Vets Challenge Bush at White House

Did Fitz meet with Bush's personal lawyer?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/did-fitz-meet-with-bushs_b_9793.html

Sojourners has a petition to demand the truth. Please sign it and pass it.

http://go.sojo.net/campaign/demand_truth?rk=57%5fo4rY1PXdxE

Saddam accepted UAE exile plan to avert Iraq war-TV

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-28T211859Z_01_FOR876714_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SADDAM-EXILE.xml&archived=False

Trace the leak:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/retro_libby0510.html?mod=special_coverage

A must read!

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/29/20254/872

Great piece about Fitzgerald's press conference and what it did and didn't say, by David Corn at HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-corn/a-grave-indictment-but-g_b_9737.html

snip

by: Amy at October 29, 2005 09:02 PM

Hi Amy...

Long time no see.

Thanks for the huffpo link.

Posted by: Amy at October 29, 2005 09:02 PM

Sadly, that piece doesn't give indications of more to come.

And even more sadly, if a report isn't written, then we will never know what he learned...even if unindicted, don't we have a right to know if our gov't routinely deceives us?

I just read in a post by a rightie that the 2 year statute of limitations has passed and that's why Fitz couldn't indict anyone on the actual outing. If true, we have Judy Miller to thank for it - Fitz said he would have been finished last October had it not been for her. We might have won the election.

No wonder Scooter left her sitting in jail so long.

They're always one step ahead of us. Ira? Could this be true?

sparrow- I'm anxious to read that report too, but I do understand why Fitzgerald won't be writing it. What we don't want to have happen is for him to write a report, release it to the news media,and have Libby's lawyers argue that it predjudiced the jury pool. We also don't want any kind of congressional investigation here, for basically the same reason. Fitzgerald was very careful to hid Rove's identity- much more careful than he was when he said the V.P., the press secretary, etc. That tells me that he's not particularly concerned that he may someday return an indictment against Cheney or Ari Fleischer- but he is concerned about naming Rove, or even Rove's position, in the indictment. Once that was read in public yesterday, any implication of a crime having committed by Rove could be used in the defense's arguments- again, prejudicing a jury pool.
I'm hopeful that's what not naming Rove yesterday was about- I really do think it is.

Linda,

I read that naming of Cheney and Ari differently. IMO, he just put them both on notice, not let them off the hook.

Anyway, here's another article to see.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4210

Here Linda...this better explains my thinking...from the booman:

"Under the applicable federal rule, indictments are only required to be a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” The rule goes further to say indictments “need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion.”
The Libby indictment goes considerably beyond what the rule requires, or even envisions. It is what's called, in courthouse vernacular, a “speaking indictment.” The purpose of a “speaking” filing, in any court proceeding, is to show the other side some of the stronger cards you're holding in your hand, and this indictment is no exception.

The first 25 paragraphs of the indictment take great pains to lay out a factual scenario, replete with the identity (if not by name then by title) of the entire cast of characters, which, when carefully parsed, seems to set out the elements of at least one of the underlying classified information crimes, if not both. For example, the indictment indicates that the White House was well aware than Valerie Plame was a covert operative. Paragraph 9 states:

Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Anyone with knowledge of the CIA's organizational chart (but particularly Cheney and Libby) knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are), and not where the more benign employees (e.g., analysts) are assigned. The indictment also makes it clear that Plame's status at the CIA was classified, and that disclosure of such status could jeopardize national security."

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/29/20254/872

Because I feel like it:

http://gratefuldread.net/archives/timerove.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/131/5071/640/karlrove.jpg

Remember when Colin Powell used the F word with regard to the neocons?!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1302834,00.html

DiAnne,

Neither one of those last two came up.

Truth Shall Prevail

One comes up on my machine now, one doesn't, but anyway - in one, Rove is on the cover of Time Magazine but with a big X across him, and in ther other, Rove is green. Nice for Halloween.

& here is a really good history & explanation of the neocon movement. It was a good refresher & I learned some things. You can see the patterns over time & how W has been their patsy & pawn rather than vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

WaPo: Bush approval falls to 39%; Clinton seen as more ethical

Here's the link---> http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (also see kos.com)

"In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office."

"Taken together, the findings represent a serious blow to a White House already reeling from the politically damaging effects of the slow government response to Hurricane Katrina, the continuing bloodshed in Iraq, the ongoing criticism of its since-repudiated claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the bungled nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court."

"The ethics findings may be particularly upsetting to a president who came to office in 2000 vowing to restore integrity and honor to a White House that he said had been tainted by the recurring scandals of the Clinton years."

& here's Clinton with ideas on how to take back America:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5379364,00.html

Americans Give Congress Poor Marks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5379264,00.html

Special Report: Bush Faces His Watergate
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article323311.ece

Thanks, DiAnne,

Well, I guess tonight is the night we fall back for daylight savings time.

Thanks alot for the neocon link.

Bush lauds constitution vote
In his radio address, Bush said Iraq had passed an important milestone with the certification of passage of its new constitution.

"Three years ago, when Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron grip, the prospect of Iraqis voting on a democratic constitution would have been unthinkable," he said.

"Now, the Iraqi people have shown that individual rights and rule by the people are universal principles, and that these principles can become the basis for free and decent governments throughout the Middle East."

Bush said Iraqi voters had refused to surrender to intimidation and had risked their lives for liberty.

"Our security at home is directly linked to a Middle East that grows in freedom and peace. The success of the new Iraqi government is critical to winning the war on terror and protecting the American people. Ensuring that success will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve, and it will involve more risk for Iraqis and for American and coalition forces."

"The progress we have made so far has involved great sacrifice. The greatest burden has fallen on our military families. We've lost some of our nation's finest men and women in the war on terror," the president said.

Question: What is this "sacrifice" that Bush is referencing in his remarks? I've not heard him ask the American people to sacrifice a thing in support of the war (personal freedoms aside)...

If he is asking for permission to sacrifice more soldiers, than the answer is NO.

Otherwise, what sacrifices have been asked of the citizens?

Really, I wanna know.

Haven't read it yet, but love the headline:

How Dubya lost his swagger
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/360664p-307263c.html

Aimzzz

You'll love "The White House: Darkness Descending" - from Jamaica

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20051029T210000-0500_91373_OBS_THE_WHITE_HOUSE__DARKNESS_DESCENDING.asp

"Trail to the Chief: Will Crisis Sink Bush" - from Scotland

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=2167662005

"Bush Administration As Dangerous Now As Before: - from Canadda

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1130622380125&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

These people are not required to be prissy "White House Correspondants"

Last week, Seattle Post-Intelligencer had huge dark headlines of the size reserved for 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

2000

Then yesterday, same size

DARK DAYS

(& they didn't mean daylight savings)

I'm having so much fun this morning.

I read a "satirical" article by a conservative writer from the St. Louis Dispatch in which he was talking about how all the liberals would develop conspiracy theories in which Bush was blamed for everything.

I emailed him that truth will be stranger than conspiracy, that the neocons will look scarier without their costumes and out of the shadows, that fundamentalists don't believe in evolution so they should thus be immune from bird flu, and that one thing was really a hoax - the toppling of the Saddam statue (there are overhead shots & witnesses).

Then I read a proBush article by Jennifer Loven, about how he will recover nicely. It had alot of uncritical citations of Grover Norquist. I had a hard time finding her email address and never did, in fact. It seems she used to write more liberal articles and lately has been assigned to the Bush beat and appears to have drunk some of the Koolaid.

So I wrote to info@ap & asked why she was being assigned to write all the proBush articles? Was she being punished?

The fun part is to see if you get answers. Of course, now I know that if you're important and busy you can do what you want (such as lie in front of a grand jury) - at least that's what is coming out of the White House.

I have my answer. She is a White House Correspondent. If she doesn't write nice things she can't come back.

Here they all are. Keep a watch on them. There see to be more Judith Millers than Helen Thomases nowdays.

ABC
Ann Compton
Terry Moran
Jessica Yellin

Agence France Presse
Jean-Louis Doublet
Olivier Knox

American Urban Radio Networks
April Ryan

Associated Press
Terence Hunt
Jennifer Loven
Nedra Pickler
Deb Riechmann
Mark Smith (Radio)

Bloomberg
Richard Keil
Holly Rosenkrantz
Roger Runningen

Bureau of National Affairs
Nancy Ognanovich

Business Week
Richard S. Dunham

CBS
Mark Knoller (Radio)
Peter Maer (Radio)
Bill Plante
John Roberts

Chicago Tribune
Mark Silva

Christian Broadcasting Network
Melissa Charbonneau

Christian Science Monitor
Linda Feldmann

Copley News Service
George E. Condon Jr.
Finlay Lewis

Cox News Service
Bob Deans
Ken Herman

CNN
Dana Bash
Ed Henry
Elaine Quijano
Suzanne Malveaux: Bio

Dallas Morning News
G. Robert Hillman
David Jackson

Dow Jones Newswires
Alex Keto

Financial Times
James Harding

Fox News
Carl Cameron
Wendell Goler
Greg Kelly
James Rosen

Hearst
Stewart M. Powell
Helen Thomas

Houston Chronicle
Julie Mason
Bennett Roth

Knight Ridder
William Douglas
Ron Hutcheson

Los Angeles Times
Edwin Chen
Warren Vieth
Peter Wallsten

NBC News
David Gregory

National Journal
Carl M. Cannon
Alexis Simendinger

National Public Radio
Don Gonyea
David L. Greene

National Review
Byron York

The New Republic
Ryan Lizza

Newsweek
Holly Bailey
Richard Wolffe

New York Daily News
Kenneth R. Bazinet

New York Post
Deborah Orin

New York Times:
Elisabeth Bumiller
David E. Sanger
Richard W. Stevenson

Reuters
Caren Bohan
Adam Entous
Steve Holland
Tabassum Zakaria

Roll Call
Chris Cillizza

Salem Radio Network
Greg Clugston

Scripps Howard
Ann McFeatters
Bill Straub

Talk Radio News Service
Ellen Ratner

Time
Matthew Cooper

United Press International
Richard Tomkins

USA Today
Richard Benedetto
Judy Keen

U.S. News
Kenneth T. Walsh

Voice of America
Scott Stearns
Paula Wolfson

Wall Street Journal
Christopher Cooper
John D. McKinnon

The Washington Post
Peter Baker
Michael A. Fletcher
Jim VandeHei

Washington Times
Joseph Curl
James G. Lakely
Bill Sammon

Posted by: not my president at October 30, 2005 09:11 AM

Did she write back? Or did you just find her title on google?

Sparrow
So far no answer - couldn't find her on Google so wrote to Info@ Associated Press. Even if some secretary somewhere reads it, it's fun to read, but sometimes they'll answer.

Other stuff:

Here Berlusconi says he tried to dissuade Bush & I don't believe him. He really didn't listen to his people, he's a rich industrialist & normally sucks up to Bush. It looks like he's trying to distance himself because his own poll numbers are falling. I'm really interested in what foreign people and press say because the whole planet is influenced by our policies.

Italian PM Says He Warned Bush against Iraq War
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103005Z.shtml

After accusations that the Italian intelligence agency may have created the forged Niger yellow-cake documents at the center of the Libby indictment, and facing falling poll numbers, Italian PM Berlusconi says that he tried to persuade President Bush not to invade Iraq. Italy still has about 2900 troops in Iraq.

This is in French but if you scroll down to the video (with the links), it's really fun to eee Libby hobbling out on crutches to the sounds of a female French reporter. Will be fun to see Rove frog-marched in various languages.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20051029.FIG0133.html?140221

Sparrow
As far as Jennifer Loven working as a White House correspondant for Associated Press & the list of the rest of the gaggle? Good old Google, yes!

NMP:

This is Karen, still at Fe's but heading home soon...

On your list, Bill Plante is the one who interviewed me for CBS News on the day of the Cindy Sheehan vigil at the White House--he was GREAT. Of course, he was completely professional and indicated absolutely NOTHING about how he really feels, but he also reminded us that CBS News had put out a great deal of truthful information about the lead up to the war, and there was that story about GWB's military service...

The media does not lead, the responsible ones try to follow the news and the public response. It is hard to hear this, but when we hold demonstrations and only a few hundredthousand show up, that is not news. I have watched this process up xlose for a year now, and while I am not jaded or cynical about it, I am beginning to see what it takes.

The media does not lead, Congress does not lead; the White House leads.

Enough PEOPLE need to say WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING--and I mean MORE THAN 10 MILLION--before anything will change.

Karen

I thought part of the so-called Energy Bill was to postpone the time change for a few weeks? Did I imagine it?
*hates Standard Time

Karen

You are right.
We need not to follow.
Enough of us.