Clemons: Indictments Coming Tomorrow

Three indictments

1. Libby

2. Rove

3. Bolton

OT. OK I admit it.

BUT, with today's flap over The Onion's use of the Presidential Seal for its parody of the weekly Presidential address, there's a little tiny movement to get the Onion to sue the White House back...

...for using the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes.

BA-DA-BUMP!

1. Hadley

2. Bolton

3. Rove

4. Libby

...for using the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes.

BA-DA-BUMP!

Posted by: Fe at October 25, 2005 07:43 PM

Hey, wait a minute...

Maybe WE should sue Bush for using the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes?

Nikko at October 25, 2005 07:47 PM

LOL
Not to mention US1, local, state & federal security organizations, countless military bases & other safe venues...endless list

Cheney says:"never met Joe wilson and didn't know him." Yeh,umm,just like last year in the debates he didn't ever know or meet John Edwards. As Elizabeth Edwards walked across the stage and shook his hand he got caught with his pants down. Unbelievable Cheney!!

I wonder, might an indictment of Miss Run Amok be included?

& especially the countless federal employee hours BushCo has used to dig up dirt for use in character assassinations every time one of them is confronted with the consequences of Bush regime policies & decisions

08:04 PM post refers to list of things US citizens could sue Bush for

Maybe WE should sue Bush for using the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes?

Posted by: Nikko at October 25, 2005 07:47 PM

Maybe we should sue Boy George for using the Presidential Seal under false pretenses...

I think there will be five indictments

2 for Libby, obstruction, conspiracy

2 for rove, obstruction, conspiracy

1 for judy miller, conspiracy (her deal is no good since he caught her obstucting again on the stand)

Oh and I believe there will be ATLEAST two unidicted co conspirators, namely bush and cheney

Definitely Hadley;
Rove and Libby.

3.

Has everyone read this piece by Laura Rosen about the Italian - Hadley connection? The Italian paper La Republica is doing a series of articles on the Niger forgeries. Here's the link to Rosen's coverage of that series:

http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=10506

A couple of snips:

In an explosive series of articles appearing this week in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo report that Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy's military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002. Sismi had reported to the CIA on October 15, 2001, that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Niger, a report it also plied on British intelligence, creating an echo that the Niger forgeries themselves purported to amplify before they were exposed as a hoax.

Today's exclusive report in La Repubblica reveals that Pollari met secretly in Washington on September 9, 2002, with then–Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Their secret meeting came at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones confirmed the meeting to the Prospect on Tuesday.

snip

The Sismi chief's previously undisclosed meeting with Hadley, who was promoted earlier this year to national security adviser, occurred one month before a murky series of events culminated in the U.S. government obtaining copies of the Niger forgeries.

snip

What may be most significant to American observers, however, is the newspaper's allegation that the Italians sent the bogus intelligence about Niger and Iraq not only through traditional allied channels such as the CIA, but seemingly directly into the White House. That direct White House channel amplifies questions about a now-infamous 16-word reference to the Niger uranium in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address -- which remained in the speech despite warnings from the CIA and the State Department that the allegation was not substantiated.

snip

Following the exposure of the discredited Niger allegations in the summer of 2003 by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, White House officials at first sought to blame the CIA for the inclusion of the controversial "16 words" in the president's speech. Although then–National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Hadley eventually accepted some responsibility for the mistake, the White House undertook a covert campaign to discredit Wilson and exposed the CIA affiliation of his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson.

Yet if anyone knew who was actually responsible for the White House's trumpeting of the Niger claims, it would seem from the Repubblica report that Hadley did. He also knew that the CIA, which had initially rejected the Italian claims, was not to blame. Hadley's meeting with Pollari, at precisely the time when the Niger forgeries came into the possession of the U.S. government, may explain the seemingly hysterical White House overreaction to Wilson's article almost a year later.

snip

Although Berlusconi's government clearly sought deniability while pushing the Niger uranium claims, the Bush White House went still further by trying to blame its citation of exaggerated and discredited Iraq WMD claims on the CIA, the very same agency that consistently discounted the Niger claims. The White House's war on the CIA and on the Wilsons --the extent of which has been revealed in recent news reports emerging from the Fitzgerald investigation -- has always had an excessive and almost hysterical quality. Why was the White House so worked up over Wilson and the Niger hoax, when there was so much evidence that the administration had based its drive for war on claims that were so thoroughly discredited from top to bottom? Why did Wilson and his CIA wife become the primary targets, when Wilson was hardly alone in pointing out that the White House should have known better about the Niger claims?

News of the secret meeting between the Italian Sismi chief and the White House deputy national security adviser -- during the period when the White House was assembling its flawed case for war -- provides an important new piece of that puzzle.

----------------------

Boomers, you'll need your reading glasses!

OK - wild guess:

Cheney
Libby
Rove
Bolton
Fleischer

Its important to remember something about miller and Fitzgerald.

He STILL never has gotten what he wanted from her, she can't remember who the ORIGINAL source was. Yeah right.

She TOTALLY tried to play him even after her 85 days she went up there STILL thinking she was smarter than he. And Fitzgeral TOTALLY nailed her ass.

BUT YET she still left without telling him the truth.

THAT is why I say 1 for miller.

"...brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002."

That's the important bit. Not only did they get us into war, they tried to blame it on the CIA. It wasn't our intelligence agencies that had the problem, it was the White House. As Wilkerson said, this administration did not do things through established channels, and that's what got them into trouble.

Has everyone read Wilkerson's oped in the LA Times? Here's a link and snip:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilkerson25oct25,0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip

Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of Defense?
Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe that there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the national embarrassment of Watergate (and the first resignation of a president in our history), the Iran-Contra scandal and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush.

snip

It takes firm leadership to preside over the bureaucracy. But it also takes a willingness to listen to dissenting opinions. It requires leaders who can analyze, synthesize, ponder and decide. [Implied: Bush is not one of those leaders.]

snip

The administration's performance during its first four years would have been even worse without Powell's damage control. At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it. And he did — everything from a serious crisis with China when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was struck by a Chinese F-8 fighter jet in April 2001, to the secretary's constant reassurances to European leaders following the bitter breach in relations over the Iraq war. It wasn't enough, of course, but it helped.

Christy, you're right.
Miller.

Revised guess:

three people - Miller, Rove, Libby.
5 indictments

Hadley is the cause of it all. They were trying to protect his and Rice's reputations. Rice's office is the cause of the whole thing. Accepting the forgeries after the CIA continuously and consistently disagreed. Passing it to the president knowing that they had been completely discounted by the CIA. And then after the disaster of an illegal, unnecessary invasion, the administration tried to pin it on the CIA, put Porter Goss there to keep them quiet, and then promoted Rice.

Gotta love it!!

"We should be committed to understanding the awful loss that's happening in this war..." - Paul Fusco

Please take time to watch this extremely moving photo essay. We owe it to these soldiers and their families.

http://www.magnuminmotion.com/bitterfruit/intro.html from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/25/13244/408

Ohhh Happy Happy Happy Pie For Everyone!!!!!

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cefd360c-4598-11da-981b-00000e2511c8.html

Home from work & people have sent mind-blowing conspiracy theories
- Harriet Miers was an Israeli spy
- Rumsfeld owns the company that really makes
the vaccine for bird flu
- Bush sued Dept. of Justice and the suit has
been thrown out
- wierd speculation about McCain
I think I need a drink!

Anyway, 4 organizations all planning vigils locally tomorrow night

& a request to post this, from a local woman who is blocked from doing so by a corporate computer:

She writes:

"The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone," U.S. army Lt.-Col. Steve Boylan wrote in an e-mail to reporters, according to the Associated Press. "It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with
specific agendas and ulterior motives," Boylan said, before the Pentagon issued a statement on Tuesday saying that Army Staff Sgt. George Alexander had died in Texas on the weekend."

This statement really bothers me because the 10 that I have ties to is not artificial to me. This is the list.

The first one that died was the son of a friend I grew up with from 1st grade.

The second was a nephew of my junior prom date and a son of a girl I went to high school with

The third was the son of a college friend whom I tutored in Electronics

The fourth was a nephew of my girl friend

The fifth was a son of one of the guys I work with at Terminal Island Prison in California

The sixth was a kid who I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle, he was stationed at Fort Lewis and we spoke about him going to Iraq. He was a Kerry
supporter because he wanted a president who understood war. I told him I would pray for him.

The seventh was a kid of friends in Washington

The eighth was a friend of my cousin who was stationed in Iraq and did the same job my cousin did. My cousin shared his box that I sent with him.

The ninth was State Senator Becky Lourey of Minnesota, a friend, she lost her son

The tenth was the flower girl at our weddings' husband.

So as you can see to me they are not artificial deaths. Looking over the list the majority of them were Democrats.

I just got this message from my other friend which really bothers me and I don't know if there is anything we can do.

I sent her the website about the hearings on whether there were war crimes committed.

Ironic that you sent me that site. I just talked to a friend of mine. Her son is in military prison for turning in his officer for committing heinous acts. Others in his company committed suicide. What has are country come to when our military men and women are put to jail for standing up for basic human rights and justice?!

This is very distressing. Any ideas on how we could handle something like this? Take care! God Bless our soldiers and bring them home safely.

Posted by: Christy at October 25, 2005 10:07 PM

Joy is like the Rain

Have to revise my guess since it's identical to yours. You guessed yours first.

Here it is, my final answer:

Libby conspiracy and obstruction
Rove obstruction
Miller obstruction

3 people, 4 indictments

My guess

Fitzgerald will let them all off,
saying there wasn't enough
evidence

The blue states will riot

Happy Halloween!

By the way, check out this unscientific poll but with a huge "n" (courtesy James)

Which has most affected Bush's popularity?
Iraq war 92%
CIA leak 4%
Miers nomination 4%
Total Votes: 90,369
Note on Poll Results

Which of these issues concerns you most?
Iraq war 83%
CIA leak 9%
Miers nomination 8%
Total Votes: 90,263
Note on Poll Results

Her son is in military prison for turning in his officer for committing heinous acts. Others in his company committed suicide. What has are country come to when our military men and women are put to jail for standing up for basic human rights and justice?!

Posted by: DiAnne/& also RC at October 25, 2005 10:11 PM

The soldier jailed should write to both Fiengold and McCain. Aren't they the two who proposed the anti-torture bill? Here's one more reason why Bush should not veto it.

Amy
Thanks, I'll pass that on - seriously!!

DiAnne, the indictments are confirmed. The target letters have gone out, the indictments are submitted.

It's time for radical pacifism. I hope everyone here will take time to participate in a vigil tomorrow night. Three organizations are hosting them. You can find one nearest to you via these links.

American Family Services Committee: https://www.afsc.org/2000/secure/new_event.php
Resources for AFSC event, including petitions & placards: http://www.afsc.org/2000/resources.htm
MoveOn.org:
http://www.moveon.org/event/events/index.html?action_id=29&zip=60045&id=6199-195486-B9sqJa_qmiVrhgezCLCcdg&t=7
CodePink: http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=546

Also, look at these charts and see the trend. Below the charts are ideas people have to submitted to show how they are building awareness in others of this immoral & illegal war.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

Peace. Now.

DiAnne,
I tried again to email Andree, still no go. Rejected.
Haven't heard from her. Hmmm...

Posted by: madame defarge at October 25, 2005 10:24 PM

Certainly hope everyone here is attending a vigil if possible. Even a vigil of one is effective. I'll be in Vancouver, WA.

Radical Pacifism - I like that.

Amy
I emailed her & told her about that.
Her mother is visiting & she hasn't been on the computer much. The address I gave you should be write. Let me know if you want to call her or want me to = I have a way to do it very cheap.
We must take into account the 9 hour time difference.

OK - revising my list:

Cheney
Libby
Rove
Hadley
Miller

that's it. Good night folks! Have a holly, jolly Fitzmas!

Madame D

also http://www.democracyforamerica.com

(Vigil sponsor)

Amy
Whooptedoo!!

Rove will be frogmarched?!!
Libby looks bad
& the mystery guest .. ??

(you can tell I've been at work)

Amy
I will email Andree again right now.
It's 4 AM there so when you wake up she may have seen it. (If she can get near the computer & away from the stove!!) My guess is her server is overdiligent in spam blocking. It did that to me & for a long time we had to open special Yahoo accounts, to communicate.

DiAnne, I'm just going to go ahead and mail it to the address you gave me. Thanks.

DiAnne, we don't have any names! Maybe Rove weasled out of it, who knows?

Make your guesses and take your chances!

Amy
Use postcode 75017

Guantánamo prisoner wants judge to order feeding tube removed

07:59 PM CDT on Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Associated Press

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – A detainee on a hunger strike at the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay wants a judge to order the removal of his feeding tube so he can be allowed to die, one of his lawyers said Tuesday.

Fawzi al-Odah of Kuwait asked his lawyers during a meeting last week to file court papers seeking the removal of his feeding tube "out of desperation" over his imprisonment without charges, attorney Tom Wilner said.

"He is willing to take a stand if it will bring justice," Mr. Wilner said.

The lawyers have not filed the motion because they first want Mr. al-Odah to get the approval of his family and to consult with doctors and psychological specialists not affiliated with the U.S. government, Mr. Wilner said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/...

We are just back from a wonderful (and WARM) dinner with friends, including Cindy Sheehan and Ann Wright. Everyone was quite thoroughly frozen from standing outside all day in the nor-easter. Ann, Cindy, Gael, DeeDee, and a few others had done the die-in at 6:00 pm; by 6:05 when they stood up, the chill was at bone level!

But onward they went, until almost 8:00.

Ann talked about listening to Larry Wilkerson last Wednesday, just after she stood up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing Room while Condi Rice was stonewalling the Committee, and yelling, "STOP THE KILLING, DON'T LET THEM INVADE SYRIA!" She said she might have allowed herself to be arrrested, but she really wanted to hear and support Wilkerson.

It turned out that Larry Wilkerson was someone she had corresponded with by email just after she resigned from the State Department (on the eve of the Iraq invasion). She had gotten so many emails from fellow diplomats around the world in support of her speaking up that she gathered all the evidence in one long message and sent it off to the highest ranking official she could find.

That turned out to be Wilkerson. He did deliver the messages to Colin Powell, and last Wednesday, he told her that those messages had helped. At least Powell was told, and could not deny that he knew how many people felt about defending America's interests around the world when the policies were so destructive to any kind of diplomacy.

The kind of commitment to speaking truth, to putting one's beliefs on the line, in public, to simply looking the media right in the eye and saying "THIS is the truth"--well, it's simply inspiring.

I share it with all of you in the hope that tomorrow night EACH and EVERY one of us will be at least mildly uncomfortable as we stand outside with a prayer, a candle, a reading--and telling the truth as clearly as we possibly can, to as many people as we possibly can.

Read Christy's piece, or any other piece of your choosing. Tell ytour local media that we have been lied to. Speak to your neighbors about the indictments to come.

Get up, get out, start marching--our future is at stake here.

So there will be indictments, I am sure. I think these are short odds on Lewis Libby and Karl Rove. No doubt about that. I think there's a possibility that Steven Hadley, as a member of the White House Iraqi Group, could also be indicted. And I would be not be surprised, even though this would be a long shot, but if I'm playing with house money, Amy, and I'll make it your house money, I would say that Dick Cheney could be an un-indicted co-conspirator, because I think he was at the center of all of this.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Mel Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst, speaking to us from Washington, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, Director of the Center's National Security Project, author of Bush League Diplomacy.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/25/1412248

In inspiring comments, Karen, & can feel alot more from your words that can't be put in words. I'll be out with my camera!! (vigil)

Amy, I still can't hazard a guess - "sources" are leaking things to "blogs" - I need to see the whites of their eyes as they're frog-marched before I can believe this is actually going to pass.

"sources" - this is all so much gossip

Roll Call: Fitz met with Rove's lawyer today
by kos

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was spotted Tuesday at the law offices of Patton Boggs paying a visit to Robert Luskin, the eccentric (for Washington, D.C.) lawyer who represents Karl Rove.

Though HOH heard about the visit from a well-placed source, Luskin refused, if politely, to confirm why or even whether Fitzgerald visited him.

The rumor floating around Patton Boggs Tuesday was that there "may" be no indictments this week because Fitzgerald "may" need to seek an extension from the presiding judge to wrap up his investigation of Flamegate (or Plamegate for those of us who aren't Judy Miller).

An extension would be little wonder, given The New York Times' whopper revelation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby first heard about the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame not from journalists, as he initially claimed, but from his boss, Vice President Cheney. Of course, anything would be little wonder at this point.

Sources, by the way, report that Rove himself was spotted visiting his lawyer on Friday.
Rumors, rumors, rumors. It's fun to traffic in them, so long as we remember that they are all just rumors.

See also:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Roll_Call_Fitzgerald_visited_Roves_attorney_1025.html

I say,

Rove-
Libby-
Miller-
Hadley-

GWB and DC as inindicted co-conspirators. I also believe they will file papers to extend the investigation into Cheney and Bush and the nigerian forgeries, as well as the information of the DSM.

Sparrow
From what I'm reading that sounds plausible!
I'll go with it, I guess.
Still just amazing .. why couldn't this have happened 2 years ago?!!
Maybe it's good America sees these people for what they are (even if gradually)
I still wish too that we'd learned more from Vietnam & from Watergate

check out this sign:
http://www.radiofreenashville.net/images/tried2tellyou.jpg

Native -
I love it! Too funny!

Did you see this? Thought this was interesting…..

Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Posted: 6:52 p.m. EDT (22:52 GMT)
(CNN) — A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9820159/

Conservative group launches anti-Miers ad blitz

"WASHINGTON - A conservative group opposing Harriet Miers bought $250,000 of television and radio time Tuesday to broadcast an advertisement nationwide calling for President Bush to withdraw his nominee for the Supreme Court."

Ads are their answer to everything. It's part of that shouting thing, I guess. Delay also took out ads ("freinds of Delay") attacking the prosecutor.

The Attack Party. Smear, smear, smear. Even when it's their own.

Don't get their way, attack, smear.

Ho-hum.

If Rove, Libby & Cheney got handed indictments it would indeed be a MERRY Fitzmas. But I'd settle for Rove and Libby and some minor admin players for good measure too. Anything that helps to reveal these clowns for the scoundrel they are would be fine me.

Twas the nite before Fitzmas.....With visions of indictments dancing in our heads.

watching them eat thier own is morbidly fascinating.

pass the popcorn.

NT$K - fabulous!

Just sent it to all my Dem friends - "A little something to share with friends and family on this festive occasion. Merry Fitzmas!"

Popcorn on it's way.

It's also hilarious watching the neocon mouthpieces struggling on air.

Do they think the American people are not only stupid but not even educable? We were sold this war by threat of nuclear attack on America. Forget this crap about bringing democracy - let's bring democracy to Iran and North Korea!!

Posted by: florida dem at October 25, 2005 11:52 PM

One big reason why the prop media lied for 4 years!

This year the destruction and incompetence from Katrina swung the soccer moms back from the edge.

But take my word for it...the hardcore neoCONS still exist out there! I'm seeing them every night on my canvassing.

Florida,
Isn't that what the polls said just before the election?

Do you mean to tell me that only 55% of Americans would take a Dem over these incompetent criminals?

It's getting difficult to keep track of all the lies. Here's some fun: Arianna's cheat sheet:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/plamegate-worse-than-wat_b_9522.html

We now know that Cheney lied to the American people about his involvement in the effort to smear Joe Wilson.
snip
We now know that Karl Rove lied about his involvement, too.
snip
We now know that Scooter Libby also lied about his involvement.
snip
And we now know that Rove and Libby also lied to Scott McClellan, who then -- knowingly or not -- lied to reporters about the two men's involvement.

Great read.

Posted by: sparrow at October 26, 2005 12:08 AM

I was talking to a hardcore neocon today. She lamented (speaking of Miers) "Even his own party is turning against the President."

Then we had a little current events lesson.

Libby
Hadley
Miller

I'm in with

Libby
Rove
Cheney
Hadley

Charges for Libby are perjury, obstruction of justice, and violation of the Espionage Act.

Charges for Rove are obstruction of justice, and violation of the Espionage Act.

Charges for Cheney is making false statements and obstruction of justice.

Charges for Hadley would be violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction, making false statements.

And I wonder if there isn't maybe a little conspiracy charge in there for all of them.

No charges for Miller. No charges for Condi. Bush not mentioned as unindicted co-conspirator.

Hannah and Wurmser have plea agreements in place.

And it's possible that by sealing the indictments, Fitzgerald is giving some people a little time to make plea deals, thereby dropping the indictments against them and we will never know what he had on them. Entirely possible.

Feeling pretty confident about tomorrow's possibilities, I spent some time hunting down the Iraq resolution votes and some of the comments from Dems during that time, thinking I'd find some great "we told you so" lines to use on my republican friends after the indictments hit the news.

To my shock and dismay, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, even Kennedy, Lieberman, Daschle and others not only voted with the president on this, but actually all made many public statements in support of the shoot first policy that Bush was proposing. Kerry was inconsistent, contradicting himself on a number of occasions. Daschle said "there is no opposition party" and Edwards warned of "capitol hill" interfering in national security... I won't go into what Clinton said, it's so distressing... There are others. Edwards was the worst. It was all so disheartening... I read all about the perceived political expediency of the stated positions of what I dub the DCB - Democrats Cheering for Bush.

The House did better than the senate - thank goodness for some of our good people there. Alas, they are for the most part not the better-known dems.

I also read articles written over the last several years, bemoaning the demise, sell-out and impotence of the Democratic party on a number of fronts. Line after line of Dems alining themselves with the pre-emptive war effort, corporate interests over workers', the diminishing of our privacy rights. It was depressing.

Somehow, in the frenzy to toss Bush out of office in 04, the acquiescence of these guys when America most needed them to stand up must have slipped my mind. Tonight, the truth has come crashing down upon me. What have I been thinking?

No American in congress should ever have voted for a "shoot first" foreign policy. Such a policy is unconstitutional. I shudder to think how militarily diminished we now are as a result of this war, and it has netted us nothing. On the contrary, it has damaged and even destroyed long established alliances with peaceful nations, and emboldened those we sought to conquer. And it can only worsen.

What a way to spend Fitzmas Eve.

Cross posted on Kos

--------------
Here is a list of Dem Senators who voted against the iraq resolution in the senate:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Let's take time tomorrow before our vigils to send an email thanking our own senators on the list for the diligence they bring to their job.

Correction, although Kennedy did make public statements early on in qualified support of the resolution, in the end he voted against it.

The Dem list of anti-Iraq resolution votes in the House:

Abercrombie Hinchey Oberstar
Allen Hinojosa Obey
Baca Holt Olver
Baird Honda Owens
Baldacci Hooley Pallone
Baldwin Pastor
Barrett
Becerra Inslee Payne
Blumenauer Jackson(IL) Pelosi
Bonior Jackson-Lee(TX) Price(NC)
Brady(PA) Johnson, E. Rangel
Brown(OH) Kaptur Reyes
Capps Kildee Rivers
Capuano Kilpatrick Rodriguez
Cardin Kleczka Roybal-Allard
Carson(IN) Kucinich Rush
Clay LaFalce Sabo
Clayton Langevin Sanchez
Clyburn Larsen(WA)
Condit Larson(CT) Sawyer
Conyers Schakowsky
Costello Lee Scott
Coyne Levin Serrano
Cummings Lewis(GA) Slaughter
Davis(CA) Lipinski Snyder
Davis(IL) Lofgren Solis
DeFazio Maloney(CT) Stark
DeGette Matsui Strickland
Delahunt McCarthy MO) Stupak
DeLauro McCollum Thompson(CA)
Dingell McDermott Thompson(MS)
Doggett McGovern Tierney
Doyle McKinney Towns
Meek (FL) Udall (CO)
Eshoo Meeks (NY) Udall (NM)
Evans Menendez Velazquez
Farr Millender-McDonald Visclosky
Fattah Miller, George Waters
Filner Mollohan Watson(CA)
Frank Moran(VA) Watt(NC)
Gonzalez Woolsey
Gutierrez Nadler Wu
Hastings(FL) Napolitano
Hilliard Neal

Bush is just nowhere-- Certainly not with us but also not with them... listen to blame-shift on the Bush deficit:

"Congress needs to get this message: that we will be wise with the taxpayers' money. If a program doesn't work we ought to eliminate it. If a program doesn't make sense we ought to do away with it"

I'm going to paste in the article because here we are, almost a year after the "mandate". He's at a Republican dinner expected to raise a million dollars announcing to the world how pitiful & weak his regime is in truth :

Bush tells Republicans he'll get tough on spending [[Really I will]]
http://tinyurl.com/c3p2n

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, seeking to counter his image among conservatives as a big spender, promised on Tuesday to slash wasteful programs and make sure hurricane recovery aid is allocated wisely.

In a speech on the day the U.S. military death toll in Iraq reached 2,000, Bush touted his agenda of making his tax cuts permanent and staying the course in Iraq as he tried to mend rifts in his base and ease concerns about scandals swirling around the White House and Republican congressional leaders.

Bush gave no specifics on where he would seek budget cuts, saying Congress had made a "nice start" in trying to rein in costs and added, "there's more we can do."

"This economy is strong and we need to make sure we don't foul it up here in Washington D.C. by spending too much of your money," Bush said.

The Republican National Committee dinner, for Republican Eagles, or donors who raise at least $15,000 a year, was expected to raise more than $1 million.

"Congress needs to get this message: that we will be wise with the taxpayers' money. If a program doesn't work we ought to eliminate it. If a program doesn't make sense we ought to do away with it," he added.

House of Representatives and Senate Republicans have been struggling to work out their differences over spending reductions to help pay for $62.3 billion in emergency aid for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

SPENDING BUILDUP
Bush has said the government would assume the bulk of the rebuilding costs for the ravaged Gulf Coast. He said at the fundraiser he was confident that could be done while being "wise" with taxpayer dollars.

Fiscal conservatives in Bush's party are upset that he has allowed a big buildup in spending to accompany his tax cuts, a combination that has caused budget deficits to soar.

Bush's other political woes include the probe into the leaking of a covert CIA operative's identity. That investigation appears to be reaching a crucial point, with speculation rife that senior White House aides may face indictments as soon as Wednesday.

Republicans also have been buffeted by the indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay on campaign finance charges, which forced him to temporarily step aside as House Republican leader, and by a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist over a stock sale.

In addition to the spending buildup, a number of conservatives are angry over Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Many saw the pick as a lost opportunity for Bush to fulfill a campaign pledge to appoint conservatives in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Bush also pushed the troubled Miers nomination, saying his longtime friend would bring the court a "fresh perspective."

But the president continued to balk at releasing documents sought by senators over Miers' work as White House counsel.

"Asking for those documents is a red line, as far as I'm concerned, in protecting the White House and the ability to operate," he said.

An Open Letter to Tom Daschle
Dear Majority Leader Daschle:

I do not support George W. Bush's attempts to drag the United States into an unnecessary war with Iraq, and urge you to oppose any resolution giving him any latitude whatsoever to wage a unilateral, pre-emptive campaign in order to remove Saddam Hussein -- who has not been credibly linked to the events of September 11th, which should be the sole basis for any current United States military action.

While Hussein is clearly dangerous, he is no more a danger to the human community than, for instance, the leaders of at least one of our trading partners, the Chinese – who continue their occupation of Tibet, their persecution of the Falun Gong and other religious groups, their employment of slave labor, their threats against Taiwan, and who already own weapons of mass destruction. The double standard being employed here in regard to Hussein is obvious, and will assuredly be perceived by the Arab Street as an example of American military power being used in a hypocritical, and very selective, way. And because they know that they cannot defeat us in a direct military engagement, anyone who wants to oppose the imposition of American hegemony over the Middle East will instead choose the terrorism card – and we will see more, rather than fewer, September 11ths as a result of this proposed war. Hence, Bush's dubious adventure in Iraq, even if it costs us few lives at the outset, will doubtless cost many American civilian lives later on, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars in terms of destroyed property, higher insurance costs and lost revenues.

Democrats and Progressives voted overwhelmingly to keep Dubya out of the position where he could make the kind of decisions that would threaten our values and way of life. Due to a glitch in the voting process in Florida, he became our president, even though Mr. Gore had greater popular support. While Bush may have the constitutional right to serve as President, he has no political mandate whatsoever to turn the United States into what will obviously be perceived by the world as an aggressor nation – especially when it is crystal clear that we only look to attack nations we can easily defeat, while conveniently looking the other way when our economic interests dictate it. Such cynical decision making is as transparent on the world stage as the emperor without his clothing, and will cost us dearly in the years to come. And the blood of those who perish later will be on the hands of the Senators and Congressmen who sat quietly, or played politics, and allowed Dubya to pursue his unhealthy obsession with Saddam. I strongly supported the war against the Taliban and liberation of Afghanistan, and I continue to support the war on terror. I would even support a U.S. led, United Nations effort to remove Hussein in the event that he does not satisfy the standing U.N. resolutions. But I absolutely do not support Bush's proposed unilateral adventure in Iraq, and urge Democrats to rise from their stupor and once again represent an emotionally-conscious, intelligent, loyal, political opposition. Like Mr. Bush, I'm all for a regime change, but the regime I want changed is his.

Matthew Carnicelli, © 2002. All rights reserved.

http://www.hpleft.com/0917P1.html

Driving While Intoxicated
In a sense, the president or prime minister of any country can be thought of as the driver of the vehicle of State. While Congresses and Parliaments certainly have their say as to the direction of a country, the president or prime minister must be said to be at the wheel. Here in the United States, we consider Driving While Intoxicated (or DWI, as it is more commonly known) a serious offense.

The rationale behind our distaste for DWI is sensible. For instance, one of the key arguments behind DWI laws is that an intoxicated driver is likely to be overconfident in his or her ability to navigate the perils presented by the road they are traveling, or overestimate their ability to respond to the actions of other drivers with whom they share the highway – and in doing so, recklessly endanger the lives, health, and property of others. In this intoxicated state, they are unlikely to drive defensively – which most reasonable observers suggest is the best way to guarantee a safe and successful trip for everyone. It is also fair to argue that DWI can represent a serious character issue, since only a profoundly selfish person would even risk endangering the lives of others by getting behind the wheel while intoxicated. And we also know that most drivers who are arrested for DWI have driven in this condition many times before getting caught. And some will continue to do so afterwards until they are either caught again (and again), or kill themselves. On the other hand, an emotionally intelligent person will opt for calling a cab, or having a designated driver, or even sleeping it off in the back of their car.

The Bush-Cheney administration may well be the first “all-DWI” presidency in history. Both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have arrests on their records for “Driving While Intoxicated” – Cheney twice, during the years when (to use his own words) he had priorities other than military service, and Bush once (at least that we know about, since virtually all information about Dubya's party animal years appear to have vanished like chemical weapons plants in Iraq). We could dismiss both men's criminal records as mere youthful indiscretions. Let me suggest, however, that their performance at the wheel of the United States since 9/11, and specifically in regard to Saddam Hussein, suggest that their DWIs were more a product of an ongoing pattern of reckless, unconscious, emotionally dangerous behavior, than either a product of youthful inexperience or short-term intoxication.

Intoxicated Leader
Let me go on record by stating that the world would be a far better place if Saddam Hussein woke up tomorrow, slipped in the shower, and suffered a fatal injury; or if one of his generals put a bullet into the back of his head. Let me also say that had Bush, in the aftermath of 9/11, and the extraordinary outpouring of world support for this country, gone to the U.N. and soberly and respectfully asked for the support of the international community in solving the problem of dictators and rogue nations, I would be completely supportive of this effort to remove Hussein. But this driver of the vehicle of state didn't act in such a sober and emotionally conscious fashion. Both he any Cheney began by beating the drums for war, talking about regime change in Iraq (as if 9/11 gave the United States license to act unilaterally anywhere in the world) before even considering going to the U.N., and then introducing a profoundly dangerous shift in philosophy vis-à-vis the doctrine of preemption. As it turns out, this doctrine of preemption is one that worries both observers on the left like myself, but also serious thinkers on the right. For instance, once America uses it, what's to prevent the mainland Chinese from manufacturing a terrorist incident or two, and using it as a rationale for an invasion of Taiwan? What does the U.S. do then? Surely, this overt shift to preemption should have been debated in the Congress, or at least as part of a previous election cycle (like the 2000 Presidential cycle) before becoming the official policy of the United States. In fact, during the 2000 campaign, Bush critiqued the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration as being arrogant. Talk about your pot calling the kettle black.

There's a saying that we've all heard that carries more than a grain of truth. “First impressions are everything.” Granted, in real life, first impressions can be misleading – but they often do color our perception of what comes later. In the aftermath of 9/11, when the world finally began to pay attention to Dubya, the first impression of international community was anything but positive. In comparison, New York City's Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was able to rise to the occasion and demonstrate an impressive measure of self-possession and emotional equilibrium in the aftermath of the most horrific attack ever experienced on American soil. Dubya, on the other hand, resorted to quaint cowboy illusions like “Wanted Dead or Alive” or David Frum's hollow “Axis of Evil” phrase. When both he and Cheney later begin to beat the drums for regime change in Iraq, not disarmament, boasting about how they would go it alone if necessary, they began the process of savaging the great achievement of his father's presidency, the idea of a “new world order.”

Echoes of Adolph
We are now told that Bush's approach was meant to be an attempt at “coercion diplomacy”. But to the “old” nations of Europe, particularly France and Germany, this coercion diplomacy (where a leader threatens military action unless a decision about the status of a third country is made in his favor) must have evoked echoes of Hitler's approach to settling supposed claims in regard to the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, or the Anschluss of Austria. Of course, one is not allowed to compare Bush to Hitler, even if the confrontational, gun-to-the-head style is more than vaguely similar – and a German minister who had the temerity to publicly make such a comparison eventually was removed from office.

Now, let me be clear that I am not saying that Bush shares Hitler's despicable goals or ideals -- as were some of the protesters in anti-war demonstrations around the world. But, I am suggesting that Bush may prove to posses a vaguely comparable degree of arrogance, recklessness, and overconfidence -- particularly in regard to his style of dealing with the international community, and in his role as Commander-in-Chief. Consider this comparison. The United States is already heavily involved in military activities in South Korea, Afghanistan and Bosnia - and in the grip of a serious economic downturn. By June of 1941, Hitler was master of all of Europe - and hence was militarily engaged everywhere on the continent. Yet, Hitler still felt so sure of himself and his destiny that he was willing to: 1) invade the Soviet Union; 2) in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, declare war against the United States. Talk about being an overconfident, reckless, power-intoxicated driver in the name of a truly evil ideology.

It is often said that “all politics are local,” and in the hearts and minds of Europeans whose parents and grandparents lived through two World Wars, and destruction and atrocities that make 9/11 seem trivial, I can readily imagine that this analogy is not lost on them. And, to repeat, I am not implying that Bush's geopolitical goals are even vaguely comparable to Hitler's. But I am very specifically suggesting that the emotional impact of his approach is comparable, and it is having an obvious deleterious impact on the citizens of Europe. Even in countries where governments have signed up to be part of our “coalition of the willing”, public sentiment is strongly anti-war. This is simply not the way to build a coalition, remove a dictator, must less triumph in a war against terrorism. You may think be thinking “thank God that Hitler was so incredibly arrogant as to invade the Soviet Union and declare war on the United States.” I agree, for had he been an even vaguely prudent military commander, removing him from Europe might have been infinitely more difficult and bloody. But, in my humble opinion, that's the point of reference from which we need to view Bush's reckless approach to combating terrorism. The last thing that this intensely patriotic American wants is to see is the United States foolishly exhaust its political, economic and spiritual capital on a poorly-conceived, ill-advised, incredibly divisive military adventure – that will doubtless, at least in the near-term, spawn more, rather than less, terrorism.

Giving Bin Laden Talking Points
We mustn't underestimate the terrorism angle, and the impact of Bush's bluster on the “Islamic Street”. At the heart of Osama Bin Laden's Islamic critique of the West is a resentment of our power, our influence, our economic wealth, our support for repressive Arab regimes, and a sense shared throughout the Muslim world, as Thomas Friedman has written about in the New York Times, that we will do just about anything to enable our addiction to Petroleum. Bush's bully-boy approach to strong-arming the world community into a war that they don't feel is yet warranted plays right into the powerlessness that nurtures Arab terrorism. Bush is, in an absolutely material way, giving Bin Laden and his associates “talking points” for future al Queda enrollment, and hence the future murder of Americans. And he is demonstrating that any Arab state or group that wishes to challenge American hegemony in the area will never be able to oppose an American military, even if their cause happens to be legitimate -- and thus have no recourse but to resort to terrorism.

Why Now?
Why does this war need to happen NOW, especially considering the fact that Hussein clearly poses no threat to the world at the present time? One obvious reason is that Bush, by building up American forces in the region, has prematurely, and recklessly, depressed the accelerator pedal to a point where we are heading down the highway at a speed where a collision with Hussein is imminent, and probably cannot be avoided, regardless of whether more sober, saner heads in the Senate like Richard Luger or Chuck Hagel, or conservative commentators like Robert Novak or John McLaughlin, openly question if this war, at this time, is in the best interests of the United States. That Bush and Cheney, two leaders who themselves never fired a weapon in combat, or even put themselves in a position where they might face lethal force from an enemy, would propose to so aggressively, and without any immediate threat, project American power around the world is a phenomenon that deserves the highest degree of psychological and spiritual inquiry. Seen in the context of Karl Rove's remark that “we can go to the country on this issue”, and the shameful attack on decorated Vietnam War veteran Max Cleland in the recent mid-term election (in which Cleland was pictured side-by-side with Bin Laden), one begins to wonder if these reckless, power-drunk ideologues will stoop to any level to retain their grip on events – regardless of the potential long-term impact on their country. In light of Rove's remark, and the thrust of the recent mid-term elections, every American would also do well to ruthlessly consider the Bush Administrations political motives in pursuing this particular war AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT, with a faltering domestic economy, and the onset of the next Presidential campaign less than a year away.

Bush Contra Greenspan
As a further illustration of Bush's recklessness, we need only consider his proposed changes to the tax code. As credible a capitalist voice as Alan Greenspan has recently stated that he feels that Bush's proposed stimulus package is both excessive, and if unsuccessful, likely to lead the nation into an economic crisis later on – due to the risk of ever expanding deficits. He has been joined in this critique by more than a few GOP moderates in the Senate. Bush's response is to re-paint the rosy scenario, and talk about the unfairness of double taxation on dividends, etc – while never even acknowledging the wisdom of those who argue that the prospect of expanding deficits at the precise moment when the baby-boomers are beginning to retire, thus setting off the Social Security/Medicare Trust Fund time bombs, is as dangerous to the security of this country as any challenge the nation faces militarily. Airman Bush is, of course, supremely confident that he is right, just as a former World War I Corporal was supremely confident that Operation Barbarossa would vanquish the Soviet Union in short order.

Burning Down the Forest to Save a Single Tree
The nation and the world stand at an important crossroad. The great contribution of Bush I, the “new world order”, the idea of collective security and international unity in the face of aggression, hangs by a thread. There should be no doubt that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that he is hiding. There is no question that Hussein needs to be contained. The only questions are those of how, and when, and whether a single nation should ever be arrogant enough to dictate to everyone else the details of when this will occur.

In a very real sense, Hussein is already adequately contained - particularly with one of the most heavily armed militaries in the world, that of the State of Israel, in his back yard. A more muscular inspection regime is likely to dramatically narrow his ability to cheat, and eventually, in time, find enough of the weapons to effectively prevent Iraq from once again becoming a menace to the region. Even the CIA suggests that a military invasion of Iraq is more likely to encourage Hussein to give his surviving WMDs to terrorists, and hence, likely to usher in a era of greater danger to Western Europe and the United States in the aftermath of a Gulf War II.

In the end, it is clear that the French position is the most sensible -- even if they have adopted it to thwart American hegemony in the world, and assert their own claim to leadership. It doesn't matter how you stumbled on to the truth, only that you found it. There needs to be more time for the inspectors to find the weapons - not because Hussein deserves any quarter at all, but because the United States and its allies need the time to better develop their defenses in the war on terrorism, to try once again to create a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and to attend to the much more urgent challenge that North Korea poses today. But our driver and his team of ideologically drunk revelers believe that they know better than anyone else whether they are sober enough to navigate the treacherous road ahead. They are confident that they can handle the inevitable reprisals among the Kurds, Shia and the Sunni - which will have profound implications for United States relations with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, an emerging democracy in Iran, Pakistan, to name only a few nations in play at the moment. They are equally certain that they will prevent Hussein from destroying his oil fields - and hence drive the price of oil even higher, further damaging the U.S. economy. They're sure that they can do what Ariel Sharon cannot - that is, use the sword to win a war of ideas, where young men and women with nothing to live for willingly sacrifice their lives for the promise of an eternity in paradise - and protect the most open society in the world from increasing, and ever more devastating, terrorism. I'm sure that they think they can, just as the drunk driver who slaughters some mother's child thought he or she could handle the ride home that night – even though everyone else in the bar that night told them to sleep it off, call a cab, or let someone else drive them home. But the drunk didn't listen, and neither is the Bush administration listening to anyone in the world community, or in this country, who happen to disagree with them. Based on both Dubya's and Cheney's history, and ultimately their character, I guess that we shouldn't be surprised.

Matthew Carnicelli, © 2003. All rights reserved.

Originally published February 15, 2003.

http://www.hpleft.com/021503E1.html

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at October 26, 2005 09:35 AM

Excellent article!

Posted by: spinnaker at October 26, 2005 01:31 AM

I think Miller will have one perjury charge based on the information she withheld from the note that was suddenly "found."