Another Word Bites the Dust...

Here is another cause for concern over Roberts & his wife's beliefs... I know it has been reported before about his wife's role in Feminists for Life, but have you seen the ad they have about how abortion is bad, even in cases of rape? Look here and read the rest...

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2005/07/hard-right-bush-nominee-for-supreme.html

With regard to the Feminists for Life ad, my argument would be that the lovely young lady shown in that ad would have simply been born to another set of parents. You see, my God is a God of infinite consciousness and wisdom, not cruelty, myopia, and Falwell-like stupidity.

Now, one of the questions someone is going to have to answer for me is why the conception of God promoted by a foreign national situated in Rome (who, for the record, serves in a position that the Founders and Framers had absolutely nothing good to say about) should trump the conceptions of God of actual Americans?

Scalia, Thomas and Roberts (if he's confirmed) are free to kiss the Pope's ring to their heart's content, but attempting to impose his views on reproductive rights on secular and spiritual, or secular and agnostic/atheistic Americans, is a clear violation of the Separation of Church and State.

from American Progress Report:

ETHICS
Card's 12-hour Head Start

On September 29, 2003 the Department of Justice told Alberto Gonzales (then the White House counsel) that it was launching a criminal investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. Gonzales was instructed to notify the White House staff to preserve all documents related to the case. But Gonzales, by his own admission, decided he didn't want to comply with the request immediately. Instead, he went to Chief of Staff Andrew Card and told him that the White House staff would be told to preserve all documents related to the leak the following morning. As a result, Card had a 12-hour window to tip off White House staff, including Karl Rove, about the request (which, as Bob Schieffer noted yesterday, "would give people time to shred documents and do any number of things.") But Andrew Card and the White House can end the speculation. All they have to do is answer a simple question: after Alberto Gonzales tipped off Andrew Card about the imminent request to preserve documents, who did Card talk to and what did he tell them? (The White House was asked on Sunday and didn't respond.)

FOX GIVES PERMISSION TO RAID HEN HOUSE: Gonzales argued that the 12-hour head start was appropriate because he contacted the Department of Justice about it and was told: "Go ahead and notify the staff early in the morning. That would be OK." But at the time, the investigation was controlled by former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Karl Rove "worked for Ashcroft over the course of two decades." After Ashcroft lost his Senate seat in 2000, Rove "lobbied intensely for his former employer's nomination" to Attorney General. In December 2003, Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation amidst criticism that his close ties to the White House created a conflict of interest. According to a Justice Department official, "Ashcroft's decision not to recuse himself earlier was a matter of efficiency."

CARD AT CENTER OF THE STORM: Andrew Card is not on the periphery of the leak scandal. The White House Chief of Staff was aboard Air Force One in July 2003 with Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell, and the top secret State Department document that contained the identity of Valerie Wilson. Card also shares the blame with President Bush for keeping Rove on staff after it was clear he lied to the American people about a national security matter. As John Podesta said last week on Meet the Press: "I think if he [Rove] won't [resign] and Bush can't [fire him], then Andy Card ought to call him in and say, 'Karl, what you did was wrong, and you ought to be out of here.'"

GONZALES ANSWERS QUESTIONS ABOUT AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION: For the last several weeks President Bush and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have refused to answer any questions about the leak of Valerie Plame's identity citing "an ongoing criminal investigation." Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Gonzales was asked by Brit Hume "Can you tell us if you at any time were aware of Valerie Plame, either by name or by identification with Joseph Wilson? Were you aware that she was in the CIA? And did you have — and if you were — did you have any idea what kind of work she was doing?" Gonzales responded "I had no information regarding Ms. Plame and her role at the CIA." Why can't Karl Rove answer the same question? Actually, Gonzales's response fits a pattern of White House conduct. McClellan had no problem commenting on the ongoing investigation when he was issuing blanket denials for Rove. Only since those denials have become untenable have McClellan and the White House clammed up.

Now, one of the questions someone is going to have to answer for me is why the conception of God promoted by a foreign national situated in Rome (who, for the record, serves in a position that the Founders and Framers had absolutely nothing good to say about) should trump the conceptions of God of actual Americans?

Scalia, Thomas and Roberts (if he's confirmed) are free to kiss the Pope's ring to their heart's content, but attempting to impose his views on reproductive rights on secular and spiritual, or secular and agnostic/atheistic Americans, is a clear violation of the Separation of Church and State.

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at July 25, 2005 11:12 AM

Hear! Hear!!! :-) Kudos for pointing that out, Matt!!!

The reason the Founding Fathers had nothing good to say about the Catholic church is rooted in the history of the Inquisition, the Reformation, and the reign of Bloody Mary (aka Queen Mary I of England, daughter of Katherine of Aragon and Henry VIII). During the five years of her reign she had more people tortured, burned at the stake, and killed by various means, than in all the 45 years of the reign of her younger half-sister who followed, Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII. When Henry broke with the Catholic church by naming himself head of the Catholic church in England, thus denying the Catholic church any domination or rulership over the king (or queen) in England, he was doing so to enable his divorce from Katherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn, but it was the first time anyone had gone against the state religion for all the countries in Europe and Great Britain, which was Catholocism. The Catholic church up to that point had had free reign to force monarchs to fight wars on their behalf (and pay for the wars the popes decreed they should fight) in the name of religion (i.e. the Crusades, among other wars).

The Founding Fathers, products of an Enlightenment education, had a great deal more historical perspective than modern scholars give them credit for (IMHO), which is why the first clause of the First Amendment gives people freedom OF and freedom FROM religion. It takes keen historical knowledge to know why and how the separation of church and state was such an important step in American law. We have taken the separation of church and state for granted without any historical perspective, but if the fundies get their way, they will put this nation on a short and steep slippery slope to establishing a fascist theocracy - which bodes ill for this nation (IMHO).

President John F. Kennedy had to assure America that if he was elected he would rule this country without interference from the pope and the Catholic church, and that the pope could not have any influence on his decisions regarding America.

Various news stories keep stressing how John and Jane Roberts are "devout Catholics." IF they are THAT "devout" it spells doom for Roe v. Wade, thanks to the Catholic church, and that is clearly shown in the verbal exchange of a judge and Roberts in the following:

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/roberts.html
Overturning Roe was such a primary focus of the Reagan Administration's Justice Department that during an oral argument by the nominee to the Supreme Court a Justice asked, "Mr. Roberts, in this case, are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?" His reply was, "No your honor, the issue doesn't even come up." To this the justice replied, "Well that hasn't prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases."* [*NARAL].

{{{ Isn't it just purely amazin' how the memories of Republicans (especially neoCon Republicans) just fail them at critical times in their lives (I'm including the failed memories of Republicans during the Iran-Contra hearings, too)?!?!? If Roberts is so smart when it comes to legal briefs and arguing cases before the Supreme Court as he has done in the past, etc., why doesn't he remember the names of organizations he is a member of??? If he is to attend meetings and social functions of any organization, he has to know which ones he belongs to.... }}}

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html
Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory
Court Nominee Said He Has No Memory of Membership

One hopes that the Senate Judiciary Committee will make the country aware of the Federalist Society's attacks on the Constitution and given the prominence of this organization in the neocon legal and political circles within which John Roberts has thrived, one hopes that the committee will do its best to discover what else Roberts has conveniently forgotten.

Posted by dickbell at July 25, 2005 10:11 AM

EXCELLENT point, Dick!!!

If Roberts' memory is so bad, perhaps it is indicative of early-onset Alzheimer's, and confirmation of his nomination should be denied on the basis that a SCOTUS justice must be possessed of full mental abilities to perform his/her job well....

I'm not being uncharitable or unkind here. I'm merely pointing out that that's the kind of Rovian spin that would be leveled at a "liberal" nominee if s/he said s/he couldn't remember what organizations s/he belonged to....

Even more than the Judiciary committee members, the American people deserve to know how Roberts' thinks, his philosophies, and they deserve to know what's in papers the White House is refusing to release. SCOTUS justices make decisions that affect people for many generations (especially with regard to corporations, the environment, etc.), so his rulings (along with the other members of the court) could affect people in the future, long after we are all gone.....

AN LTE FROM MY STATE SENATOR:

Take the measure of the man before we rush to confirm

Senator Barbara Boxer

Monday, July 25, 2005

SF Chronicle Submissions
Letters to the Editor

Now that President Bush has nominated Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is up to the Senate to decide whether or not to confirm him. With the fundamental rights of all Americans hanging in the balance, my colleagues and I have a responsibility to carefully and thoroughly evaluate this nominee.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a powerful force for moderation, independence and consensus-building on an often deeply divided court. Over the next few months, the Senate must ask tough questions to determine whether Judge Roberts will continue her tradition: Will he be mainstream like Justice O'Connor or extreme like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? Will he uphold or erode the right to privacy, including a woman's reproductive freedom? Will he respect Congress' ability to pass laws protecting our families?

The stakes are high. According to a recent CNN poll, 65 percent of Americans want the next Supreme Court justice to uphold Roe vs. Wade. Many of us are old enough to remember what it was like before the court's landmark opinion. Women seeking illegal abortions were forced into the back alleys, risking their health and lives. Thousands died every year. We cannot go back to those dark days.

As deputy solicitor general, Judge Roberts argued before the Supreme Court on the side of Operation Rescue in one case, claiming that the often- violent mass demonstrations at clinics were simply free expression. He also co- wrote a brief for the government in Rust vs. Sullivan, a case about whether health-care providers at federally funded clinics could be barred from discussing abortion. Although Roe vs. Wade itself was not at issue in that case, Roberts' brief commented on it anyway, stating that Roe was "wrongly decided and should be overruled." The American people deserve to know if Judge Roberts wrote this troubling statement himself, whether he agreed with it, and, ultimately, whether he believes in a constitutional right to privacy.

The threat to Roe is not only serious; it is also immediate. In December, the next justice will hear arguments in Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood, a parental-notification case. If Judge Roberts is confirmed, he would likely be the deciding vote on whether the Supreme Court will continue safeguarding the health and safety of all women seeking abortion. Make no mistake: Without a protection for health, which is the centerpiece of Roe, women will be at grave risk.

But the stakes for families go even beyond the right to privacy. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has recognized Congress' broad role under the Commerce Clause to protect families across America by ensuring, for example, a healthy environment, a safe workplace, the minimum wage, family and medical leave, safe food and drugs, and protection from discrimination, violence and child pornography. Some current justices want to severely limit the ability of Congress to meet these kinds of critical challenges.

Does Judge Roberts share that view? His opinion in Rancho Viejo vs. Norton, in which he argued that regulations issued under the Endangered Species Act exceeded Congress' power, raises real concerns about whether he would join the right-wing bloc of the court to invalidate important legislation that protects so many of our nation's values.

After President Bush made his announcement, many right-wing groups who have called for the criminalization of abortion sounded downright ecstatic. What do they know that we don't? Judge Roberts' credentials are impressive and not in dispute. But his record as an attorney and judge raises concerns about the philosophy he would bring to the Supreme Court. At age 50, Judge Roberts would become the youngest justice on the highest court in the land. He could serve for more than three decades, and influence our law and society far longer than that.

As senators, it is our job to aggressively seek the truth from this nominee. We must ask questions -- and not rest until we get answers -- about whether Judge Roberts will uphold or undermine our fundamental rights and freedoms as Americans. None of us can sit on the sidelines. There is simply too much at stake.

Justice O'Connor was a pivotal vote in protecting our rights. Her retirement from the Supreme Court has created, in and of itself, an extraordinary circumstance -- one that places an equally extraordinary obligation on all of us to ensure that her successor honors her independence by continuing it.

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has represented California in the U.S. Senate since 1993.

What I want to know is how these people can claim to be "religious" and then routinely lie to a public, and a Congress, that has a right-to-know.

As far as I was concerned, Clarence Thomas lied under oath, not just with regard to Anita Hill, but also when he claimed he had not made up his mind about Roe v. Wade. Here's a guy who went around denouncing the Supreme Court's ruling, but then claimed that he hadn't made up his mind. And, again, he made this claim while under oath, not in a civil suit about sex, but in front of the United States Senate.

Soon we will be so far 'behind' all the progress we made in this country, that once entering school we will be given one book, the bible. And it won't be the 'king james' version, more like 'king george'.

Marjorie Cohn | The Roberts Court?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072505I.shtml
Consider this: John Roberts's nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is confirmed by the Senate. Chief Justice William Rehnquist steps down. Then, Bush elevates Roberts to Chief.

{{{ This is a chilling piece to read....}}}

A Matter Of Life And Health
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050725/a_matter_of_life_and_health.php
Excerpt:
Consider Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket for the fall. The issues before the nine justices have broad implications for reproductive rights and the future of Roe v. Wade as we know it. With this case, the court will consider the constitutionality of abortion restrictions that could endanger women’s health. In deciding this case, the court will be faced with a crucial question, “How many women must be harmed by an abortion restriction before the court finds it unconstitutional?” Basically, the court will decide whether a woman's health matters. That this needs to be debated at all shows how high the stakes are.

I have always thought of John Roberts as a member...

aah, monkey, it's always so good to hear from you...

Posted by: Karen at July 25, 2005 02:13 PM

It's always good to be heard, so I hear.

Posted by: monkey at July 25, 2005 02:15 PM

Hear, hear...

(or is it Here, here!)

Heat rises over leak: 26 Democratic senators call for hearings

from RAW STORY

Democrats are raising the heat on the White House's role in the outing of a CIA agent, issuing a letter to the press from 26 Democratic senators and holding a 4:30 press conference on the role of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

They're irritated that Congress has refused to hold hearings on the matter. Behind the scenes, Democratic staffers are privately expressing their frustration.

"Republicans in the House issued over a 1,000 subpoenas for information from the White House during the Clinton years," one aide told RAW STORY. "Today, those Republicans just sit there doing nothing to get to the bottom of a potential felony.

"If [Senate Majority Leader] Bill First's phones started ringing about it, demanding him to hold his own accountable, the Republicans in the House and Senate might just be shamed into action," the aide added.

The release for the letter issued to Republican Congressional leaders follows.

#
Senators Urge Congressional Investigation Into Leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's Name

Today, Senator John Kerry; Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; and 24 other Senators formally requested that Congress investigate the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity -- a leak a senior administration official described at the time as "meant purely and simply for revenge."

"Americans deserve a Congress that holds Washington accountable for the truth about our national security. Can anyone argue with a straight face that Congress has time to look at steroid use in baseball but doesn't have the will to provide congressional oversight of the leak of a CIA agent's name? It's long past time to stop putting politics ahead of the public good, get to the bottom of a national security breach and restore credibility to Washington," said John Kerry, who authored the letter.

Below is the text of the letter sent today:

#
Dear Mr. Speaker and Mr. Majority Leader:

The press has reported on information strongly suggesting that senior Administration officials, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and the Vice President's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, exposed the identity of American intelligence operative Valerie Plame, despite the repeated denial of the White House at the time.

The public revelation of Ms. Plame's identity, whether it amounts to a crime or an irresponsible breach of security protocol that doesn't meet the standard of criminal conduct, almost certainly compromised her intelligence networks and may have compromised the safety and welfare of anyone who had worked with her overseas. As a group of respected former intelligence officials wrote in 2004: "Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources."

The United States Congress has a constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch, whether a law has been broken or not. It is time for Congress to fulfill that constitutional responsibility in this matter by initiating a thorough investigation.

We recognize that a criminal investigation is underway and that a special prosecutor continues to present testimony before a grand jury. These actions in no way preclude Congress' responsibility to provide oversight. We urge you to exercise your authority as Congressional leaders by requesting the appropriate committees to begin oversight hearings and an investigation immediately.

Sincerely,

Senators Kerry, Levin, Stabenow, Schumer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Reed, Feinstein, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Durbin, Carper, Salazar, Boxer, Inouye, Corzine, Wyden, Mikulski, Obama, Murray, Bayh, Johnson, Clinton, Sarbanes, and Landrieu.

DEVELOPING...

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Heat_rises_over_leak_24_Dem_senators_call_for_hear_0725.html

OK, Frist's office is waiting to hear from us--
BLOGSWARM!

Lest we forget Iraq - a very comprehensive article, from Andree (but it's American):

Check the many links.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0725/dailyUpdate.html

Also got Barbara Boxer's email about how careful we have to be about Roberts, since he's not that old & can affect generations to come.

Right on! Reading above - about the letter from the Senators. There is also a movement brewing within Congress - for a timetable for getting out of Iraq & asking why we are building 4 bases there if we intend to leave.

& here is an amazing piece from the Seattle Times, on PTTS & Vets & more:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002400516_ptsd25m.html

Another important action - we can fit this in!

Under the cover of the war on terrorism, President Bush wants to spend billions of dollars on the "Star Wars" missile system. It was a bad idea when the project started two decades ago, and it's never worked yet.

Could it ever work? Nobody knows. What we do know is we've already bought 30 "interceptor" missiles and in the last two tests they couldn't even get off the ground, much less hit an incoming target. Now the Pentagon wants to buy more of these lemons.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has introduced an amendment to cut the money for the extra missiles and spend it instead on nuclear nonproliferation programs. These are the kinds of proven programs that keep nuclear weapons out of our enemies' hands in the first place.

Tell your senators you agree with Senator Levin and that they should too. To urge them to back his amendment, you can just click "Reply" and then "Send" in your e-mail program. Better yet, to add your own words to the message, click here:
http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/NoMoreStarWars

The calls to Frist's office ought to begin immediately. If everyone reading this called, it would make a difference.

Washington, D.C.:
Office of Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)

You can also send faxes.

Come on, let's go!

Karen,

I just saw the front page and the After Downing Street Pictures.

We definately need to make Frist's phone ring off the hook. Here's the number to Frist's office to call immediately. If everyone reading this called, it would make a difference.

Washington, D.C.:
Office of Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)

You can also send faxes.

Come on, let's go!

Let's blogswarm this, starting now!

Called Frist and his line was busy. Might be a good sign...

NT4K,

Keep trying! You can also fax them.

ANyone else blogswarming this?

Conyers writes Bush: Promise you won't pardon those who outed agent

The following letter was dispatched from the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee to President Bush Monday, and copied to RAW STORY.

July 25, 2005

The President
The White House
Dear Mr. President:

I write in order to seek your pledge that you will not pardon anyone who has worked or is currently working in your Administration pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution in the event that any such individual is either prosecuted for, or convicted of, a crime in connection or relation with the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA operative or any related matter.

Your handling of the Valerie Wilson matter already appears to be replete with examples of lessening regard for high standards of ethical and legal behavior. First, you refused to respond to a request by myself and 90 Members of Congress that you ask Karl Rove, one of your top advisors, to either disclose his role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson or resign and, indeed, have allowed him to remain on your staff without doing so. Second, on July 18, 2005, you changed the threshold for terminating your staff from leaking the identity of Mrs. Wilson to the necessity for an actual crime to have been committed. On repeated occasions, you have permitted your staff to mislead and/or lie to the American people in connection with this matter without disciplinary consequences. For several years, your press secretary, Scott McClellan, assured the American people that neither Mr. Rove, I. Lewis Libby, nor Elliot Abrams were involved in the leak; just this past month, however, we learned that both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were sources for Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. McClellan remains undisciplined for his statements. I am therefore concerned that these low ethical standards foreshadow future actions on your part that will allow individuals responsible for this breach of national security to evade accountability.

As you may recall, many questioned the propriety of your father sealing the case records and pardoning six individuals from his Administration who were implicated by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh in the Iran-Contra case. When issues of the executive's pardon power involving members of his own Administration were raised during investigations involving the Clinton Administration, the House Judiciary Committee, of which I serve as Ranking Member, held a hearing concerning the constitutional limits of the President with regards to the power of executive clemency. During those hearings, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) presciently stated, "Improperly exercised, the pardon is a travesty of justice - an act borne not of mercy, but of tyranny."

There is little doubt that outing an intelligence operative is one of the most serious offenses under our laws, as it endangers not only the operative, their family, and their employer, but jeopardizes other operatives and intelligence assets, and our nation's security. To do so during a time of war for purposes of a political vendetta makes the offense far worse. That is why when in connection with the drafting of our Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote, the "power of pardoning in the President has . . . been only contested in relations to the crime of treason." I hope you agree with Mr. Hamilton that there is no justification for using pardon powers in any way to insulate those who would commit such acts of disloyalty against our nation.

I look forward to your earliest response to this important matter. Please have your office respond to my Judiciary Committee office at 225-6504, 2142 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.

Sincerely,

/s

John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
House Judiciary Committee

Keep trying! You can also fax them.

Posted by: Karen at July 25, 2005 03:18 PM

I got them. ...and I sent an e-mail as well. Now I'm e-mailing people on my list and asking them to.

THANKS, NT4K!

Speaking of members, the Coalition of the Coerced lost another one today...

U.S. accepts Polish withdrawal from Iraq-Kwasniewski

Source: Reuters

WARSAW, July 25 (Reuters) - The United States has accepted Poland's plans to pull most of its 1,700 troops from Iraq at the beginning of next year, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said on Monday.

Poland, one of Washington's biggest European allies in Iraq, runs a multi-national stabilisation zone south of Baghdad. "The current (six-month troop) rotation in Iraq will be the last one. By the end of January we would like to pull the troops and replace them with smaller groups, which could for example help train the Iraqi army," Kwasniewski told public radio.

"(Our plans that) the shift ending its mission in January is the last one have been accepted by the allies and were the subject of talks between Defence Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski and U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld (on July 19)."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25463541.htm

"You forgot Poland!" GW Bush, 2004 Presidential Debate

I read this article about Roberts in my paper today and was completely mystified. How could such a brilliant mind not remember something like this??

Posted by: janet at July 25, 2005 04:16 PM

Everybody's Got Something to Hide, 'cept for me and my...

still covering the "other" story, this from bradblog, with video link:

GERGEN: 'What did the President know and when did he know it?'
Even David Gergen asks 'The Question' on ABC's This Week!
'I think this is a big, serious story,' says the advisor to three Republican Presidents (including Nixon)
continue~
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001624.htm

Breaking News...
Don't look now, but...
Bolton's Back on the horizon::

White House May Sidestep Dems on Bolton

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
53 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Frustrated by Senate Democrats, the White House hinted Monday that President Bush may act soon to sidestep Congress and install embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on a temporary basis.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush has used his power for temporary appointments when "he has to get people in place that have waited far too long to get about doing their business." He said that "sometimes there's come a point" when Bush has decided he needs to act.
continue here~
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_on_go_pr_wh/un_ambassador

Atty. Gen. Gonzales Responds to Frank Rich's '12-Hour Gap' Charge

By E&P Staff

Published: July 24, 2005 11:20 AM ET

NEW YORK Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, responding to a strong charge in a column by Frank Rich in The New York Times’ today, said there was nothing improper about waiting 12 hours to “preserve all materials” after being informed by the Justice Department in 2003 that it was launching an investigation into the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA agent.

Gonzales told Bob Schieffer on the CBS show “Face the Nation” that he had been given permission by the Justice Department to hold off overnight if he saw fit, which he did. But he did tell one man that night: Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

The White House did not immediately respond to questions Sunday about whether Card passed that information to top Bush aide Karl Rove or anyone else, giving them advance notice to prepare for the investigation, the Associated Press reported after Gonzales' revelation.

Appearing on the same CBS show immediately following Gonzales, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Dela.) said: "The real question now is, 'Who did the chief of staff speak to?'"

Schiefer agreed that this "seemed to perhaps open a whole new can of worms."

Gonzales told Schieffer that, as the White House counsel, he never launched his own probe into the matter because “in this kind of case you want to wait to see if there is a criminal investigation.” He said he feared his own queries into the Plame leak “would hinder a criminal investigation.”

Rich had written in the Times that Gonzales was likely denied the Supreme Court nod that just went to John G. Roberts because the White House feared that he had too much “proximity” to the Plame scandal.

“As White House counsel, he was the one first notified that the Justice Department, at the request of the C.I.A., had opened an investigation into the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife,” Rich wrote. “That notification came at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003, but it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must ‘preserve all materials’ relevant to the investigation.

"This 12-hour delay, he has said, was sanctioned by the Justice Department, but since the department was then run by John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist who refused to recuse himself from the Plame case, inquiring Senate Democrats would examine this 12-hour delay as closely as an 18½-minute tape gap. ‘Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence,’ said Senator Charles Schumer, correctly, back when the missing 12 hours was first revealed almost two years ago.”

more... http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990611

Jane Fonda to Oppose Iraq War on Bus Tour

Mon Jul 25,

SANTA FE, N.M. - Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.

"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," she said.

Fonda said her anti-war tour in March will use a bus that runs on "vegetable oil." She will be joined by families of Iraq war veterans and her daughter.

They plan to return to the Santa Fe area, where she was promoting her book, "My Life So Far" on Saturday.

Prompted by a question from the audience, Fonda said war veterans that she has met on a nationwide book tour have encouraged her to break her silence on the Iraq war.

"I've decided I'm coming out," she said.

Hundreds of people in the audience cheered loudly when Fonda announced her intentions to join the anti-Iraq war movement.

"I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," she said. "I carry a lot of baggage from that."

Fonda incited controversy in July 1972 when she was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of the country to drum up support to end the war.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_en_mo/people_fonda

I can't begin to understand your bottom-line reasons for doing what you do, in service to your country, dreams of a presidency, or the partisanship required of the entire GOP bench.

Please, with the entire world watching, fulfill your constitutional responsibility of oversight and investigate the leaking of the CIA agent. In the name of national security and ethical government, surprise us!

Do the right thing.

:Maybe he'll confuse it with the fundies and do it. Sorry, internet down for a while.

Breaking News...
Don't look now, but...
Bolton's Back on the horizon::
Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at July 25, 2005 04:33 PM

Oh that's just great...especially since Bolton might be a key player in the Rover scandal...as in he was a regular source for Judith Miller on WMDs & National Security issues. Does this regime really have the cajones & hubris to do that??? (Unfortunately, I already know the answer...)

Read more at the Washington Note: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000799.html

BTW, just heard a commentary on NPR by Daniel Schorr who said that Fitzgerald is considering upping the ante on Miller and charging her with criminal contempt of court; that carries a stiffer sentence and opens the door for other charges...Stay turned.

Madame, Judith is entitled to take the fifth. I think the NYT is welcoming the chance to burnish their own war-mongering image by her martyrdom.

...Stay turned.

Posted by: madame defarge at July 25, 2005 04:43 PM

Perhaps the spin gotcha... I choose to stay tuned instead.

Re: Bolton, my tune is steady "F Sharp"

Senators Kerry, Levin, Stabenow, Schumer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Reed, Feinstein, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Durbin, Carper, Salazar, Boxer, Inouye, Corzine, Wyden, Mikulski, Obama, Murray, Bayh, Johnson, Clinton, Sarbanes, and Landrieu.

DEVELOPING...

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Heat_rises_over_leak_24_Dem_senators_call_for_hear_0725.html

Posted by: monkey at July 25, 2005 02:19 PM

I am surprised but thrilled that Sen Mary Landrieu is on board...its about time!!
just called in my support to her office.