Seattle: McDermott Shows Backbone

I haven't had much chance to check, however does anybody know if the Bu$hco Propaganda Machine has reported anything of substance about yesterday?

DiAnne,

I really love the picture of the people sitting in the hall. I would like to compare it to a picture of the crowds that attend the propaganda fests for Bu$hco. Your crowd looks so natural and less contrived (probably because that is true).

Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why
They contained scenes of “rape and murder.”
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590

{{{ Yeah... AND?!? That's what torture IS, dammit. Release the photos, show them in prime time evening hours without commercial interruption and pre-empt those stupid reality TV shows, put genuine reality within the viewing scope of the general public and let the neoCons and fundies see what kind of hypocrite and moralistic miscreant they elected (if the election was not actually rigged and stolen in both 2000 and 2004). LET THE HORRORS OF WAR BE SHOWN SO THE CRETINS WHO VOTED FOR pRESINITWIT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF "MAN" THEY VOTED FOR, as well as the people he has in his intimate cabal who protect his "public" image so well ... !!! Just have to post this whole article... Rummy at his most loquacious sounding like he's trying to protect our little innocent eyes and ears from the abuse he and his boss sanctioned...!!!}}}

Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 23, 2005 6:00 PM ET

NEW YORKSo what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.” They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of “rape and murder.” No wonder Rumsfeld commented then, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

Yesterday, news emerged that lawyers for the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday. The photos were among thousands turned over by the key “whistleblower” in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.

The Pentagon lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material. They had been ordered to do so by a federal judge in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see the images of the prisoner abuse scandal.

One Pentagon lawyer has argued that they should not be released because they would only add to the humiliation of the prisoners. But the ACLU has said the faces of the victims can easily be "redacted."

To get a sense of what may be shown in these images, one has to go back to press reports from when the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal was still front page news.

This is how CNN reported it on May 8, 2004, in a typical account that day:

“U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and ‘a lot more pictures’ exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.

"’If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse,’ Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.’

“The embattled defense secretary fielded sharp and skeptical questions from lawmakers as he testified about the growing prisoner abuse scandal. A military report about that abuse describes detainees being threatened, sodomized with a chemical light and forced into sexually humiliating poses.

“Charges have been brought against seven service members, and investigations into events at the prison continue.

“Military investigators have looked into -- or are continuing to investigate -- 35 cases of alleged abuse or deaths of prisoners in detention facilities in the Central Command theater, according to Army Secretary Les Brownlee. Two of those cases were deemed homicides, he said.

"’The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,’ Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. ’We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.’

“A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a ‘male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.’

“Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.’&rdquo

The military later screened some of the images for lawmakers, who said they showed, among other things, attack dogs snarling at cowed prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other.

In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: “Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men….The women were passing messages saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.’

“Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.”

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P.

main outlets: SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Oakland Tribune.

Here are some of the outlets that reported on the events of yesterday or mentioned them - mostly small and obscure:

The Argus (CA), Montclarion, American Chronicle, Uruknet (Italy), Kansas City InfoZine, Contra Costa Times, Political Affairs Magazine, Louisville Counter Journal, KESQ (CA), Common Dreams, Poughskeepie Journal, Dissident Voice, Daily Review On-Line, Oakland Tribune, One World net, Eunweb, Waldo Village Soup, OpEd News, Pacifica Radio, the New American, SitNews (ARK),
Washington Date Line, Scoop, BuzzFlash (Turd Blossom Baloney Distracting From Downing Street Memo), People's Weekly World, CounterPunch, InfoShop, Mother Jones.

The Wall Street Journal called it the "so-called Downing Street Memo."

Most of the news searches say "11 related" or "16 related." Sad - it's like when 11 million of us worldwide protested simultaneously against rushing into a calamitous and morally wrong war and were ignored.

Still, the Downing Street Memo is real and the death caused by the miscalculations and deceitfulness are real. We have to do this.

Iraq: This is now an unwinnable conflict :
As he completes another tour of duty in the chaos of Iraq, award-winning reporter Patrick Cockburn charts how Bush and Blair's 'winnable war' turned into a mess that is inspiring a worldwide insurgency
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9558.htm
{{{ VERY good and informative article on how things on the ground in Iraq REALLY are by someone who is there.... and, the truth about the photo that has a building crane in the background (I remember seening that photo somewhere, but don't remember where)..... sheesh...}}}

Overflow Crowds Mark Anniversary of Downing Street Memo
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405A.shtml
Hundreds of people were turned away yesterday as capacity crowds packed public forums in US cities to discuss the Downing Street Memo and related evidence that President Bush lied about the reasons for war.
{{{ If MSM covered DSM meetings at all, it was not on the national news on CBS or ABC tonight... at least not in the first ten minutes before the first commercials. While the bombings in Egypt and England are important to cover, so are efforts to expose the lies that got both America and England and coalition countries into Iraq in the first place. The leaders of the countries who attacked Iraq without justification need to be voted out of office, and/or charged with crimes for the lies they told to "justify" an illegal, immoral, and unethical war of choice for the sake of controlling the oil wells in Iraq....}}}

Congressional Report: TSA Broke Privacy Laws
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405C.shtml
The Transportation Security Administration violated privacy protections by secretly collecting personal information on at least 250,000 people, congressional investigators said Friday.
{{{IMHO, more laws that need to be overturned or allowed to expire, like the Patriot Act needs to be allowed to expire....}}}}

Roberts' rules put U.S. at risk:
As the Senate deliberates the qualifications of Judge John Roberts Jr. for elevation to the nation's high court, it should closely consider the implications of one case decided this month that will probably receive short shrift, because it isn't one he authored, but merely joined.
http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2005/07/24/Columns/Roberts__rules_put_US.shtml

Mike Whitney : John Roberts and the National Security State :
His place on the high-court will solidify the coup that began in year 2000; shifting the tectonic plates of American political life to a hard-right position.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9559.htm
John Roberts and the National Security State

By Mike Whitney

07/24/05 "ICH" - - John Roberts is the perfect stealth candidate for the Supreme Court. Scrubbed and square-jawed, he should be able to muscle his way through the Senate proceedings without breaking a sweat. The Democratic leadership has already rolled over, so there's little doubt that the neocons favorite Trojan Horse will soon be taking his place next to the Brother's Grimm, Scalia and Thomas, when the court resumes a few months from today.

You have to hand it to the Republicans; they know how to rule with a sledge-hammer. They come to Washington with bared teeth and don't mind breaking glass or overturning the political ox-cart if it moves the ball further down the field. The Democrats are simply no match; Lieberman, Dodd, Clinton and the insufferable blowhard, Joe Biden; a coterie of puffy-chested, back-slappers who invariably capitulate on every matter of principle. Bill Frist would be doing us all a great favor if he ran a skip-loader through the Democrats front office and dumped the lot-of-them in the D.C. land-fill.

The abortion red-herring is bound to take center-stage in the upcoming hearings. Regrettably, the issue has become the cornerstone of liberal politics in America; the litmus test for all progressive political aspirants. It's a pity; especially now that right-wing ideologues are using it to conceal their larger goal of subverting the Bill of Rights. The abortion issue has been wrapped around the neck of liberals like a millstone for 30 years; alienating working class people and pushing them head-first to the welcoming arms of the war-party. It will be difficult to win them back.

Does a woman have a right to choose?

Of course; only now Bush loyalists are feverishly dismantling everything in their path from supervised elections to the separation of powers while liberal groups focus all their energy on one issue. What good is Roe if the rest of the Constitution is in tatters?

Don't worry; Republicans get pregnant just as frequently as Democrats. If Jenna Bush got knocked-up tomorrow by an underpaid box boy at 7-11, George and Laura would be down at the local clinic faster than you can say RU-40. The entire scam is designed to divert attention from the larger issue of presidential authority, which Roberts believes should be "unlimited". In fact, that was the quid pro quo that sent him post-haste to his new digs at the high court.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a critical case last Friday that will change the political dynamic in this country for decades to come. Robert's was one of three judges who unanimously ruled that the president is not constrained by international law. "The court ruled that the Geneva Conventions 'do not create judicially enforceable rights'-that is, accusations of a violation may not be brought in a lawsuit."(New York Times)

What? "Do not create judicially enforceable rights"? Then they are not really laws or restrictions at all, just altruistic pleasantries dreamed up by international idealists.

To put this in perspective, consider Article VI of the Constitution which makes treaties "the supreme Law of the Land." The Senate ratified the 1949 Geneva Convention, making its provisions binding rules of law.

Article 5 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions requires that when there is any doubt about captive combatants' status, they are entitled to the Convention's protection "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." The obvious intention of last year's Supreme Court ruling was to allow detainees to file habeas corpus petitions in federal courts within the US. The 4th Circuit has ignored this injunction by suggesting that the president is a "competent tribunal"; a comical interpretation of the Supreme's ruling by any standard.

The Court's decision reflects Attorney General Alberto Gonzales belief that "The president's authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror". This is a subtle way of saying that the president is above the law and can do as he pleases. In fact, neither Gonzales nor Robert's believes that the prisoners in American custody have the right to due process. Rather, they tacitly endorse the current regime of endless detention without charges and without any hope of legal recourse.

Neal Katyal, defense attorney in the same case said, "Today's ruling, places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and long-standing treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States."

Katyal got it right. The court ruling confers absolute authority on the president to decide the most sensitive issues of personal liberty without any legal constraints. This turns the law on its head by allowing the arbitrary willfulness of one man to take precedent over any objective standard of judgment. As far as the inmates of Guantanamo are concerned, the law begins and end swithGeorgeBush.

Robert's and his colleagues on the lower court argue that "Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone who abetted the Sept 11 attacks and granted Bush the authority to act to prevent international acts of terrorism".

True, but Congress certainly didn't intend for the president to overturn established treaty obligations and long-held civil liberties statutes according to his own discretion. The Circuit Court's reading of the law is a slap in the face to Sandra Day O' Connor, who just months ago said:

We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. Even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties. The Great Writ of habeas corpus is an important judicial check on the Executive's discretion in the realm of detentions . . . It would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge."

In fact, the 4th Circuit's ruling issues Bush the "blank check" he was looking for; negating the presumption of innocence, depriving prisoners of due process, and sweeping away any responsibility for the president to adhere to international treaties on human rights. It's no wonder Roberts was so generously rewarded.

Democrats may be chirping about the "civility and intelligence" of Bush's new candidate, but Roberts is a judicial-wolf in sheep's clothing. He's already shown his eagerness to rubber-stamp the expanded powers of the Emperor-in-chief and we can assume that he won't hesitate to legislate from the bench. His place on the high-court will solidify the coup that began in year 2000; shifting the tectonic plates of American political life to a hard-right position. The cabal in Washington is on a fast-track for removing the last, feeble protections that safeguard the citizen from the intrusive powers of the government. Roberts is just the latest brick in the wall of the National Security State.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Copyright: Mike Whitney. All rights reserved. You may republish under the following conditions: An active link to the original publication must be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove any text within the article, including this copyright notice.

McKinney reopens 9/11:
Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia Mc­Kinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0705/23natmckinney.html

{{{ WOW!!! Something else that did not make it into mainstream media... nor, apparently, even C-SPAN??? }}}

McKinney reopens 9/11
Conspiracy theories implicating president aired at 8-hour hearing

By BOB KEMPER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/23/05
Washington — Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia Mc­Kinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack — claims participants said the commission ignored.

"The commission's report was not a rush to judgment, it was a rush to exoneration," said John Judge, a member of Mc­Kinney's staff and a representative of a Web site dedicated to raising questions about the Sept. 11 commission's report.

The White House and the commission have dismissed such questions as unfounded conspiracy theories.

McKinney first raised questions about Bush's involvement shortly after the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, generating a furious response from fellow Democrats in Washington and voters in Georgia, who ousted her in 2002.

"What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families," McKinney, a DeKalb County Democrat who won back her seat in 2004, said during the proceedings.

She rebuffed a reporter's repeated attempts to ask her why she would so boldly embrace the same claims that led to her downfall.

"Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian," panelist Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, said. "And I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom."

Though she left the testimony and questioning of panelists to others, McKinney was the main attraction, presiding over more than two dozen participants, including the author of a book that claims the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and allowed it to happen, and Peter Dale Scott, who wrote three books on President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Georgia peanuts, Cokes and coffee were available to more than 50 attendees, whose casual dress was a decided change from the gangs of blue-suited lobbyists who usually crowd Capitol Hill hearings.

McKinney herself offered witnesses bottled water and found additional trash cans to place around the room.

Nearly a dozen 9/11 enthusiasts lined one side of the room, camcorders at the ready, broadcasting the hearing live over the Internet or recording it for later release. C-SPAN cameras documented the hearing, and a DVD recording of the proceedings will soon be available.

Ten people sat in a section reserved for family members of 9/11 victims.

"Nine-eleven could have been prevented," said Marilyn Rosenthal, a University of Michigan professor who lost a son in the attacks, echoing the premise of the hearing.

Panelists maintained that Bush ignored numerous warnings from the CIA, the Federal Aviation Administration, foreign governments and others who told him before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States and that terrorists were likely to use hijacked airliners as weapons.

But why would the president or his administration want the 9/11 attacks to occur? Power, the panelists agreed.

In the wake of the attacks, the administration was able to greatly expand the president's power and the reach of the federal government, they said, but whistle-blowers and other potential witnesses who could have testified to the Sept. 11 commission about such things were either prevented from speaking or ignored in the commission's final report. Panelists called the commission's report "a cover-up."

"The American people have been seriously misled," said Scott.

NonnyO

I think the primary media outlets would purposely ignore the Downing Street Memo events. I know little about tv but did check exhaustively for newspaper and periodical coverage (see above - it was pathetic). When checking, I did see some articles about hundreds of demonstrators along the southern US borders, protesting those "militia" border patrol wannabees.

& the Philipines' Gloria Arroyo came really close to being impeached for consorting with election officials. Every time there is a little justice in the world, it's cool.

Supposed to be a tsunami in Malaysia, Japan just had an earthquake - that's something that's hard for them to "spin." It's nature's form of random terror but I think our global warming may be influencing at least some things - forest fires, bird migration, sealife deaths.

& over half of Japanese polled say they don't trust the US government. Looks like US & Japan will be helping N Korea with energy as means of getting them not to work with nuclear energy. Good luck verifying this & what is going on that we aren't hearing about?

There was another huge car bomb in Iraq with more than 40 dead. Seems like there is one every day, at least. In the flood of news about Robert and to a lesser extent, Rove, we haven't heard much about Iraq. & number of Rovian stories has dropped from average of 2800+ on Google for a solid week to in the 300s. Got to keep this story alive til October when there is a verdict so there will be proper outrage if the crooks get off, & enough awareness of the significance if they don't!

I notice that the Guardian doesn't have "Talk" feature anymore. :( International blogging across time zones is just the best! I wonder what ever happened to the German guy who would come on the Kerry blog? Anyone remember that?

One final thought about non-coverage of the Downing Street Memo events. I have no idea how uniform the presentations were, but the upshot of ours was that Barbara Lee is on a fact-finding mission and it is a first step in what could be a very important process - the reclaiming of our country.

I was looking for reference to the British Downing Street Memo events, which were supposed to happen yesterday as well. I found nothing, even on UK IndyMedia, but here is the Downing Street Memo. Anytime I need motivation, I'll read it again! It's sinister and cold-blooded.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314597.html

The outrage in the UK seems to be the shooting of the Brazilian man in the Tube, who was not a bomber. A vigil was held in memory near where it happened. There are alot of references to police state, hate crimes against Muslims & a Tory compared the gay rainbow flag to the swastika.
There are problems everywhere, as the US seems to lead the swing to the right but the UK and certain factions in Europe follow along & I don't see how this will reduce the terror threat but seems more likely to inflame people and restrict civil liberties.

NonnyO
There are conspiracy theorists who argue that every terrorist attack ever perpetrated has had a government behind it, with "fall guys" taking the blame, for the purpose of consolidating power, making money off the war machine.

I think it's more likely that negligence happened - that the powers that be were still using a Cold War frame of mind where there were Commies behind every tree. There was too much panic about Y2K failure with computers and too little about terrorist millenium threats, even after the USS Cole and African embassy bombings and the arrest of Rassam coming in on the Victoria ferry with materials to blow up LAX. We were worried right where I live because our N Y Eve celebration was significantly downsized at the Space Needle site. Our Mayor took flak for playing it safe. As for the government, they didn't seem to take much interest. The WTO protests even seemed to take them by surprise, contrary to the conspiracy theories that everyone is under surveillance.

I met quite a few conspiracy theorists yesterday and they said there were at least 10 books out already on the subject of 9/11 - yet they admitted that most of the books cover the same territory. There were alot of phony baloney things but I suspect more were to cover up poor agency cooperation, poor coordination of agencies and intelligence than anything else.

I don't think we do ourselves a favor when we cater too much to conspiracy theories. One guy yesterday told me we should arm and join into groups - that the government planned to starve 80% of us but we should go out with our boots on. I kind of .. moved away. Some people blame the government for SARS, for bird flu. Frankly, I think they're power-hungry and that they have some tricks up their sleeve (CIA, Dept of Defense) but I don't think they're that smart & I don't think it would be in their interest.

Things are "dire," as McDermott said but there are those doomsayers who seem to want them to be even worse - we are going into a complete police state, we are all under surveillance - they take it to the extreme and when they do, they remind me of the Armageddon people on the right.

We want the truth to come out but not at the sacrifice of credibility. If I was a family member of a 9/11 casualty or someone killed in a war, I'd want the truth too. But it might be all to tempting to 1) blame the government, 2) assume the government can do no wrong - rather than having to sort out all the ambiguity.

More reasons for believing in Buddhist moderation. I think no matter how strong our passion, we need to temper it with logic and detachment. I think we need to be motivated by love and compassion and to realize the greed and power lust in the world, but we can't jump to conclusions or approach issues with strong bias.

I actually enjoy reading conspiracy theories, but they have to be wild enough to be intriguing. My favorite is David Ickes of the UK, who believes that the royal family, Bush dynasty, etc. can turn into lizards. Larouche can be pretty outrageous too - can be making soem sense and then all of a sudden lapses into something like my schizophrenic sister would come up with. Not in the political realm, but the king of them all is L Ron Hubbard & Scientology - strange to see movie stars get taken in but they have thousands to waste. Good to see some are sensible, like Bono, Angelina Jolie.

Posted by: DiAnne at July 24, 2005 08:49 PM

I used to ignore conspiracy theorists as people just full of hot air and wished they would go seek counseling.... but the longer the Bu$hCo cabal is in office after two stolen elections and all the danged secrecy and not releasing information that is needed for things like the Bolton and Roberts hearings/confirmation processes, as well as the photos they aren't releasing (among other things) and the string of lies and lies to cover lies that got us into Bu$hCheney's War, I occasionally have a niggling suspicion sometimes that once in a while they have a point. I just wish they would list a paper trail that leads them to believe in the conspiracies. The 9/11 commission did not get all the info they asked for either.... Something is rotten to the core with this administration and their secrets. They need to be exposed... and let the chips fall where they may....

I don't think we do ourselves a favor when we cater too much to conspiracy theories. One guy yesterday told me we should arm and join into groups - that the government planned to starve 80% of us but we should go out with our boots on. I kind of .. moved away.

Posted by: DiAnne at July 24, 2005 08:49 PM

I hope he didn't move closer to you.
_______________________________________________________________

More reasons for believing in Buddhist moderation. I think no matter how strong our passion, we need to temper it with logic and detachment. I think we need to be motivated by love and compassion and to realize the greed and power lust in the world, but we can't jump to conclusions or approach issues with strong bias.

Amen.

Posted by: NonnyO at July 24, 2005 07:58 PM

Nonny,
I remember that from before. Of course, that was before I realized the media doesn't give the whole truth. Nontheless, for them to have said that much was quite something and clearly they chose to not remind people of it during last year's presidential election.

So when I saw that Bush is still trying to keep them secret, I realized it's once more for political gain. Even though he can not be re-elected, right now he's afraid of being impeached. He's afraid how these videos will turn people against him and his whole neocon corrupt followers. He's afraid people will have to ask, "Did I support a person who allows rape and indeed promoted it. What if it was my child being tortured by a foreign nation...did Bush make it so that we will experience this same torture at the hands of our enemies too--as retribution?"

The question in the long run will boil down to the courts and if they've been stacked enough to give him another pass on his crimes!

Posted by: sparrow at July 24, 2005 09:08 PM

Sparrow,

He is too much of an egomaniac, or stupid (take your choice) to be afraid. If anything, he is worried that he might go down in history as worst President ever.

Corrrection: He is too dense to worry that he will go down in history as worst President ever.

Posted by: sparrow at July 24, 2005 09:08 PM

Which, IMHO, is another reason not to approve the Roberts nomination:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9559.htm
John Roberts and the National Security State

These paragraphs caught my attention:
Article 5 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions requires that when there is any doubt about captive combatants' status, they are entitled to the Convention's protection "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." The obvious intention of last year's Supreme Court ruling was to allow detainees to file habeas corpus petitions in federal courts within the US. The 4th Circuit has ignored this injunction by suggesting that the president is a "competent tribunal"; a comical interpretation of the Supreme's ruling by any standard.

The Court's decision reflects Attorney General Alberto Gonzales belief that "The president's authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror". This is a subtle way of saying that the president is above the law and can do as he pleases. In fact, neither Gonzales nor Robert's believes that the prisoners in American custody have the right to due process. Rather, they tacitly endorse the current regime of endless detention without charges and without any hope of legal recourse.

Neal Katyal, defense attorney in the same case said, "Today's ruling, places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and long-standing treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States."

Katyal got it right. The court ruling confers absolute authority on the president to decide the most sensitive issues of personal liberty without any legal constraints. This turns the law on its head by allowing the arbitrary willfulness of one man to take precedent over any objective standard of judgment. As far as the inmates of Guantanamo are concerned, the law begins and end swithGeorgeBush.

Robert's and his colleagues on the lower court argue that "Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone who abetted the Sept 11 attacks and granted Bush the authority to act to prevent international acts of terrorism".

True, but Congress certainly didn't intend for the president to overturn established treaty obligations and long-held civil liberties statutes according to his own discretion.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Too much power is in the hands of the one person who does NOT know how to judiciously or fairly use that power for the good of the people of this nation, or the other nations who have been so harmed by his misuse and abuse of power.....

Nonny,

I can understand that there is definately a higher level of corruption than we've seen in a very long time. Sometimes I feel the same way as you do. And I remember seeing some of those videos about 9-11 and the Bush involvement but there is no proof at all. Maybe some day there will be and all the "tin foilests" will have the last laugh, but in the meantime I have to agree with Dianne too. We do have to try to determine which are facts and which are "conspiracy theories that go overboard" and we have to determine which facts will help our cause the most.

Dianne...glad you moved away from the dude...I can't picture you joining that kind of group.

A little "levity" for this evening:

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sfile=db050724&vts=72420051722
Doonesbury.... "Mike's Summer Daydream"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300877.html
From: Which Way Does the Knee Jerk? by Dana Milbank
Excerpt:

Making Tracks

Hey, Mr. President, get off of their cloud.

The Rolling Stones will launch a new album in September, and the music trade press was abuzz last week with word that it may include a track criticizing the Bush administration's foreign policy. The song, "Sweet Neo-Con," is said to be one of 18 tracks that have been recorded; 11 will wind up on the CD.

President Bush probably did not expect to get satisfaction from the Stones, but Britain's New Musical Express publication, which calls itself "the world's biggest-selling rock weekly," reported last week that Sweet Neo-Con "is believed to be an attack on the politics of George Bush and the Republican administration." Various other publications have made similar reports, and the Rolling Stones Fan Club of Europe says Virgin Records has been telling people the song has "a political message about moralism in the White House."

Not so, says Stones publicist Fran Curtis. The song "is not about nor does it mention Bush or his administration." Curtis did not say what it is about, but no matter: It's Only Rock 'n Roll.

Regardless, this got the Democratic Leadership Council's Marshall Wittmann thinking. He suggested that the White House could form its own band, "the Stonewalls," with Scott McClellan on vocals, Ari Fleischer on bass, Nicolle Devenish on guitar and Karen Hughes on drums.

Its warm-up act: the Talking Heads, featuring Tim Russert on vocals, Howard Fineman on bass, Norman Ornstein on guitar and George Will on drums.

Nonny,

My opinion on any nomination is that there must be FULL disclosure and if anything is still kept secret then it should be an automatic NO!

Oncall,

He doesn't realize he is the worst ever. I remember reading somewhere that he thought of the Presidency as a CEO of a company. With that in mind, and given his record thus far, he's driven another "company" to the ground--it's just that this one is the USA!

Still, I firmly believe he is a psychopath and if he had mental evaluations they would probably come up with the diagnosis of "personality disorders" of: visions of grandeur, psychopathic lack of compassion towards others, and it wouldn't surprise me if he's bi-polar too. The drug abuse would certainly be an indication of that diagnosis too.

The outrage in the UK seems to be the shooting of the Brazilian man in the Tube, who was not a bomber. A vigil was held in memory near where it happened. There are alot of references to police state, hate crimes against Muslims & a Tory compared the gay rainbow flag to the swastika.

Posted by: not my president at July 24, 2005 08:38 PM

Tony Blair is no different from Bush. And since the people of UK have decided to give him and his band of crooks a new term, I shall boycott their products and services from now until Blair is gone. It does not help that several British companies are involved in the DeLay corruption scandal (let's not forget that!). What's also sad is that the major alternatives, the Tories, are carbon copies of the neocon Republicans.

For the last decade or so, London has been my favorite vacation spot. Again, I will never vacation there again, as long as Blair is in power and "shoot and kill" policies are in effect.

Love it Nonny...the stonewallers!

Still, I firmly believe he is a psychopath and if he had mental evaluations they would probably come up with the diagnosis of "personality disorders" of: visions of grandeur, psychopathic lack of compassion towards others, and it wouldn't surprise me if he's bi-polar too. The drug abuse would certainly be an indication of that diagnosis too.

Posted by: sparrow at July 24, 2005 09:24 PM

Problem is, he is too busy putting political opponents into mental hospitals to notice. I think he learned that tactic in China, where political dissidents (including Falun Gong practitioners) are often declared mentally ill and put away in hospitals.

Is it just me or does anybody else think the Pentagon won't release any more pictures and videos from Abu Gharib (?SP) because of the opinion that Judge Roberts wrote regarding Presidential prerogative regarding prisoner treatment? If anything, his ruling in this matter will cause a lot of questions to be asked, but in the end I don't think it will matter-just like Gonzales.

My opinion on any nomination is that there must be FULL disclosure and if anything is still kept secret then it should be an automatic NO!
Posted by: sparrow at July 24, 2005 09:24 PM

I AGREE, one thousand percent! No documents, no confirmations.... Period! FULL DISCLOSURE, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.....

Re: psychopath.... Read DSM-IV Personality Disorders (I have the book, but the info is online, too). I've known since the debates of 2000 that GWB fits several of the eleven sub-sections. (BTW, psychopath, sociopath, and anti-social personality disorder are three terms for the same phenomena: people born without a conscience.... They are the most difficult people in the world to deal with, and if their coterie does not condone and encourage everything they do, they are implacable enemies who will get revenge in one form or another, usually in as cruel a way as possible.) And, yes, he is also a dry alcoholic, IMHO....

I'm sure after he's out of office in 2008 (if he doesn't try to declare martial law and appoint himself dictator over some 'terraist' attack by the fall of 2008), in his own mind he will be a great war president, which was his aim in 1999.... Ah, self-delusions must be grand, eh?

I have no idea how uniform the presentations were, but the upshot of ours was that Barbara Lee is on a fact-finding mission and it is a first step in what could be a very important process - the reclaiming of our country.

Posted by: DiAnne at July 24, 2005 08:27 PM

Same here, DiAnne. The message: call your congressman and ask him/her to sign on to Rep. Lee's Resolution of Inquiry.

Posted by: oncall at July 24, 2005 09:39 PM

That's part of it. The other part is that it will expose the whole administration to public scrutiny for having approved torture in the first place......

But as difficult as it would be for the rest of us to see/hear those photos/videos, IMHO they need to be released and shown in prime time so the fundie kool-aiders can see for themselves just what kind of anti-life, pro-torture-and-death administration they voted for.... I'm sure it won't fit with their pretty hallucinations brought about by the kool-aid they've drunk and the rose-colored glasses they wear.

Completely off topic or maybe not (?) but my son just put on Stevie Wonder's "Inner Visions" - we listened to fusion jazz & R&B when we were his age because corporate rock became so putrid .. & I just made a perfect Fish Biryani for the first time & drank something made of peach, cranberry & watermelon vodka.

Does anyone remember the "before Iowa" days on the Kerry blog when we would get kind of down & people would start talking about food & music? It seems that Cajun food & Thai came up alot.

I was also thinking today that alot of people tout "life" as a buzzword and they not only use it wrong, but it's not inclusive enough for a life philosophy. I think "love" is much more powerful and encompasses more than romantic love, and we can then embrace life, death, the whole. "Compassion" is used as a euphemism for their religion but true compassion would be being empathetic with all souls, and that would mean no torture, no "us and them" and no ruining the environment. They have no idea what "compassion" originally means.

Well, off to do some yardwork before dark.

Linda, referring back to previous thread, I agree with you about Miller's refusal to disclose sources. I was talking about her series of articles on the threat of WMD from Iraq. She's responsible for convincing a lot of people that we needed to invade Iraq, and I believe she knew that she was being part of the web of lies that got America into war on false pretenses.

Truth Shall Prevail, I know you're not around right now but I want to thank you for your post about that divisive issue. (Chuck, as usual, you're hilarious.)

My own position is that there is a third option - rather a different approach - but I won't bring it up here. Suffice to say that whoever called it an albotross is right on.

And there are a lot of pro-choice Republicans, most of whom could pay to go out of the country for an abortion and so don't really care about the laws. There are also anti-choice Democrats, though I think it's safe to say their numbers dwindled over the last few years. Many I know switched parties over abortion.

Amy,

I think there are many people in the middle on that issue. For instance, they would NEVER chose an abortion because to them personally they feel it's a life and not about birth control.

I also think there are many people who would like to see adoption spoken about from the "left" as a means of eliminating abortion.

I also think there are circumstances some people on the left would agree to that the hard-core left would not. For instance, here in Michigan, there was a Republican house member who wants abortion clinics to provide an ultrasound picture of the fetus before performing the abortion.

To some, that is completely over the line, and to others that is giving the woman more knowledge.

My own opinion is that each woman has a right to be informed and perhaps having that ultrasound might be given as a choice but I'm not sure it should be regulated as a requirement. (I suppose they could do it and put the picture in the envelope and let the woman chose to look or not...)

But overall, I wonder if the "left's rhetoric" is a turnoff to those who are really in the middle of the issue.

But overall, I wonder if the "left's rhetoric" is a turnoff to those who are really in the middle of the issue.

Posted by: sparrow at July 24, 2005 10:04 PM

I would say yes, and I would add that the unfortunately brilliant tactics of the Republican party - emotional pleas for innocent babies coupled with calling Democrats "baby-killers" - have complemented the leftist rhetoric and created an unwinnable argument.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/24/military.release/index.html

Following are the two quotes as provided by the U.S. military in news releases:

Sunday July 24th news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified."

The July 13 news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children and all of Iraq,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.'"

---Why was the quote changed?

Tremendous article by David Swanson, After Downing Street, about yesterday's events - too long to post in full.

http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/247233.shtml

Very comprehensive.

"I also think there are many people who would like to see adoption spoken about from the "left" as a means of eliminating abortion."

I have a good friend who grew up in Columbus, Georgia. She's a Christian, attends a church on the West Side of Manhattan, and participates in any number of activities that this church offers.

She got pregnant as a teenager, and was forced to have the child, and then give it up for adoption.

Forty years later, here's how she feels about that choice.

If she had the choice in 1963 to get an abortion, rather than be forced to give birth to the child, she'd have the abortion. That's how she feels TODAY. Today.

Is anyone following this story?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401058.html

Bush Aide Learned Early of Leaks Probe

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 25, 2005; Page A02

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday that he spoke with White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. immediately after learning that the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. But Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, waited 12 hours before officially notifying the rest of the staff of the inquiry."

snip

"Official notification to staff is meant to quickly alert anyone who may have pertinent records to make sure they are preserved and safeguarded."

What this means from what I can gather is that the WH conspirators had 12 hours in which to destroy documents without being noticed.

I have a friend who just had her 50th birthday last weekend. She lived in Texas as a teen & her parents were Pentacostals. She got pregnant and went to a Home for Unwed Mothers. She never saw the baby & he was adopted out. Last weekend I attended her 50th birthday party & met her son. He had gone to alot of trouble to track her down, since it wasn't an "open adoption." They liked each other on first meeting and he told me it was very positive. They have the same eyes. He's about to become a father, so she'll be a grandmother. I think there are some conflicts about how things could have been different, but it was at least a positive reunion.

I really think every choice is individual. It confuses me that some of the groups who are adamant that abortion shouldn't be an option also oppose birth control or sex education other than abstinence programs, which have a poor record. I want to be more open-minded as I don't think abortion is a good option, really, but a last resort in exceptional cases - between a woman and her physician. However, until I see universal health coverage and quality public education and until little war orphans, AIDS patients and civilian casualties are valued as much as little American fetuses and until pregnant women without money stop being turned away from many physicians - I will not be impressed by the "culture of life" (euphemism). Besides, alot of what I've read is purely anti-feminist and as I said earlier, I'm an unapologetic feminist and have been for 30 years now.

I think that alot of the problems with family structures are blamed on some sort of moral issues and they really have more to do with failure to adapt to the modern world. We are no longer in a position to have extended families who help out with all the offspring. We need birth control as a "procreation-only" sexual mode is neither logical, practical or probable.

In cases where there are pregnancy and birthing issues that are medical, premature births and extensive medical interventions are prohibitively expensive for some. As for abortion, when it was not available when I was young, pregnant girls sometimes drove for hours to the one physician in the state who would do it. A prominent politician's daughter was one of them and I know because I was dating his best friend's brother.

We need health and sex educaton and we need it early. It needs to be biologically based, not faith-based. Kids need to know what sex is, how it works, how STDs are transmitted and how women biologically get pregnant. This isn't going to "give them ideas" that they don't already have. They need to know how birth control works and where to get it. They should also be told about the risks of becoming sexually active too early and with the wrong people, about potential for exploitation. This training will not work just by being moralistic. This may backfire and increase rebellion.

People who are heterosexual make up about 90% of the population. They shouldn't worry about the 10% who are gay. If their children are going to be gay, it's only about a 10% chance and it won't be because someone "recruited" them to the lifestyle, as it's largely biological. I know there is a movement afoot to claim it's a "choice" that a treatment within the church can "cure." This is a cruel lie and will backfire too (think of Mayor Jim West of Spokane, who railed for years against homosexuality while being later accused of predation and recruiting city workers from gay websites).

Gay marriage would not threaten heterosexual marraige. It would have nothing to do with it. However, the simple solution would be to have "civil unions for all" (as endorsed by the Backbone Campaign) and "marriages" would be done in churches, with each making their own policy. The state would perform the civil union and any later marriage would be optional, to be negotiates between the individuals and their churches. If states vary in their practice, there will probably be migration out of certain repressive states or even from US into the more progressive Canada.

We need separation of church and state and we're going further from it all the time. We see more moral meddling. We cannot simultaneously shrink government as far as programs for the "public good" (the state) and increase policing of people's private lives (the private, which should be under the domain of the church or the individual and not legislated by the state).

This country is going down the wrong path.

I had an abortion.
I never had one second's regret.

I saw it as unfortunate, and perhaps evidence of my inability to keep my birth control pills down. (This was way back, when birth control pills were much more potent than they are now.)

I was less than 4 weeks pregnant at the time. Never for one moment have I believed that there was a person involved aside from myself. There were cells, and lots of blood. And me.

I'm a pragmatist. We live in an already overcrowded world, and can't take care of the unwanted children who are born now, when abortion is legal, let alone if it were not. I shudder to think of the financial implications, the social problems and the emotional costs of taking this sensible choice away from women.

I'm tired of hearing only from women who had abortions and now weep over it, and become spokespeople for the anti-choice extremists. It's time those of us who had abortions and felt it was the right choice speak up.

So I'm doing that. I had an abortion. I never will regret it. It was the right decision. I thank the heavens it was available to me. I'm proud of myself for having the good sense to do it at a time when I was young and immature, and emotions could have clouded my judgment.

My daughter knows about my choice and would do the same should it happen to her.

At minimum, a true "culture of life" would support the following ten positions:

1. Withdraw the Troops

More than 1,500 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, along with tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians (some estimates are as high as 100,000.) Meanwhile, we're hunkering down building long-term military bases and sending more troops. How many more soldiers have to die before we set a timetable for bringing them home?

2. Stop the Death Penalty

Fifty-nine prisoners were executed last year, 23 of them in Texas alone. Yet study after study has shown the death penalty to be unequally applied by race, and hundreds of inmates have been found innocent at the eleventh hour. If we are all created in God's image, then it is up to God, not us, to deal the ultimate in punishment.

3. Pass Effective Gun Control Laws

More than 80 Americans are killed by firearms each day. Yet Congress has made it easier for criminals to get their hands on weapons -- most recently with the repeal of the assault weapons ban -- instead of following the lead of states like Massachusetts and New York, which have passed tougher laws and decreased handgun deaths.

4. Fund Social Services

Hundreds of homeless people, many of them war veterans, die on the streets each year because they can't gain access to basic services such as housing and health care. A truly compassionate person would fight against Bush's mean-spirited budget that cuts Medicaid benefits, veterans‚ health care, community services block grants, and other life-saving programs in favor of tax cuts for the rich.

5. Create Universal Health Care for Children

The U.S. remains the only industrial nation not to provide health care for all its citizens. At the very least, we could coverage to the most vulnerable among us. Meanwhile, our infant mortality rate recently rose for the first time in four decades, to 28,000 deaths a year.

6. Research Alternative Energy

It's a fact that access to the world's oil has fueled conflict in the Middle East for years. Developing wind and solar power could be the best protection we have against more of our soldiers dying overseas in the future. At the same time, reducing greenhouse gases could slow global warming, held responsible for the increasing severity of natural disasters like the Southeast Asian tsunami that claimed the lives of 175,000 people (with another 100,000 missing).

7. Investigate Prisoner Abuses

While the face of abuse of foreign detainees are those revolting pictures of torture from Abu Ghraib, even more disturbing stories of prisoners dying while in custody have trickled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. A true culture of life would conduct a full investigation into the abuse, with those responsible being held to account.

8. Support AIDS Clinics Abroad

In Bush's 2003 State of the Union, he pledged $15 billion to combat AIDS in Africa -- since then not only has the program been under-funded, but the majority of it has gone into non-generic drug treatment and abstinence-only prevention programs. With more than 3 million HIV/AIDS deaths in Africa a year, a truly compassionate AIDS policy would work immediately with the United Nations programs that have proven the most effective against the disease.

9. Implement a Fair Guestworker Program

Last year, more than 300 undocumented migrants died crossing the border to work in the U.S. There is no getting around the fact that these workers from Mexico and other countries are essential to the functioning of our economy. A fair guestworker program would not only recognize the contributions of these workers, but also prevent needless deaths.

10. Join the International Criminal Court

Ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and genocide are alive and well in the world, in places like Kosovo, Rwanda, and most recently the Sudan. Yet the U.S. is one of only a handful of countries (including China and Israel) that refuse to join the International Criminal Court. Last week, over our country's objections, the United Nations finally referred to the ICC the case of Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Sudanese have been brutally killed.

Together, these issues account for the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people a day. A culture that valued their lives is one we could all celebrate.

(from AlterNet)

Posted by: not my president at July 25, 2005 01:45 AM

To these ten points, I add some issues of my own.

There should be a government-run healthcare system that can, and will, take in anyone the private sector deems uninsurable. I am one of those "uninsurables." I need healthcare NOW. If uninsurable companies can get their workers compensation insurance from the government, uninsurable individuals should be able to get health insurance from the government as well.

And I am firmly opposed to any guest worker program, or any other program that expands immigration against the best interests of the American businesses and people. Guest worker programs only serve the sweatshop-type industries, and when these guest workers become permanent residents and later citizens, they will vote Republican thanks to their conservative social values. We already have more conservative immigrants than we can deal with!

Posted by: Amy at July 25, 2005 01:02 AM

My mother had a similar dilemma, shortly after I was born. She became pregnant with my sister, too soon after me. Her body wasn't ready, and doctors expected a lot of health problems with my sister. Abortion was suggested.

My mom mulled over many nights over the decision, and she came very close to having the abortion. But in the end, she decided not to, and my sister was indeed born. Yes, she has lots of little health problems that will plague her for life, but she is happy and living a normal life.

I was at first upset over the very idea of contemplating abortion for my sister. But I am now glad that the decision-making process was in everyone's best interest. My mother got to make the choice whether to let the pregnancy go ahead or stop. And she did make the right choice in going ahead and having my sister, and giving her a chance at a normal, productive life.

What's her take on abortion? She doesn't like it (but honestly I don't know of anyone who does). Yet she thinks it's wrong to come down with a blanket ban over religious or any other reasons. (FYI she's a Republican but has consistently voted for Democrats.)

Corrrection: He is too dense to worry that he will go down in history as worst President ever.

Posted by: oncall at July 24, 2005 09:15 PM

Amen.

I really think every choice is individual. It confuses me that some of the groups who are adamant that abortion shouldn't be an option also oppose birth control or sex education other than abstinence programs, which have a poor record. I want to be more open-minded as I don't think abortion is a good option, really, but a last resort in exceptional cases - between a woman and her physician. However, until I see universal health coverage and quality public education and until little war orphans, AIDS patients and civilian casualties are valued as much as little American fetuses and until pregnant women without money stop being turned away from many physicians - I will not be impressed by the "culture of life" (euphemism). Besides, alot of what I've read is purely anti-feminist and as I said earlier, I'm an unapologetic feminist and have been for 30 years now.

Posted by: DiAnne at July 25, 2005 12:23 AM

DiAnne,

Please see my last reply, bottom of previous thread.

Here are a couple of things that are related and might be important to Roberts' nomination/confirmation hearings... Does the name Bob Jones ring a bell???

White House Won't Show All Roberts Papers
WASHINGTON - Citing privacy and precedent, the Bush administration indicated Sunday it does not intend to release all memos and other documents written by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts when he worked for two Republican presidents.
--snip--
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said other nominees, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, have provided material they wrote in confidence while working in the Justice Department.

"It's a total red herring to say, 'Oh, we can't show this,'" Leahy told ABC's "This Week." "

"And of course there is no lawyer-client privilege," he said. "Those working in the solicitor general's office are not working for the president. They're working for you and me and all the American people."
--snip--
Contending that documents could be an important part of the confirmation process when little is known about a nominee, Durbin said, "A lot has to do with whether or not you can fill in the empty vessel with the information that tells you about this person."

Another Judiciary Committee Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York, said the goal is to learn about Roberts' judicial philosophy and method of legal reasoning.

"This is not a game of 'gotcha,' and document requests and, in general, information requests, are not an end, a goal to prove something," Schumer said. "They're a means to simply determining Justice Roberts' judicial views. That's all we want."

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said he thought some documents about work Roberts did in the solicitor general's office probably could be turned over, but not material from his time as a lawyer for the first President Bush.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050724/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_records

****
And then there's this blogger -- a Republican Catholic -- and his analysis...

The Bob-Roberts Problem?
Great scoop from New York Sun's Josh Gerstein on John Roberts documents at the Reagan Library .

Only a portion of the material is available for complete public viewing. The memos Gerstein focuses on -- battles between the Reagan administration and Congress with how far civil rights laws and education federal funding should be linked -- are pretty mild and shouldn't cause Roberts much trouble.

Here, however is a bold prediction. These two passages -- individually and together -- will become central to the coming Roberts confirmation debate:
--snip--
So, will the administration give a full release on the records? Good question. Either way, it could become significant because if they do, then, this passage may -- I repeat may, since I have no idea what's there -- hold the seeds of a major controversy:

Judge Roberts also kept a file on at least one other contentious civil rights issue, the conflict over the government's right to strip the tax exemption of Bob Jones University because of its ban on interracial dating. That file is not among those presently available for review, according to the library's listing.

I have no idea what Roberts' role was in the Bob Jones issue. However, it has always been the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats going after Republicans. It was one of the few major political stumbles of the early Reagan administration. Even Clarence Thomas, then head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recognized that it was a "mistake" for the administration to argue that a private school with a history of racial discrimination -- and continued to ban interracial dating -- should be permitted to keep its tax exempt status.
--snip--
So now we learn that then-Reagan counsel John Roberts had a file on Bob Jones. Where did he fall in the Reagan administration debate? Thomas, a black Reaganite -- now on the court -- criticized his colleagues at their time on their position. What was the Catholic Roberts' view?

It may turn out that there is little in the files to asses the issue. Either way though, those files could bring up awkward moments that many Republicans would rather forget -- and linking Reagan and Bush in a way that is not as flattering as the latter would like. Worse, their existence (especially if the administration tries to block their release) could give Democrats the ability to wield their other favorite anti-Republican political weapon (next to anti-choice/abortion): "racial insensitivity."
http://raggedthots.blogspot.com/2005/07/bob-roberts-problem.html

And here's an editorial from the Chic. Trib. (not one of my favorite conservative rags these days...) that is a must-read; hence, I apologize in advance for providing the entire piece...

THE NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS
It's time to be afraid, very afraid

By Jonathan Turley
law professor at George Washington Law School
Published July 24, 2005

In 1948, a young Abner Mikva (future Illinois congressman and federal judge) reportedly walked into an Illinois Democratic committeeman's office to volunteer as an enthusiastic young Democrat. The cigar-chomping committeeman looked suspiciously at Mikva and asked, "Who sent you?" Mikva answered "Nobody." The committeeman then barked, "We don't want nobody nobody sent."

It is a Chicago lesson that comes to mind with last week's Supreme Court nomination. For conservative groups, nominee John Roberts was not sent by nobody but by President Bush--and that appears to be enough. While his views are not well-known publicly, Roberts is well-known in the Beltway and in the White House.

With little public record, the White House was able to focus on personality rather than ideology. Indeed, the comments of the White House and others made it sound like we're adopting a golden retriever: He is "kind," "loyal," "family-oriented," "faithful" and "friendly." The only thing missing is an American Kennel Club certificate that he was free of hip dysplasia.

The suggestion that Roberts is not as hard-right as other people on the shortlist confuses style with substance. As someone who believes that Bush is entitled to such a nominee, I am less bothered by the fact that he is extremely conservative as I am the odd suggestion that he might be a swing vote on the Supreme Court. If Roberts is a swing vote on the court, it would be between the far right and the farther right.

What we know and what we suspect about Roberts suggests that he could well change the face of the law in a dozen different areas. After decades of a divided Supreme Court, a breathtaking array of legal doctrines currently hangs by a single vote--that vote may become Roberts'. Consider just a few such areas:

Abortion: With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Roberts appointment could place Roe vs. Wade a single vote away from being overturned--and would trim away at other related rights. Roberts has argued as a government attorney for overturning Roe vs. Wade. While he stated in his last confirmation hearing that Roe is the law of the land, he was simply stating a fact. Now he will be able to change doctrine. Personally, Roberts is a deeply religious man who is married to an ardent pro-life advocate. In the next term, the court will be hearing a parental-notice case and one on partial-birth abortion. Roberts appears likely to vote with the hard-right on both cases and narrow the protected area under Roe.

Affirmative action: O'Connor was the critical vote in the 2003 Grutter decision, in which the court upheld an affirmative action program for law school admissions. Roberts could flip the majority on that issue and rule against affirmative action.

Campaign financing and reform: Without O'Connor, there is no longer a majority to defend the court's earlier 5-4 ruling upholding federal restrictions on campaign financing. Roberts has a very conservative view on the scope of federal laws. He is more likely to vote against such restrictions.

Church and state: Just last month, O'Connor voted against the display of the 10 Commandments in two state capitols (one was upheld on a 5-4 basis). Roberts is more likely to vote with the four justices in favor of allowing greater entanglement of church and state in such displays.

Criminal procedure: A host of criminal procedure rulings hangs by one vote, from the scope of searches to abusive interrogation techniques. Roberts is known as a faithful conservative on such issues.

Discrimination: Roberts has taken a narrow view of federal regulations and is likely to diverge from O'Connor in discrimination cases.

Environmental laws: O'Connor was a critical swing vote on various environmental rulings, including the recent opinion allowing the enforcement of the Clean Air Act on the states. After working for mining and anti-environmental interests as an attorney, Roberts was the top choice for the Supreme Court nomination of business groups for being extremely pro-business and hostile to environmental regulations. He also has taken very conservative positions in this area, including a strident dissent in an Endangered Species Act case that questioned the very application of such environmental laws to the states.

National security: O'Connor was critical in rejecting Bush's extreme view of presidential power in the "enemy combatant" cases. Roberts has published an opinion siding with the president on the interpretation of the Geneva Convention.

States' rights and federalism: O'Connor was at one time a loyal combatant in the "Federalism Revolution" that struck down federal statutes in favor of states. While she softened a bit with time (as did Chief Justice William Rehnquist), Roberts would introduce a new, strong federalism voice and possibly revive the dormant revolution.

This is why, with Roberts, Bush may become the most influential president in history in reshaping both American law and society. Putting aside Roberts' pleasant demeanor and understated personality, there will be nothing subtle or low key to the changes that he is likely to bring to the United States Supreme Court.
http://tinyurl.com/9crft

(This may have been covered in a previous thread, but it bears repeating...)

Frank Rich's column in the NYT revealed that there was a 12 hour gap from the time the Justice Dept. notified Gonzales of the investigation into the Valerie Plame case. So what happened in that 12-hour gap? Gonzales claims that he ONLY notified Andrew Card (since Gonzales got the call from the JD at 8pm) and waited until 8am the next morning to notify the POTUS.

Frank Rich's column: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/opinion/24rich.html?

Gonzales was on "Face the Nation" yesterday morning and had this to say...

On CBS's Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer brought up the Frank Rich column:" ...it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must "preserve all materials". As Think Progress notes: "Schieffer noted that this time gap would have "give[n] people time to shred documents and do any number of things."

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you the obvious question, Mr. Attorney General. Did you tell anybody at the White House, get ready for this, here it comes?

GONZALES: I, I told one person, ah, in, in the White House of, of the notification, and, and —

SCHIEFFER: Who?

GONZALES: and immediately "ah, I told the chief of staff. And immediately the next morning, I told the President and, shortly thereafter, there was a notification sent out to all the members of the White House staff.

Talk Left has some good points, including this...
"I wish you could have seen Bob Schieffer's face as he came back from commercial break to his next guest, Senator Joe Biden, who he then took up this issue with. Bob Schieffer said to Joe Biden (I'm paraphrasing here...I'll post the transcript when it's available) "You know, everyone in The White House has these BlackBerrys. And you have to wonder what sort of message Andrew Card emailed at 8pm to the other people in The White House...what sort of documents could have been shredded in those 12 hours."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011616.html

And Think Progress has a very thorough piece about it...

Gonzales Raises Questions For Andy Card To Answer
So the one person who knew that an investigation was underway was Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who also happened to be 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. So, did Card tell Rove or Libby or anyone for that matter the night before Alberto Gonzales sent out the email to staff that they would soon be asked to preserve all documents?
--snip--

UPDATE: The AP is reporting:

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.
Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/24/gonzales-raises-questions-for-andy-card-to-answer/
AP Report: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050724/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_1

And finally, this cartoon says it all...

http://www.theillustrateddailyscribble.com/daily.scribble.pages.05/07.25.05.html

Oh yes, madame--it is all so reminiscent!

We have a failure to learn here. Vietnam-Iraq

Plamegate-Watergate.

All I want to know is--how can we help?

Here's one way:

C-SPAN TAPED Saturday's town hall forum with Maxine Waters in Los Angeles, which we know was well worth recording, because we can watch it at truthout.org:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405A.shtml

Please politely and in your own words ask C-Span to air what they recorded:

congress@c-span.org

events@c-span.org

Phone 202-737-3220

Fax 202-737-6226

Here's another:

PASS REP. LEE'S RESOLUTION

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., Calif.) last Thursday introduced - along with 26 co-sponsors -a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives which, if passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq."

The text of the Resolution, a list of current co sponsors, a list of the relevant committee members, and a new flyer are here:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902

The resolution must be voted on in committee within 14 legislative days of its introduction. It is expected to be referred to the House International Relations Committee. The Republicans who control the committee may take the matter up right away, hoping to vote it down before the August recess. If they do not, they will be required to take it up by September 16th.

The more Congress Members in the full House who co-sponsor the resolution, the more likely committee members are to vote for it.

Committee members should be asked not only to vote for it but to discuss it at length and engage in a substantive debate when the committee meets, so that members who oppose it have to give reasons.

This Resolution is important because the information in the Downing Street Documents so strongly suggests that President Bush intentionally deceived Congress about the reasons for war. If that is not the case, then releasing the documents requested here will clear that up - something the President should be eager to do.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902

Karen
Thanks for the info - two things to focus on.

Truth Shall Prevail
Thanks for the message on the other thread. I appreciated it very much. Women and their lives shouldn't be used as political bargaining chips.

link to Washington Post article:

Gonzales Admits Giving Plame Warning to Key Bush Aide
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072505Z.shtml

Seems they're ALL corrupt!

{{{ Isn't it just purely amazin' how the memories of Republicans (especially neoCon Republicans) just fail them at critical times in their lives?!?!? 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