rednecks folks, rednecks. So, I would put it at 20% who are the rich and their functionaries, while around 13-15% are your basic white trash. The ultimate irony is that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the president probably hate these half-wits more than I do. But then, how can you respect anyone who's a willing-slave? The other related irony is that the poor generally hate those who help them, while respecting "leaders" like the Bush administration who mistreats them, but shows sternness and certainty.
Leahy is the last-word on the subpoenas. Not even the most arcane methods of obstructionism are going to stop this one now, especially considering that the 2006 midterm results weren't simply about Iraq or overspending. It was about the scandal-of-the-day nature of the former GOP majority. It was about Halliburton, Mark Foley, cooked intelligence from the White House, a still-missing $9 billion in Treasury funds that vanished in Iraq under Viceroy Paul Bremer, our soldiers being supplied with contaminated food and water for contracts that were no-bid and overcharged, for a war that seems to have no clear-aims or end, for the botch-job of guarding us on the day of September 11th, 2001, and endless other examples of corruption and other sundry criminal-acts by the GOP and the White House.
Today, thousands are protesting in NYC, flooding the streets of Manhattan, Mr. President. All after a weekend of protests that were nationwide, with a nexus in Washington. We are out of patience, and this war is your mistake--and ours. We allowed this to happen, but you lied to us, Congress, and the entire world. There were never WMDs in Iraq, and you knew this. But you thought that 9/11 was the opening you and PNAC wanted to have your invasion of the region. It won't work, not ever, but you don't even care about that. The war has made your war-profiteering backers unimaginably wealthy, which was the main-goal. It must be a horrible-burden.
It could be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating. If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country. In time, this violence could engulf the region. (whitehouse.gov, 03.19.2007)
That's interesting, because you're the only one asserting this, you and your administration and the Generals still active under you. They have to echo what you say because you're their boss, a relationship you're comfortable with from all those failed-business you "ran." The reality is this: diplomatists, active and retired military and geopolitical experts all say you are wrong, just as they did about WMDs before the war started. We won't take your word for it. The demonstrations are cropping-up everywhere, and gaining-in-intensity, and so are the attacks in Iraq. The consequences for our security will only worsen the longer we stay in the region.
You, Mr. President, have asserted that this would "take months" in the early-days of the war, and you were wrong then. You don't have a good batting-average, and the scales are falling-from the eyes of even the greediest, and stupidest of our citizenry. They are beginning to realize that this will ultimately effect them. Everyone knows that the US Attorney scandal is a minor crime on your list, but it's one that can take you down. That's all that matters, after all. Now you have McCain doing his bait-and-switch with you again, touring a Veteran's home in Manchester, New Hampshire--in the state that gave us Ronald Reagan. It's good that the Bush administration shifted-funds for this publicity-stunt:
Residents will be allowed to stay for up to two years while they receive job training and any needed mental health and substance abuse services. More than 200 veterans already have applied for spots, said Peter Kelleher, president of Harbor Homes, which developed the project. Most of them served in Vietnam, he told McCain during a tour of the apartments, though one veteran of the Iraq war has applied. Just days before the dedication ceremony, Buckingham Place and a shelter for homeless veterans in Manchester, N.H., learned they would not be getting $400,000 federal grants they had expected. (AP, 03.19.2007)
If only things worked this fast for veterans all-the-time! Maybe if Sen. McCain (R-Az.) could visit all of them like this...why, we'd have an adequate health care system for our veterans in every facility and VA hospital. Everyone in Congress and the White House knew conditions were deplorable in our VA hospitals, and that care for our veterans has always been inadequate, poor, and neglectful. This is by-design, and is known as "cutting the costs of war." Besides, all the politicos need those VA funds to keep their worthless wars going, and to keep the war-profiteers fed.
Forget the rhetoric: what have they all done for veterans? How hard did they try when there were openings that would have gotten results? And did any of them see Tom Cruise in "Born on the Fourth of July" (1989)? Most of us who have had veterans in our families didn't need to, we knew vets were getting-screwed our entire lives. The pleas of ignorance are lies, and these creatures should be confronted on all of the neglect of our lives, our economy, our justice system, and our soldiers. That's right, support our troops you pigs. The subpoenas can begin the fixing of all of this, our six-year constitutional crisis that is killing America, and might kill human society yet. Now is a good time to have all members of Congress under oath while they're on the floor, and in the White House while they're on-the-job, mandated by law.
Reuters on the subpoenas: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070318/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc
For the president's most-recent verbal gaffes: www.whitehouse.gov
John McCain for Bush: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail;_ylt=AhklcUIwmaeKrR_qK41OKKIGw_IE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)