THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

What's your house member doing about the Investigation into the Ramifications of Revealing a Spy?

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/bills/?bill=7877436&cs_party=all&cs_status=X&cs_state=ALL

We need a giant alarm clock - WAKE UP PEOPLE! YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.

Or playing Lies, Lies, Lies, yeah.

When members of Congress start standing up and demanding answers on how current policies are benefiting the American people, then we will start to make progress in this fight.

Posted by Victoria Ellen at July 26, 2005 10:36 PM

One of the things Republicans tell me is that "we haven't had a terrorist attack since we invaded Iraq." They see this whole thing as benefitting us that way.

Can someone give me a good response to that? All I have so far is "We're suffering terrorist attacks every day! We've given them a new convenient location! Why go downtown when you can get what you want in your own neighborhood?"

No luck with that, though. They don't really care about the soldiers, it seems. As long as it's NIMBY.

Amy,

Have you seen the CIA's comments about how our National Security was destroyed after they leaked Plame's name?

I made a post on the After Downing Street site (Detroit) last weekend that gave a good summary of Jim Marcinkowski's comments.

Here's the link and then look in activism. I think you might have to go back a few pages.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

(Actually, with Truth Shall Prevail, she/I made that comment there.)

BUT TSP also posted it here too, if you were around.

Sparrow, I have an "I Love Detroit" bumper sticker. Have never put it on a car - had it for years. Maybe I should take it out of mothballs.

I'll go read.

Posted by: Amy at July 26, 2005 10:47 PM

Amy,

My response to that statement. Do you consider the nearly 1800 soldiers who have been murdered in Iraq any less American?

Victoria,

This is a perfect header to follow-up the last thread.

We were "tricked" into war and where I come from people don't like to be tricked. Rove's whole reason for being is trickery. If we have overused the word "lie", then we simply need to be more creative.

Sparrow, I found it. I had heard that.

I'd really like to read a factual account of what happened to Brewster-Jennings for example, after the leak.

Oncall, I've used that one too, in conjunction with the other. They see soldiers as having volunteered to "fight for their country." This disgusts me. Our soldiers volunteered to protect America, not to be sacrificial lambs.

We've lost our humility in the face of mankind. The arrogant, ugly American lives. To this day, I still am agog at people who travel overseas and then get mad that everyone doesn't speak English.
We have so much in our wonderful country. We've spent over 200 years trying to find fellowship with the world, and the nimrod in the WH doesn't want friends, he wants conquests.

We had the choice after 9-11, to deepen our friendships and open doors to new fellowships. We had the chance right there in front of us. But, the other choice was revenge, and revenge won, hands down. Somebody had to pay, and pay big. The bloodlust for dead Muslims was whipped up and fed and nourished, and it still is alive and growing today.

The Americans of the future will have millions of records to call on, won't they? They will have millions of internet communications like this one, that tells of our agony at what was lost, and what could have been gained, and what was so foolishly done in our names. Maybe for the first time in history, not only will the winners get to write the story, but the losers will have their side of the story told too.

I don't know how the story ends, but I'm not prepared to have my great grandchildren tell me about that wonderful war president, the popular, godly, moral G.W. Bush. I want to live long enough to raise hell about what goes into the history books those kids will read.

No, I don't feel safer. But, now that I think about, the kind of safety we talk about is probably not attainable anyway. I lived my life thinking I could get run over by a bus, or struck by lightening all these years anyhow. NOTHING is guaranteed that says we will all be here tomorrow, or survive a natural disaster. So, I've given up thinking that there is some miracle solution to religious extremism gone mad. One of three things will happen-it will stop, it will stay this way always, or it will get worse. I live with the thought in mind that it is on all of mankind to keep it from getting worse, and to plan together with all humans to make it stop. If we can't do that, then I guess I have to accept that it will be this way always. That makes all mankind losers when history gets written.

If you can't reach people with the message that it's not about us now, but about what we hand over to ur children, and their children, that the legacy isn't ours to squander, but our responsiblility to pass on, then maybe we are living the last chapter now anyhow.

And with that, I bid you fine people a good night.
with love.......

p.s. I wrote some snark on the last thread that i don't think is suitable to carry over to this thread.

Our soldiers volunteered to protect America, not to be sacrificial lambs.

Posted by: Amy at July 26, 2005 11:20 PM

Say *that* to them the next time somebody says they volunteered. I think I might say they volunteered to "fight" for America.

Hi Janet,

No question we were tricked. I've been having a conversation with myself about the word tricked since I read your post. It's milder, not as screechy as "lied", but it has the connotation that we were considered by the neocons to be "marks", which is upsetting to people. People don't like to think that politicians believe their voters are stupid.

Might be a good word to use after all.

John Lennon...

I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight short-sighted
Narrow minded hypocritics

All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth

I’ve had enough of reading things
By nuerotic pyschotic pig headed politicians

All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth

I’m sick to death of seeing things
From tight lipped, condescending
Momma's little chauvinists

All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth

I’ve had enough of watching
Scenes of schizophrenic egocentric paranoid Prima donnas

All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth

I like the word "tricked" too. Everybody understands what it means and it is less confrontational.

I copied this from DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4200259

Paul Hackett knows what's at stake for all Americans.

As a major in the United States Marine Corps, he left his wife and children in Ohio to serve in Iraq. Paul opposed the war from the beginning, but he answered the call to duty and served his commander in chief in Falluja.

Now he needs your help to get to Congress. Last March, President Bush appointed Hackett's Republican congressman to the post of U.S. Trade Representative -- setting up a special election. Paul saw his chance, and decided to run for Congress to combat right-wing extremism here at home.

This race represents a tremendous opportunity and an important first step toward taking back Congress in 2006. The special election is being held on August 2, 2005. This is an election we can win, but Paul Hackett needs your help to do it:

http://www.actblue.com/list/hackett

Hoping to tighten their grip on power in Washington, Republicans have recruited a candidate whose extreme views reflect loyalty to the White House and not to the voters in Ohio. As president of Greater Cincinnati Right to Life, Hackett's opponent is already an active member of the conservative crusade to erode reproductive rights -- as well as a staunch supporter of a state legislative bill encouraging the display of the Ten Commandments in Ohio's public schools.

Unlike Republicans in Washington, Hackett has the experience to bring the war in Iraq to a swift and secure resolution. America needs socially progressive, fiscally responsible leadership -- and that's why we need Paul Hackett in Congress. He supports measures to promote small business growth and sustainable environmental policy. We are proud to add him to the DFA-List.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/dfa-list.php

By electing Hackett, we can score a victory for progressive values and give Iraq war veterans their first voice in Congress. This is an uphill battle in the heart of Ohio, but it's an election we can win if we give Hackett the resources he needs -- and this election will bring us one step closer to taking our country back in 2006 and 2008.

http://www.actblue.com/list/hackett

Thanks for helping our next generation of leaders succeed.

Sincerely,

Jim Dean

PS: Paul would be the first Iraq War veteran to serve in Congress. And he's a Democrat. Think about the message that would send, and contribute what you can.

http://www.actblue.com/list/hackett

Why are we reliving November again? Some think that unseating a President is easy. Ask Suz, sparrow and others here about the sleepless nights and weekends spent by millions of volunteers calling knocking on doors, visiting campuses, driving elderly to the polling places, folks like vana urging us on to contribute til it hurt. Doing everything we could to make a difference. We just can't keep beating ourselves or John Kerry up over the Nov.debacle. My feeling is that our candidates did everything other than can Bob Schrum to win and we came up short. JK won more votes than any losing Presidential candidate in history. We lost b/c of the Swiftboat scum and b/c the RNC worked the churches all across the country in total violation of IRS regulations.
But again why are we back to beating ourselves up again. I thought that a month or so after this site was created we got that out of our systems.
Why are we not paying attention to the Tim Kaine election in 90 plus days. Why are we not crafting national messages to retake Congress in '06. And just saying they lied won't cut it. Amy was absolutely right it will turn off more undecideds than it will attract.
My suggestion is that we study the Jimmy Carter playbook of 1976 and his language about cleaning up America and of bringing back honor and integrity to D.C.; but not in the negative way others have talked about tonight, saying our opponents are liars so vote for us. See how far that takes us. And remember Carter was running against a Republican Party responsible for Gordon Liddy and Chapin's dirty tricks and he only won b/c Ford screwed up in the debates incorrectly referring to Soviet domination and after all we went through in Watergate, Carter still only won by the slimmest of margins.
But remember, Carter was seen as a religious man who connected with Jesus. Somehow our party needs to reconnect with religion. I don't have all of the answers but I am not angry with John Kerry as others here seem to be and I feel that it will take a positive message showing that our candidates stand for something different, like tutter suggested, Truth and Integrity to turn things around.
But I implore those who come here to keep our eyes on Va and Congress in '06 and to please stop dwelling on last November. That gets us nowhere but back to sqaure one as they say.

Linda we really miss the h*** about not seeing your post lately and your wonderful insight into Fla. politics, I just had hoped that by now you had gotten your Nov. disappointment out of your system. I am still fixated over January 2001 and Florida but I am trying to deal with it.
An on that note I say goodnight.

Ira
Good post. I think about that stuff every day.

Tutterfly
Interesting post on last thread - then after reading it I checked my email and I had Spam saying I had failed to claim my free Christian t-shirt, coming right into my mailbox along with the Viagra and Cialis ads.

I have a question. When somebody deceives, tricks, bamboozles (pick your favorite) you have you been lied to? I guess from what I am reading here tonight the answer is, no. However no matter how I cut it, if I have been deceived, I have essentially been lied to. Is there one specific thing that is "the lie"? I answered that in the previous thread. However, it is the *pattern* of deceptions and half-truths that is in essence is the big lie that we are forced to endure. Speaking out against *that* may be less obnoxious to others, but it will still be interpreted as our saying, "it is all a lie".

We have to campaign on a theme of honest bonds between a government and its citizens.

I agree with Ira, we have moved beyond 11/04 and need to learn from that experience. Even though he got his head handed to him on a platter, I repeat Goldwaters phrase: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Seems to me that those who claim to support our troops should know what Republican leaders are doing to support our troops and their families...

Senate Republicans Block Progress on Key National Security Priorities
RELEASED July 26, 2005

In an Unprecedented Move, Republican Leaders Cut Off Debate on Legislation to Support Troops and Their Families

In an unprecedented move, the Senate Republican leadership is attempting to shut down the work of the United States Senate to address crucial national security issues by prematurely invoking cloture and cutting off debate on the National Defense Authorization bill. During a time of war, the Senate should spend more than just three days debating this crucial piece of legislation. Senators deserve ample opportunity to improve the bill and to work to protect Americans from terrorism. Senator Frist's move to shut down debate will prevent the Senate from taking crucial action to support our troops and their families.

Republican leaders cut debate extraordinarily short, file earliest cloture motion since at least 1987. Senator Frist's decision to file cloture on the Department of Defense Authorization Bill is the earliest motion on this annual bill since records have been kept starting in 1987. Offering the cloture motion on only the second full day of debate is grossly premature. [Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats]

Strengthening our national defense should be our top priority. In a clear sign of the Republican Leadership's priorities as debate on the Defense Authorization bill began, Senator Frist offered an amendment to support the Boy Scouts as his first amendment to the bill. (S. Amdt. 1342) Remarkably, this amendment is only one of five amendments Senator Frist allowed to receive a roll call vote prior to the cloture vote on the bill. While, during a time of war, the Senate was allowed to vote on this amendment supporting the Boy Scouts, it was prevented from voting on a single amendment prior to the cloture vote relating to supporting National Guard and Reserve members and their families, preventing terrorists from gaining access to nuclear materials, or caring for wounded veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republican Leaders Prevent Progress on Key National Security Priorities

Senate Republican leaders filed a cloture motion on the Defense Authorization bill to prevent debate on key national security priorities, hoping that they could prevent their lack of support for these priorities from being exposed. Because of Senate rules, invoking cloture means that several key amendments in support of our troops and our national security will be excluded from further debate on the bill.

Read the details of what amendments are being blocked here ==> http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc.cfm?A=fs&B=109&C=1&D=76

(And yes, I have insomnia tonight...)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-roberts27jul27,0,1096054.story
Some Roberts Documents Released
Eight senators want records of the high court nominee's work under Kenneth Starr, but the White House says they have enough to vet him.

{{{ Clearly, what the White House thinks/says shows a distinct disconnect with reality!!! The Judiciary Committee cannot make an informed decision on Roberts until ALL papers are released!!!}}}

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts
GOP Presses for Timetable on Roberts Vote
Excerpts:
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to cooperate with the GOP.

"But moving forward on a schedule will also require the White House's cooperation with senators in answering their questions about this nomination," Leahy added.

Leahy and other Democrats on the panel wrote to Bush that they were disappointed that the White House has declared some documents off limits.

Committee aides began sifting through the first of thousands of documents to be made available, dating from Roberts' tenure as a special assistant in the Justice Department in 1981-82, and in the White House counsel's office in 1983-86.
. . . . .
"From what we know now, John Roberts had a hand in some of the most aggressive assaults on civil rights protections during the Reagan administration," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said in a statement. "The White House should make all relevant documents available so that the Senate can make an informed decision."

The White House said no.

Instead, it arranged for the midafternoon release of records from Roberts' time at the Reagan Justice Department and said it would expedite the availability of certain documents from Roberts' Reagan-era tenure in the White House counsel's office.

It invoked attorney-client privilege, though, in withholding legal writings by Roberts when he was principal deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush.
. . . . .
"Now, I hope Senator Leahy is not trying to demand documents that the president has not even seen as part of their lines of attack against the president," McClellan said.

"That's a big mistake," Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said of the White House position. "There's precedent for these kinds of documents being released in the past.

"And why are they always looking for a fight?"
. . . . .

For once, Biden said something with which I totally concur! pResNitwit or his toadies always seem to want to fight about something so they can slam Dems as being unreasonable, when it's only the WH that is being unreasonable and refusing to compromise (or refusing to follow long-established law that says pResNitwit is above the law and torture is okay), even as they insist it must ALWAYS be the Dems who compromise! We need the Dems to refuse to compromise for a change!!!

What's the rush to confirm Roberts (other than to deflect attention away from the CIA leak and the unsuccessful war in Iraq, among other things)? O'Connor can still be on the bench the first Mon. in Oct. if the papers needed are not forthcoming since her resignation won't take effect until someone is found to replace her. I listened to Randi Rhodes Tue. afternoon, and she mentioned that the papers missing have to do with work he did for Bu$h 41, Iran-Contra during Reagan's administration and with policy regarding Roe v. Wade during 41's administration, among other things (King George sealed his daddy's papers with an executive order the first week after he was sworn in in '01, but I notice now the story is that they are invoking attorney-client priviledge....).

Massachusetts Veto Seeks to Curb Morning-After Pill
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/072605WA.shtml
Confronting one of the most controversial issues to cross his desk, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts vetoed a bill on Monday that would expand access to the morning-after pill.
. . . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20050727/cx_crbc_uc/crbc20050727
B.C. cartoon - prescription... :-)
. . . . .

Senate Moves to Shield Gun Industry :
The Senate put off until fall completing a $491 billion defense bill in order to act this week on the National Rifle Association's top priority: shielding gun manufacturers and dealers from liability suits stemming from gun crimes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5168407,00.html
{{{ Interesting... this article is in a British paper, but I've not heard anything about it in MSM, in print or otherwise....}}}

WHOA!!!!!

First Gonzilla said pResNitwit was above the law, and NOW he's saying a SCOTUS justice can impose his beliefs into any SCOTUS ruling?>!?!?!?!?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_ap_interview
AG: High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Talking about the landmark court decision legalizing abortion, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said a Supreme Court justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's wrong."
. . . .

Gonzales said circumstances had changed since Roberts commented on Roe v. Wade during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the seat he now holds on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent," Gonzales said.

"If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong," Gonzales said.

While abortion foes fret about Roberts' statement two years ago, abortion rights groups are concerned by a legal brief Roberts helped write for a Supreme Court case while serving as deputy solicitor general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

The brief argued that the landmark abortion decision "was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Bush officials have said that the brief reflected administration policy and Roberts was one of nine lawyers who signed it.

Gonzales said deciding when to overturn an earlier ruling "is one of the most difficult questions any Supreme Court justice has to answer." Among the factors to consider is how old is the precedent, he said.

Gonzales said he has a "preliminary judgment" about whether the Constitution affords the right to an abortion, but he declined to reveal it.
. . . . .

The attorney general also would not discuss the 12-hour delay between telling White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that prosecutors were investigating who revealed CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the media and informing the rest of the White House staff.
. . . . .

In other areas, Gonzales said:

• The Guantanamo facility keeps terrorist suspects from resuming their fight and affords them humane treatment. "I take issue with folks who say people are being mistreated in Guantanamo," he said, adding, "I don't know what I say to Mom and Dad if their son or daughter is killed by someone we once held at Guantanamo."

• He would reconsider Ashcroft's guidance that has restricted public access to government information since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

{{{ And what, pray tell, would Gonzilla say to the parents or siblings or spouse or children of anyone killed or tortured at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo who happened to be innocent of any crime?!?!?!?!? Randi Rhodes had some quotes by a prisoner about what was done to him, and believe me, it was not pretty!!!}}}

Posted by: NonnyO at July 27, 2005 05:27 AM

And some liberals still think only whites can be bad-a** conservatives. Gonzales is the crystal-clear proof that is not the case.

And fellow conservatives here in Koreatown, Los Angeles, LOVE Gonzales to death.

ALLY! Why are you up at this hour?

Hey everyone: Today's Five Minutes a Day has BOTH media reform and voting reform actions--for those of you who wonder if we have changed our areas of concern--these are for you!

ALLY! Why are you up at this hour?

Posted by: Karen at July 27, 2005 07:58 AM

Good morning Karen, lately I've been having trouble sleeping, and wake up at 3-4 in the morning every day. (Then go back to sleep by about now.)

Posted by: AllyMcLesbian at July 27, 2005 07:54 AM

Well, I don't care what ethnic group he belongs to, or if his skin was purple stripes with blue polka dots; I'd still form the same opinion... bad philosophy that consolidates too much power in one branch of government which then leads to nihilistic corporate fascism while they spin LIES, and LIES to cover LIES, is just plain bad philosophy... and ethically and morally wrong on so many levels I couldn't begin to list them all. Period.

The hair on the back of my neck stood up when I read that, and it still hasn't gone down.

I blame Congress for this situation, and I can no longer excuse what they did immediately after 9/11 by giving pResNitwit too much power in the first place. At any point just after that when it was patently obvious that he was abusing his power it would have been appropriate to hold a vote in both houses of Congress and return to the balance of power. The executive branch of government has been out of control for years now, and it's way past time when our senators and representatives started acting like they have a spine and stop the executive branch's abuse of power!!!

Those senators and representatives who don't apologize to their constituents for allowing such a blatant abuse of power to continue owe us all an apology for their bad judgement, and for not rectifying the situation as soon as possible. At the very least, if they are running for re-election in '06 or '08, an apology is in order.... or they should get out of politics as a profession.... or face not winning an election.

IMHO, the lot of 'em are cowards for not standing up to pResNitwit and his evil cabal....

Ally, I have trouble sleeping these days too--I understand!

I am working on a script for a DCP fundraiser this fall--and researching Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. It is very difficult to enter into any kind of repose after that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601549.html
Fair Questions For Roberts

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/27amar.html
Casing John Roberts
Excerpt:
If senators cannot unearth and examine Judge Roberts's specific views about these and other actual cases, we might as well not waste time on a hearing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602070.html
Documents Show Roberts Influence In Reagan Era

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts
Roberts Urged Limited 'Judicial Activism'
WASHINGTON - John Roberts as a young government lawyer pushed for a limited Supreme Court role on hot-button issues in the 1980s such as death penalty appeals, newly released documents show. Senate Democrats quickly pressed for release of more material that would shed light on the high court nominee's views.
. . . . .
Addressing criticism that judicial nominations weren't "ideologically committed to the president's policies," Roberts suggested something other than a "yes they are" answer.

"Rather, we should shift the debate and briefly touch on our judicial restraint themes," he wrote. "It really should not matter what the personal ideology of our appointees may be, so long as they recognize that their ideology should have no role in the decisional process."

It is a point that the Bush administration is making now — that regardless of Roberts' personal views, he will rule based on the Constitution and court precedent.

{{{ And I'm fast figuring out that "based on the Constitution" is Bu$h-code-speak to mean if it wasn't in the original Constitution, current laws may not - in his opinion - be valid... which knocks Roe v. Wade out of the water.... Never mind the Bill of Rights and the Amendments were enacted to correct oversights in the original Constitution, so there is precedent in correcting oversights....}}}

http://news.yahoo.com/s/krwashbureau/20050726/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_scotus_roberts_wa_1
Assisted suicide quote from Roberts revealing, analysts say
WASHINGTON - John G. Roberts had no reason to be guarded in 1997, when he was asked on a TV news show about a recent Supreme Court decision in an assisted-suicide case.

But he didn't talk about moral absolutes or the sanctity of life. He didn't even hint at his personal views on the subject. Roberts, then a lawyer in private practice, framed the issue in terms of limits on judicial power and deference to the public will as expressed by legislators. For him, it was a simple question of who gets to decide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_co/line_of_succession
Senate Changes Line of Succession
WASHINGTON - The Senate approved a bill Tuesday to raise the homeland security secretary from last to eighth place in the presidential line of succession, just after the attorney general.

{{{Line of succession listed on the link....}}}

oncall posted yesterday, and I have suggested before, that Energy Independence, would be a great rallying cry for Progressives in the '06 elections. The faux energy bill is coming up for a vote this week and I will be contacting my Texas representatives, not that they care, and advising them that that bill is against our national interest and security interest.
America is currently 58% dependent on foreign oil today. In ten years it is projected that we will be at least 64% on foreign oil. Even if Anwr is opened for drilling and I still pray that our Hawaiian Senators will wake up, realize what a bad deal that is and how worthless the Hawaiian Native recognition bill is, that faith1 has so eloquently explained here, that even then we might be marginally less dependent on foreign oil, say 62% or so for maybe 2-3 years.
The bill is purported to cost $11.5 billion dollars. Some of that money needs to be spent to avoid the massive power outages experienced in New York, Ohio, and Detroit several years ago, that is a no brainer. And if Anwr and MTBE protections were truly left out of this bill(as reported by the AP), its legislation that we as Progressives need to get behind. But just not THIS bill.
Purpotedly ethanol subsidies are high on this bills' priorities. As I posted yesterday we don't want to get on the wrong side of the heartland voters, farmers and ranchers we need especially out west. But a Berkley study has concluded that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than we take out from ethanol. So what sense does that make and why are we spending so much money and energy on this form of energy? Its the worst kind of pandering.
And more importantly why has the Heritage Foundation, that's right, the Heritage Foundation (maybe someone can find this quote) come out and said this energy bill does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for America's Energy Independence. Energy Chairman Joe Barton has said that "Congress is posied to to pass what he calls the most comprehensive energy bill in 40 years." I can just see Barton, Bush, Cornyn and Hutchinson and probably Mary on the stage at signing singing of this wrongheaded bill with praises of this faux energy bill.
Rather than just oppose, oppose, oppose, I urge that we take up John Kerry's campaign message that America wants to, know Demands Real Energy Independence THIS DECADE. A takeoff oncall of John Kennedy's promise to reach the moon (that speech was actually here at Rice Stadium I was there as a kid at 10 years old in 1962 snapping pictures)within this de cade as Kennedy said (i.e. by 1969. That is a popular chaallenge that plays well with the heartland voters.
And it would also be shocking to be on the same side as the Heritage Society who is attacking this current legislation as Doing Nothing for Energy Independence (or for that matter National Security).
We want a REAL ENERGY BILL. For National Security we want Real Energy Independence, not faux give aways to W's Pioneers. Its a matter of National Security. Stop screwing with our National Security Dick Cheney.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_postwar_planning
Panel: Bush Was Unready for Postwar Iraq
WASHINGTON - An independent panel headed by two former U.S. national security advisers said Wednesday that chaos in Iraq was due in part to inadequate postwar planning.

{{{ And..., like..., maybe the administration doesn't think we will remember they were warned about the lack of planning before he declared war based on the LIES they told?!?!?}}}

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050727/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld
Rumsfeld Pressures Iraq on Syria, Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that Iraqi leaders must take a more aggressive stance against what he called harmful interference from neighboring Syria and Iran.

{{{ I think the headline is mis-labeled, should read "Rumsfeld Pressures Iraq on Syria, Iran." Sounds to me like Rummy is setting the stage for Iraq's puppet government to "ask" the US to help them in a war with Syria and Iran....}}}

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601792.html
Abu Ghraib Dog Tactics Came From Guantanamo
Testimony Further Links Procedures at 2 Facilities

typo
America wants to, No, Demands Real Energy Independence THIS DECADE.

Best article I've seen recently on the Iraq civil war:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,366834,00.html

It's in English, it's in two parts.

Actually I would like to hear Edward Kennedy deliver that line,
America Wants, No Demands, Energy Independence In This Dec Ade.( I believe that is how John Kennedy pronounced decade). Imagine the symbolism of another Kennedy delivering that line and that challenge.

What's the rush to confirm Roberts (other than to deflect attention away from the CIA leak and the unsuccessful war in Iraq, among other things)? O'Connor can still be on the bench the first Mon. in Oct. if the papers needed are not forthcoming since her resignation won't take effect until someone is found to replace her. I listened to Randi Rhodes Tue. afternoon, and she mentioned that the papers missing have to do with work he did for Bu$h 41, Iran-Contra during Reagan's administration and with policy regarding Roe v. Wade during 41's administration...

Posted by: NonnyO at July 27, 2005 05:01 AM

NonnyO, I had a similar conversation last night with someone about how this decision should not be rushed, given the amount of time Roberts could spend on the bench -- not to mention the possibility that he could end up as the Supreme Justice someday. Also, if we do the math, think of how many clerks -- who often end up with prominent roles in the legal community -- he has the potential to hire and influence during his tenure on the bench.

So what to we do? Maybe we should start a movement to get everyone to call our senators to urge, plead, beg them to take their time in making this decision? And let them know we support them (should they do this) and will do all within our power to squelch "obstructionist" attacks on them. Biden sounds like he's on board with this; since he's working on '08, maybe we should consider using him to help support this potential movement?

Also, we should all call those senators on the Judiciary Committee to urge-plead-beg them to stand firm in getting all the necessary information from the WH and to ask Roberts all the hard questions that demand thorough, honest answers.

But that doesn't seem like enough...Suggestions, anyone?

Found this early this morning. I had no idea how long Rove has had these plans in forward motion in any way that he can... But if you Read every single word of this article their are things we can learn from this and use to our advantage.This is worth taking the time to read, it gives you a clear view of how this mans mind works and just how truly ruthless he and all the people that he surrounds himself with.

snip:
The R.N.C. had a relatively unseasoned chairman: George Herbert Walker Bush, a man thought to be on the downhill slope of a once promising political career. Bush was a former member of the United States House of Representatives who had lost two successive Senate races in Texas, in 1964 and. 1970, and then accepted an assignment that did not seem very stature enhancing, as the public face of the R.N.C. during the Watergate scandal. During the summer of 1973, while Bush's staff was conducting an inquiry into the Lake of the Ozarks affair, Terry Dolan, promoting the Edgeworth cause, leaked to the Washington Post a tape recording in which Rove and another College Republican are heard recounting at a training weekend some amusing stories about minor campaign espionage they had engaged in during various campaigns. The Post published a story about the tape under the headline "GOP PROBES OFFICIAL AS TEACHER OF TRICKS."

If you read the whole article you will see that the investgation was into none other than Karl Rove and a voting scandal...sound familiar...hmmm

http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html

Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail
Excerpts:
In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said that he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and that they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said that he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."

Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said.
. . . . .
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked, people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy.

Wilson unleashed an attack on Bush's claim on July 6, 2003, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," in an interview in The Post and writing his own op-ed article in the New York Times, in which he accused the president of "twisting" intelligence.

Behind the scenes, the White House responded with twin attacks: one on Wilson and the other on the CIA, which it wanted to take the blame for allowing the 16 words to remain in Bush's speech. As part of this effort, then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley spoke with Tenet during the week about clearing up CIA responsibility for the 16 words, even though both knew the agency did not think Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, according to a person familiar with the conversation. Tenet was interviewed by prosecutors, but it is not clear whether he appeared before the grand jury, a former CIA official said.

On July 9, Tenet and top aides began to draft a statement over two days that ultimately said it was "a mistake" for the CIA to have permitted the 16 words about uranium to remain in Bush's speech. He said the information "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed."
. . . . .

{{{ This is a good article.... Since yesterday, I've now figured out that the dogs will be blamed for abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and that while the CIA gave the WH accurate intelligence about Niger, the WH blamed the CIA for "allowing" the speech writers to go ahead and include 'those sixteen words' in the SOTU speech, and Tenant wrote a letter of apology for "allowing" those sixteen words to be included... I'm assuming Tenant's role as the fall guy for the FUBAR faux pas committed by the WH speech writers is why he got a medal.... But, still not one word of "blame" given to the WH for their own SNAFUs, not one person in the WH is man enough to take responsibility for all the LIES they have told us since day one of this administration.... Not one.... And I still can't figure out why the Senate is opening an investigation into this, on top of Fitzgerald's Grand Jury investigation.... Seems to me that right now Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury have a lot more power than the Senate or the House since it's patently obvious that Congress has given all their authority to a LYING executive branch.... and at least Fitzgerald is keeping close-mouthed about it all (not like that idiot Ken Starr with his daily leaks)}}}

Posted by: madame defarge at July 27, 2005 09:29 AM

Matter of fact, madame, I was planning on writing to the Dems on the Judiciary committee today....

I posted this link a few days ago, but this is the page that lists the members of the Judiciary Committee, and clicking on their names gets you their home pages, thus an email link....

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

My message will be short and sweet with no fancy words: No full disclosure with ALL papers asked for, no vote of approval for Roberts (and the more I read about Roberts, the more I'm convinced he would be a really, really bad justice in the long run)... and I'm going to remind them that I remember the wording of O'Connor's resignation letter which says her resignation will become effective after someone has been found to replace her.... so I'm going to recommend they take their time and (for once!) don't let pResNitwit rush them like he rushed the original Patriot Act through before anyone read it.... (Well, okay; I'll take out the slang, and make it nicer, but with the same message).

I expect we will hear something about a Bolton appointment in the near future anyway, which will take the focus off of Roberts.... but I find it mildly comforting that the CIA leak story has not gone away in all these weeks and that there's a flap about the Doonesbury cartoon because of it - link to Mon & Tue Doonesbury cartoons on previous thread, as well as the story about it... I checked the Doonesbury site a bit ago and today's comic strip isn't online yet, but the big flap was supposed to be about yesterday's and today's Doonesbury cartoons.... I don't think neoCons have a sense of humor if they can't laugh at themselves and their own follies....

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db050726
Yesterday's Doonesbury....

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db050727

Today's Doonesbury....

It's the electorate: stupid...

Poll: USA doubts Iraq success, but not ready to give up

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Most Americans don't believe the United States will succeed in winning the war in Iraq or establishing a stable democracy there, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
But an ambivalent public also says sending troops to Iraq wasn't a mistake, a sign that most people aren't yet ready to give up on the war.

"There's a lot of conflicting impulses here," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. A Pew poll last week also showed crosscurrents in attitudes toward the Iraq war. "People are giving bleak assessments on the one hand, and on the other hand (they're) saying maybe it was still the right thing to do."

The bombings in London this month also have roiled public opinion, intensifying a not-yet-settled debate among Americans about whether the Iraq war has made the United States safer from terrorism.

Strong fears that a family member might become a victim of terrorism spiked in the survey, rising to their highest level since October 2001, just after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Meanwhile, in Baghdad, Iraqi officials continued to draft a constitution, due Aug. 15. Proposals to make Islam the main source of legislation in Iraq has prompted debate and opposition from groups concerned with women's rights.

In the poll:

For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — the reason Bush emphasized in making the case for invading. The administration's credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003.

By 58%-37%, a majority say the United States won't be able to establish a stable, democratic government in Iraq.

About one-third, 32%, say the United States can't win the war in Iraq. Another 21% say the United States could win the war, but they don't think it will. Just 43% predict a victory.

Still, on the question that tests fundamental attitudes toward the war — was it a mistake to send U.S. troops? — the public's view has rebounded. By 53%-46%, those surveyed say it wasn't a mistake, the strongest support for the war since just after the Iraqi elections in January.

"I think the American people understand the importance of completing the mission," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said when asked about the poll results. "Success in Iraq will help transform a dangerous region."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm

Blair v Blair in the War Against Terror

GERRI PEEV POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT AND FRASER NELSON POLITICAL EDITOR

Key points

• Prime Minister Tony Blair calls for tougher terrorism laws
• Cherie Blair said Judges should uphold human rights
• Mr Blair wants to lengthen the time a suspect can be detained without charge

Key quote
"I may offend people when I say this, but 11 September for me was a wake-up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again." – Tony Blair

Story in full CHERIE Blair yesterday made an extraordinary criticism of her husband's government as she called for the judiciary to stand up to the "hurly-burly of majoritarian politics" in the war on terror.

Judges, she said, should resist political pressure over the conviction of suspected extremists and uphold human rights legislation.

She spoke as Mr Blair was making the opposite case, recounting how judges had thwarted his attempts to throw out extremists and complaining that "we still have not woken up to what this thing is about".

Whereas Mr Blair was striking consensus with Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy in Downing Street over new terror laws, his wife was becoming a voice of opposition as she gave a lecture in Malaysia.

She stressed she did not want to make light of the bomb blasts in London or the challenges being faced by British police and intelligence services.

But she added: "At the same time, it is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation."

More... http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1686952005

Protesters march outside fundraiser attended by Karl Rove

KIMBERLY HEFLING
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Protesters carrying American flags and toilet plungers yelled "Fire Karl Rove" and "Stop the leaks" outside a fund-raiser where President Bush's senior adviser was the guest of honor.

"There seems to be no accountability. This is an example where the president shows his poor ethics," said Rachael Kennedy, an obesity prevention specialist from Richmond, Va., who carried a sign with the words "Loose lips sink ships."

About 60 people took part in the protest, including members of the liberal group MoveOn.org, like Kennedy, and members of American Family Voices, which describes itself as an advocacy group for middle-class people.

Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, is at the center of a federal investigation into a 2003 news leak that exposed the identity of a CIA officer. Some Democrats have called for his resignation.

The fundraiser was for Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., who barely defeated Democratic attorney Lois Murphy in 2004 to win his second term in the district, which is made up of parts of Berks, Chester, Montgomery and Lehigh counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. He won by 2 percentage points, despite raising $2.3 million and spending $2.1 million on the race.

John Brabender, a campaign adviser to Gerlach, said Democrats are frustrated about Murphy's loss to Gerlach.

"I think they're going to run their typical negative-after-negative-type campaign and as usual not put forward any positive ideas," Brabender said.

Murphy, who has filed to run again against Gerlach in 2006, released a statement calling on Gerlach to cancel the fundraiser.

"Until Rove's role in the controversy is explained to the satisfaction of the American people, Jim Gerlach should not seek to benefit from Rove's support for his political campaign," Murphy said.

Brabender said Gerlach did not consider canceling Rove's visit at the fundraiser because it would have sent the wrong message. He said the fundraiser was scheduled sometime ago, but he did not know the number of people expected to attend.

"In this country we respect people's rights and until a time that some court or somebody proves that somebody has done something wrong, that we treat people with respect," Brabender said.

Gerlach started the month with $742,704 on hand, and Murphy had $106,329. Another Democratic opponent, Mike Leibowitz, had $3,000 cash on hand.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/12171853.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

(P.S. "In this country we respect people's rights and until a time that some court or somebody proves that somebody has done something wrong, that we treat people with respect," ... any comments on THAT ONE, perhaps someone from Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib... Mr. Gonzales???)

For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — the reason Bush emphasized in making the case for invading. The administration's credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003.
Posted by: monkey at July 27, 2005 10:02 AM

There's that almost-innocent little word again:
Mislead: (1) To lead in the wrong direction; (2) To lead into error. [American Heritage Dictionary]

Okay. I'll give credit where credit is due and try to believe someone must have looked up the meaning in a dictionary. "Mislead" still does not carry the weight of the slogan: Bush LIED, many died.... I can not, however, take comfort in the fact that people are only now waking up to the fact that the administration LIED about their reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, and so many lives have been lost, maimed, destroyed, and disrupted for the sake of controlling the world's second largest oil reserves....

Some insightful advice from my friend the Moose:

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/07/winners.html

Posted by: monkey at July 27, 2005 10:06 AM

I listened to BBC news last night and in a couple of e-newsletters this past week I've seen mention of some people in Great Britain wanting to change some of the criminal laws... the descriptions of which sound patterned after the Patriot Act (detaining prisoners longer, etc). I hope the MPs in Great Britain are smarter than our Senators and Representatives who lost their rational ability to think clearly after 9/11.... The Brits kept their cool during the IRA bombings, etc., without denying people their rights and due process of law, so there's not a good reason to lose their rational thinking abilities at this late date....

{{{ And I'm fast figuring out that "based on the Constitution" is Bu$h-code-speak to mean if it wasn't in the original Constitution, current laws may not - in his opinion - be valid... which knocks Roe v. Wade out of the water.... Never mind the Bill of Rights and the Amendments were enacted to correct oversights in the original Constitution, so there is precedent in correcting oversights....}}}

Spot on, Nonny...their idea is that if you want to change the Constitution, you need to pass an amendment, rather than trying to make changes through Court decisions.

***************
Ira and others...we need a catchy way to sum up our goal of being energy independent in the next ten years. A slogan....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601551.html

Think Again, Karen Hughes
By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A21
Excerpts:
Only two senators were in the room when Karen Hughes testified at her confirmation hearings. When it came time for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote on her nomination yesterday, she was easily approved. And thus with no discussion and no debate, Hughes takes over the least noticed, least respected and possibly most important job in the State Department. Her formal title is undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. In plain English, her job is to fight anti-Americanism, promote American culture and above all to do intellectual battle with the ideology of radical Islam, a set of beliefs so powerful that they can persuade middle-class, second-generation British Muslims to blow themselves up on buses and trains.

Presumably, President Bush selected Hughes for this task because she was very good at running his election campaigns. And indeed, in the testimony she gave last week to a nearly empty room, she sounded like she was still running an election campaign. Like Hillary Clinton, she said she wanted people around the world to know that she would be "listening" to them: "I want to learn more about you and your lives, what you believe, what you fear, what you dream, what you value most." Like Jesse Jackson, she deployed alliteration, alluding to the four "E's": "engagement, exchanges, education and empowerment."
. . . . .
But Hughes has nothing to lose by dropping the four "E's," going back to the rest of the alphabet, and thinking way, way outside the box. Judging by Bali, Madrid, London and Sharm el-Sheikh, not to mention New York and Washington, whatever we're doing right now, it isn't working.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601645.html
Clinton Angers Left With Call for Unity
Senator Accused of Siding With Centrists
~~~~~~~~

Much as I desperately want to vote for a Dem woman for president (I don't really believe we will have a woman president in my lifetime - we're still too much of a patriarchal culture), Hillary's association with DLC and big business interests is a HUGE detriment... it means she's been bought out by the PACs, and as a centrist she can be little more than a DINO at this point. Her track record in voting with neoCons within the last couple of years in particular is not something that would curry favor with me. I will never vote for a neoCon, but if it's a choice between a neoCon and Hillary, I think I'd abstain from voting for pres & VP.... Too bad. I liked her when Bill was first elected because she had some good ideas originally about medical care.... IMHO, Bill and Hillary should have enough money between them after they each got millions in advances on their books that they could afford to be more independent and not influenced by big business.....

Why can't Dems just unite under the DNC???

This is a rather disturbing account of Judge Roberts. Apparently he is not he moderate that the right is trying to portray him as. These legislative proposals are in fact radical.

From the Washington Post summary of the Roberts documents: "Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name."
"In the rare instances revealed in the documents in which Roberts disagreed with his superiors on the proper legal course to take on major social issues of the day, he advocated a more conservative tack."

"In one instance, he wrote a memo to the attorney general urging Smith to disregard the recommendation of William Bradford Reynolds, the head of the agency's civil rights division, that the administration should intervene on behalf of female inmates in a sex discrimination case involving job training for prisoners."

"Much of Roberts's time at the Justice Department was taken up by the debate over GOP-sponsored bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases. He wrote repeatedly in opposition to the view, advanced by then-Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson, that the bills were unconstitutional. He scrawled 'NO!' in the margins of an April 12, 1982, note Olson sent to Smith. In the memo, Olson observed that opposing the bills would "be perceived as a courageous and highly principled position, especially in the press."

Posted by: Veritas at July 27, 2005 10:31 AM

Well, with the track record this administration has had, amendments would be out of the question. They just "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want them to mean, come hell or high water, as long as they get what they want. They would abolish changing things by amendments, IMHO - they just make new laws (appropriately shoved through Congress in a hurry after some "terraist" attack when our Congressional "leaders" have lost the ability to think rationally, as what happened with the Patriot Act.... and the Patriot Act II was conveniently voted on in the House just after 7/7, so 'terraist' rhetoric was running high). They will strong-arm every senator and representative on the hill, run smear campaigns to destroy reputations and lives, and otherwise commit misdemeanors and felonies and LIE to get what they want, but they are determined to have this country become a corporate fascist nation at this rate.... "Compromise" is not in their lexicon - unless, of course, they use the word to coerce Dems into "compromising for the sake of unity" or Dems run the risk of being called "unpatriotic troublemakers." But neoCons follow the rules? NOT. They consider themselves above the law... Gonzilla said so.....

Gonzales Sets Stage for Roberts to Vote against Roe
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072705Z.shtml

Yep.... here it is... Gonzilla said so.... It works the same as the pharmacists not wanting to fill prescription birth control pills or morning after pills for women for "reasons of conscience" - - - - only Gonzilla is saying that if Roberts does not approve of Roe v. Wade for reasons of conscience (or religion, since he's a "devout" Catholic), then Roberts - along with Scalia and Thomas who are like-minded - can arbitrarily change the laws and disregard the 14th Amendment right to privacy in cases where women may seek abortion for whatever reasons (including, I assume, even when a woman's life is in danger and her fetus is already dead from pre-eclampsia), or they can say their conscience dictates they overturn lower court rulings that may have been in favor of women... and, voila! A SCOTUS primed to follow the dictates of the extreme religious right (or any other nut case that comes down the pike that may manage to get himself elected to the presidency) who claims "conscience" as a reason to arbitrarily overturn laws already on the books.

I think my letters to the Judiciary Committee members will have to include this link and the link I posted previously that pertained to this story, too...... Or maybe two letters....

And, as for talking neocon lite, back to the neocons, well, I'm sure we can all agree it's getting us no where. If someone throws poop on you verbally, rinsing the poop off and trying to reform the poop to throw back is useless. Go get you own poop to throw is my motto!!!!

When the neocons speak neonese, people hear what they expect to hear. Its crap, but they understand it. When the dems try to speak it, it's like listening to someone with a phrase book on a foreign bus tour. Garbled and goofy. And ,you know what, people expect that these days too, the no message message, mirror reflection. Good-o, makes one think that voting for the 'clearer message' is the smart thing. Even if it sucks, you understood it.

So, when some smart dem says they are all done with neoconese, and speaks plain English, I'd think they might do okay. I can't figure out why they think people only speak neocon. I barely understand it myself, except to know its bulls**t.

Posted by: tutterfly at July 26, 2005 04:41 PM

Tutter on the mark!
And even clean... it still smells.

I have never written so many letters made so many calls and felt so completely ignored by The Very People I Put in Office. Never, ever, not like this. I can't help but feel my reps. have all been offered great 'gifts' and they are 'taking care' of themselves first.

Then I saw Sen. Akaka's face this week. He could not believe 'his' (not the true Hawaiians) akaka bill wasn't going to make it to the floor. He must have been promised it would have. (He has certainly voted for what the repub's wanted- like he expected a return!) He looked as if he had been slapped. Did he really think he would be treated any better than the rest of us. (poop!)

Today on Wash. Journal, (TRADE DAY) I almost laughed at the 'sugar guy' they had on. He's whining about loss! Yes, ordinarily I am on the 'workers' side, but SUGAR?

No one remembers that it was SUGAR that was the motivator in the 'annex' of Hawaii. The sugar 'governors' that convinced the Hawaiians that "PRIVATE OWNERSHIP" of land was a good thing.

The Hawaiians held all their land in common until then and had not one word in their native tongue which meant "MINE".

When the sugar governors split up the land, of course they took most of it and enslaved the hawaiians to work the cane. Then it was the sugar govenors who jailed the Queen and didn't deliver the petition stating the Hawaiians didn't want to be annexed to America.

--- So now when the sugar industry crys real tears, I wonder, an un-popular thought. Perhaps what goes around does come around....

Ah, do you suppose America is finally 'getting' that it is all about the almighty dollar and those gentlemen who will 'take it' regardless of who it leaves home-less, land-less and right-less?
----------------------------------------??

No longer is it politics as usual- they are not quietly doing these things behind closed doors.

We are and have been stupid! These 'rulers' do not play fair, they don't care about us, they want to get their retirements (some of the few left) and they are out.

Even if it's America as a country that is being 'ANNEXED' now?

(Sen.Akaka, Sen.Inyoue,was it worth selling Alaska (oil) to learn these guys will never play fair?)

posted really at 5:13AM Hawaii time

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072705Z.shtml

Roberts's Right to Vote against Roe Is Defended
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post

Wednesday 27 July 2005

Gonzales cites high court's special role.
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. will be free to vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision if he is appointed to the high court, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday.

Although Roberts called the Roe decision "settled law" during hearings on his nomination as an appellate court judge in 2003, Gonzales said in an interview with the Associated Press that a Supreme Court justice "is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong."

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said the remarks were meant only to explain "a technical difference between circuit courts, which are bound by precedent, and the Supreme Court, which often gives great deference to precedent but is not required to abide by it."

"It would be a real stretch to claim this purely factual statement about how our court system operates is indicative of how Judge Roberts would address the abortion issue, or any other issue," Scolinos said.

But abortion rights groups immediately criticized the remarks, saying they amounted to evidence that Roberts is more conservative in his views than publicly portrayed by the Bush administration.

"They are coming clean on how meaningless his evasive 2003 testimony was," Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement. "It's now even clearer than before that the far-right activists who've been turning handsprings in celebration of Roberts's nomination are getting exactly what they wanted: a proven activist opponent of personal freedoms like a woman's right to choose."

With only two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts has given little indication of his views on abortion. But advocacy groups that are gearing up to oppose him have pointed to a legal brief he helped write while serving at the Justice Department in the George H.W. Bush administration that said Roe was "wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Republicans argue that the brief merely reflected the official legal position of the administration at the time. And in Senate testimony in 2003, while he was under consideration for the federal appellate bench, Roberts said that he viewed the decision finding a constitutional right to abortion as "settled law."

When asked about that testimony yesterday, however, Gonzales said Roberts's earlier statements have no bearing on what he might do as a Supreme Court justice.

"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent," Gonzales told the AP. "If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong."

Gonzales's comments on Roberts come after his own travails over the abortion issue. A close friend of the president, Gonzales was considered an early favorite to be nominated as a replacement for departing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but he came under fierce attack from conservatives who disagreed with rulings he joined in Texas that upheld exceptions to a parental notification law there.

In his own confirmation hearings earlier this year, Gonzales testified that he viewed Roe as the "law of the land."

Democrats have largely abstained from criticizing Roberts directly on abortion and other specific issues, focusing their efforts on trying to obtain documents related to Roberts's time in government. In the interview, Gonzales said he opposes releasing documents from Roberts's time as deputy solicitor general, arguing that the release "would chill communication and opinion and giving advice" among federal attorneys.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is what caught my eye when I first read it on the Yahoo news site this morning, and I wish I could highlight this in bold red.... Gonzilla just loves to interpret law to suit his and pResNitwit's purposes, be it torture, side-stepping the rules of the Geneva Convention, making it so pResNitwit does not have to abide by any laws of this land or treaties the US ever signed, and now Roe v. Wade....

THIS IS THE PARAGRAPH TO PAY ATTENTION TO:
"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent," Gonzales told the AP. "If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong."

Funny what a lousy night's sleep will do to a person. Then I check in here and I find out that a bunch of others are sleeping poorly also. Is it that we can't find any relief from the horrors surrounding us anymore?

Peace of mind has been destroyed.

I spent a restless night, too. I had this running dialogue with myself that goes something like this....

What happens if the Bushista's get EVERYTHING they want? What does America look like in 2009 when the moron rides off into the sunset? It's not a pretty picture. I had any number of visions, more homeless people, disabled vets unable to obtain benefits, hospitals swamped with people using E.R's as their only means of health care, foreclosures at record highs, increase in herion use (love those afghan poppies) college costs beyond more millions, birth control obtainable only after running a gauntlet of pro-life crazies at the few pharmacies still willing to sell birth control, AIDS cases growing, teen pregnancy on the rise, schools unable to stay open, ANWR littered with drilling equipment and reports of fouling 'accidents', churches on competetive footing for aid money that ONLY goes to people who spout their doctrines, increase in domestic violence, increase in inner city gang violence, untold numbers of rendition victims languishing in various foreign jails, Iraq still a quagmire, Iran either bombed or showing off their bombs, North Korea laughing at the U.S. terrorist bombings the rest of the world over, deficit spending at unbelievable record highs, the devaluation of the dollar, high interest rates, inflation, the bust of the housing bubble, oil companies making record profits on $5.00 a gallon gas, but asking for increasing subsidies to make up for people who can't afford that gas, Public transit systems swamped by increased ridership, but no increase in funding, high school children quitting school to take minimum wage jobs to help their families make ends meet, failure of family farms, high electricity costs and record shut offs, home heating oil too expensive for millions of families, more fouled water systems, increased levels of pollutants in the air where deals were cut to lower standards, auto industry lay-offs, plant closings, record outsourcing, senior citizens unable to pay for even OLD style medications, big pharma crying for subsidies to cover meds that no one can afford, credit card interest rates at 50%, judges applying their religion to court cases with the blessing of the supreme court, roe v. wade gone, griswold gone, faith based laws written, unmarried women who get pregnant shunned, women denied jobs in an effort to keep them at home, gun violence up, social security gutted, social programs like day care rolled up and tossed out, medicaid/medicaire bankrupt.

There's more isn't there? And should even half of this list comes to pass, how does the country fare? If people can't drive, pay for their utilities, find gainful employment, afford food and medication, or stay in school, will we finally be a country of the rich and the poor? Is the middle destined to collapse? Once the richest of the rich have everyting they want to make them as rich as they can possibly be, what else is there to take from the poor that will keep the rich in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed? Will we have to become serfs? Slaves? Sharecroppers? Does everyone end up begging at the mercy of the fundementalist churches or joining the only industry that is healthy--that being the military war complex?

The ugly Bush induced future marches closer to us every day, and there are not enough people (YET) who have looked at what could be and have shouted NO MORE!!! Does anyone doubt that 2006 is probably the most important year in our lives? If we fail next year, and the Republicans retain their majority, do you have any doubt that there will be more supreme court picks that will crush the Constitution? Does anyone doubt that Fitzgerald will be crushed, and treasonous people will go free? Does anyone doubt that big oil, big credit, big pharma, big business and big guns will own more and more of our government, and that the special interests and fundy religion will rule the land? Does anyone doubt that civil rights and equal protections will be things of the past?

No wonder we all sleep so poorly!!!!

And about Hillary:

#1. More women vote in primaries.
#2. More women vote than men.
#3. There are more registered women then men.
#4. MORE women voted for kerry than men.
#5. There are more women in this country than men!

#1. There is not one 'pure' politician left.
#2. They will destroy any DEM on any record!
#3. We don't have 'one' good choice!
#4. Hillary is politically very SMART!
#5. She won't be slapped around by anyone!
#6. She is EXPERT on slinging back cleaned poop
..... and offering up a GOOD DEBATE!

I like that, and so do alot of other women!
If not a Women President now?..... Then WHEN!

It's a silly argument to say America isn't ready.
THE MEN AREN'T READY!
But then....They are no longer the majority of voters... ARE THEY?

I could rally alot of women behind her, I could get excited about her, what a new and thrilling adventure.

It would be political death to any politician to attack her abilities JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMEN!
("america is not ready for a woman..." type of poop!)
Hillary could slap down, very quickly all the other slams!

Just take a minute and taste it, just one minute run it around your mouth like a fine wine and TASTE it.... before everyone brings on the arguments of why not.

Just one minute clear your mind, take a deep breath and imagine...

posted really at 5:42AM Hawaii time

No wonder we all sleep so poorly!!!!

Posted by: tutterfly at July 27, 2005 11:39 AM

Yes tut...

And you forgot one thing: all LGBT folks (including Log Cabiners) screwed over by being in jail or executed.

At that point, Canada will be so swamped with asylum seekers that it won't be of much help anymore.

Posted by: Ira at July 27, 2005 09:21 AM

American Progress has this to say about the energy bill. It's on their site and is also sent via email to anyone who signs up. There's lots of good information on a daily basis delivered right to your email box...

Dropping the Ball On Energy

July 27, 2005

Legislators from both sides of the aisle agreed that our nation needed a good comprehensive energy bill. And after four years of negotiations, Congress reached an agreement on a bill. Unfortunately, despite all the negotiations, it's still a really bad bill. The bill agreed on by House and Senate negotiators doesn't do three key things a good energy bill would: reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, spend taxpayer dollars wisely and respect the environment. Even though this legislation is clearly lacking, it is expected to pass anyway; no surprise given that oil and utility companies have $367 million over the last two years lobbying Congress.

This energy bill is a big giveaway to the oil and utility industries and does nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. The final bill rejected a Senate provision that required the reduction of oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2015. The final legislation also dropped a provision that would have required utilities "to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020." In addition, the bill gave the electricity, coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil industries an $8.5 billion tax break and billions more in loan guarantees and other subsidies.

The environment takes a serious hit with this bill. The energy bill contains provisions that will wreak havoc on the environment, including loopholes in the Clean Water Act that allows industries to ignore regulations designed to limit erosion and runoff into rivers and streams. The bill also, like the Bush administration, ignores global warming. The final version "contains no substantive provisions to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming." The conferees even stripped out a Senate provision that acknowledged the threat of climate change.

There are two good things about this bill but it is not enough to make it good energy policy. The good news about the bill is that it does not include provisions that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to drilling (although Congressional leaders are still pursuing this through the filibuster-proof budget process) or shield companies that contaminate groundwater with the toxic chemical MTBE from legal liability. But America deserves more than an energy policy that just happens to excludes two regressive policies. Even with Arctic Refuge drilling and MTBE out, it's "a bill that only industry executives and lobbyists could love."

Check out the Talking Points site ==> http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=83210

tutter:

I agree with your post about the importance of '06 but your posts lately are rather dark.
I am just concerned about you.
Don't think that others couldn't have written you exact concerns with your list of the horrors of this Administration and I would ad the end of Affirmative Action, Title IX, open housing and the voting rights act, but again we need to keep our heads held high and positive thoughts that Yes We Will Prevail in '06, there is no other choice. I worry that the GOP is feeling that they have won and that we are disspirited. Let me remind you, we made it through Richard Nixon, "and this too will pass tutter."

Ira and others...we need a catchy way to sum up our goal of being energy independent in the next ten years. A slogan....

Posted by: Veritas at July 27, 2005 10:31 AM

Veritas,

My phrase: Let's Develop American Power.

developing American Power may include drilling in Anwr and twisted by those deisiring to destroy the Environment.
I think that energy independence needs to be linked to National Security and aversion to terrorism. something to the effect of Developing Energy Security in this Decade.
But I think that a call for a goal and a specific timetable like JFK linked to patriotism and civic responsibility which is nonexistant with this administration, would be a good idea. We need to reconnect with security moms.

Let me remind you, we made it through Richard Nixon, "and this too will pass tutter."

Posted by: Ira at July 27, 2005 11:52 AM

A quick poll I'd love to see on CNN, AOL, MSNBC...

Who's worse: Nixon or Bush?

Top White House staff, including Rove, get annual raises

by John Byrne

The top pay for senior White House aides, including Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Legislative Affairs Director Candida Wolff, mushroomed to $161,000 at the beginning of July, according to a list sent to Congress and obtained by National Journal, RAW STORY can reveal.

Democrats raised the issue on the Democratic Congressional Campaign website Wednesday morning. "Long live the era of personal responsibility!" they wrote. Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby both got raises; each has been questioned by a grand jury about their role in the outing of a covert CIA operative.

"The top salary, paid to 19 aides, is up $4,000 from last year, barely matching the annual inflation rate," penned National Journal reporter Alexis Simendinger. "At the low end of the pecking order, some young staff assistants and correspondence aides earn $30,000 for the honor of sitting on the fringes of history."

The Journal continues:

"Others among President Bush's highest paid advisers are Claude Allen, head of domestic policy; Counselor Dan Bartlett; Jack Crouch, deputy at the National Security Council; Nicolle Devenish, who succeeded Bartlett as head of communications; Michael Gerson, assistant for policy and strategic planning; Stephen Hadley, head of the NSC; Joe Hagin, deputy chief of staff; Al Hubbard, National Economic Council director; and Brett Kavanaugh, White House staff secretary."

"Also compensated as assistants to Bush are I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to the vice president; Scott McClellan, press secretary; William McGurn, chief speechwriter; Harriet Miers, White House counsel; Jim Towey, director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Fran Townsend, homeland security and counter-terrorism director; and Liza Wright, the new head of presidential personnel.

Bush's top paid advisers follow -- those making $161,000.

The full list is at The National Journal. By law, the White House is obliged to send a list to Congress each year for the salaries of their staff. The President's salary is $400,000.

more... http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Rove_gets_r_0727.html

having been in the streets of Austin Texas protesting Kent State and Cambodia and Agnew's hate speech I never thought that I would have to admit defarge that I am starting to feel that comparison would be a close call.But you have to admit that 1972 was a pretty chilling time for not just Progressives, but for the whole country. We survived 1972 b/c that is what this country is all about, surviving even the worst administrations and moving forward. I am not generally an optimistic but I am hoping that these dark years for Progressives will somehow make us stronger.

My phrase: Let's Develop American Power.

Posted by: oncall at July 27, 2005 11:53 AM

===========
My two cents:

American Power, Global Intelligence.

Pun intended:)