Crassroots Politics?

That makes me sick.

So does Rick Santorum, who, remember, just voted to allow testing pesticides on fetuses. Pass it on.

The Chickenhawk Neocon Brigade wear purple heart bandaids to insult American veterans, and dye their fingers purple to show solidarity with citizens of Iraq...

Doesn't get much more patriotic than that.

Let's hope in the next camapign we keep this picture as amo against the right! Support our troops...I don't think so. The bandaid says it all. Get the money in and let's roll with this.

I'm sorry to go this far off topic, but I've been around the blogoshpere looking at posts about the Plame Affaire. Time Inc. is contemplating handing over Coopers notes, Miller and the NYT are standing firm, Novakula says he'll write an article when it's all 'over' I've been reading laments about how protecting sources is in danger and how this isn't about protecting a 'source' but that it's protecting a criminal. I know the supremes aren't taking the case. I admit that I'm confused.

If one asks a few simple questions, one is bound to get answers from every possible perspective. Are we worried about freedom of the press and confidentiality of sources? Are we worried about finding the leaker and reporters be damned? What exactly is a position a thinking person takes when the issue seems to get cloudier at every turn?

Who should go to jail, if anyone? Don't be snarky and talk about how hating Miller for her WMD crap reports were crap. Don't be snarky about Novak and how he somehow sems to be protected. Why is this so much about (so called) reporters doing the perp walk. Isn't there some criminal in the W/H that should be the focus? Are reporters protecting a 'source' or are they refusing to out a criminal? If the source and the criminal are one and the same, which takes precedent, protection or obeying the law?

Names are floating about everywhere--Rove, Libby, Bolton, Cheney, take your pick. Somebody was a bad guy and did a bad thing, and Novakula wrote up a story about it. It's like keeping a whacked out score card. Who was the badder of the bad guys, the one who leaked, or the person who wrote about it? Cooper wrote ABOUT Novak's article, and Miller didn't even write one. I keep reading that either Fitzgerald got something from Novak that he doesn't beleive, or that he needs the other reporters to confirm Novaks story. Aren't all these reporters in somewhat different positions at this point in time?

I can't for the life of me see why putting ANY reporter in jail sews up the case. There seems to be some kind of satisfaction/horror about how bad this is for journalism, but isn't there some way to come to an agreement that we are talking about source protection versus pointing out a criminal and that using their journalism credentials isn't the issue, it's doing your duty by coming forward and naming the prepatrator of a crime? Am I missing some vital aspect of the First Amendment here?

I love the Constitution too, but is it proper to hide behind if someone who committed treason goes free? Is treason protected if you tell it to a journalist? Do you see why the blogs are of different minds? Some are worried about ever getting good info from a source, if said source feels they may be given up in a legal action. Some say that in this case the source was not a source, but a person committing a crime.

Imagine someone telling you the name of a covert CIA official. They didn't 'just happen' to name drop. They wanted you to KNOW this name for some reason. They wanted this persons cover blown, right? Isn't that a crime? Politics and elections aside, any reporter who ended up getting this info must have KNOWN that such an action was the commission of a felony. They were not only journalists getting a 'scoop' they were witnesses to a felony. It's my thought that journalists have the same duty to report a crime as the rest of us, so if they KNOW who did it, telling investigators is their civic duty. Not telling by claiming it's source protection is a smokescreen, but it's NOT the main crime.

How does everyone feel about this? Is this a case of journalistic protections, or is this a criminal investigation being hampered by journalists for whatever reason? WHY are they protecting a criminal? I'm so confused......

Oh, and as far as the pesticide testing, remember that the Humane? Society is putting their money on that great Pa. animal rights activist.

FRAME GAME

The doggies are worth more than the kiddies. Buy yourself a senator today!!!!

tutter: as I recall Woodward and Bernstein might not have succeded without deep throat. Sorry to all of the civil libertarians but I have a problem with reporters hiding behind the constitution when it comes to criminal questions especially criminal behavior regarding national security issues.

tutter did you read my posts the other day about boycotting the Pa animal rights group who contributed $5000 and a pledge to work for dirtbag Santorum?

Tut --

My only question in the whole Plame thing is why does Robert Novak seem to be immune from questions of the court????

When somebody answers that question, or for that matter, even asks it, I'll be interested.

Ira--

As I read it, Deep Throat was helping reporters to expose a crime. If everything we've read is correct, Felt had NO internal way to report the criminal activity, as it would have been swollowed up and smothered. Felt was a whistle-blower, no?

The person/s who outed Plame were not blowing any whistles. The outing was the crime itself. Am I correct in saying that Novakula was getting information in order to DO damage, not to stop it from happening? Which makes him NOT a Woodward/Bernstein. He took the commission of a felony public, and since he did it as a 'journalist' the criminal is a source, not a criminal. This does not compute with me, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't.

Like I said, I love the Constitition too, but isn't there some kind of limit?

And, yes, I read your post about my Pa. senator. He is trying to show his moderate, kind, wonderful, family value side to the voters. Here's hoping that he gets the rug pulled out from under his fake, false caring and concern.

Re: Plame Affair
Somehow I have a feeling that when Time releases Cooper's notes and the leak is revealed we will all be underwhelmed. I so hope I'm wrong, but that's my gut. It'll be a let down when we all know the truth is Rove is all over this leak business.

my point about Woodward and Bernstein was that in the 1970s reporters wanted to protect their sources but also understood that they couldn't stand by and allow the whitehouse to get away with criminal behavior and a conspiracy to undermind the constitution. Woodward and Bernstein published leaked info without disclosing their sources and congress ran with that.That's impossible today b/c there is no Sam Irwin in Congress. I imagine that Cooper and Miller could also annomously publish who outed Plame but without also disclosing her source the US attorneys office could not prosecute.

I guess your argument is that the identity of whistle blowers needs to be protected but not the identity of those who have committed a crime. It is my fear that the news media's obsession in protecting their sources has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution, but merely to protect sources that will help them sell future news copy (financial reasons). In that sense I find what Cooper and Miller are doing make them unwitting accomplises to a possible federal crime, which deserves zero constitional protection.

Neocons Offer New Raid on Social Security Funds:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050630/ap_on_go_co/social_security

Just Say NO.

Think Progress has the skinny on Neocon plan. Pass ANY Social Security proposal, and then take money out of the SS fund to fund private accounts in committee:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/30/a-moment-of-clarity-in-social-security-debate/

Read it and weep.

Haliburton serving troops, food that had expired for up to one year, according to Senator Dorgan.

So much for W's standing up for the troops on this upcoming July 4.

So much for W's standing up for the troops on this upcoming July 4.

Posted by: Ira at June 30, 2005 04:39 PM

Oh, yes, just displaying the flag is more than enough-- no need to actually give them equipment, healthcare, or proper food!

Regarding what Lakoff has been saying about Rove and bush and 9/11...

from LUTD:

Hey Lakoff, Don't FEED The Elephants!

To the point, Mr. Lakoff, if “don’t think of an elephant” means not using their words and strategies to help them further their agenda, why in gods green earth DID YOU JUST DO IT?? I don’t even know what his recent blog is about, because Bush has pissed the country off by linking Iraq to 9/11 again. Even in Kansas.

After pretending that Bush has been successful in resurrecting the Iraq-9/11 meme, Lakoff goes on to offer up his words of wisdom which is nothing more than the EXACT things Democrats have been, and still are, saying.

http://lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp

Posted by: tutterfly at June 30, 2005 02:51 PM

Tutter,

I have a sneaking suspicion that Bolton is the snitch. Call it a gut feeling, but maybe that is why the WH refuses to release any further documents?

As regards to the topic, I have been impressed-sadly-with the conservative movement's eager willingness to spread libel, lies and smears about their opponents and their policies. They have perfected the art of political street fighting. The sanctimonius self-righteousness is tiring, but we have to respond in kind to the attacks, not with anger, but with deliberative forceful truth.

There is another side to "don't think of an elephant" and that would be "don't feed the elephant". If you don't want Americans to think Democrats are incompetent, quit saying they are. If you don't want to get drawn into ideological debates, choose words that don't reflect a known controversial ideology or words that have already been framed by the right. Most importantly, never ever ever say Democrats and Republicans are the same; that is a rose on a silver platter.

Posted by: sparrow at June 30, 2005 06:29 PM

amen.

Thank you NT! I agree. And here is something that maybe you and a large group can attend. I have personally been advocating using community service to spread messages. Here's one in your state.

**************

TCDP's July 4th Salute to the Bill of Rights

Join in for a Picnic and Park 'Gardening' (i.e. some light weed pulling around the children's playground area) and other fun activities on Independence Day 2005, Monday, July 4th from 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. at Parque Zaragoza, 2608 Gonzales Street. All Travis County Democratic Elected officials invited to join and will be introduced at 3:00 p.m.

Hot Dogs and refreshments will be served. Entertainment by Texas Youth Word Collective, Saint Edward's University Mariachi and Saint Edward's Ballet Folklorico. This event is being co-sponsored by Democracy for Texas (www.democracyfortexas.org )

JULY 4th SCHEDULE 1:00 Opening remarks by TCDP Chair, Chris Elliott1:00 – 1:30 Park beautification1:30 - 2:00 Texas Youth Word Collective reading passages from the Declaration of Independence and performing original 'slam poetry' on the theme of the Bill of Rights2:00 – 3:00 St. Edward’s University Mariachi3:00 – 4:00 Speaker program; Democratic Elected Officials & Candidates4:00 – 5:00 St. Edward's Ballet Folklorico5:00 Closing remarks by Chair Elliott

Time Will Comply With Order to Hand Over Documents (Update7)

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Time Inc., seeking to keep its reporter out of jail and avoid fines, said it will hand over subpoenaed records to a prosecutor investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name after losing a U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

The magazine said its action ``removes any justification'' for jailing Time reporter Matthew Cooper, who has refused to identify sources for his stories on the leak. The Supreme Court on June 27 rejected appeals by Time, Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. A federal judge plans to consider penalties, including possible jail terms, on July 6.

more......http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aNj3fNSYxegc&refer=top_world_news

Bush Wants Answers on Iranian Leader's Past

By Tyler Marshall and Paul Richter, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration today demanded that the Iranian government clarify the role of President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the prolonged hostage crisis that followed.

The administration also pledged to conduct its own investigation into Ahmadinejad's past after several of the 52 Americans held hostage in the embassy said in tough, unequivocal statements that they had recognized the next Iranian leader as one of their captors.

more....http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-063005usiran_lat,0,2127396.story?coll=la-home-

More media snakes around the line of decency.

ABC's "Long-Standing," but Changing Policy

Contributed by Robert Chase

Tuesday, 10 May 2005
When ABC ran the ad for "Focus on the Family" last Monday (5/2) after they denied the running of our ad last year they claimed that the reason was that "the network doesn't take advertising from religious groups. It's a long-standing policy." They implied from that statement that Focus on Family is not a religious group.

The claim that they are not a religious group did not hold and was ripped apart by bloggers such as John Aravois, Fredrick Clarkson and Chuck Currie.

Rather than admit their mistake, they just changed their "long-standing" policy. Saturday's NYT reported that ABC accepts advertising from religious groups "as long as the commercials do not proselytize."

This is not the first time ABC has changed this policy to prevent our message of inclusiveness from airing. Last February, ABC's rejection of our ad said:

More Here:

http://news.ucc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=v...

Minnesota Legislature Fails to make State Budget Deal - Shutdown looms.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_us/minnesota_shutdown

Posted by: sparrow at June 30, 2005 06:29 PM

Double amen.

I didn't understand the Plame case until I came to the DCP and learned more about Judith Miller. Until then, I just knew the "left" was upset about it and I thought it may have been paritson bickering--like Crossfire.

Then I heard a little more from NPR when they spoke about "confidentiality vs the criminal protection of a confidential news source." Now I know and understand in more detail the importance of the Plame outing--not just the names Novak or Miller. (and crassroots politics that broke the law and has endangered the Plame family as well as every American she was serving.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Fitzgerald declined to comment, but in court papers unsealed yesterday he said the case remains unchanged and focuses on potentially serious criminal misconduct.

Fitzgerald urged the judge to jail the reporters as soon as possible and to start enforcing a $1,000-per-day penalty he had levied against Time.

"We shouldn't enable people to think court orders are optional," Fitzgerald said. "When President Nixon got the order to turn over the tapes, he didn't say, 'Let me think about my alternatives.' " "This case is not about a whistle-blower," Fitzgerald added. "It's about potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

Interested in the election fraud debate? Understand numbers and statistics? Check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x381676

Time Inc. to turn over reporter's notes
N.Y. Times says it's 'deeply disappointed' in decision
By Emily Church, MarketWatch

Last Update: 6:02 PM ET June 30, 2005


NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Bowing to a threatened jail term for one of its reporters, Time magazine's parent company said Thursday it will turn over documents to a grand jury investigating the published disclosure of a CIA agent's identity.

The publisher's move drew a sharp rebuke from The New York Times, which is defending its own reporter against the same threat.

Matt Cooper, a White House correspondent for Time magazine, and Judith Miller, a reporter with the New York Times, both face jail time for refusing to obey a federal court order to cooperate with the investigation.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review that court order.

Cooper and Miller have refused to testify before the grand jury about the identities of people they spoke with during their separate investigations into the disclosure by columnist Robert Novak in the Washington Post that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA. Novak's article cited anonymous sources. Publicly identifying a CIA agent is a federal crime in certain instances.

Time's editor, Norman Pearlstine, decried the Supreme Court's stance on the issue, but also said cooperation was necessary to prevent Cooper from going to jail.

The high court, he said, "has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society."

more....

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B42A0355C-9281-4E90-9A33-01021EB4A60D%7D

Truth,

Protecting someone who is covering up a crime is not guarenteed under the constitution.

Judith Miller broke the law and should be giving her source who also broke the law and they should both be tried for treason.

The Tennessee Department of Health has responded to complaints into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) 'diagnosis' of Florida's Terri Schiavo by videotape, RAW STORY has learned.

Their letter, written by Tennessee Department of Health Director of Investigations for Health Related Boards Denise Moran, said that the complaint had been received and "was in the process of being reviewed."

"Once this review has been completed you will be contacted by letter informing you of the recommended course to be taken," Moran adds.

"Thank you for reporting this to us since our mandate is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Tennessee," she continues.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Letter_Frist_Schiavo_diag...

Interesting thread at D.U.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x136150

sparrow:

irc?

Does violating the U.S. war crimes act of 1996 require the death penalty? And what does this mean in terms of this administrations policies?

On today's Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/30/133...

Thursday, June 30th, 2005

Fmr. NY Congressmember Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture

In a newly-published article in The Nation former New York Congressmember Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the committee that voted to impeach Richard Nixon calls on the public and the press to demand President Bush and his senior White House staff be held accountable for the torture of Abu Ghraib and be prosecuted under the 1996 War Crime Act.

In the last few months, mainstream human rights groups have been calling for top U.S officials in the Bush administration to be held accountable for the torture and abuse of military prisoners at U.S detention centers around the world. In April, Human Rights Watch demanded that a special prosecutor be named to investigate Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA director George Tenet and other top officials for possible war crimes related to the abuse. Last month, Amnesty International issued a damning report blasting the Bush administration for ignoring international law and mistreating detainees. The group criticized the Bush administration for failing to carry out a full and independent investigation of the torture at Abu Ghraib and for failing to hold any senior officials accountable.

Well, The Nation magazine is publishing an article in its July 18th issue titled "Torture and Accountability." ** http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050718&s=ho... In the article, the author, former Congressmember Elizabeth Holtzman, writes that there is precedent to hold U.S officials accountable for wrongdoing. She points to public pressure that forced Congress to end the Vietnam war, relentless press coverage of the Watergate scandal which ultimately lead to Nixon's resignation and public demands that led to the independent 9/11 commission.

And it seems to me that with the terrible scandal, Abu Ghraib, that we need -- we can’t, as they tried in Watergate to do, cut off the investigation at the small fry, at the lowest level. You have to look, and the international law precedence and American law requires it, you look up the chain of command. What I discovered by accident was that -- this is not a concern that I have alone -- President Bush's White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, himself, who is now the Attorney General of the United States, wrote a memo in January 2002 to President Bush saying one of the reasons we need to opt out of the Geneva Conventions wasn't just because they didn't like the Geneva Conventions because they don't like treaties, but he said, we have to worry about prosecutions under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996. That, it turns out, is a federal statute that applies to any U.S. national, military or civilian, high or low, who violates the Geneva Conventions in certain ways. In other words, who engages in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. And it's not just those who engage in it, it's those who order it or those who, knowing about it, fail to take steps to stop it. That means higher-ups.

And basically, what it does, it makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions a federal crime. Got it? Just like kidnapping or interstate burglary or child pornography, it is a federal crime. And the other thing, that's interesting is that it carries the death penalty. If death results from torture or inhuman treatment, then there is a death penalty, and that means there's no statute of limitations. That means that if any high level official violates the War Crimes Act, and somebody died, they can be prosecuted. They are subject to prosecution for the rest of their lives.

Posted by: sparrow at June 30, 2005 06:47 PM

"Most of our members either serve, have served, or plan to serve in the United States Armed Forces, or have participated in events or projects supporting the United States Armed Forces.

Las Vegas, Nevada--YRNC 2005 Chairman Nathan Taylor

My response: Prove how many members serve, have served or plan to serve (that is laughable as it is impossible to prove) in the Armed Forces. I fly my flag, so I guess you could say that I participate in projects supporting the United States Armed Forces as well.

A note to Truth--feel free to skip-it's non-political

Truth,

Can't go to the irc. We had a storm today and I've lost power. I am now sitting in the local library and it does not allow any chat. It does not have a java client and it does not even allow something like msn messanger. (eyes roll!)

But I was going through withdrawal. I napped and I got up but still no power. My cell phone was dead so...well as you see, here I am. At least they have internet and an outlet, so I can barely keep more than one window open on their program but my phone is in their outlet charging. (lol)

PLEASE just pray that I will have power at home by 8 pm becuase that's when this library closes.

Oh, I forgot to say, this computer doesn't even refresh without getting stuck, so I have to keep posting to see any responses to my posts! (more eye rolling!)

Gotta love this!

52 house membes file FOIA requests about the DSM

http://www.rawstory.com/

Here's one of the key ideas behind the DSM controversy. Did Bush infact begin the war before going to Congress as required in our constitution? According to Rawstory, evidence is showing Rumsfeld changed the rules of the air attacks well before this was sent to Congress.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/U.S._changed_Iraq_policy_to_begin_airstrikes_months_before_0630.html

Hey all,

I forgot to mention, there is a local group who has put together a pack of information for the gov't teachers in the middle and high schools to teach, specifically as it relates to the Iraq war and the DSM, and they have distributed this information to the local teachers.

Are the teachers using this information to teach their students? What's your guess?

If you thought the teachers would appreciate this information and present it in their gov't class, then...you'd be WRONG!

If you guessed no--then you'd be right!

I guess even teachers are afraid to send the truth with students because they're afraid to risk the parent's "wrath".

STILL that is a great idea and I think people should keep doing it in their area.

Veterans GROUP ISSUES "DECLARATION OF IMPEACHMENT" AND ANNOUNCES PETITION TO REMOVE pRESIDENT bUSH

St. Louis – A national veterans’ organization today issued a “Declaration of Impeachment” and announced it is beginning an online petition to remove President Bush from office for crimes committed during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Using the same language as the original “Declaration of Independence,” Veterans For Peace cited many of the same reasons to remove George Bush that Thomas Jefferson cited to separate from King George of England. And in a modern version of the signing of the Declaration, VFP announced the posting of its online impeachment petition.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny,” Jefferson wrote, and then added the famous litany of abuses charged against the king that VFP said is unchanged today:

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has…deprive(ed) us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury…transport(ed) us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
He has constrained our fellow Citizens…to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands
He is at this time transporting large Armies…to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
A (President) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

The veterans’ Declaration of Impeachment came to the same conclusion as Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, when it declared “…it is the Right of the People…it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

More:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/593

Posted by: sparrow at June 30, 2005 07:19 PM

LOL

We can't have you going into withdrawal!

You sure are a speedy thing at posting these articles.

Posted by: sparrow at June 30, 2005 06:47 PM

"Most of our members either serve, have served, or plan to serve in the United States Armed Forces, or have participated in events or projects supporting the United States Armed Forces.

Las Vegas, Nevada--YRNC 2005 Chairman Nathan Taylor

=====================

Gee, must have been a different Republican Party that wore the "Purple Heart BandAids" at their convention last year...

This twerp made up the whole story. Guarantee it. There are no left wing protesters.

No Bounce:
Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech;
Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress—Want Bi-Partisan Solutions—New Zogby Poll
Released: June 30, 2005

President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.

Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort.

The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible “bump” in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.

more~
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

Hey Truth (or anyone else who cares!)

YEA! I just got home. I have electricity again. For a few minutes anyways! Another storm coming through will probably lose it soon.

I'm running to the irc right now while the connection lasts. Be there or be square!

Re: Plame Affair

"We shouldn't enable people to think court orders are optional," Fitzgerald said. "When President Nixon got the order to turn over the tapes, he didn't say, 'Let me think about my alternatives.'
"This case is not about a whistle-blower," Fitzgerald added. "It's about potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

my question: what do we know about Fitzgerald?
Does he believe the president or VP is above the law?
That statement he made tells me that he knows 'someone" high up inside the WH gave the order to retaliate against a whistleblower (Wilson)..."someone" in the highest levels of the WH wanted to punish a whistleblower...was this someone in the WH acting on the orders of the president or the VP?
Let's say, the Prez & VP didn't know about this beforehand, that it was the work of one of their hatchet men. With the tight control this WH maintains on its loyalists I find it hard to believe that once this story broke, the Prez & VP still don't KNOW who did this dirty deed?
And that person still has his job (possibly a promotion).
I'm keeping an eye on Fitzgerald. He may be more dangerous to Bu$hInc's future than anyone else so far. Notice his reference to Nixon. Who was also President and NOT above the law.
The people in the WH work for the Prez & VP...if there's a coverup going on, they're not only shielding the perp who did the dirty deed, but they're also shielding whoever gave the order.

Excellent post, Suz. Couldn't be said better. Seeing that photo makes me feel ... can't even say it. So bad.

Victoria Ellen,

Maybe he announced the protesters and will hire them himself! That's been done before! (Look at Bush and the protesters at the 2000 recount. ONE of them even got rewarded! Can anyone say BOLTON!!!!)

Entirely possible, Sparrow...

Crassroots in action!

Bush: "Kyoto Would have 'wrecked' U.S. Economy"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_danish_tv

No, but it would have cost Mr. Bush's corporate buddies a couple of dimes, and we can't have that, can we?

Seriously, I hope he keeps talking. His speech the other night resulted in yet another drop in approval.

Look! It's Lame! It's a Duck!

Victoria,

I hope he's a lame duck! Now if we can only make the majority in Congress a lame congress before they pass even more bills to hurt us.

Tutterfly

I'm waiting for Rove to be "frogmarched."
My husband and son were in the audience when Ambassador Wilson made the remark.

This is the best article:

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1022-09.htm

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at June 30, 2005 08:42 PM

I know it's trite, but I smell Rove.