.

WE'VE MOVED!!

2007-07-03T06:51:00.000-04:00

C'EST MOI IS CELEBRATING AN EXCITING MOVE!!

BLOGGER HAS BEEN VERY GOOD TO ME BUT IT WAS TIME (PAST TIME) FOR ME TO MOVE INTO MY OWN HOUSE. C'EST MOI NOW LIVES AT: WWW.CESTMOICITIZENMEDIA.COM

IT WOULD PLEASE ME GREATLY IF YOU STOPPED BY. I DECORATED THE HOUSE, SPRUCED UP, PUT OUT THE BEST LINEN...

COME ON BY NOW AND IF YOU LINK TO C'EST MOI - FIRST, THANK YOU AND SECOND, PLEASE DO CHANGE YOUR LINK TO THE NEW ADDRESS:

WWW.CESTMOICITIZENMEDIA.COM

Technorati Tags:
cest moi, politics, blog, url change, blog move, new url

grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory

2007-05-30T17:36:00.000-04:00

Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" was apparently dictated around 1904-05; it was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts.

Markos Productions has put together this haunting and intriguing animation based on the Twain work.

You will need approximately 14 minutes to see both parts of the video and I encourage you to do that; it's fascinating, mesmerizing to some extent and will absolutely inspire thought on the philosophy of a "just" war.

Technorati Tags:
Mark Twain, war, the war prayer, Markos Productions

.

Latest Article From Special Guest Writer and Activist, Charles Anderson

2007-05-29T15:27:00.000-04:00

For those of you who do not know or know of Charlie Anderson, allow me to introduce you to him.

Charlie was transferred to his division’s 2nd Tank Battalion in June 2002. The 2nd Tank Battalion was deployed to Kuwait in February 2003 and was one of the first units to “cross the line” into Iraq at the start of the war. Charlie experienced the archaic supply system that resulted in many American troops lacking basic supplies such as body armor, rations, water, and even ammunition. Charlie was shocked that such conditions were possible in a military that receives more than half of the nation’s tax revenue. Moreover, Charlie was appalled by the destruction and sanction induced poverty that he witnessed among the Iraqi people. Charlie’s experiences in Iraq helped him realize that war is not merely politics by other means and that the actions of governments in foreign lands have far reaching consequences. The vast majority of Iraqis affected by the war were not Ba’ath Party officials or soldiers. Rather they were civilians who were powerless to affect the conditions around them. These innocent civilians were often treated as though they were the enemy by the American military who did not largely understand the culture. This reality formed Charlie’s belief that violence and arrogance are poor foreign policy and that military solutions often compound, not solve problems.

Like 30% of Iraq War veterans he returned to the United States with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. After months of treatment with little improvement, he was medically retired in March 2005 after nearly nine years of active military service. Within days of his retirement, Charlie began advocating for an immediate end to the wholesale slaughter in Iraq. He has appeared on college campuses and at public forums all over the United States including: Virginia, Washington D.C., North Carolina, Maryland, Montana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Ohio, Indiana and Washington State. He was interviewed by CNN in March of this year (see the video of that interview here). He has twice testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Out of Iraq Caucus regarding responsible foreign policy toward Iraq and the need for comprehensive care for America’s Veterans. (See the video here and here)

He is featured in the documentaries Army of None, Soldiers speak out, and the major motion picture The Ground Truth. His writing has been featured on the independent media websites Common Dreams, Truth Out, and The Huffington Post.

Charlie has been an outspoken member of Iraq Veterans Against the War since October 2004. He is co-founder of the Bake Sales for Body Armor, a campaign to purchase needed equipment for our troops. He shares that effort with associate and dear friend, Tammara Rosenleaf (The Homefront War Diaries); an extraordinary woman and activist.

Charlie shares his latest article with us...

The Army That Cried Wolf
====================================================
By Charles E. Anderson

On May 20, 2007 NBC Nightly News aired a report on the ongoing controversy over the body armor American troops are currently issued. The report was the result of months of investigation and alleged that perhaps, America’s armed forces are not issued the best equipment available.

In response, the Army made a bold move: it released documents showing the results of ballistics tests. Next, the army held a series of briefings and press conferences.

“The Bottom line is, we feel that it’s important to clarify, give some context and certainly present facts about the body armor issue, primarily because of the two NBC news pieces,” Brigadier General Tony Cucolo recently told a Blogger’s Round Table conference Call (transcript here). “We are most concerned that it might have shaken the confidence in the current body armor being worn by soldiers in combat, shaken the confidence of spouses and parents of those soldiers,” he said.

It seems logical that the army should make public statements to clarify the record and release crucial facts so that military families and service members can be confident that the gear issued to our military is the best available.

Yet while this is the first time the Army has attempted a full disclosure policy, it is not the first time that concerns over body armor have been voiced. On January 16, 2006, Major General Stephen Speakes, then the Army’s Director of Force Development, pronounced on CNN that when he was in Iraq in the spring of 2003 it was his job “ensure that every soldier who went north had the right body armor to go up into Iraq.” The general made this statement after being told by a member of the National Guard that his unit had not had appropriate body armor.

In March 2006, the Army issued a “Safety of Use Directive” banning privately purchased body armor.

“Because there were reports that soldiers and their families were starting to collect money to buy other armor solutions other than Interceptor body armor,” said Brigadier General Mark Brown.

Far from clarifying the facts surrounding the Safety of Use Directive, the Public Affairs office began making ridiculing statements about the organizers of the Bake Sales for Body Armor campaign. According to one report Pentagon officials accused the organizers, an Army-Wife and an Iraq War veteran, of waging a “mis and dis-information campaign” perceivably against the U.S. Army. Another official callously quipped “I’m sure that the U.S. Postal Service will enjoy the profit that they make.”

Now, thanks to NBC News, the body armor issue is once again in the spotlight. Perhaps, General Brown and General Cucolo are being candidly honest with Military Families, Soldiers, and the American People. But their new candor is a hard sell. In light of the Army’s past deceptions, why should anyone believe them now?

Technorati Tags:
Army, Bake Sales for Body Armor, body armor, Charlie Anderson, DoD, Dragon Skin, Iraq, IVAW, Military, Pentagon, Safety of Use Directive, Troops, War

.

GSA Administrator, Lorita Doan Found To Have Violated The Hatch Act

2007-05-24T03:01:00.000-04:00

The Office of Special Counsel has announced its findings on the first leg of their investigation surrounding the US Attorney firings and the GSA involvement in asserting inappropriate and illegal political influence.

That aspect of the investigation was focused on a January 26, 2007 meeting at the GSA where GSA Administrator, Lorita Doan, along with some 30 of her employees met with Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings who made PowerPoint presentations on the elections titled "2008 House Targets: Top 20". At that meeting, Doan was found to have asked GSA political appointees how they could "help our candidates" win the next election.

The Hatch Act restricts executive branch employees from using their position for political purposes.

"Her actions, to be certain, constitute an obvious misuse of her official authority and were made for the purpose of affecting the result of an election," investigators said in a copy of the 19-page OSC report. "One can imagine no greater violation of the Hatch Act than to invoke the machinery of an agency, with all its contracts and buildings, in the service of a partisan campaign to retake Congress and the Governors' mansions."

In sworn testimony to the OSC investigators, Doan's defense consisted of the following:

1. She was not paying any attention to the presentation or comments because she dislikes PowerPoint presentations, she was uninterested in the topic, and she does not care about polls.

2. She was not paying any attention to the presentation or comments because she was busy during the entire meeting reviewing and sending e-mail on her Blackberry.

3. Doan also said that GSA political appointees who gave testimony to investigators were biased. "There is not a single one of those who did not have somewhere in between a poor to totally inferior performance," Doan said in her statement.

OSC investigators pulled the personal and GSA e-mail records for Ms. Doan and found her statements about being busy e-mailing on her Blackberry to be completely uncorroborated as there was no email activity seen during the time of the meeting; the nearest e-mail activity being anywhere from 5 - 23 hours before and/or after the meeting.

OSC investigators examined all the performance records for the appointees who gave testimony and were the subject of Ms. Doan's assertions on their performance. Those assertions were found to be "unsupported and contradicted by the documentary evidence," as all of those performance reviews showed a "meeting expectations" level or higher. One or more of those appointees had the highest review rating and one or more of them had received performance awards.

This is astounding. If you re-visit in your mind exactly what the Hatch Act is and protects you realize that Ms. Doan, in making these assertions, violates the Hatch Act---while testifying to the OSC for her alleged violations of the Hatch Act.

During her testimony with the OSC, Ms. Doan was asked specifically about comments she allegedly made in the meeting. This might offer an insight into the tenor of her testimony:

Question: Is your testimony that you never said, how do we help our candiates, or something to that effect? Or is it that you don't remember saying anything like that?

Ms. Doan: I don't understand the difference. I just do not understand the difference that you're trying to make because if you don't remember the comment, how can you ascertain that you made or didn't make the comment? How does this work? I don't understand this.

The OSC report goes on to say, "The veracity of Administrator Doan's testimony that she, an English major, did not understand the difference is suspect in light of her March 28, 2007 testimony before the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform where she had no problem understanding the distinction. Specifically, she was questioned and testified as follows:

Tom Davis: Now, we're told by some witnesses--there are some witnesses that say you said something, some that say you didn't, and it was a long time ago. did anybody at any point say these were inappropriate subjects, where somebody said, "We should move away from this?" Do you remember any of that?

Ms. Doan: I really do not remember anything about this meeting.

Tom Davis: OK. But you don't deny what people are saying. You're just saying...

Ms. Doan: No, no. I'm not denying what they're saying. I'm simply saying there were cookies on the table. I remember coming in late. I remember we had--it seemed like we had quite a few people who were actually missing.

I am honestly not prone to petty arguments but I am continually amazed at the level to which one can rise in our government with no discernable intellect. This is a woman who is the highest ranking official of a powerful federal agency who blatantly used her office, position and subordinates to further a political agenda, in violation of federal law; an act that may very well end her career, and of the meeting where this took place, her only notable recollection is that there were cookies on the table. I suppose we can hope there will come a day when government officials who practice abject stupidity do so in violation of federal law.

In their analysis and findings section of the report, the OSC makes the following statements:

"After conducting a thorough investigation into the complaint, the Special Counsel has concluded that Administrator Doan's actions were in violation of the Hatch Act."

"The GSA Administrator displayed no reservations in her willingness to commit GSA resources, including its human capital, to the Republican Party."

"Because Administrator Doan is a Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate, the President, not the Merit Systems Protection Board, must make any decision regarding imposition of disciplinary action."

"Because Ms. Doan, as the head of GSA, engaged in conduct before her subordinate employees that violated a federal law that is intended to protect the federal workplace from political influence and ensure that government resources are being administered in a nonpartisan fashion, her disregard for such protections and safeguards is serious and warrants punishment."

"Moreover, during his campaign, the President promised to demand the highest standard of ethics from all members of his team and nothing less should be expected from the GSA Administrator."
(emphasis most definitely added)

Technorati Tags:
Office of Special Counsel, Lorita Doan, GSA, Scott Jennings, Karl Rove, investigation, Hatch Act, Bush, White House, testimony, corruption, politics, political appointees

.

"Did you break the law?" Monica Goodling: “I believe I crossed the line, but I didn’t mean to.”

2007-05-23T14:03:00.000-04:00

Oh, she didn't mean to; thank you everyone, we can all go home now.

In all fairness, it will take much more than this on the part of everyone involved.

I was not able to blog the morning session of the Monica Goodling testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Please see the impressive live blogging done at Firedoglake.

Please return to see our summary of today's testimony when the hearing wraps up.

Technorati Tags:
DOJ, Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney firings, White House, Bush, Karl Rove, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, House Judiciary Committee, Conyers, hearing, testimony, RNC, Scott Jennings, politics, corruption

.

UPDATE: DOJ Responds To Subpoena Late This Afternoon

2007-05-16T21:00:00.000-04:00

Richard A. Hertling, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General responds via letter to the May 2nd subpoena issued by the Judiciary Committee.

The letter yielded very little. The claim in the letter is that a multi-field e-mail search of Rove, Karl, kr, gwb43.com, georgewbush.com and mchq.org produced one email over the course of 2 1/2 years. The email that came up in that search was on February 28, 2007 forwarding a copy of McClatchy's story on U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. That was sent from (and to) Rove Aide Scott Jennings; to Scott Jennings, Karl Rove, Fred Fielding, Kevin Sullivan, Dana Perino, Kyle Sampson, Jeanie Marno, Christopher Oprison, Courtney Elwood and cc'd to Sara Taylor.

Karl Rove sent the majority of his e-mail over the RNC server. The current claim is that those e-mails were deleted. The RNC has said it will turn over all relevant e-mails to the White House at which point they will determine which of those fall under executive privilege.

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Sen Leahy, Sen Specter, Judiciary Committee, subpoena, Rove e-mails, US Attorney firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, US Attorney General, hearings, testimony, RNC, Scott Jennings, politics, headlines

.

BREAKING: Gonzalez / DOJ Ignores Subpoena - Leahy Draws Line In The Sand

2007-05-16T12:17:00.000-04:00

On May 2, 2007 Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales detailing Gonzales' lack of response to the demand for e-mails from Karl Rove regarding the US Attorney firings. During the Gonzales testimony and in a subsequent letter dated April 25, 2007 requests were made to have the "lost" e-mails turned over the Committee. Having received no response from Gonzales on this, a subpeona was issued and delivered to Gonzales demanding the Rove e-mails be handed over to Congress no later than May 15, 2007.

I contacted the Majority Office this morning and was told they could not make a statement then but should have additional information later in the day. In speaking to a representative in that office about a half hour ago, they did confirm that Gonzales has not complied with the subpeona. Senator Leahy has just added a statement on his website.

Gonzales / DOJ has ignored the subpoena and did not comply by the deadline of 5-15-07 midnight. Senator Leahy and Senator Specter have issued a bipartisan demand for the requested documents that include the un-redacted Karl Rove e-mails. The demand requires the Justice Department to turn over these documents no later than 10 a.m. Friday, May 18.

“You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance,” the senators wrote. “Your action today is in defiance of the Committee’s subpoena without explanation of any legal basis for doing so.”

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Sen Leahy, Sen Specter, Judiciary Committee, subpoena, Rove e-mails, US Attorney firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, US Attorney General, hearings, testimony

.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell Passes Away Today

2007-05-15T14:17:00.000-04:00

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority, passed away 12:40 pm today, shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University. He was 73.

The Rev. Falwell was an enormous figure who drew the religious right together as a cohesive unit, ushering that group's momentum into the political arena.

Philosophically, I have considered Mr. Falwell was a formidable adversary but with death go personal battles and is a time to have and feel only respect for the life and respect for the passing.

May his family and friends love and lift each other to find peace and comfort.

Death is the road.

Life is the traveller.

The Soul is the Guide.
~ Sri Chinmoy ~

Technorati Tags:
Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority, Liberty University

.

There Are None More Qualified To Speak--None Who Have Sacrificed More. We Should Listen

2007-05-13T14:47:00.000-04:00

There are many BushSpeak mantras; few as frequently and robotically chanted as "We need to listen to our Generals on the ground". It makes perfect sense that this would be among his favorites. Our Generals possess the greatest authority with which to speak, and they are forced to say only what the President tells them to say. What a sweet and twisted little deal for this president; to make propaganda machines of some of the most honorable men in our nation.

General John Batiste served loyally for 30 years and was nearing his third star and the number 2 position in Baghdad when he made the painstakingly difficult decision to quit; unwilling to spend another day compromising his principles.

General Batiste is among many of those "we should listen to" who have escaped the confines of this administration and dedicate themselves to the truth.

The videos below demonstrate the effort underway by several retired senior military officers who detail a litany of lies, ill conceived war rationales, mismanagement, a marketing plan to go to war that was more important than validity, and a complete unwillingness to "listen" to those genuinely qualified.

Let's practice what the President only preaches.

In a targeted ad, financed by VoteVets.org, Retired General John Batiste openly challenges President Bush on his management of the war.

General John Batiste (Ret.) frankly discusses the realities of the Iraq war and the sacrifices he made to side with the truth.

In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years.

The VoteVets.org ad done by General Wesley Clark (Ret.) with Iraq veterans - "Because Of Iraq"

General William Odom (Ret.) reviews some of the very real global consequences of this war.

General Tony Zinni discusses the WMD lies and a created war rationale with no strategic understanding of what they were getting us into.

Major General Paul Eaton was finally appointed to organize security in Iraq on May 9, 2003, almost 2 months AFTER the invasion began.

General David Petraeus, who by all accounts appears to be an exceptional and gifted military officer and strategist, is currently the President's "point to guy". What seems more likely? That when General Petraeus retires, he uses his regained freedom of speech in continued championship of this war -- or that we begin to hear the many truths he holds and has witnessed throughout this preposterous occupation of Iraq?

Technorati Tags:
Bush, President Bush, military, war, Iraq, General John Batiste, General Wesley Clark, General William Odom, General Tony Zinni, Major General Paul Eaton, war planning, war strategy

.

The C'est Moi Interview With The Office of Special Counsel

2007-05-03T19:43:00.000-04:00

3 May, 2007

The following interview was conducted via phone and e-mail correspondence by Megan Donovan with Mr. Loren Smith, Director of Congressional and Public Affairs for the Office of Special Counsel.
The Office of Special Counsel has recently launched an investigation surrounding the U.S. Attorney firings and specific GSA activity with regard to possible executive violations of both USERRA and the Hatch Act.

M. DONOVAN: A lot of people are probably not familiar with the Office of the Special Counsel. Can you briefly explain what the role of the OSC is?

L. SMITH: The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is an independent watchdog agency established in the late 70’s as part of the post-Watergate reforms. We have four main areas of statutory responsibility involving federal employees and applicants.
1) safeguarding and facilitating whistleblower disclosures,
2) investigating and prosecuting certain employment complaints known as Prohibited Personnel Practices, with a special focus on whistleblower reprisal,
3) enforcing the civilian job rights of military service members under a law known as USERRA, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, and
4) enforcing the Hatch Act, the law that restricts certain political activity by government employees.

M. DONOVAN: Can you explain exactly what the Hatch Act is? Who is it primarily meant to protect?

L. SMITH: The Hatch Act is a law enacted in 1939 to prevent the machinery of government from being used for partisan political purposes. It is designed to protect taxpayers, including federal workers, from having their government resources used to advocate in partisan elections.

M. DONOVAN: The L.A. Times has claimed that the current investigation stems from two separate investigations your office launched within the last few weeks. The first one concerns former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. The second concerns a series of Power Point presentations given by aide to Karl Rove, J. Scott Jennings, and made at the General Services Administration this year. Is this correct?

L. SMITH: Essentially, yes. Regarding the second investigation, it would be more precise to say that we’re investigating that event at GSA, including the comments made by GSA Administrator Lurita Doan. I must also add that we have other matters, not yet public, that dovetail with these two investigations and contributed to the determination to initiate the broader investigations.

M. DONOVAN: Can you elaborate on how the original complaints were initiated?

L. SMITH: Mr. Iglesias filed with our agency on April 3rd, alleging violations of both USERRA and the Hatch Act. In the GSA matter, we also received a complaint.

M. DONOVAN: What led you to expand the investigation into one with a broader scope? Is Karl Rove a focal point for your investigation?

L. SMITH: It became apparent that OSC would be shirking its responsibilities under the Hatch Act if we failed to examine the possibility that unlawful political activity was occurring elsewhere within the executive branch. As to the focal points, everyone within the executive branch is covered by the Hatch Act save the President and the Vice President, but mainly we are focused on Mr. Iglesias’ complaint and the events surrounding the briefings by the White House Office of Political Affairs. It would be premature for us to say we are targeting individuals at this point.

M. DONOVAN: The OSC is defined as an "independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency." Does the agency have complete autonomy? Can you make clear for us how the OSC handles the disposition of cases? - Be they civil remedies or criminal findings.

L. SMITH: OSC is autonomous, although we depend on Congress and the President for our annual appropriations. Under the Hatch Act, we have the authority to investigate any allegation of wrongdoing as defined by the statute. Then, if we believe we can substantiate a violation, we file for disciplinary action with the Merit Systems Protection Board. The presumptive penalty under the Hatch Act is removal, although that could be lessened to a suspension.

An exception is the category of individuals who have received Senate confirmation, known as PAS – Presidentially-Appointed, Senate-confirmed. This would include cabinet heads as well as many agency heads, including that of GSA. In these cases, OSC would still investigate, but rather than filing with MSPB, we would send a letter with our Report of Investigation to the President informing him of our findings and recommendations.

In either category (PAS or non-PAS), if we find coercion of federal employees with regard to political activity (see title 18, section 610 of the US Code), we could also refer the case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

M. DONOVAN: What are your first steps in this investigation; we understand you have subpoena power, can you anticipate when that phase of the investigation might begin, and can you tell us today who will, at least initially, be subpoenaed?

L. SMITH: We do have subpoena power, although we hope to avoid issuing subpoenas by receiving positive and timely responses to our initial information requests. Regarding the timeline, I cannot comment – both due to the sensitive nature and the unpredictable nature of such investigations.

M. DONOVAN: How is testimony to the OSC handled? Is this deposition style sworn testimony?

L. SMITH: Generally, statements are taken under oath.

M. DONOVAN: The OSC has already come under some scrutiny regarding The Office of Personnel Management's investigation into the OSC. What would you say to your critics on the merits of that probe and on your ability to thoroughly and objectively investigate this matter unimpeded by it?

L. SMITH: OSC is the agency charged with enforcing the Hatch Act – as I mentioned before, we would be derelict if we failed to perform these investigations. The OPM Inspector General investigation is an unrelated matter; however, it is worth noting that the task force we have created to investigate this matter is led by a career employee, and is composed entirely of career employees.

M. DONOVAN: Can you tell us: If congressional testimony continues, would any witnesses appearing there be free to testify on matters that are a part of an ongoing investigation by your agency?

L. SMITH: Yes. Please note that our investigation is independent and not coordinated with any other investigation of these matters.

Mr. Smith allowed us to submit these brief follow-up questions:

To his previous response:

L. SMITH: Mr. Iglesias filed with our agency on April 3rd, alleging violations of both USERRA and the Hatch Act. In the GSA matter, we also received a complaint.

M. DONOVAN: (AS A FOLLOW UP): Are you able to tell us who filed the complaint regarding the GSA matter?

L. SMITH: No - OSC almost never comments on the identities of those who file with our agency. Mr. Iglesias is an exception because he released OSC from our obligations under the Privacy Act.

To his previous response:

M. DONOVAN: (AS A FOLLOW UP): Are you able to tell us if any such requests for information have been made to date?

L. SMITH: In general, we won’t be issuing comment on specific details of the investigation, including the status of information requests.

We extend our appreciation to Mr. Loren Smith for his candor and for being so generous with his time.

Technorati Tags:
OSC, office of special counsel, U.S. Attorney firings, investigation, David Iglesias, Loren Smith, Scott Bloch, Karl Rove, Lurita Doan, GSA, Gonzales, USERRA, Hatch Act, White House, executive branch, OPM

.

C'est Moi Citizen Media Is Granted Interview With The Office of Special Counsel

2007-05-02T22:33:00.000-04:00

The Office of Special Counsel, the independent investigative agency that has launched an investigation in recent weeks surrounding the U.S. Attorney firings and possible executive violations of both USERRA and the Hatch Act, has graciously agreed to an interview with C'est Moi Citizen Media.
The interview is being conducted via phone and email.

Mr. Loren Smith, OSC Director of Congressional and Public Affairs candidly answers our questions regarding this critical investigation.

We will be publishing the interview tomorrow evening,
Thursday, May 3, at approximately 8:00pm.

Former U.S. Attorney Iglesias Spurs Investigation - Presidential Appointee Promises To Leave "No Stone Unturned"

2007-04-24T20:32:00.000-04:00

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has launched an investigation surrounding the firing of at least one U.S. Attorney, Karl Rove's missing e-mails as well as Rove's possible involvement in putting pressure on the Justice Department to fire U.S. Attorneys who did not adhere to a politically motivated form of justice.

This investigation was, at least in some part, spurred on by a complaint filed with the OSC by former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Iglesias filed a complaint with the OSC on April 3 alleging the reason for his firing, constituting a violation of the Hatch Act, was due to his unwillingness to succumb to improper political influence. Also, that he was criminally discriminated against in the Gonzales testimony regarding the reason for his firing. AG Gonzales made a statement under oath that Mr. Iglesias was fired because he was an "absentee landlord"; implying his position in the military reserve made him derelict in his duties as U.S. Attorney. This discrimination against military personnel is a crime under The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. They are not able to actually bring criminal charges, but have subpoena power, provide civil remedies, and make criminal recommendations.

On June 26, 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Scott J. Bloch for the position of Special Counsel at the Office of Special Counsel. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Mr. Bloch on December 9, 2003. Mr. Bloch said of this OSC investigation he is spearheading, "We will not leave any stone unturned."

In David Iglesias' remarks during his call in interview on MSNBC's Hardball, he indicates the reason for going to the OSC with this is simply that this case is directly in line with the stated goals of the OSC. Mr. Iglesias appears to feel confident that Karl Rove was the source of pressure on the DOJ to have that office and its U.S. Attorney's approach cases, not on their merits, but based on sought political outcomes.

Subpoenas will likely be forthcoming in this wide-reaching investigation. With Karl Rove as a focal point, he could be at the top of that list. Another critical element of this investigation would be Monica Goodling. Goodling was senior counsel to Gonzales and the DOJ / White House liaison. In that capacity, she would be best suited to shed light on how deeply Rove and others in President Bush's team were involved in the firings. Goodling asserted her Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying before Congress and had also rejected demands for a private interview with a House committee. She submitted a three-sentence resignation letter to Gonzalez on April 6th.

This is an unavoidable and expanding problem for the Bush administration especially in the growing consensus that the White House is the source of these ballooning scandals and suspicions.

The OSC is completely independent. If they sink their teeth into this, and suspicions of a ruse prove false, look for a relentless gloves-off battle.

Blog Discussion On This:
Think Progress - Iglesias Reveals He Filed Complaint Against Rove, Leading To Special Counsel Probe
Poli-Blog - The USA Issue Heats Up, as New Investigation Begins
Crooks and Liars - Rove Investigation Launched
TIME: Swampland - Connecting the Dots

Technorati Tags:
David Iglesias, discrimination, DOJ, Fifth Amendment, firings, Gonzales, Hardball, Hatch Act, hearings, investigations, Karl Rove, LA Times, missing e mails, Monica Goodling, Msnbc, office of special counsel, OSC, President Bush, RNC, Scott J. Bloch, subpoenas, testimony, White House

.

Gift For The President’s Veto Pen Should Hit His Desk This Week

2007-04-24T09:48:00.000-04:00

A final and compromised version of the spending bill has passed in committee yesterday. It is expected to pass both houses and by the end of this week, it should be on the desk of President Bu…I will veto anything that denigrates my self-appointed position of all-knowing deity.

There were compromises made that included a bit of pork trimming. We can’t be sure if critical votes were lost in that trimming, but good money is on this being a passable bill.

We have information on the particulars of the new spending bill but reports seem to contradict each other on one issue. It is unclear as to whether the withdrawal dates are binding or non-binding. It is possible the bill reads with the beginning withdrawal dates as binding and the final withdrawal date as non-binding. That could certainly be seen as ineffectual. If the bill does not specify troop numbers to withdraw at the initial date, and there is no binding final date, then I suppose one troop could be sent home with no real withdrawal for an indefinite period of time.

Here are three mainstream media accounts of the date issue.

According to the Washington Post:
But once the president made it clear a veto was inevitable, Democratic leaders decided to stick to binding dates, at least for the initial troop pullouts.

According to Reuters:
…this new version merely establishes next March as a nonbinding date for withdrawing, the approach favored by the Senate.

According to the New York Times:
Congressional Democrats agreed Monday to ignore President Bush’s veto threat and send him a $124 billion war spending bill that orders the administration to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1.

The bill specifies certain dates that are floating deadlines based on progress. The bill stipulates that pullout must begin no later than October 1 with final withdrawal by March, 2008 (and by some accounts, April, 2008). However, withdrawal would have to begin as early as July 1 of this year if Bush cannot certify certain benchmarks are being met.

Some of these benchmarks include:

Leaders must ensure troops are adequately trained, equipped and rested before going into combat. Bush is given an avenue by which he can waive this but only if he offers a compelling and public reason for the waiver.

Iraq establishment of programs to disarm militias.

Reductions in sectarian violence.

Easing of laws that keep former Baath Party members out of the government.

Passage of an oil revenue-sharing law.

Simply, if Bush can show progress here, we defer to the October 1 withdrawal to be finalized by March 1. If progress is not made, troops would begin heading home July 1 to be completely withdrawn by the end of the year.

Date specific is not what one would call this bill. If President Bush honestly feels progress is being made, he should see this bill as an easy path to validation. But this isn’t Camelot and we are not dealing with Arthur here. It appears Bush will not be moved on this issue no matter the will of the American people; no matter the legislative bi-partisan positions to the contrary; no matter the disastrous condition of his occupation in Iraq; and no matter the rising level resistance from Iraqi citizens and now it’s government.

We all feel pretty confident about how this week will play out. The real questions present themselves when the bill heads back to the Hill in ribbons.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Congress, house bill, Iraq, Military, occupation, senate bill, spending bill, Troops, Veto, War, withdrawal

.

Vermont Senate: The People Have Spoken And The Word Is Given--IMPEACH

2007-04-22T12:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, April 20, 2007, Vermont became the first state to approve a resolution calling on the U.S. House to launch proceedings to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney.

This is a promising example of power to the people. In a time when we might feel overwhelmed and powerless, this precedent setting event should spur our faith in the power of each individual American voice.

Brattlerouser with vtimpeach.com, a resource for the Vermont Impeachment Movement says, "When we were told by the Democratic leadership in the Vermont legislature that there was no chance of impeachment action being taken by them, we refused to acquiesce and instead flooded the Statehouse demanding that they listen to their constituents and honor the Constitution."

Published: Friday, April 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Representative Peter Welch issued the following statement in regard to the Vermont Senate's impeachment resolution:

"As Vermont's representatives to Congress we fully understand and share the frustration and anger of Vermont legislators and many Vermonters with the Bush administration - one of the worst and most destructive in American history.

"Currently, for the first time since President Bush has been in office, there are a number of investigations taking place regarding the actions of the Bush administration, including how and why we invaded Iraq, no-bid contracts, the firing of U.S. attorneys by the attorney general, the assault on constitutional rights and the use of Republican Party emails in the White House. Before we talk about impeachment, it is imperative that these investigations be allowed to run their course and we should then follow wherever the facts lead.

"In the meantime, in our view, the people of Vermont want us to focus our attention on such issues as ending the war in Iraq, protecting the needs of our veterans, raising the minimum wage, addressing the crisis of global warming and providing health care to all of our citizens."

The underlying message in the delegation responses falls in line with the American demand for accountability but their "view" of what Vermont wants does not need to be re-worked or re-worded. Vermont's message here is made abundantly clear. Certainly, there are precursor investigations and although all of these are requisite actions, there is one ultimate recourse to use against a criminal administration. The number of American citizens willing to settle for nothing less is growing expedientially.

Those voices are being lifted up with the help of several amazing organizations. One of them is A28: Nationwide Impeachment Protests April 28, 2007. A28 hosts an interactive community of Americans demanding accountability. On April 28th they intend to have their voices heard. You can use their ImpeachMap to see actions already scheduled across the country. You can join an action in your area or start your own. These can be as small as making the IMPEACH statement by writing it on the sidewalk in chalk or as large as organizing 2,000 people on a beach to make a human mural. The theme of the day will be IMPEACH and the A28 community intends to spell it out across the nation on April 28th. There is still nearly a week to get involved. Visit A28 today and most importantly, reclaim and exercise your power.

Vermont now serves as a proof that it works. Impeachment resolutions are currently active in Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey, and Washington. We can grow that list. Those who desire accountability need only be reminded that it starts with one unwavering voice, strengthened by a chorus of voices, empowered by a community united in voice, then a legislature that can no longer ignore it.

Where to go for regular updates and information:
A28
VTimpeach
Democrats.com
ImpeachForPeace
Impeach07
AfterDowningStreet

C'est Moi Citizen Media is launching Americans For Accountability^TM as its mechanism for tracking the national impeachment movement. Look for articles and resource information in our Americans For Accountability regular weekly feature.

Technorati Tags:
impeachment, Bush, Cheney, Vermont, Senate, House, resolution, high crimes, war of aggression, impeachable offenses, politics, news, headlines

.

So, what you are saying is...

2007-04-19T20:56:00.000-04:00

Summary points of AG Alberto Gonzales' testimony today.

So if I understand you correctly...

You know nothing improper happened but you don't recall any of the events pertaining to this issue.

Yes, they were fired due to poor performance and mismanagement and you made that determination without ever reviewing their performance reports.

You don't recall the list, how the names got on the list, who suggested they be on the list, the reasons they were on the list but after going back and reviewing the documents, you have created a scenario that you absolutely stand by as completely truthful and ethical.

Senator Feinstein reviews a memo that details the "talking points" to adopt when the political firestorm over this starts. That plan was to say only that the administration made the decision, to not ever name a particular person in the administration and to not ever name a particular person in the DOJ. So Mr. Gonzalez, you detailed a clear plan of obfuscation and then when you stick to that orchestrated plan, we are meant to believe it's the truth?

Today you cannot recall what you didn't know in your previous misstatements and what you have come to know by studying the documents but still cannot recall---right?

Our nation's chief law enforcement officer offered more than 5 hours of testimony where the only detail he could recall with any level of clarity was his name.

And the statement from the White House:

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

The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he appreciates the work he is doing at the Department of Justice to help keep our citizens safe from terrorists, our children safe from predators, our government safe from corruption, and our streets free from gang violence.

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, testimony, Congress, hearings, US Attorney, firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, loyal bushies, attorney general, Karl Rove, Iglesias, Lam

.

Shouldn’t Gonzales Be Judged By These Same DOJ Standards?

2007-04-19T17:17:00.000-04:00

The Gonzales testimony continues.

At approximately 2:54, The glaring question is asked. Sen. Coburn asks Mr. Gonzales how he can justify the firing of these attorneys for supposed mismanagement, and then not feel his actions should be judged by the same standard. Mr. Gonzales attempts to justify his position by stating that he had made mistakes and steps are being taken to correct them. Sen. Cobun counters with "It is my opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you...and it is my belief that you should suffer the same consequences."

Some of the other testimony continuing after the lunch break:

2:36 - Sen. Grassley

"I feel on many occasions this administration has gone out of its way to try to thwart my oversight." "We shouldn't be getting conflicting statements from the Attorney General. "We expect nothing less from our top law enforcement official." "Why are there so many inconsistencies?"

(A) "First of all, I regret the inconsistencies. I made statements that were over-broad. The main reason for that was because I had not gone back and looked at the documents. I felt a tremendous need to come out quickly with statements."
(Q) "Who came up with the plan for this review?"
(A) "Sir, I did"

3:04 - Sen. Whitehouse

Sen. Whitehouse articulately discusses the importance of structure, tradition, process and policy. And notes that he cannot find "anywhere in this tragic record" any evidence of consideration and careful thought to process.

(A) "I think it's important as well, Senator"

3:13 - Sen. Kyl

Sen. Kyl's approach to this critical testimony is to ignore the reason for the hearing and to discuss how he might work with Mr. Gonzales on Internet gambling. A rather surprising divergence from the purpose of the hearing.

3:22 Sen. Leahy

Mr. Gonzales literally stammered through responses to these questions fired from Sen. Leahy:

(Q) "What do we have to do to obtain Rove's email regarding the plan to replace US Attorneys...?”
(Q) "What is the policy regarding the use of RNC servers for government communication?"
(Q) "Did the President ever tell you to fire a specific US Attorney?"
(A) "Not that I recall"
(Q) "Which is accurate testimony? He goes thru all the dates and statements Mr. Gonzales has made, "Which is the accurate statement?"
(A) "Those were misstatements and I take responsibility for them."

3:40 Sen. Feinstein

"I do not understand how this list was compiled." Feinstein goes over testimony and interviews with key personnel where they state they had no involvement in putting recommendations on the list. Some said they didn't even know there was a list.

The Senator reads from a memo that goes over what the talking points for the potential political firestorm will be. In that memo, it says "We will say it was the administration's decision and no specific person at the white House or specific person at DOJ. She directs to Gonzales "And to this day, we still do not know the person who actually put these names on the list". "Who?"

Gonzales responds only with, "I would like to know, I would like to ask that question". "I received the recommendations."

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, testimony, Congress, hearings, US Attorney, firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, loyal bushies, attorney general, Karl Rove, Iglesias, Lam

.

The Much Anticipated Gonzales Testimony Begins

2007-04-19T07:48:00.000-04:00

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Firing of U.S. Attorneys

9:33am - Opening Statement - Sen. Patrick Leahy

With the cameras diligently focused on Alberto Gonzales, we listen to Senator Leahy's statement while watching Mr. Gonzales shake his head through much of it.

Leahy says, "If nothing improper was done, then people need to stop hiding the truth. If there is nothing to hide, the White House should stop hiding."

"Just any answer won't do any more."

9:44 - Opening statement - Sen. Arlen Specter

"You come to this hearing with heavy burden of truth."

Specter reviews methodically, the previous statements by Gonzales that have since been directly contradicted. "This is your opportunity, Mr. Attorney General to tackle this heavy burden of truth and to re-establish your credibility."

"Until we hear from you, I am going to regard these as allegations."

Leahy grants two minutes of opening to Sen. Schumer and Sen. Sessions

9:52 Sen. Schumer

"I hope and expect we won't get meandering answers that take up time and don't answer the questions"

9:55 Sen. Sessions

"Your ability to lead the Department of Justice is in question"

9:58 Alberto Gonzales is sworn in

9:58 Opening statement - Alberto Gonzales

Mr. Gonzales had submitted a 26 page opening statement in writing. The committee made that a part of the record and Mr. Gonzales makes a far more brief opening statement comprised of a portion of his written statement.

"I regret how they [fired US Attorneys] were treated"

"These attacks on my integrity have been very painful to me" I understand how my statements caused confusion."

"While the process was flawed, I firmly believe nothing improper occurred."

He does state several times that he feels nothing improper occurred, and that he takes responsibility for his misstatements and the unfortunate mismanagement of this issue.

10:04 - Sen. Leahy

"Do you recall when you had the conversation with Karl Rove on concerns over US attorney not perusing voter fraud?"

(AG) "I believe it was the fall of 2006"

When asked for more details on these meetings regarding those concerns, Gonzales says "I now recall there was a meeting with the President on these concerns - voter fraud"

(Q) "When was that?"
(A) "I have reviewed my calendar and I now know that meeting was on October 11th"

Sen. Leahy devotes some time to reviewing the exact circumstances surrounding the firing of Iglesias.

10:14 - Sen. Specter

Sen. Specter also reviews previous statments made by Mr. Gonzales as well as his written opening statement that contradict the actual events.

(AG) "I have already said that I misspoke." "I have already conceded that I misspoke in that press conference."

Specter says, "Now, I know you have prepared for your testimony here...

Gonzales interrupts - "I prepare for every hearing senator"

Specter is visibly annoyed at this and begins drilling him "do you prepare for you press conferences?" Gonzales stumbles. Specter "Do you prepare for you press conferences?"
Gonzales, appearing to notice his misstep here winds up apologizing to the Senator.

10:26 - Sen. Kennedy

"In your opening statement you indicated that you had limited involvement, and then you say my decision is justified and should stand. Since you apparently had limited involvement how can you justify your decision?"

Gonzales begins by saying "Good question Senator" but then launches into "I believe the record shows nothing improper was done..."

Kennedy stops him and presses Gonzales on how he can stand by his decision and testify to nothing improper happening when Gonzales states he had limited involvement only, that it was not a vigorous process and it was a task he gave Sampson.

AG - "Since then, I have reviewed all the documents."

10:36 - Sen. Brownback

Sen. Brownback indicates his desire to run down the list and get a reason for each of these firings.

(Q) Daniel Bogden, why was he terminated.
(A) "since going back to review the documents, I understand the concerns were a matter of energy level."
(Q) Paul Charlton in Arizona
(A) "What I recall knowing of his poor judgment in pushing forward a recommendation on a death penalty case.
(Q) Kevin Ryan
(A) "I was not surprised to see Mr. Ryan on the list. I was aware of poor management in that office."
(Q) Margaret Chiara
(A) "Same issue. I have since learned that this was a similar case of poor management."
(Q) "Bud" Cummins
(A) "Mr. Cummings is someone who was on a different track. He was asked to resign on June 14th. Because there was another qualified individual that the white house wanted to go into that office."
(Q) John McKay
(A) "Generally I recall there being serious concerns about his judgment. We were concerned about the way he pursued an information sharing project."
The Senator does not ask about Iglesias and Lam.
10:47 - Sen. Kohl
"What is the rationale for remaining as US attorney general...Why is so important that you remain in this office?"
(A) "This is not about Alberto Gonzales...I have admitted mistakes in managing this issue but the department in general has not been mismanaged." "I believe I am still effective in my role as Attorney General, I ask myself that every day. The moment I believe I can no longer be effective in my role as Attorney General, I will resign."

11:05 Sen. Feinstein

"Whose idea was it to change the law ... to add in conference, an amendment which effectively gave you the ability to appoint US attorneys without senate confirmation? Whose idea was that?

(A) "I don’t recall specifically the genesis. I will say this, I did support the change not to avoid senate involvement, but I don't agree with the Senate deciding who serves on my staff."
(Q) And you are saying you made these decisions [on firings] without reviewing the performance reports"
(A) "Senator (pause) yes again, that is correct."

11:18 10 minute recess

Great Blog Talk On This:

Captain's Quarters - Gonzales Hearing: Live Blog
Firedoglake - Just Warming Up?

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, testimony, Congress, hearings, US Attorney, firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, loyal bushies, attorney general, Karl Rove, Iglesias, Lam

.

Disenchanted

2007-04-14T01:52:00.000-04:00

Hypocrisy
Rationalization
Immaturity
Aggression
Megalomania
Entitlement
Sycophancy
Ignorance
Degradation
Fraudulence
Pretentiousness
Indulgence

I'm not comfortable living in an America where:

Loud trumps reason
Our top leader's only talent is political posturing
Our founding principle of dissent is declared evil
Individual thought is sacrificed to political hypnotism
We create evil-doers to crucify while allowing true evil to run rampant
We wage wars of aggression
Lives are sacrificed for skewed agendas
We denigrate those who seek balance between human existence and our life-giving planet
We (in Salem Witch Trial form) create public enemies and destroy them
Great minds are silenced
Debate is drowned by defamation
Bickering is more appealing than learning
Listening is a sign of weakness
Freedom is a relative notion
Issues are no longer progressed by fascinating discovery
Media of the moment defines reality
Hunger for scandal supersedes human compassion
Morality is measured by church
Wisdom of the ages is abandoned
Power is held by position and not the people
Power trumps principle

Technorati Tags:
government, power, big brother, humanity, compassion, politics, media, planet, earth, religion, debate, war, freedom, scandal, news, headlines

.

Our Culture Of Pre-Packaged Apologies

2007-04-10T03:14:00.000-04:00

In an era of Politically Correct overload, it is easy to grasp the appeal of a public personality like Imus. His enormous audience is indicative of the fact that we long to have small slices in our day where careful, PC, and ever guarded language is left at the door for a moment. It’s a needed release in a somewhat repressed society. As with all things there is a limit.

Imus has a long history of indiscriminate acerbic comments. Just a few examples are: Imus or his cast have called Colin Powell a “weasel,” New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson a “fat sissy“. He and his colleagues also called the New York Knicks a group of “chest-thumping pimps.” He has also had such memorable quotes as, “Watchin’ Dan Rather do the news, he looks like he’s making a hostage tape. They should have guys in ski masks and AK-47s just standing off to the side.” And, “My goal is to goad people into saying something that ruins their life.”…something he may well have succeeded in doing to himself.

The distinction is that as rude and caustic as those might have been…they were not racist. The cries for apologies can be heard far and wide. Those of you who know me know that I am sick of all this apology nonsense. Some pencil pusher sits in a dark room and decides if an apology is needed, where and how it should be delivered, if it should be strong or contrite and their most important task is a cost -vs- benefit analysis on the offending remark and the orchestrated apology. What’s that quote? “The secret is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” I am not saying Imus himself doesn’t deeply (and sincerely) regret what he has done. I feel confident he does. But let’s face it, the damage control is a calculated and fiduciary decision. We can pull our chair up to the buffet and gleefully gobble up all the fake sincerity dished out in huge portions, or we can address the issue of responsible speech and the consequences if we are incapable of exercising it.

If you have an audience, you have a responsibility. If you don’t want that burden, then exercise your choice to have a more private existence. Thankfully, we no longer live in a society where racial slurs are acceptable. If Imus were to resign, it would be a clear recognition of unacceptable behavior, an understanding of consequence, and an unfeigned statement that having the loyal attention of so many is an honor; and abusing it made him less deserving of the privilege.

On the other hand, do we judge a man’s life of career and personal achievements on the basis of a single moment? Many have opined (and opined, and opined) that this was just “more of the same” from Imus. Untrue. Imus has spent his career delivering what nearly a half a million people came to expect from him - that small slice in their day when they can forget being careful and guarded and freely get a kick out of anyone and everyone being “roasted”. Imus has no history of racist remarks at all, so let’s stop lying about the man (Michelle Malkin) and stop turning the volume up. That only detracts from the singular problem as if to say, “Well, doing this once isn’t scandalous enough, let’s lie and say he’s been doing it for 30 years.” I have an idea, let’s send a message that ONCE is one time too many.

I will also say something similar to what I said regarding the Mel Gibson episode–Imus is not now the enemy; the picture of hate. But there are consequences. It is beyond my powers to decide what those should be, but must we reduce this to yet another opportunity for Sean Hannity to scream for apologies?

The Blog Talk On This:

Wizbang - NBC Suspends Imus
The Moderate Voice - Don Imus’ Show Suspended From CBS Radio And MSNBC
Crooks and Liars - Imus Suspended for 2 Weeks: Updated
Obsidian Wings - Unfair To Trains

Technorati Tags:
apologies, ethical journalism, Imus, Media, Michelle Malkin, Msnbc, politically correct, racism, Sean Hannity

.

O'Reilly Once Again Setting The Bar For Reason By Imploding On The "No Sanity Factor"

2007-04-06T11:14:00.000-04:00

You can see this just about anywhere today but I couldn't resist.

And the LEFT is UNHINGED?

Mr. ~~phone sex~~ traditional values; I suggest you take a vacation,
get medicated, take a few anger management courses...
Do something
because you are losing it, buddy.

Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera duke it out over drunk driving - From Wizbang Pop!
Victim’s father calls O’Reilly ‘disrespectful.’ - From Think Progress
O'Reilly speaks to the Associated Press on the knock-down, drag-out with Geraldo

Technorati Tags: Bill O'Reilly, Spin Factor, Immigration, Geraldo, VA, drunk driving, YouTube, FOXnews

Major Changes In The Iraq Embed Opportunity - We Remain Determined

2007-04-05T03:00:00.000-04:00

We have heard from the DoD today who notified us that the Iraq embed trip has been "indefinitely postponed". Upon further conversation with Mr. Holt with the Deparment of Defense, I understand the trip, via military transport, is now off the table due to "operational requirements". This is a new program born in an ever-changing environment; I certainly understand how this can happen. In order to be embedded in Iraq, I will have to go via commercial flight. Our contact for the embed is also changing and I am awaiting that new information. When I make the first contact with them, I will have much more to report in the way of details and possible dates.

It seems likely that RedState will go forward even with this restructure as they have exceeded their fund-raising goals. I have tried writing them to get more information but they have yet to respond to either of my messages. I will state here what I would have said to RedState. If this hurdle in the plans to go to Iraq does not stop or delay you, we are happy for you, be safe, and for the sake of the medium, it is our hope that you make a respectable blogger/new media showing.

But because it is imperative to have the liberal blogger voice coming out of Iraq...We are soon to be there as well. I am moving forward with my plans to go to Iraq. Given that the time frame appears to be at least 60 days out, Alex with the GTL will likely go as well. The one major benefit to this change is that my trip to Iraq is no longer date specific so I have the time I need to prepare.

I plan to post another update within 2 days. Please look for the joint C'est Moi / GTL fund-raising launch and consider supporting our efforts to put an objective citizen media voice on the ground in Iraq.

Technorati Tags:
RedState, Pentagon, embedded journalist, citizen media, Gun Toting Liberal, bloggers, right blogosphere, left blogosphere, journalistic integrity, reporters, Iraq, war reporting

.

Ahmadinejad Pardons The 15 Sailors & Marines

2007-04-04T09:59:00.000-04:00

During a press conference President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held in Tehran this morning, he announced that even though Iran has the legal right to try the hostages, he has decided to pardon them in honor of the birthday of the prophet.

According to translation, Ahmadinejad says "After our meeting they will go to the airport and be with their families."

We are also seeing evidence of the diplomatic strides behind the scenes. Concerns are already coming to the surface that Britain has capitulated in apologizing for going to the UN. Other concessions that appear to have been made are the release of an Iranian diplomat being held in Iraq as well as allowing Iranian personnel to meet with the five Iranian men taken by U.S. forces in Irbil.

Is this capitulating or is it a testament to effective diplomacy?

We are awaiting some footage of hostages at the Iranian airport as proof that they are on their way home. I join a collective sigh of relief at their release.

UPDATE:

It seems the 15 sailors held hostage in Iran for 13 days will be turned over to the British Embassy in Tehran and travel home tomorrow (Thurday).

In a celebratory atmosphere, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shared smiles and goodbyes with the nearly released Britons.

An interesting side-note is that Syria, while hosting a visit with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, claims a key role in the release. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that his country had "exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem."

The Blog Talk On This:

The Moderate Voice
Dr. Sanity
Middle Earth Journal
Captain's Quarters

Technorati Tags:
Ahmadinejad, Iran, hostages, british marines, Tony Blair, diplomacy, UN, british sailors

.

First DOD Conference Call Set For Tomorrow - Discussions Continue On Embedding In Iraq

2007-04-03T18:57:00.000-04:00

As a follow-up to my previous post, I was prompted to call Mr. Jack Holt with the Department of Defense. I did have a conversation with Mr. Holt to further review what opportunities exist in recognizing the blogosphere as a valid force in today’s media.

I found a great ease in my conversation with Mr. Holt. He was accommodating and very generous with him time. He appeared to be a staunch supporter of the blogosphere and recognized our penchant for getting past the "talking-point" questions to reach deeper into an issue.

He has now approved my being embedded in Iraq, be it on this first trip or the next one. Thanks to Mr. Holt's approval, here are the opportunities I will be involved in.

On The Conference Calls

This is quite an exciting opportunity for certain bloggers and I am thrilled and honored to be involved. It is the hope of the DOD to hold these calls on a weekly basis but precise scheduling is still being set. They would like to allow no more than 5 bloggers on each call and Alex with the GTL and I will be on the call this week. The interview on Wednesday will be with Major General William Caldwell, Multinational Forces in Baghdad. Each representative will be allowed at least one question and one follow up. I'm very much looking forward to it and I will be sharing it all here and at the GTL!

On Being Embedded In Iraq

Mr. Holt hopes to be scheduling several of these embed opportunities for bloggers and the first one is now set for the end of this month. I have completed all the required paperwork that was sent to me and am, in many ways, quite ready to go that soon. But there are a few important items that may not be possible in the relatively brief time left before the first trip. We are coming to the table here very late in the game but we are doing all we possibly can to be a part of that initial trip. As Alex over at GTL has indicated, even with considerable effort, he is not able to rearrange his schedule to allow for this two week embed in Iraq. As I have said, being able to go on the first trip presents similar problems for me - logistically. The decision has to be made almost immediately so I am in the process of seeing if ANY possibility exists for me to make the first trip. If not, we have been assured of a reserved slot for the next trip and Alex and I will both go then.

I could not possibly overstate the enormity of this event - from a social - political standpoint or from a cultural standpoint as it relates to the public perception of "media". There is a measure of validation here that should not escape any of us.

It's a very proud moment for those who do what we do.

Technorati Tags:
RedState, Pentagon, embedded journalist, citizen media, Gun Toting Liberal, bloggers, right blogosphere, left blogosphere, journalistic integrity, reporters, Iraq, war reporting, Jack Holt, General William Caldwell

.

Embedding Bloggers In Iraq Begins In Scandal

2007-03-29T20:16:00.000-04:00

It appears a fascinating opportunity exists for our community of citizen journalists to request an embed in Iraq, facilitating real-time reporting on the war in Iraq from the unique blogger perspective.

RedState broke this with an article that stated the following: RedState has been invited by the Pentagon to go to Iraq. The end of that article includes an "Attention Update" to "Lefty morons". With that said, you can imagine the relief I felt warming over me at the prospect of RedState countering the typical media bias.

My concerns are two-fold

This is further validation of the broadening reach of the blogosphere. If this opportunity truly comes to fruition, we should feel proud; we should be unwaveringly dedicated to the objective and ethical treatment of the information we gain access to. If we sway from that mentality in the slightest, I submit we are no better that our bickering politicians who are dedicated only to portraying the "other side" as stupid, know-nothing school yard bullies. Didn't we bloggers get to where we are by bringing something more valuable to the table? You get one chance to make a first impression. It was botched in our [a blogger's] first participation in the White House press room. I find it deeply disconcerting that we are now on our way to botching the blogger's first steps as war-front embedded citizen media.

Then there is the misleading statement - RedState has been invited by the Pentagon to go to Iraq. If RedState hoped to deliver a sucker punch to the left blogosphere, it did...temporarily. With help from Confederate Yankee, it was fairly quickly discovered that RedState was not singled out and "invited" by the Pentagon. They, in actuality, spent months attempting to gain approval to do this, being vetted much in the manner any media outlet would be. By the time discussion and debate began at The Gun Toting Liberal on RedState's "invitation" and the fact that no liberals were headed to Iraq, RedState began backpedalling slightly and more clearly stating how the Iraq embed opportunity really came to be. The impression meant to be made was clear---that RedState was "invited" without an equal opportunity for a liberal blogger to be "invited". Since that was not the case, the statement was, at the very least, a narcissistic embellishment by RedState; at worst it was an outright lie regarding the actions of the Pentagon. A serious and unfortunate error in judgment as far as I am concerned. Likely more important for RedState to realize is that they now begin this extraordinary occasion inspiring little confidence as to their ability to deliver what separates us from the mainstream media---honor, integrity and objectivity.

I would love to applaud RedState for their tenacity in discovering this process and pursuing it, and on some levels I do. But that is so far overshadowed now by the manner in which they have chosen to handle it and the misleading statements presented to the blogosphere.

BLOG DISCUSSION ON THIS:

Michael Linn Jones, a co-author at the Gun Toting Liberal has written an article on this subject that might very well be one of the most exquisitely written articles I have read in some time. Please visit - Half Truths Hurt, Too

Thank you to Daily Kos for picking up the discussion! - RedState Fibbing?: When an Invite isn't Exactly an Invite

The Two Malcontents - Liberal Blogger Steps Up To Accept Challenge By Volunteering For Iraq Embed Duty

Middle Earth Journal - Blogger Embedding In Iraq

Technorati Tags:
RedState, Pentagon, embedded journalist, citizen media, Gun Toting Liberal, bloggers, right blogosphere, left blogosphere, journalistic integrity, reporters, Iraq, war reporting

.

Kyle Sampson, Gonzales Former Chief Of Staff Testifies Before Senate

2007-03-29T10:49:00.000-04:00

Mr. Sampson presents himself as contrite at 10:32am this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He opens reminding the committee of his dedication to public service.

Sampson says he was responsible for overseeing possible US Attorney firings beginning in 2004 when there were suggestions to replace all of them. He describes a long period of time devoted to information gathering. He would compile recommendations from senior staff on individual US Attorneys.

He makes clear his strong opinion that there were no improprieties in the firings saying "decisions were properly made but poorly explained." He takes full responsibility for his role in the department responses to this situation and that is why he offered his resignation.

....

Mainstream Media Watch:

MSNBC - Live coverage - intermittent
CNN - Live coverage - intermittent
FoxNews - No coverage

UPDATE: 1:30PM

Arlen Specter states the need for testimony. "It has to be written down, that is the essence of our judicial system"

Jeff Sessions speaks on the office of AG and his pride in serving in that position. "Emails indicate you understood very well the difficulty in removing these US attorneys. Sessions points to inconsistencies in the emails Sampson authored, making particular reference to emails from Sampson that openly discusses the use of the new provisions in the Patriot Act allowing for US attorney replacement without the process of confirmation.

Sampson is asked "Have you met with the president since 2004?" (Answer) "No". (Question) "Are you aware of any presidential decision regarding US attorneys?" (Answer) "I am not aware of any."

Back to Arlen Specter who presses on the connection in asking Carol Lam to resign and investigations being pursued by her office. (Answer) "The real problem with her office was the immigration enforcement" (Question) "Regarding the US attorney in New Mexico, your emails show his name was not added until 11-07-0 which was the day of the election and after certain calls were placed, was he asked to resign because he refused to carry out investigations of voter fraud. Are you prepared to state under oath..." (Answer) "To my knowledge, they were not." (Question) "AG Gonzales says on 3-13 that he was not at all involved in discussion on this, but emails show...was your email correct about AG Gonzales being present?" (Answer) "I don't think the AG statement that he was not involved was accurate. I think he has recently clarified." (Question) "So he was involved in discussions?" (Answer) "Yes sir."

Sen. Schumer goes over Gonzales' statement on 3-13, "Is that statement accurate?" (Answer) "I don't think it's entirely accurate. We did discuss it as early as Jan 2005 before he even took his office. I remember discussing it with him on an ongoing basis." (Question) "The AG says the mistake was that you did not share information, is that true?" Sampson profoundly struggles in answering this and makes a couple attempts to sidestep a direct answer. Schumer continues to break in requesting a direct answer. Sampson finally answers "I don't think it's accurate."

Feinstein then rather dramatically presents a letter signed by Director of Field Operations of US Customs. A letter of commendation written regarding the performance of Carol Lam US attorney and that office's 100% performance in pursuing immigration cases. Feinstein holds that against the email from Sampson and his earlier statement here that Carol Lam was replaced for not bringing immigration cases. Sampson begins an answer on how his work was based on senior DOJ recommendations when Feinstein addresses a short list of specific cases being brought or investigations being initiated by fired US attorneys. Sampson continually denies particular recollections of these issues.

Jeff Sessions drives home and interesting point in this question, "This idea to remove a number of us attorneys - did the AG object to removing any us attorney?" (Answer) "No." Sessions responds to that with "You know, the Attorney General is the country's lawyer and sometimes they just have to say no."

Upon questions of US attorneys "making the list" because of complaints on pursuing voter fraud cases, Sampson testifies that he recalls the "AG coming to him with complaints from Karl Rove on US attorneys in three districts."

Sen. Cardin addresses the issue of no documentation. With puzzled angst, he questions Sampson on how there could be no documentation to reflect his 2 years of work on evaluating US attorneys. (Answer) "It wasn't scientific and wasn't well documented." (Question) "Do you see a perception problem here?" (Answer) "In retrospect, I do. I want to take responsibility for that. I acknowledge it was a failure on my part and others [pause] for not realizing the perception problem that could result.

Sheldon Whitehouse quickly fires questions. "Who have you discussed your testimony with?" (Answer) "Noone." (Question) "Who has it been coordinated with?" (Answer) "Noone." (Question) "Did you keep one file?" (Answer) "Again, just sort of a drop file in my desk drawer." (Question) "Did someone keep it for you?" (Answer) "There really was no documentation to this, just [pause] notes."

<Recess>

UPDATE 3:24PM

SAMPSON SAYS IT WAS HIS SUGGESTION TO USE NEW PROVISIONS IN PATRIOT ACT TO CIRCUMVENT THE SENATE.

Under questioning by Schumer Sampson says that yes - he was articulating a plan to use the new provisions in the Patriot Act to circumvent the senate. He takes responsibility for that as a "bad idea on a staff level."

Sampson admits to suggesting Fitzgerald be fired as a means of cutting a lifeline to the case Fitzgerald had against members of the executive - but then says he has absolutely no recollection of considering adding US attorneys to the list of those to be fired based on the cases they were prosecuting or avoiding.

5:39pm

Sampson - "Looking back on all of this, I wish we could do it over again. In hindsight I wish the department had not gone down this road at all."

Discussing This:

First Read - MSNBC
Washington Post
Think Progress
Firedoglake
at-Largely

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Congress, Senate, Judiciary Committee, hearings, testimony, Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, Patriot Act, firings, US Attorneys, Washington Post, Carol Lam, David Iglesias, Leahy, Schumer, Fitzgerald, prosecutions, voter fraud, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, White House, executive, confirmations

.

Five Steps and Five Thousand E-mails Later...

2007-03-24T01:57:00.000-04:00

Documents obtained tonight continue to directly contradict statements made by Gonzales and the White House. The first glaring example is the indication that there was an hour-long morning meeting in the Attorney General's conference room where Gonzales met with top aides to discuss which US attorneys to fire and how. On March 13, Gonzales told reporters he was not involved in the firings.

Are these people incapable of speaking a truth?

The first statement begging to be made is - What level of mental impairment is required to accept that there are 8 prosecutors who are so underperforming, they have to be replaced; so, an enormous "5 step" plan is devised, rationale has to be developed, Gonzales and top aides have to "decide" who has to go and what front they will put up for reasoning. Then when the brown stuff hits the revolving blades, the whole lot of them have to lie about it. Well sure...in this alternate universe we call the Bush administration, I guess we should all quietly dismiss those pesky facts and stop picking on our "Decider".

Covert Testimony

This Patriot Act president is so accustomed to doing everything under the radar, subverting the legal and/or constitutional process, creating rationalization or deniability, and avoiding accountability that he actually believes he presents a valid argument for covert "interviews" with absolutely no record, with attendees of his choosing and with questions of his choosing. This is unheard of.

Executive Privilege

The White House is claiming executive privilege as the justification for "not allowing" top aides to testify on this matter. A bit of research shows this as a perversion of the executive privilege. Think Progress notes that the leading case on executive privilege is United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court found that executive privilege is sharply limited:

The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

Another interesting dynamic in the "executive privilege" claim by this White House is the attempt to now extend that outside of internal White House communication. It is reported that the veritable tonnage of email correspondence coming to the surface show Karl Rove deeply embroiled in the plan from its inception. Many of the emails from Rove are from his RNC email address, sent from his blackberry and not even over a White House server. Executive privilege in this case is an enormous stretch to begin with, let alone claiming privilege over emails that were not even sent via White House internal communications.

Tony Snow adeptly argues both sides of this issue.

There is much blog talk on an Op-Ed piece Tony Snow wrote in 1998 showing his impressive ability to argue both sides of critical issues.

Tony Snow comments to National Review’s Byron York on 3-20-07:

“I don’t think it’s confrontational,” Snow said. “We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument.”

Finally, I asked whether the White House believes this is a battle the president can win. "Yes," Snow said. "In terms of presidential prerogative, in terms of preserving confidential communications with your staff — yes."
Tony Snow's Op-Ed piece in 1998 on Clinton's claim of executive privilege:

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.

Snow wasn't entirely pleased when questioned on this during his press conference.

QUESTION: But you wrote quite eloquently about this. You said, “Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.” So why were you wrong then and right now?

SNOW: Because you’re — this is not an entirely analogous situation. I just told you what we have in fact offered to make available to Members of Congress. What we’re doing is we are holding apart confidential communications between advisers and the President. And that is pretty standard practice in the White House.

QUESTION: But in the Clinton administration –

SNOW: I’m not so sure. I’ll let others do the legal arguing on that.

I found a fabulously articulated point made by E. J. Dionne Jr in his Op-Ed piece, Inserting Politics Into Justice,

To investigate Clinton -- even his Christmas card list -- was God's work. To investigate Bush is "to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials," as the president put it this week.

The Hot Discussions:
The Moderate Voice
The Raw Story
Captain's Quarters
Outside The Beltway
Washington Monthly - Political Animal

Technorati Tags: Bush, Gonzales, Congress, firings, US+attorneys, Karl+Rove, DOJ, executive+privilege, accountability, Tony+Snow, testimony, subpoenas, Patriot Act

GRRRRRRRRRR - Them's Fightin' Words!

2007-03-21T11:31:00.000-04:00

It would appear a nerve was struck in the disgruntled cowboy when he faced off in front of the camera and drew his line in the sand over the dismissal of 8 US Attorneys.

We will see the confrontation unfold a bit more today but Bush made what can only be described as defiant statements yesterday. He espoused his unbending support of Gonzalez (much like the statements of support offered to Rummey before he was shown the door).

Bush snarled out accusations of partisan politics and said that although he will allow presidential adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and others to be "interviewed" privately, with no official record and not under oath, he would not allow his top aides to testify under oath.

Ok, the President wants us to believe that he is offering "unprecedented" disclosure, complete and legitimate explanations for what happened...as long as they can offer it in limited company, with limited and only specific questions, off the record, and without swearing to tell the truth? Well, that certainly inspires the type of confidence we have grown accustomed to with this administration.

Bush's argument is that this cannot be allowed because aides to the President have to know they can advise without the risk of being hauled before Congress to testify to their actions. Review that claim carefully. If one is ethically advising, they would never fear standing behind their actions. That statement says "I need aides to be able to advise me on less than ethical actions without fear of repercussion."

This is not a matter of national security (but I wouldn't be surprised if the Pres claimed this in short order). This is an administrative matter. What are they afraid of? Why can't they just have everyone hauled in, under oath and if what the President is saying is true, won't Congress look foolish. I'll tell you why. When this came under great scrutiny what did this administration then do? Immediately go into “lie your ass off” mode and began to renounce their complicity, lie about who orchestrated it and why and immediately say “this was not done for political reasons“. Mr. Bush, so many people who have your ear and no one mentioned to you that “political reasons” might be your most escapable response? As soon as you put their work ethic in question, you opened Pandora’s Box. What reality do you actually think you can rewrite here? You fired any US attorney who would not go along with your demands to push voter fraud after the elections. You used leeway you created for yourself in the Patriot Act to replace them without confirmation. You beautifully choreographed an action easily read as corrupt.

Your bed Mr. Bush - you have to [lie] in it.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Gonzales, US Attorneys, firings, confirmations, Patriot Act, hearings, Rove, document dump, DOJ, headlines, White House, politics, news, washington post

.

Congress - Quarterly Progress Report

2007-03-20T02:18:00.000-04:00

Congressional majority, you should know better than most that where we democrats differ greatly with many republicans is in our refusal to unconditionally defend our side. I find it so amusing when talking heads on the right (of the Sean Hannity ilk) gleefully prattle away on "Those whacko democrats--there they go eating their own again", as if that were an insult.

You bet your ass we do. And Congress would do well to remember that.

Mr. and Mrs. Blue Majority, it's time you realize you are accountable to a savvy constituency who will be relentless in demanding you make good on your promises.

We offered you our greatest asset--our vote.

You assume Democrats will now see this as "mission accomplished" merely because we saw to your Congressional majority. You are wrong. We gave you your 100 hours to spread your wings and strut your stuff but our job didn't end with that, it began with that. You are now charged with overseeing the health and dignity of our homeland and the American existence. When you said you could remind us what it looks like to do that with competence and righteous dedication - we believed.

Put in slightly more stern language, we got you that seat, and we can take it away.

There are a few issues that need to be addressed. Pelosi first disappointed us with her support of Murtha as Majority Leader. It was an unfortunate, out-of-the-gate decision. You promised us a corruption clean-up and we expected at least the appearance of clean choices. So, the questionable backing of Murtha was hardly in line with your zero-corruption platform, however, we had not even thrown away our election yard signs yet so that wound up largely seen as one of those regrettable decisions one makes out of fierce personal loyalty.

And then...

What do you say we re-visit the earmark issue? Bush submitted a defense budget request on Feb. 5th that includes a $103 billion emergency supplemental measure to cover the cost of operations in the war on terror for fiscal 2007. A valid debate began on tightening the purse strings as a method of reeling in the administration’s reckless "surging" in Iraq. Cutting off funding, restricting funding, and limiting the 2002 use of force authorization to only that which it allowed, were all debates we were hearing. What we wound up with was Congress trading high impact solutions for negotiating power. Instead of telling this administration "No, we realize you are not accustomed to that word--but NO", they said "Yes, the administration gets unfettered and unrestricted funding for this maniacal surge as long as we can tack on a couple billion for what we want."

Here are spending provisions congress has added to the bill:

$500 million for emergency wildfires suppression; the Forest Service currently has $831 million for this purpose;
$400 million for rural schools;
$283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program;
$120 million to compensate for the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries;
$100 million for citrus assistance;
$74 million for peanut storage costs;
$60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath River region in California and Oregon;
$50 million for asbestos mitigation at the U.S. Capitol Plant;
$48 million in salaries and expenses for the Farm Service Agency;
$35 million for NASA risk mitigation projects in Gulf Coast;
$25 million for spinach growers;
$25 million for livestock;
$20 million for Emergency Conservation Program for farmland damaged by freezing temperatures;
$16 million for security upgrades to House of Representatives office buildings;
$10 million for the International Boundary and Water Commission for the Rio Grande Flood Control System Rehabilitation project;
$6.4 million for House of Representative’s Salaries and Expenses Account for business continuity and disaster recovery expenses;
$5 million for losses suffered by aquaculture businesses including breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish as a result of viral hemorrhagic septicemia;
$4 million for the Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration

1. This sends a message to the administration that when you are presented with a real opportunity to thwart some of this insanity, you would rather see if allowing it can buy you special interest money, a pay raise, and new offices.

2. Some of what is being tacked onto this bill is the subject of separate legislation. There should be no padding of an emergency spending bill. The allocation of funds here should at least resemble an emergency. New Orleans is still a historic American city in ruins but $74 million for peanut storage costs constitutes an American emergency?

3. You are taking a sledge hammer to another promise. Fiscal restraint and responsibility, and a commitment to earmark reform.

And then...

Where is the outrage we saw before the election? Where is that strong language that convinced us you were our vehicle for change and accountability? Knowing this was "the" American trigger point, you talked about little else...until you won the power to do something about it. Now we are hearing a much softer tone wrapped in obfuscation. Am I delusional or have I really heard "Well, the American people don't want to see drastic movement out of Iraq." "Well, the American people don't want us to get bogged down in hearings and investigations."

Oh yes the hell we do. It's the reason we gave you our votes.

I understand that our issues will be "politicized", there is no avoiding that. When we were talking about war funding, I understood that cutting funds would be a terribly difficult political decision because of how that would be spun. I never imagined you would opt for no action at all. That funding should have been restricted enough to force actions that would bring about an end in sight. You are now facilitating this President in offering up more American targets in an Iraqi civil war of his making. How do you want history to answer the inevitable question - "How could they have allowed this to continue?"

Where is the accountability? I am tired of the excuses. Americans believe in accountability. I doubt there is a single American who would say they feel the President is held to a lower standard than the people are. We cannot set this type of precedent for abuse of executive power. This President's actions must be held to account. They must be investigated and impeachment must be put back on the table. Don't make a complete cynic of me by forcing me to believe you may want the door to executive abuses to remain open for the next President.

If in politics, perception is reality; your days as our hope for change are slipping away from you. The perception is that you rode the wave of war dissention all the way to Congressional majority. Perhaps you see that as a wedge issue that will guarantee you the White House in '08. That wave will have long receded by then. Actually solving what were wedge issues will be the fastest road to the White House.

Technorati Tags:
Congress, Bush, impeachment, accountability, Iraq, war, funding, emergency spending bill, election, earmarks, house, senate, White House, budget,

.

Diplomacy? If You Blinked, You Missed It

2007-03-12T03:50:00.000-04:00

What was touted as the Bush administration's attempt at diplomatic strides in Iraq and with Iran slid to the status of non-event this past weekend.

The Bush administration was under increasing Congressional pressure to seek more diplomatic solutions in Iraq and in its approach to Iran. With concerns over a possible US attack on Iran growing, Condoleezza Rice took the opportunity in her Feb 27th testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee to proclaim (in a "hey, check out our diplomacy" style) that the US will come to the table with Iraq, Iran and Syria.

The United States and the Iraqi government are launching a new diplomatic
initiative to invite Iran and Syria to a "neighbors meeting" on stabilizing
Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group in December recommended U.S. dialogue with Iran and Syria, but until now the administration has refused that course of action. This statement by Rice was specifically designed to suggest the administration's coming into alignment with those recommendations. Clearly, the administration needed to find a bone to toss to the Committee with the increasing possibility of a Congressional stranglehold on Bush's war in Iraq.

We knew this would be an envoy style meeting, however, it hardly delivered on the expectations Rice intentionally built. Perhaps she was somehow aware that the actual meeting would be story-non-grata in the mainstream media. Rice's statements and surrounding buzz was ablaze as a top of the news story, but what happens when this praised event occurs? --- It came and went on Saturday - even with some fairly startling exchanges - garnering the media attention one might expect to see for a county fair.

The meeting began with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki making his opening remarks. "Iraq does not allow itself to intrude on others' affairs, or its territory to be a launching pad for attacks against others." Powerful, and one might add, quite news-worthy comments. If Maliki is driven by the desire to stabilize Iraq and to see to the majority will of the Iraqi people, that statement was evidence of it. We can reasonably expect Iraq would not appreciate being used by the US as the rational for launching an attack against Iran. It would appear that is precisely what is being orchestrated here. Those decisions may not yet be final, but the rational is being clearly established.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad was seated at one end and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari at the other. Khalilzad used his opening remarks, not as a single opportunity to announce in this forum that all parties should seek to ease tensions in the region, but instead as another platform to openly criticize Iran and Syria. He said Iraq's neighbors could be considered allies of Iraq only if they halted the flow of fighters, weapons "and other lethal support to militias and other illegal armed groups," That statement is not completely without merit, but it is a far cry from the diplomatic hope woefully disseminated by Rice and the White House.

There is to be another "higher level" meeting again in April. I expect we will, once again see plenty of "pre-summit" pontificating, promotion --- and very little diplomatic delivery.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Maliki, Iraq, Iran, Syria, diplomacy, Senate Appropriations, war, weapons, militia, terrorism, neighbors meeting, administration, White House

.

Scooter Libby Convicted on 4 of 5 Charges

2007-03-06T12:31:00.000-05:00

LIVE

UPDATE 1:41 pm

White house reaction from Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino was quite limited. She says:

Our position of not commenting on an ongoing criminal proceedings stands.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statements include:

“Today’s guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual."

“This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: 1:14 pm

Juror, Dennis Collins took the microphone for a rather lengthy question and answer session with the media. Some of juror Dennis Collins' comments included:

"Alleged conversation with Russert was critical."
"We determined that Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson no fewer than 9 times."
"The belief of the jury was that Libby was tasked by the VP to talk to reporters."
"Some jurors commented that - I wish we weren't judging Libby, that sucks. Where's Rove, where's..."
"It seemed like Libby was the fall guy"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: 12:48 pm

12:50
Breaking from The Washington Post - Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Case
Breaking from The New York Times - Libby Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case
Breaking from the Associated Press - Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Trial

12:55 - Jurors now taking the microphone.

~~~~~~~~~~~

From Fox News:

Before the press release began, Fox News is pulling up verdicts from the AP Wire that former VP Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby has been found guilty on 4 of 5 indictments. The jury was asking questions all morning on the charge involving Mat Cooper. Libby was acquitted on charge #3 involving false statements. Fox News is reporting that prosecutors have indicated that convictions for Scooter Libby would likely mean further investigations including those focused on the Vice President.

The judge can invalidate the convictions
The judge can decide if Libby awaits appeal free or in prison

CTV:

It is reported that there was little reaction from Libby as verdicts were read.
Libby will be free, out on bond until sentencing.

MSNBC

The first sentencing report will come on May 15th. Libby will go home today as a felon, having been convicted on these charges.

We are waiting to see if jurors will come to the microphones.

Chris Mathews: Scooter Libby did not defend himself; the VP did not come forward to defend Libby. The person with the cloud over his head is VP Cheney. He is going to have to make a statement, there are many questions.

Fox News:

"Awaiting White House reaction to Libby Verdict"

12:29 pm - Libby and defense attorney are now approaching the cameras.

Atty: We are very disappointed in the verdict. The jury deliberated for approximately 10 days. Despite our disappointment, we believe in the justice system and the jury system. We intend to file a motion for new trial. If that is denied, we will appeal and we have every confidence that Mr. Libby will be vindicated. We intend to keep fighting.

And they step away from the microphone.

Technorati Tags:
Scooter Libby, VP Cheney, Valerie Plame, purgery, leak, Patrick Fitzgerald, CIA

.

It's Far More Than "The Business Of Politics"

2007-02-27T02:09:00.000-05:00

There is cause for Congress to act. Let's not forget that fact. We have catastrophic problems in the War in Iraq, remedies for which Congress is empowered to initiate. It is imperative that those charged with duties as public servants stand up and use all their granted powers to right the American course. Non-binding resolutions are not meaningless. They are statements of opposition; they are attempts to reel in an administration's abuse of its citizenry and its military; they are actions that will serve as a permanent imprint in American history that says we recognized terrible wrongs and did all we could to stop it. Attempts to modify the 2002 use of force authorization are not meaningless. The spirit and the letter of that authorization were abused and misused. In this case, it matters not that the President is Blue or Red. We cannot allow any President to walk one inch over the line that separates effective and aggressive United States leadership - and the indefensible abuse of executive power.

The merit of this war and its rational will be debated among the greatest minds for a hundred years and on. Congress doesn't and the American people don't need to resolve that issue to know the situation as it exists now calls for action. While there should be national discussion on what that action can and should be, we drone on about how it's all just political posturing. Of course, what did you expect from very political entities in a tug of war for power and control? That does not mean there is no validity to action taken. It only means action will be to a lesser degree and take longer.

Control of the purse strings is hardly an outrageous attempt to bring an end to the ineffectual occupation of Iraq. These are some unavoidable facts:

The mission was - get the WMD: There were none
The mission was - oust Saddam: In May, 2003 the Saddam regime fell
Bush declared "mission accomplished."
In December, 2003 Saddam was captured and his seat on death row was reserved.
We overplayed the potential of the fledgling Iraqi government
The insurgency grew in number, strength and violence
Civil war broke out
There has been no weakening of al-Qaida, we are not fighting al-Qaida
Global terrorism has increased 600%
We stopped pursuing Osama bin Laden
Iraq is utterly destabilized
More than 3,000 American soldiers lost
150,000 - 600,000 Iraqis lost
What little International support that existed nearly fell off the map
The British pulled out of Iraq entirely

And President Bush surges.

For the love of country...when will enough be enough?!

The quickest remedy Congress can find to regain control over what some would call the madness that IS the war in Iraq, is to first establish that this administration has broken all the boundaries of the 2002 use of force authorization and to limit his authorization to only that which it allowed. With that done, they should then establish, with absolutely no ambiguity, what actions in Iraq will be funded. The war, on every level, has been horribly mismanaged. By what justification do we not step in and say it's time to take this from the hands of those clearly incapable of making competent and rational choices. It has spiraled hopelessly out of control and gets worse every day. If Congress were politically fearless, we would likely see a unified and immovable decision to take the reins and fund only what is required for a 60 day exodus from Iraq. This never-ending cry for victory as an excuse for perpetuating an exercise in futility is by all definitions - insanity. All who need to - go ahead and claim victory. To this administration I say - go ahead and claim victory. Paint "mission accomplished" on every transport vehicle bringing our troops home. The truth is we don't get to decide that. Those conclusions will be left to future generations and historians.

Technorati Tags:
Iraq, Bush, Congress, non-binding resolution, Saddam, Washington Post, military, troops, 2002 authorization, executive power, terrorism, al-Qaida, surge, WMD, war funding

.

Lessons Unlearned

2007-02-24T20:42:00.000-05:00

As someone who is endlessly fascinated by history's propensity to repeat itself and our eagerness to facilitate that, I was quite struck by this article. It is an impressive piece of writing worthy of great consideration.

Failing in Baghdad -- The British Did It First
By Toby Dodge
Sunday, February 25, 2007

At the center of Baghdad's neglected North Gate War Cemetery, near the edge of the old city walls, stands an imposing grave. Sheltered from the weather by a grandiose red sandstone cupola, it is the final resting place of a man from whom George W. Bush could have learned a great deal about the perils of intervening in Iraq.

Lt. Gen. Sir Frederick Stanley Maude was head of the British army in Mesopotamia when he marched into Baghdad on a hot, dusty day in March 1917. Soon thereafter, he issued the British government's "Proclamation to the People of Baghdad," which eerily foreshadowed sentiments that Bush and his administration would express 86 years later: British forces, Maude declared, had entered the city not as conquerors, but as liberators.

Maude had arrived in Baghdad after a long and arduous military campaign. British forces had been fighting the Ottoman army for 2 1/2 years and had suffered one of the worst defeats of World War I in the six-month siege of the eastern city of Kut, which had ended in an ignominious surrender to the Turks in April 1916.

Having rallied from that loss and finally reached Baghdad, Maude tried to create common cause between the British army and the city's residents, whom he saw as having been oppressed by 400 years of Ottoman rule. "Your lands have been subject to tyranny," he declared in his proclamation, and "your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered." He promised that it was not "the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions." Instead, he called on residents to manage their own civil affairs "in collaboration with the political representatives of Great Britain."

Maude did not live to see the failure of his efforts to rally the people of Iraq to the British occupation. He died eight months later, having contracted cholera from a glass of milk.

After his death, British policy toward Iraq changed repeatedly as the army attempted to dominate the country and suppress the population, while the government strove to adjust to Britain's diminished role in the international system after WWI. Initially, the aim was simply to annex the territory and make it part of the Empire, run in a fashion similar to India. But Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points speech in January 1918 did in that idea. In setting out America's vision for the postwar world, Wilson expressly attacked the duplicitous diplomacy of European imperialism, which he blamed for dragging the world into prolonged military conflict.

This meant that a modern, self-determining state was now to be built in Iraq. Britain was to take the lead, but its effort was to be continually scrutinized by the League of Nations, which had been set up under Wilson's watchful eye at the Paris Peace Conference at the end of the war.

In an echo of what is happening under the U.S. occupation, hopes for a joint Anglo-Iraqi pact to rebuild the country were dashed by a violent uprising. On July 2, 1920, a revolt, or thawra, broke out along the lower Euphrates, fueled by popular resentment of Britain's heavy-handed behavior in Iraq. The British army had set about taxing the population to pay for the building of the Iraqi state, while British civil servants running the administration refused to consult Iraqi politicians, judging them too inexperienced to play a role in the new government.

The rebellion quickly spread across the south and center of the country. Faced with as many as 131,000 insurgents armed with 17,000 modern rifles left over from the war, the British army needed eight months to regain full control of Iraq; 2,000 British troops were killed, wounded or taken prisoner and 8,450 Iraqis were killed. To make matters worse, the British government was forced to pour troops back into Iraq, long after the end of the war, to stabilize the situation.

The revolt forced Britain to devolve real power to Iraqi politicians. At the head of this new administration the British placed a newly created king, Faisal ibn Hussein, famous for his association with Lawrence of Arabia during the war. But the revolt had as much influence in Britain as it did in Iraq itself. The "blood and treasure" expended in putting down the violence made the continued occupation extremely unpopular. The public's discontent reached its peak in the general election campaign of November 1922. The leader of the opposition, conservative Andrew Bonar Law, captured the national mood when he declared: "We cannot alone act as the policeman of the world."

Newspapers and candidates organized their electioneering around the "bag and baggage" campaign demanding that Britain withdraw from Iraq as soon as it could. After defeating wartime coalition leaders David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, the victorious Bonar Law pledged that "at the earliest possible moment, consistent with statesmanship and honour, the next government will reduce our commitments in Mesopotamia."

U.S. presidential candidates now campaigning to seize the White House in 2008 should be forewarned, however: It took Britain 10 more years to jettison its financial and military commitments to Iraq. During that period, a number of governments struggled to reduce the size of the forces deployed in Iraq and the amount of money being spent there. They strove for a decade to stabilize the country and meet Britain's pledges to the international community while trying to placate domestic opinion. The tensions involved in this exercise -- building a state from scratch with a hostile population, under severe budgetary constraints and in the face of rising domestic anger -- ultimately led to the failure of the whole exercise.

Like Maude's before him, Bush's policy in Iraq has resulted in a series of unintended outcomes. In the face of ever-increasing violence, the stirring rhetoric about Iraq becoming a beacon of democracy in the Middle East has been quietly dropped. Instead, the operation in Iraq has been placed on the frontline of the global fight against terrorism: It is better to battle terrorists on the streets of Baghdad than in Brooklyn or Houston, the mantra goes.

Where does this leave U.S. policy toward Iraq? Historical studies often divide military interventions into three general phases. The first phase, the initial decision to invade, is shaped by common misperceptions that the conflict will be short and that military force can be used to achieve political objectives. World War I began with an assumption that British troops would be home by Christmas; Bush declared "mission accomplished" after three weeks.

The second phase is marked by a slow realization that both these assumptions are wrong. The policy failure leads to increasingly desperate attempts to stay the course, to pour in ever greater numbers of troops, gambling on a resurrection of the initial policy. This middle stage comes to an end with the decision to disengage. Interestingly, this choice -- admitting defeat and going home -- is usually taken by a new government.

The 1920 revolt, followed by the change of government in London in 1922, led to a prolonged but largely unsuccessful attempt to do nation-building on the cheap. The final transformation of policy was marked by another change of government. The election of May 1929 resulted in a Labor administration. The new foreign policy team found it easier to identify the contradictions at the heart of Britain's relations with Iraq and find ways to overcome them. It recommended Iraq for unconditional membership to the League of Nations in 1932, unceremoniously dumping Britain's commitment to building a democratic and stable state.

Iraq became a fully independent state that same year. But it was unable to defend itself against its neighbors, or to impose order without assistance. The government was ultimately dependent on the British air force to guarantee its survival.

Eighty years later, after failing to stabilize Iraq, the U.S. government has come face to face with the high costs of the new "forward-leaning" foreign policy of the Bush doctrine. Comparisons with other military interventions suggest that Bush will continue to pursue a largely unvarying policy in Iraq, deploying all the troops and resources at his disposal in an attempt to correct the mistakes that have been made. The result, as the president himself has recognized, will be to push the difficult decisions about the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq onto his successor.

History, however, has two final disturbing lessons for the next president. The governing elite nurtured by the British to take their place -- the Iraqi royal family and their associates brought to the country in 1921 -- proved unfit for the purpose and were swept aside by a military coup in 1941. The British army was forced to reinvade and restore them to power. Yet even this second invasion was not enough. The violent instability that engulfed Iraq and resulted in the rise of Saddam Hussein was triggered by the murder of the royal family by Iraqi army officers in July 1958. The crime was committed in the name of Arab nationalism, as a strike against British interference in a sovereign Arab nation.

Here is what Britain's history of failure at building a democratic state in Iraq in the 1920s and '30s tells George W. Bush and his successors: If, like Gen. Maude, they fail to deliver on the promises of a better future for the Iraqi people, then Iraq will continue as a font of violent instability long after those who made the promises have been buried.

By Toby Dodge
Toby Dodge, author of "Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation Building and a History Denied" (Columbia Univ. Press), is associate professor of international politics at the University of London and a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Technorati Tags:
Iraq, Bush, Britain, Washington Post, Mesopotamia, Baghdad, mission accomplished, Sir Frederick Stanley Maude, liberators, military, war, politics, history

.

His Toughest Enemy Is His Reputation

2007-02-15T00:49:00.000-05:00

President Bush is now partially backing himself away from the highly premature claims made against the "highest levels" of Tehran's government that they were directly involved in providing Iraqi militants with weapons that have killed 170 American troops. This very precise claim was made only days ago and came under fairly quick scrutiny. General Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff could not get behind the claims at all saying "I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

In a recent statement, Bush maintains the US was "certain", he said, that the Quds force was providing a weapon known as an EFP, which the US says has been used in particularly deadly attacks. But backpedaling, he now says he does not know who was directing the force, and denied laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran.

Simple sanity might dictate that if you repeatedly find yourself being misunderstood - you might refrain from actions or statements you are forced to deny or rationalize. Call me a stickler for the expectation of accuracy and responsibility. He is, after all merely hurling an act of war accusation at a highly volatile regime with whom the US has a relationship so tense, the taut lines threaten to snap at any moment.

We can no longer muster up any confidence in this administration. We are constantly spoon fed misinformation; half truths; embellishments; denials; rationalizations. Hell, we are so accustomed to that we don't even get angry enough about it anymore.

I was deeply disappointed when Bush ~~oval office-jacked~~ was elected to the White House. I didn't have faith in his ability as leader and was disturbed by his narrow sighted ideology. Those reasonable objections seem small and unimportant now that I know the scope of his presidential personae. I know it well. Most do, as evidenced in this administration’s global lack of credibility. He has paralyzed himself with it. Instead of learning lessons and rising to complicated challenges, he compensates by distancing himself from valuable opinion, from the will of the people and by keeping a strangle hold on his claim to unprecedented executive power. He uses tools that help him exercise that power. He maintains a heightened sense of fear and anger; that gives him the rationalization for fairly radical behavior. He either takes uninformed to a breathtaking level or he perpetuates falsehoods. When we question, he reminds us that he is the only one who completely understands; he is the only one who calls the shots; and we should be grateful to follow his lead, lest we all die at the hands of terrorists. While wounded, we let ourselves be comforted by that. What escapes his attention is that we now know it's all rubbish.

Here we are now with serious problems to address. Solutions for which, we cannot confidently look to our President for.

When I hear "you should be willing to sacrifice liberty so I can keep you safe" - what logic or measure of faith keeps me from screaming "At this point, no tale you could tell would convince me to be violated in that manner."

When I hear "victory in Iraq" - what logic keeps me from saying, "Where exactly does one find victory in a war based solely on untruths that has killed more Americans than 9-11 did."

When I hear "we found the evidence that the Iranian government supplied the weapons that killed 170 American troops" - what logic keeps me from saying "we'll know soon enough that was nothing but this administration creating a rationalization for an air-raid on Iran".

When I hear "diplomatic deal struck to disarm North Korea" - what logic or measure of faith keeps me from saying, "diplomacy where there is no oil and nuclear test launches -- but saber rattling, accusations unsupported by fact and war chanting when it comes to Iran."

An administration that no longer inspires any confidence or trust is impotent.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, military, foreign policy, diplomacy, General Pace, 9-11, Joint Chiefs, White House

.

Barack Obama Makes It Official

2007-02-10T13:49:00.000-05:00

Enveloped by the historic backdrop of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln delivered his famous "house divided” speech in 1858, Barack Obama announced his campaign for President of the Unites States.

With deep sincerity, Senator Obama recognizes his run might presume much. "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness - a certain audacity - to this announcement." To the delight of the crowd he follows that by saying "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." A majestically delivered proclamation.

Regarding his inexperience; this has become the canned response on Barack Obama as though there is nothing more substantial to consider. A senator's road to the White House is perilous path. The obvious reason - a voting record that spells the inevitable unraveling of a presidential candidate. It occurs to me that Hilary Clinton may inadvertently help Obama's campaign. Hilary is setting a new bar for a Senator's run. She holds a firm position of power and has virtually unlimited resources. She is the poster candidate for "A Senator Can Do It". We are already sold on that and the game has only just begun. It may not be true at any other time - but now it stands to reason there could be enormous appeal in a candidate without any prepackaged agenda, established by voting record. Interesting to note is that most polls have Senator Obama faring better against the Republican candidates than Senator Clinton. Hilary Clinton is currently the party front runner, however, there is nothing but room for huge shifts in momentum. The current political climate represents an unwavering need for change. Where the read on Clinton is - savvy and an ensconced part of the political machine, Barack Obama is poised to grow his powerful personae as a charismatic vehicle for change - a seemingly perfect fit with a nation's need for less politicizing.

Barack Obama nears the close of his announcement today with "I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union."

Indeed.

Other voices on the topic:

The Gun Toting Liberal - From the Days of President Lincoln to Today and Barack Obama

Technorati Tags:
election 2008, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, polls, nomination, democrat, campaigns, presidency, presidential election,

.

The State Of Our Economy Is....

2007-02-01T02:47:00.000-05:00

Precarious.

President Bush in the State of the Union Address:
"A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising."

This position on our economy ranges from cherry picking very superficial numbers - to making completely false statements. There are an excruciating number of factors that must be taken into consideration when putting together a real picture of our nation's economy. The following only begins to review a couple of them but directly addresses claims made by this administration.

Employment:
We do not actually see 41 months of uninterrupted job growth. First, the quoted number does not factor in population. Our economy falls millions of jobs short of keeping up with the population growth. Also, the growth spouted as evidence of a booming economy reflects growth only in service providing industries - i.e., health care, food service (waiters, waitresses and bartenders).

The United States secured its place as the preeminent economic superpower with dominance in both manufacturing and technologies. Globalization will create many shifts, but critical to the US economy is that the process maintain a multi-dimensional balance. We should not underestimate the peril to the US economy in mismanaging this balance. We have witnessed the pummeling of the US manufacturing sector as the US trade deficit has grown. At present, it is reported that nearly half of all US-owned manufacturing capacity is found outside of the US. The "sell" line to Americans was to not focus so much on the loss of manufacturing jobs as they will be replaced with knowledge or information positions as the US maintains its information based dominance. We do not at all see this trend in our economic indicators. US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. Not a single new manufacturing job. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%.

A popular rationalization now being spun is that the main factor behind our trade deficit is not failed trade policies but rather the American worker is responsible due to a lack of education. The suggestion is that re-educating or further educating the worker is the solution to long term unemployment created by the loss of manufacturing jobs. A spectacular and predictable excuse with a pretty major flaw in its logic. Only 21% of positions actually require a college degree, a full third of the workforce holds one. As convenient as it might be to place this at the feat of ignorant American workers, it doesn't really hold up under the weight of fact.

Wages:
First consider these statistics:
Salary of a full-time minimum wage employee without vacation: $10,712
Average time for top CEOs to earn that sum: 2.06 hours
(Forbes Magazine. "What the Boss Makes." April 20, 2006)

Federal minimum wage in 2000: $5.15/hr
Federal minimum wage in 2006: $5.15/hr
Loss in purchasing power, full time worker annually: $1,562

The average hourly wage is now .69 cents higher than it was at year end 2005. Based on averages, this amounts to a wage increase of roughly $1,207.50 per year with a loss in purchasing power of $1,562. It may be superficially true that the average wage has gone up (over the year, and not from 11-06 to 12-06 as that has been adjusted with the CPI to reflect a wage drop of 0.1% for the month), it does however, border on irresponsible to boast "wages are rising" when there is no real gain seen in examining the entire picture.

Unemployment:
The current published unemployment rate is 4.5%, unchanged from 11/06; up from 10/06; down from 4.7% at the beginning of the year; and up from 3.9% during Bush's presidency. A critical element when considering unemployment is that the number of "discouraged workers" are not calculated into the published unemployment rate. These are individuals who are currently unemployed, want and are available for work but cannot find positions available to them. The actual unemployment rate is estimated between 7% - 8.3%. In thinking about the looming unemployment picture, a sidebar consideration should be the 100's of thousands if not millions of dollars spent on education that will never be recovered as job potential in so many key industries is no longer readily available to the American worker.

GDP:
To measure the state of the economy by the GDP can arguably be a little misleading. Even if we accept the current GDP growth rate (up for considerable debate), it means our trade deficit increased nearly seven times faster than our GDP. The trade deficit represents such a large (and growing) percentage of the GDP. As more and more growth is owned by debt, the GDP becomes a less viable measure of our economic standing.

Debt and the US Dollar:
First consider these statistics:
Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2000: $33.8 billion
Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2006: $58.9 billion
(U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics. Jan. 10, 2007)

U.S. Current Account Deficit, FY 2000: $435.4 billion
U.S. Current Account Deficit, FY 2006: $900 billion
(Economic Policy Institute. March 14, 2001; Economic Policy Institute. March 14, 2006)

US National Debt in FY 2000: $5.7 trillion
US National Debt in FY 2006: $8.5 trillion
(Bureau of the Public Debt, Jan. 16, 2007)

US Budget Deficit in FY 2000: $230 billion surplus
US Budget Deficit in FY 2006: $423 billion deficit
(White House Office of Management and Budget)

Loss of value of U.S. dollar relative to the Euro,
Jan. 24, 2000 to Nov. 23, 2006: 27 percent

The United States possesses a crushing debt that can never be amortized. A debt that is financed 100% by financiers and central banks outside the US. This is a vicious economic circle. We buy more from other countries than we sell. Those countries accept our dollars for that. Those dollars flow back in to purchase US assets and revenue generating companies. Hence, we no longer own those job producers and revenue generators. The Unites States no longer has the ability to produce what we consume. This gives foreign countries enormous leverage over US assets and US decision making. It has also made us vulnerable to decreasing confidence in the US dollar.

No nation wants to experience a rapid decline of the USD, however there are very real and unavoidable factors in motion. Should foreigners feel forced to begin dumping US dollar holdings, the US government would be powerless to avoid the resulting catastrophe. Even if the factors in play shifted negatively to a lesser degree, isn't it quite conceivable that global markets could panic, ending in the same result? Consider these few disturbing developments:

China has indicated that it will continue to accumulate dollars, but at a slower rate by trading some of the dollars for other currencies.

On Dec. 18, Iran announced that it will cease to use the U.S. dollar as reserve currency.

On Dec. 28, United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. ally, announced that the weakening U.S. dollar has caused its central bank to move some of its foreign exchange reserves from dollars to euros.

Are foreign interests really going to continue financing the unstoppable consumption of a bankrupt nation?

Clearly I am not an economist. I am informed, I research, and I study. I mean no presumption at all. I welcome any factual corrections, should there be a call for any, and of course I welcome logical debate.

Sources of information (not already listed):
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Campaign For America's Future

Technorati Tags:
Bush, budget, deficit, economy, wages, unemployment, employment, inflation, GDP, globalization, trade, debt, currency, euro,

Bookmark It!

White House Again Beats Down The Truth-Tellers

2007-01-30T23:26:00.000-05:00

The White House has had their knee in the gut of US government scientists, pressuring them to alter writings and reports to support this administration's denial of global warming and its potential impact. The Union of Concerned Scientists told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that their investigations found our top scientists struggling to get out from under the White House pressure. That investigation uncovered more than 400 incidents. For six months, The House Committee has attempted to have the White House supply documents needed to investigate the allegations - they have not been provided.

The ability to face off against the evidence and deny global warming is becoming an increasingly difficult position to take. For the purpose of this point, let us not debate the scientifically proven issue of global warming. Why is this administration so determined to hide the truth? The fact is, this administration doles out "reality" in a mold shaped by personal-political agenda. Everyone on this planet should be able to say I get it, I don't get it...I believe it, I don't believe it, but no matter the opinion we hold, we have the resources to find the truth. People...this is our life providing planet. This is not a sound-bite for us to scream over. What harm comes to the naysayer by demanding the truth?

I'll challenge Bush here. I am a pretty creative marketer, President Bush. Oh, I'm not sure how I will do it, but I will put together a campaign that effectively blames terrorists for global warming - perhaps then you will unchain our brilliant government scientists and stop criminally censoring the truth.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Oversight, global warming, government scientists, censorship

Bookmark It!

Link To C'est Moi Political Blog

2007-01-14T12:23:00.000-05:00

Thank you for your interest in C'est Moi Political Blog

If you would like to link to C'est Moi,
below we provide the code for several text and banner links.

Thanks again!

TEXT LINK:

C'est Moi Political Blog

FULL BANNER:

HALF BANNER:

SQUARE BANNER:

HEADLINE ANIMATOR:

About C'est Moi Citizen Media

2007-01-14T12:12:00.000-05:00

About C'est Moi Citizen Media

and

C'est Moi Political Blog

C'est Moi Political Blog was launched in 2004 and has undergone many transitions. It is an individual blog managed and authored by myself, Megan Donovan. I plan to periodically feature guest bloggers but I have always seen this as my place. Much as C'est Moi translated is "it is I", so shall my blog remain...I.

The blog was originally Lesbiencestmoi, some of you may have gotten to me and the blog under that moniker. I have a penchant for pontificating on politics (oh, I love that line), and although I am proud of my lifestyle and community, I felt some of my message was getting lost in labeling mine a "lesbian blog". It was then I became simply, C'est Moi.

I also passionately believe in the potential of the blogosphere as a viable media. As more and more grow disenchanted with the mainstream media, they look to the blogosphere as source for what is real and not bought and paid for. There is bias, tons of it, but there is powerful truth in this citizen media. With support of this medium in mind, C'est Moi Citizen Media was launched as the business behind the blog.

The blog tagline, from a position left of center with a 360 degree view has consummate truth to it. I do lean quite left of center but there are two key elements to my politics that become clear in reading my writing:

1. I believe my readers know me as a political dissenter and an outspoken voice from the left. I am so because my political proclivities very naturally subscribe me to the liberal tenets. However, that is not a one-size-fits-all absolute. I will not sacrifice independent thought in the interest of being a good liberal soldier. As strongly as I have and will battle against the radical right, I welcome times where right and left can meet. When did so many begin resisting that instead of facilitating it? When did so many go willingly into those little blue and red boxes, hypnotically agreeing to support that which fell inside their box and oppose anything outside of it. I find this to be a fairly pervasive mentality among the strongly politically motivated. This has caused a few problems for me in the blogosphere, but I'm a tough broad and I can handle it. As extraordinary as the blogosphere is, it does take on much of our culture characteristics, especially politically. It is very polarized.

2. I long for the all but dead art of debate. We don't debate in this country any more. I love the energy it requires to grasp a concept from a perspective other than my own. I almost always learn something and I place an extraordinarily high value on that.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me." Dudley Field Malone (1882-1950)

America was built on the wounds of dissenters. To take up that task when it is called for is the most wholly patriotic thing we can do. Our memories are short because today, to dissent against the political power of the moment is branded as evil and treasonous.

There was indeed a time when great thinkers, great patriots, and impassioned citizens would sit in opposition, but as reasonable men do with a desire to digest every conceivable aspect of an issue and debate in the interest of progress.

We have traded the reason and sublime intellect behind the art of debate for the utter castigation and character assassination of anyone who takes an opposing position. Those before us, who took up the art of debate as a life mission, left us an incredible legacy - our strength, our pride, our Constitution, our democracy. How silly and ineffectual we would seem to them if they could see us now with our eyes closed and fingers in our ears whining "you are evil and stupid...I can't hear you."

If I can’t inspire the greatness of what was once honorable debate, it is my hope to have passionate, yet reasonable discourse exist here.

C'est Moi Earth Day Resource Page

2007-01-14T11:12:00.000-05:00

Activist Phone Book

U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202.224.3121
White House Comment Line: 202.456.1111
White House Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, DC 20500
Senate Address: US Senate Washington, DC 20510
House Address: US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Go to Congress.org to find contact info for YOUR elected representatives.
To email a senator, you must go to their website and fill out an embedded form.

Committees currently addressing Global Warming

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
(Holds hearings, recommends legislation, but does not write legislation)
Chair: Ed Markey (D-MA)
Phone: 202-225-2836
Email
U.S. House Committee on Science 202.225.6375,
Email
Energy and Environment Subcommittee
Chair: Nick Lampson (D-TX)
Phone: 202.225.5951
U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce 202.225.2927
Chair: John Dingell (D-MI),
Email
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Chair: Rick Boucher (D-VA) 202.225.3861,
Email
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials:
Chair: Albert R. Wynn (D-MD) 202.225.8699,
Email
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 202.224.8832,
Email
Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection
Chair: Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) 202.224.4041,
Email
Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection
Chair: Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 202.224.3553,
Email
U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources 202. 224.4971,
Email
Subcommittee on Energy
Chair: Lamar Alexander (R-TN) 202.224.4944,
Email

". . . on April 22, 1970, Earth Day was held, one of the most remarkable happenings in the history of democracy. . . " -American Heritage Magazine, October 1993

History of Earth Day

How The First Earth Day Came About
By Senator Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earth Day

Earth Day On The Hill - 2007

Climate Change Solutions Campaign

Earth Day In A Box

Earth Day Network Reality Check

Yahoo Earth Day Page
Yahoo! is going carbon neutral for all global operatons.
Many resources here including a great interactive tool that shows simple steps you can take around your home to go green!

What We Can Do At Home

What We Can Do At The Office

What We Can Do In Our Schools

Ecological Footprint
Very cool interactive quiz

Kids Domain - Earth Day

Technorati Tags:
earth day, ecology, global warming, green, recycle, conservation, carbon, climate change, skies, seas, Gaylod Nelson

.

TAGGED: 5 Things You Don't Know About Me

2007-01-10T17:48:00.000-05:00

Hey, I've been tagged! It's my first time (blushes) and what an auspicious event it is!

Ok, on to the 5 things you don't know about me. Most here in the blogosphere know very little about me actually - I am such an enigma - or - people couldn't give a hoot. It's one of those two things though, for sure.

Ok, here we go.

1. My twin sister's boy, my nephew is my daughter's brother.

2. I love men's shoes. Now most of you realize I am a lesbian and might immediately get a picture of Moi as bullish or manly, etc. Nope. Nothing wrong with that style at all but I am such a girly girl. There is just something about men's shoes. It's not all I wear. If I am wearing a skirt or dress they simply won't do (drats). But when ever I can -- they are so comfortable and always look fabulous. Ah yes, how I love an exquisitely made men's shoe.

3. I can be a little compulsive. Those who know me are now saying "can be??!!". But with odd things. I can't stand chemicals - don't take medication, won't eat treated or processed foods, go NUTS over the idea of certain cleaners or (Lord forbid) bug sprays in my house. And paper. I have a real thing about paper. I hate paper to be bent, crumpled, wrinkled, etc. I just can't stand it. If a magazine or (even worse) book cover is creased, I can't read it. If I am writing something and make a mistake, I have to start over no matter what. No erasing, marking out, white out. NO - have to fold the ruined one neatly to throw it away and start over. I am getting much better though, I used to iron money. My mother used to say it was because I was creative and loved to write so I hated seeing any damage done to anything put to paper. I liked that reasoning and held onto it.

4. In my wilder days, I hustled pool. I mean I seriously hustled pool. What fun and what drama. (what great money!) The third time I came home having taken a sucker punch, my mother (knowing I was not about to give up pool) bought me a suit and put me in tournament play, which I enjoyed for years. Then in the height of Foosball (yes, Foosball actually offered at one time a multi-million dollar tour), my partner and I played our way up to the World Championships in Chicago. Pool and Foosball - fun time in my young life.

5. I am crazy about lighthouses. I would love nothing more than to live in one - to fully experience the mystique and history in them. When I picture myself really free, it is at the base of a lighthouse on a rugged coast - writing.

Ok, I get to tag now!! Let's see....hmmmm. I pick...........
Zarqawi's Mom, I Am So Damn Good, Utenzi, Basil's

Does "Big Brother" Need To Be Stamped On His Forehead, Or What?

2007-01-07T00:29:00.000-05:00

Beginning December 20, 2006, President Bush began securing for his administration the authority to open American's postal mail without a warrant.

This administration is a living example of a quote that comes to mind:

"Nearly all men can withstand adversity; if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

The events to date: Bush signed a postal reform bill into law on 12-20-06. He then issues a "signing statement" that declared his right to open our mail under emergency conditions and without a warrant. The director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington calls this "new and quite alarming". Reinforcing the disdain over this action is the fact that Bush made this sly move during the winter congressional recess.

Ardent supporters of this White House will frighten you, screaming misleading statements like -If you have a bomb on the way to your house, (you America hater) you really want that to be delivered in the interest of protecting your privacy!? That is nothing but Big Brother spin. Our laws, for some time now, have protected us against the proverbial "ticking" letter or package. Under compelling circumstances, the process as it exists now, allows for the letter or package to be opened immediately. The government then has 2 days to go to the FISA court to explain their reasoning behind it. A warrant to explain that action is then issued - after the fact. If this administration is so determined to subvert that process - when FISA does not, absolutely does NOT delay action in an emergency situation, what does this tell us? There is one answer to that. The administration wants unchecked power to do as they will. It is the need for sweeping, absolute power without question. And that is not among the powers we afford our employee, our President.

He is using the same rationale and justification he has used to read our email, track our online activity, listen to our phone calls and now open our postal mail. Support of this action by our President defies rational explanation. It begs the question...is the act of voluntarily giving up our civil liberties now a right -v- left issue? Really? Liberty used to be an "American" issue. On this, I claim no side, I am not a leftist, I am an American - even if it means facing the barrage of attacks befalling dissenters in this political era.

I state in resounding voice here and now. If one piece of my mail is invaded by this government I will take all AMERICAN legal recourse available to me.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, postal mail, liberty, privacy, executive power, FISA, congress, warrantless searches, Big Brother

Bookmark It!

There Is An Article Brewing

2006-12-11T01:29:00.000-05:00

I have been so remiss in writing. Terrible really. There are two reasons for this.

1. Could I be more obsessively watching the voting for the Weblog Awards? I think not. (I can't believe I just admitted that). It really has been so much fun - even getting slaughtered. I'm just so excited to be in the mix and even through a very busy work week, I have worn out the refresh button on the voting polls. What fun.

2. I have had an article on the Iraq Study Group brewing. As do many of us. I have thoughts on the report and the surrounding buzz but don't feel I should finish or post it until I have read the report in its entirety. (which is proving difficult as I am so darn busy clicking refresh).

Interesting stuff on the way.....stay tuned.

The 2006 Weblog Awards - Finalists

2006-12-06T11:22:00.000-05:00

I have to admit, this is all pretty exciting. This is the first year I have really gotten myself out there for the Weblog Awards. It has been a lot of fun and it has introduced me to a number of very impressive blogs I had not previously been familiar with.

I want to thank those who nominated me in several categories. And of course, I want to thank the Weblog Award Judges who included me in the finalists for Best Centrist Blog. There, I am truly in admirable company.

Voting for the winners begins on Thursday, December 7th. I hope you all do head over to the Weblog Awards, visit the finalists and cast a vote. You will see a combined total of 450 finalists across 45 categories - a plethora of exciting blogs to revisit or get to know. I have to make particular note of a few blog finalists who are simply not to be missed and are so deserving of this year's Weblog Award.

In my category, Best Centrist Blog

My good friend and Centrist Extraordinaire, The Gun Toting Liberal. If you know him, then head on over and cast your vote. If you have not yet visited him, please do. You'll become a regular there I am sure. GLT is left leaning with a centrist mentality. He draws and welcomes an eclectic mixture of voices. It's great fun. My warmest kudos and congratulations to my friend, Gun Toting Liberal.

Best Individual Blog

The Anchoress - An exquisite writer with such an interesting perspective. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to get to know the blog and the blogger.

Best Liberal Blog

Bring It On! - I love that Ken Grandlund of Common Sense is offering his brilliance there regularly which adds even more to an already great community of Liberal bloggers.

Best Conservative Blog

Ace of Spades - I've said it before, I'll say it again. For me, Ace makes "Conservative" irresistible. He has a satirical sense of humor and writing style that is unmatched. This is hard-hitting, fast, hysterical, intellectual and not to be missed.

Best of the Ecosystem Top 250 Blogs

My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Beth at MVRWC is simply at the top of the right blogosphere with a take no prisoners approach to politics and blogging. She's remarkable. I can tell you, this centrist/liberal is a huge fan!

Many thanks to the Weblog Awards team. This must be an enormous and daunting undertaking. We applaud your work.

Technorati Tags:
Weblog Awards, finalists, centrist blog, liberal blog, conservative blog, Gun Toting Liberal, The Anchoress, Bring It On, Ace of Spades, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Bookmark It!

And They Thought Winning Would Be The Tough Part

2006-11-16T02:31:00.000-05:00

We are inundated from the right with statements like "see, they wanted to cut and run but now it's a different story", "see we were right all along." This was, on the part of the Republicans, actually utter stupidity or brilliant strategy. Let me remind the right of something...the republicans MADE UP the whole "cut and run" thing. Dems never said that. They said the war, at its foundation was not justified. They demanded an exit strategy, they demanded we stop this "victory" rhetoric and start addressing the real problem and make a plan to have Iraq now stand on its own. "Cut and run" is a Republican creation. Got it now - or do I need to say it again slowly?

And it doesn't stop there.

That completely unhinged Sean Hannity has been ranting hysterically since the elections about all the horrific things Dems have said about Republicans and the President. Well Sean, first, see a doctor and get yourself on a sedative before a blood vessel bursts, and second, - WAKE UP (or as Bill O' is so fond of saying - stop drinking the Kool-Aid). You Republicans are brutal and ruled with a very sharp tongue. The truth is, both sides will have a venomous tone but listen to yourself, claiming some altruistic position. Give me a break already. Even if we considered ONLY Ann Coulter's rhetoric your side zooms past the left in the nasty column.

How about FOX coining the phrase "San Francisco Liberal" describing Nancy Pelosi? Kind? Fair? Just? You guys are just full of sugar and spice, aren't you? How dare you hiss through pursed lips "San Francisco Liberal" with such disdain. Let's just call it Homo-Francisc-istan and seek ways to kill those residing there. I am sure King Bush could find a way to justify that in his self-proclaimed executive powers. We could tattoo their arms with a bar code to be sure they cannot escape identification as a Homo-Francisc-istan Liberal. Or perhaps you might settle for a constitutional amendment banning all rights to residents there. How dare you ostracize San Francisco. Is this still America? Does the right now want to parse out those sections of America they find acceptable?

The Right wants a fight even if they get their way.

Nancy Pelosi has "taken impeachment off the table". That is the current position. Can the right just accept this as a temporary win and quiet their ranting for one second? Nope. All we hear is how this is a ruse and the Dems will do nothing but gun for this administration because they are not capable of anything more than retaliation. I can tell you the Dems sure consider that a win for the other side. Many of us are quite disappointed. Let me give the right another dose of reality. Most believe in accountability. Investigating the actions of this administration does not spell doom for the Democratic party, or for their chances in '08. Hardly, how can it when so many expect that accountability? I don't speak only for myself. Polling shows the unavoidable voice of Americans who call for that accountability - through hearings and eventually impeachment. The reality is, I (everyday Ms American citizen) cannot get out of a parking ticket, it is unjust to let this administration's actions go unchecked.

Let me tell you something about Democrats.

We are, often times, the first to speak up when we are disappointed by our party. The latest chum filling the waters in a Republican shark feeding frenzy is Murtha. Nancy Pelosi has sent a letter endorsing Murtha for majority leader. There are far too many ethical questions surrounding Murtha and with such, it was a poor decision on Pelosi's part to make this type of move right out of the gate. Serious Democrats will call her to mat on this. Look at any respectable commentary on the left or in the left leaning blogosphere...we are not pleased and we are the first to say it.

And such is the business of politics.

Everyone is playing. Not just Republicans and not just Democrats. They are all in the "business of politics". I wanted this change not so I could see "D" ruling Congress but because change was needed. Because history shows the need for balance. There is never a permanent winner - just a very natural balance of power.

Technorati Tags:
Democrats, Republicans, Congress, majority leader, house speaker, Pelosi, Murtha, Bush, impeachment, FOX, Sean Hannity, right blogs, left blogs, politics

Bookmark It!

HAPPY ELECTION EVE!

2006-11-06T15:40:00.000-05:00

HAPPY ELECTION EVE

I am positively titillated, aren't you?! This is our political process at work before our very eyes, in all its glory. Ok, maybe "glory" wasn't exactly the right choice of words for this election. Glorified swill slinging? How's that? That works and we still snuck "glory" in there somewhere.

There is a wealth of information out there. And I am sure my fellow enthusiasts have seen most of it, but I thought I would share some of my news picks for election eve. Some are fabulous detailed analysis and some are just fun.

WASHINGTON POST

The Worst Challengers of Campaign 2006

Today wraps up The Fix's look at the best- and worst-run campaigns of this election cycle.
We saved the "best" for last -- rating the 10 worst challenger and open-seat campaigns. No category received more nominations than this one, as our informal panel of consultants, party strategists and political hangers-on nominated a slew of campaigns for this dubious distinction...

Midterm Madness Game

Welcome to the washingtonpost.com Midterm Madness game. Pick the winner of each congressional election, compare your picks to other players and submit your picks to win prizes and claim bragging rights.

NY TIMES

Interactive Election Map

Everyone has seen the interactive maps, I am sure but the Times has the best one, I think.

NPR

What Would a Democratic Congress Do?

Morning Edition, November 6, 2006

Depending on election results, the lowest-paid Americans could get a pay-raise, and the wealthiest could face a tax hike. Recent tax breaks could be left to expire, and government health insurance could be expanded. The Wall Street Journal's David Wessel speaks with Steve Inskeep about what might come out of a Democratic Congress...

FOX

Mature U.S. Democracy Hobbled By Disinterested Voters

WASHINGTON
Government of the people, by the people, will be missing a lot of people Election Day.
It's a persistent riddle in a country that thinks of itself as the beacon of democracy. Why do so few share the light?

Compare U.S. voting with foreign voting and it's not a pretty sight. Americans are less apt to vote than are people in other old democracies, in new ones, in dangerous places, dirt poor ones, freezing cold ones, stinking hot ones and highly dysfunctional ones.

Even that the chaotic Iraq, where an estimated 70 percent of voters cast ballots in December parliamentary elections, has a leg up on the U.S.

REUTERS

"Bible Belt" boosts Bush, Republicans

1:05 ET, Mon 6 Nov 2006By Matthew Bigg
DUBLIN, Ga., Nov 6 (Reuters) - Retired school teacher Martha Bobbitt thinks President George W. Bush is a good Christian with the right values. If he's gone wrong in Iraq, it won't change her vote.

Opinion polls suggest Bush's Republican Party may lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives and possibly the Senate in national elections on Tuesday, dragged down by the unpopularity of the war in Iraq...

POLSTER.COM

The Latest Polls

Great interactive wrap up on the latest polling data.

RCP

Detailed state-by-state breakdown

You just can't beat the detailed breakdown from Real Clear Politics

NEW YORK POST

A GOP MASSACRE: A BLOODY TUESDAY

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
November 6, 2006 --
THE latest polls portend disaster for the Republican Party tomorrow. The House appears to be gone; the Senate is teetering on the brink...

YAHOO NEWS

Fla. GOP candidate snubs a visiting Bush

By DEB RIECHMANN,
Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago
PENSACOLA, Fla. - The White House did not hide its irritation Monday at Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist for ducking President Bush at a campaign rally in the Republican friendly Panhandle. ...

CNN

WHAT'S YOUR PLATFORM:

What's your person political platform? Take the quiz here to measure your attitudes on some key issues...

CQ POLITICS - C-SPAN

BALANCE OF POWER SCORECARD

They do a great (and up to date) breakdown of each seat.

MSNBC

While you weren't looking...an election broke out. Here's where everything stands at the finish line.

By Alex JohnsonReporter
MSNBCUpdated:
11:02 a.m. ET Nov 6, 2006
Believe it or not, there's been an election going on, and Simon Cowell isn't involved. For those of you who have spent more time mulling whether Betty really is Ugly, here's a helpful talking point, so you won't be as shocked by Tuesday's results as you were when they killed off Mr. Eko on "Lost" last week:

There are still Democrats around.

Technorati Tags:
election 2006, congress, house, senate, GOP, democrat, republican, bush, campaign, races

Bookmark It!

Shameless Plug

2006-11-03T10:08:00.000-05:00

I am momentarily using my blog for something other than politics. We will be back to regular programming in the next post.

I am working with my sister on a new organization that is just so exciting, especially if you are at all interested in or passionate about the performing arts.

My sister, a fabulously talented woman, brings to this project an impressive history in theatre and performing arts practice, study, and education. She began her career as an actor before enjoying many successes as a choreographer, director, producer, and writer. She then moved into theatre education holding positions as Drama Department Head for several prestigious schools.

The launch of MainStreet U.S.A.P.A. brings to life a concept she has been dedicated to for almost a decade and is fueled by her lifelong passion for the preservation of performing arts as a critical element of American culture.

The organization is built on the understanding that great theatre is happening all over this country and not just in the "theatre Mecca's". MainStreet U.S.A.P.A.'s mission is to seek out those performing artists and give them avenues of real opportunity.

I am thrilled to a part of it as the organization's Director of Marketing, Business Development and Web Development. We just launched the initial phase of the website a couple of days ago. If you are so inclined, please visit and tell me what you think of the website. It was designed with an interest in having something informational, unique, understated, and artistic.

Most importantly, if you or anyone you know is involved in the arts, this is an incredible resource for them. As MainStreet U.S.A.P.A. sees its goals to fruition, the benefits to new artists will be amazing.

Thank you and please visit MainStreet U.S.A.P.A.

Technorati Tags:
theatre, performing arts, drama, arts advocacy, performing arts organization, actors, acting, playwrights, music, dance, theater

Bookmark It!

Every Democrat Is Screaming...WHYYYYY

2006-11-02T04:02:00.000-05:00

Is Kerry really a covert republican operative
assigned to assail the democratic party?

The Buzz

2006-10-23T13:06:00.000-04:00

Very interesting political buzz that has been floating around out there but seems louder today....

BARACK OBAMA

I am full of hope.

Senator Obama--I'll volunteer for the campaign. I'll write about it every other day. I'll go tell it on the mountain. Just please, toss your hat in this ring.

Cowboy Diplomacy Comes Full Circle

2006-10-11T19:46:00.000-04:00

President Bush in autocratic zeal remains myopically focused on justifying his war in Iraq. He holds steadfast in his saddle, atop his horse wielding his branding iron and searing the posterior of nations and even American citizens with a "wit us" or "agin' us" white hot brand.

That gallop was not even tempered in the wake of a nuclear device being detonated by North Korea approximately 75 miles from the China - North Korea border. Now, little more than 48 hours after the event, the United States is the only country in the world refusing to officially confirm the details of the event, choosing instead to spin the shocking test and threats to the United States as "not unusual and not new for the North Koreans to be provocative". When Tony Snow was asked "So what went wrong?" The response was "I'm not sure anything went wrong." This follows directly in line with an established modus operandi of the Bush administration - deny then rationalize. To acknowledge the enormity of this event is to cast a spotlight on the utter misdirection of this administration. Attempts to downplay this outrageous act are preposterous.

North Korea's Historic nuclear test was followed by threats to attack the United States with a nuclear missile if its demands go unmet. Their ability or inability to accomplish that is secondary to the supporting issue of their unfettered ability to gain the strategic position that turned the unthinkable into reality - the act of issuing the United States a nuclear ultimatum. An environment amenable to emboldening a rogue state clearly exists. That in itself presents compelling evidence of a structural failure in the foreign relations balance that must be maintained by the US as a world superpower.

North Korea has certainly been a menace even before Bush took the White House. However, recognized and acknowledged (even by this White House) are the requisite ingredients for attempting that balance with North Korea. Full attention to a process of give and take - "carrots and sticks" Tony Snow called it yesterday in his press briefing. This administration and its spokesperson say that now as if they have worked to maintain that balance. In reality, this administration's first real response to North Korea was to label it a member of Bush's "axis of evil". Was this an inexcusable indifference to the matter? I find, as per the norm for the Bush administration and its preoccupation with making nefarious links, it's quite interesting to review the links below the surface of the Bush White House / North Korea relationship.

Through his final days in office, President Clinton had been working to ease tensions with North Korea. A disarmament proposal was delivered to North Korea, he had eased economic sanctions, and then the US led consortium signed the deal to give North Korea two light-water reactors. A very controversial deal, a substantial carrot offered to defuse the immediate threat of North Korea's readiness to abandon all restraint. Bush came into office while the ink on that deal was still drying. It should have been clear that North Korea was at the forefront of foreign policy issues requiring attention from the new President.

ABB had been awarded the contract to deliver systems and equipment for the light water reactors in North Korea. Quite interesting is the fact that Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB when it was awarded the project, and until 2001, earning from that position $190,000 a year. While having a fiduciary interest in the deal, Mr. Rumsfeld's indignation over North Korea's possible nuclear proliferation was nowhere to be found. That tune changed of course after he took office. He left ABB to join the Bush administration. Just months after Rumsfeld took office, President Bush ended all negotiations and diplomatic strides initiated by Clinton. Bush told the Washington Post then (2001) "I loathe [North Korea's leader] Kim Jong-il." In January 2002 Bush named North Korea as a member of the "axis of evil". After Baghdad fell, Mr. Rumsfeld said North Korea should draw the "appropriate lesson". The threat that North Korea has presented was met by this administration with little to no diplomacy or effort to normalize relations and a great deal of flippant sanctimony and expressions of that admitted loathing.

This is our President - whose North Korea policy has for 6 years been wait until they launch. This same President who subsequently makes a reckless statement that "Democrats just want to wait until we're attacked again." This same President who, while squandering our political, diplomatic and military capital obsessing over the control and occupation of Iraq, has waited...waited and ignored clear threats to our nation's security. Waited and ignored the responsibility of the office of the President to address foreign policy as more than the egregious pursuit of his own personal, political agenda.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Rumsfeld, North Korea, Kim Jong-il, nuclear test, nuclear threat, proliferation

Bookmark It!

History In The Making - North Korea Launches Nuke Test

2006-10-09T00:16:00.000-04:00

It looks like the White House has just now confirmed the launch of North Korea's first nuclear weapons test.

The news is just breaking now but it went from an unconfirmed statement from North Korea, to verification of seismic activity recorded, and followed by confirmation from the State Department just now at near midnight EST.

The US had issued warnings to North Korea claiming there would be "stern unspecified consequences" to this action.

North Korea further politicized the brazen move by giving notice--a 20 minute warning to the test as if to say "I'll do it just because you said I couldn't".

All eyes will most certainly be on Washington through the night and tomorrow.

UPDATE: 12:21 am

USGS now says the tremors caused by the blast were stronger than first thought. They say now they produded 4.2 magnitude tremors 240 miles N.E. of Pyongyang at zero depth.

South Korea military now on high alert.

Sr Bush official now confirms to FOX News that the nuclear device was tested.

UPDATE: 12:34 AM

President Bush is expected to make an announcement tonight - time unknown.

UPDATE: 1:10 am

It is now reported that Sr Bush officials are saying likely punishment will be to push for strong chapter 7 resolution that will make it illegal for UN member states to transfer WMD technology to N. Korea and much stronger punitive measures but not against the oil sector.

(Commentary)

The timing on that might be a little off. I can't help but sum up this administration's foreign policy and strategy. We fight a war on terror by pulling out of the geographical core of the terror group that attacked us on 9-11, we abandon opportunities to capture or kill the leader of that group. We do this to move militarily against a sovereign nation with no justifiable reason or logic. We bluster at Iran for developing nuclear technology. They are either rightfully developing nuclear energy sources or a nuclear weapon (in its very early stages). In any event, we rattle our sabers at them with no apparent intention to follow through on threats of sanctions.

And while this administration has been obscenely squandering our political, diplomatic and military capital...a nuclear device has been detonated in our global community.

UPDATE: 1:36 am (from the White House as reported by FOX News)

The President has not yet made a public statement but FOX reports word from the White House is - "We consider this a provocative and intolerable act in defiance of the international community. The U.N. Security council will take immediate action. White House is talking to S. Korea and China as to what the response should be."

The strongest response now comes from S. Korea saying "We cannot tolerate the test and will respond sternly to it."

Technorati Tags: north korea, nuclear test, nuclear weapon, un, bush

Bookmark It!