ACTING, PART II

E.J. Dionne nails it again...

What the 'Shield' Covered Up
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Page A25

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

And Libby, the good soldier, pursued a brilliant strategy to slow the inquiry down. As long as he was claiming that journalists were responsible for spreading around the name and past CIA employment of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Libby knew that at least some news organizations would resist having reporters testify. The journalistic "shield" was converted into a shield for the Bush administration's coverup.

Bush and his disciples would like everyone to assume that Libby was some kind of lone operator who, for this one time in his life, abandoned his usual caution. They pray that Libby will be the only official facing legal charges and that political interest in the case will dissipate.

You can tell the president worries that this won't work, because yesterday he did what he usually does when he's in trouble: He sought to divide the country and set up a bruising ideological fight. He did so by nominating a staunchly conservative judge to the Supreme Court.
~snip~
Fitzgerald has made clear that he wants to keep this case going if doing so will bring us closer to the truth. Lawyers not involved in the case suggest that the indictment was written in a way that could encourage Libby, facing up to 30 years in prison, to cooperate in that effort.

But there is a catch. If Libby, through nods and winks, knows that at the end of Bush's term, the president will issue an unconditional pardon, he will have no interest in helping Fitzgerald, and every interest in shutting up. If Bush truly wants the public to know all the facts in the leak case, as he has claimed in the past, he will announce now that he will not pardon Libby. That would let Fitzgerald finish his work unimpeded, and we would all have a chance, at last, to learn how and why this sad affair came to pass.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101386.html

Alito is too much.

BE AWARE!!

New York Times Editorial

The House's Abuse of Patriotism
Published: October 31, 2005

In the national anguish after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress rushed to enact a formidable antiterrorism law - the Patriot Act - that significantly crimped civil liberties by expanding law enforcement's power to use wiretaps, search warrants and other surveillance techniques, often under the cloak of secrecy. There was virtually no public debate before these major changes to the nation's legal system were put into effect.

Now, with some of the act's most sweeping powers set to expire at the end of the year, the two houses of Congress face crucial negotiations, which will also take place out of public view, on their differences over how to extend and amend the law. That's controversy enough. But the increasingly out-of-control House of Representatives has made the threat to our system of justice even greater by inserting a raft of provisions to enlarge the scope of the federal death penalty.

In a breathtaking afterthought at the close of debate, the House voted to triple the number of terrorism-related crimes carrying the death penalty. The House also voted to allow judges to reduce the size of juries that decide on executions, and even to permit prosecutors to try repeatedly for a death sentence when a hung jury fails to vote for death.

The radical amendment was slapped through by the Republican leadership without serious debate. The Justice Department has endorsed the House measure, and Representative James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Judiciary Committee chairman, who is ever on the side of more government power over the individual, is promising to fight hard for the death penalty provisions.

There are now 20 terrorism-related crimes eligible for capital punishment, and the House measure would add 41 more. These would make it easier for prosecutors to win a death sentence in cases where a defendant had no intent to kill - for example, if a defendant gave financial support to an umbrella organization without realizing that some of its adherents might eventually commit violence.

Any move to weaken the American jury system in the name of fighting terrorism is particularly egregious. But the House voted to allow a federal trial to have fewer than 12 jurors if the judge finds "good cause" to do so, even if the defense objects. Under current law, a life sentence is automatically ordered when juries become hung on deciding the capital punishment question. But the House would have a prosecutor try again - a license for jury-shopping for death - even though federal juries already exclude opponents of capital punishment.

The House's simplistic vote for another "crackdown" gesture can only further sully the notion of patriotism in a renewed Patriot Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/opinion/31mon1.html?ex=1288414800&en=687280486df55dd5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

What Judy forgot: Your Right to Know
Robert Scheer
November 1, 2005
http://www.robertscheer.com

The most intriguing revelation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's news conference last week was his assertion that he would have presented his indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a year ago if not for the intransigence of reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury. He said that without that delay, "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Had that been the case, John Kerry probably would be president of the United States today.

Surely a sufficient number of swing voters in the very tight race would have been outraged to learn weeks before the 2004 election that, according to this indictment, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff -- a key member of the White House team that made the fraudulent case for invading Iraq -- "did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice."

It is deeply disturbing that the public was left uninformed about such key information because of the posturing of news organizations that claimed to be upholding the free-press guarantee of the 1st Amendment. As Fitzgerald rightly pointed out, "I was not looking for a 1st Amendment showdown." Nor was one necessary, if reporters had fulfilled their obligation to inform the public, as well as the grand jury, as to what they knew of a possible crime by a government official.

How odd for the press to invoke the Constitution's prohibition against governmental abridgement of the rights of a free press in a situation in which a top White House official exploited reporters in an attempt to abridge an individual's right to free speech.

The spirit of a law is more important than the letter, but the reporters who fought to avoid testifying to the grand jury in the investigation that snared Libby upheld neither. They were acting as knowing accomplices to a top White House official's attempt to discredit a whistle-blower.

As the indictment makes clear, this was a case in which the reporters had direct knowledge relevant to the commission of a crime perpetrated by at least one top administration aide. "They're the eyewitness to the crime," Fitzgerald said.

In particular, the indictment makes a farce of the theatrics of New York Times reporter Judith Miller. She knew early on that Libby was using the media to punish former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV for exposing President Bush's false claim that Iraq sought nuclear material from the African nation of Niger. According to the indictment, at a June 23, 2003, meeting with Miller, "Libby was critical of the CIA and disparaged what he termed 'selective leaking' by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, Libby informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA."

That paragraph from the indictment is key to this entire sordid affair. Wilson at that time was beginning to talk to reporters about one of the more egregious distortions in the president's State of the Union speech justifying the Iraq invasion -- the 16-word fabrication about Saddam Hussein's nuclear intentions.

Libby, who had been a source for Miller's erroneous hyping in the New York Times of Iraq's WMD threat, was now attempting to shift blame to the Central Intelligence Agency by impugning Wilson's motives for stepping forth as a critic of the war.

Instead of confronting Libby for trying to mislead reporters, Miller did nothing to expose his efforts to smear a former ambassador for raising such questions. At the very least, she should have written a story stating that a White House official was planting information to disparage a critic of its war policy. Miller couldn't do that because she had acceded to Libby's demand that his White House connection be concealed in any articles she wrote, by identifying him as a "former [Capitol] Hill staffer."

This case was never about protecting government sources who risk their careers by telling the truth, but rather about punishing those like Wilson who do. That Miller cared far more about protecting someone who abused his power as the vice president's chief of staff than about protecting the right of Wilson to speak truth to power says volumes about her priorities.

That the New York Times again editorialized last week in defense of its knee-jerk support of Miller, even after knowing she deceived her editors, is a startling indication that even some of our most respected media leaders still are missing the point.

The 1st Amendment protection is not a license for mischief on the part of journalists eager to do the government's bidding. To the contrary, it was conceived by the founders to prevent government from subverting the free press in an effort to misinform the public. Unfortunately, that is precisely what occurred here. ++

Copyright © 2005 Robert Scheer

Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.

America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take more than a generation to set right. And Bush's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold U.S. initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism, they say.

"It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999.

"We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview.

Benjamin and Simon, a former State Department official who was also at the NSC, are co-authors of a new book titled: "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right" (Times Books).

Following on from their 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House), Benjamin and Simon list what they call U.S. missteps since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

The Bush administration presents the war on terrorism as a difficult but largely successful struggle that has seen the gutting of al Qaeda's pre-September 11 leadership and prevented new attacks in the United States over the past four years.

Bush said last month the United States and its allies had disrupted plans for 10 al Qaeda attacks since September 11, including one against West Coast targets with hijacked planes.

The White House describes Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism and says the building of democracy there will confound militant aims and help to propel the entire Middle East region toward democracy.

Benjamin and Simon's criticism of the Bush administration in Iraq follows a path similar to those of other critics, including former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.

"We may be attacked by terrorists who receive their training in Iraq, or attacked by terrorists who were inspired, organized and trained by people who were in Iraq," said Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University.

"(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially."

For Benjamin and Simon, the war on terrorism has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and failed to counter a deadly global movement responsible for attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Indonesia, and Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

And not even al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, they say, could have dreamed the United States would stumble so badly in the court of Muslim public opinion.

"Everyone says there's a war of ideas out there, and I agree. The sad fact is that we're on the wrong side," said Benjamin, now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

U.S. fortunes could improve, the authors say, if Washington took a number of politically challenging steps, like bolstering public diplomacy with trade pacts aimed at expanding middle-class influence in countries such as Pakistan.

Washington also needs to do more to ease regional tensions that feed Muslim grievances across the globe, from Thailand and the Philippines to Chechnya and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a Muslim world of 1.2 billion people, as many as three-in-four hold negative views of the United States.

Because anti-U.S. rhetoric often appeals strongly to impressionable youth, Benjamin and Simon believe many of today's young Muslims will harbor grievances against the United States for the rest of their lives.

The authors believe there is little prospect for fundamental improvement in U.S. policy under Bush "There are resource constraints, there are constraints in the realm of trade, there are political constraints," said Simon.

"These are not the kinds of circumstances that favor bold new policies that require spending political capital that it turns out the White House just doesn't have," he added.

I am link posting challenged, this is in Yahoo news.

This administration has placed the United States directly on a collision course with the extremes in the Muslim World. The tragedy is so many Americans are so blind to what we are doing.

"In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

"Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation."

"As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson."

George W. Bush knew all along that Libby, Rove and Cheney were fully immersed in the Plame scandal. He actively participated in a cover-up with the aim of depriving the American people of their right to know during the 2004 Presidential Election.

A President who participates in a cover-up intended to deprive the public of vital information during an election is an illegitimate President.

George W. Bush is an illegitimate President.

FROM EDITOR AND PUBLISHER:

Open the Door, Richard: Kristof Again Presses Cheney to Explain or Resign

By E&P Staff

Published: November 01, 2005 9:55 AM ET

NEW YORK Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times columnist who has long been skeptical of criminal wrongdoing in the Plame/CIA leak case, continued pressing Vice President Cheney to come clean in his Tuesday column. He had first made this plea in his Sunday column.

"So, Mr. Cheney, tell us what happened," Kristof writes today. "If you're afraid to say what you knew, and when you knew it, then you should resign."

He notes, "Five lawyers I've consulted all agree that there is no compelling legal reason why you should not discuss the situation....As it is, you're pleading 'no contest' in the court of public opinion, and that's painful for all of us who want to believe in the integrity of our government."

He then lists a series of specific questions Cheney ought to answer, including:

--Did you ask Libby to undertake his inquiries about Ambassador Joseph Wilson?

--Why did you independently ask the C.I.A. for information about the Wilsons?

--Did you know that Wilson's wife was a covert officer? "The indictment states that you knew she worked in the C.I.A.'s counter- proliferation division," Kristof observes." You would think that anyone as steeped in intelligence issues as you are would know that meant she worked in the Directorate of Operations and was perhaps a spook's spook."

--Did you advise Libby to leak information about Mrs. Wilson's work in the C.I.A. to journalists?

--When Libby made his statements in the inquiry - allegedly committing perjury - were you aware of what he was saying? "Mr. Libby rode to work with you almost every morning," Kristof notes, "but this topic never came up?"

Just in, from the http://www.worldcantwait.org website:

Fire His Ass | by Eve Ensler
This poem was written by Eve Ensler

Since GEORGE BUSH really got in power by corporate take over and not election Since he has behaved like a CEO of a huge corporation called U.S.A. supporting profit in all cases over human interests, we should treat him the way they would treat him in any corporation and

FIRE HIS ASS

When you start with a major surplus and end up with a huge huge deficit they

FIRE YOUR ASS

When you fail to move a company forward, they

FIRE YOUR ASS

When you are lazy and take vacations at a time of peril, they

FIRE YOU LAZY ASS

When you don't prepare for terrible outcomes and then lose thousands of lives and insane amounts of money they

FIRE YOUR ASS

When you lie to your stockholders and board and then spend nearly 1.3 trillion dollars and kill hundreds of thousands of people for no reason that makes sense to anyone, they

FIRE YOUR ASS

Sometimes they even put you in prison.
When you openly practice racist policies whether they want to or not, they

FIRE YOUR ASS

When you openly break the law, order torture and get caught they

FIRE YOUR ASS

When you hire people who are ignorant and incompetent, they

FIRE YOUR ASS

When you destroy the brand of a company
and alienate potential buyers all over the world, they

FIRE YOUR ASS

We are the shareholders of the U.S.A.
Bush has bankrupted our company, our pocketbooks,
But mainly our soul.
We need to remove this president and his staff
and we need to do it now..

FIRE HIS ASS.

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=74

pretty good video of Cindy Sheehan's press conference last week here:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemid=70

FROM SFGATE

EDITORIAL
The battle is on

Tuesday, November 1, 2005

THE SELECTION of Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court is going to be every bit as contentious as the failed nomination of Harriet Miers.

This time, however, President Bush won't have to ask his most conservative base of supporters to put their faith in his judgment. They're applauding -- loudly.

Unlike Miers, the 55-year-old Alito is a veteran appeals court judge with a long paper trail of decisions to offer insights into his judicial philosophy and inclinations on some of the major constitutional issues of our time.

Some of those rulings should be of great concern to Americans who believe in a fundamental right to privacy as well as the ability of Congress to pass laws on health and safety issues that require a national solution.

A right to privacy is the underpinning of the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that guaranteed a woman's right to abortion. As a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, Alito in 1991 voted to uphold a Pennsylvania law that would have significantly undermined that right by requiring spousal notification.

Fortunately, Alito was the only judge on that appellate panel who did not see the clear unconstitutionality of the husband-notification requirement -- and it was ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alito was also the sole dissenter in 1996 when the appeals court upheld the ability of Congress to prohibit individual ownership of fully automatic machine guns.

Alito's reasoning in the machine-gun case could have enormous implications for how he might address a wide variety of issues. Alito argued, unsuccessfully, that Congress lacked the authority to regulate machine-gun possession because it was not directly related to interstate commerce.

Right-wing ideologues have been using similarly narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause to try to shoot down other environmental and public-safety laws passed by Congress.

It is critical to remember that Alito would be succeeding Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the high court and a conservative with centrist sensibilities who was willing to look at issues with a tough-minded independence. She was the swing vote on many issues, including rulings that upheld abortion rights, affirmative action and the ability of Congress to protect public health and safety.

In nominating Alito, Bush noted that the appeals court judge has more judicial experience than "any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." Alito's record will give the Senate Judiciary Committee plenty of material to ponder as it considers whether to confirm a nominee who would make the nation's highest court less diverse and more conservative.

CNN RIGHT NOW RIED HAS LOCKED DOWN THE SENATE TO DEBATE PLAME IN SECRET

GIVE EM HELL HARRY!!!!!!!

The Senate's Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV) unexpectedly pulled the Senate into secret session Tuesday afternoon in order to have closed discussion of Iraq intelligence.

The maneuver immediately shuttered the doors of the Senate and cleared the Senate press galleries. It has been invoked just 53 times in the history of the body.

Reid's statement follows:

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false.
The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.”

The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

o How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? o Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore? o How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people? o What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? o How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions? o Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and Ѕ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.

KAREN get outside the senate fast as you can!!!

The repells are coming out RABID they have been TOTALLY blindsided.

...they have been TOTALLY blindsided.

Posted by: Christy at November 1, 2005 02:56 PM

Ironic, ain't it?

Ayes wide shut.

Randi Rhodes is talking about it now on AirAmerica and will provide continuous live updates... You can listen here: http://www.airamericaradio.com/

Talked to Karen...

she's on her way to the Senate with her camera

many folks here have attacked Harry Reid for not having guts. Where are you folks today?

Call/email your senators -- from both parties -- to urge them to support Sen. Reid. And call/email Sen. Reid's office to thank him. (You may have to call the senators' in-state offices because the D.C. numbers are busy.)

www.congress.org

Talk is cheap, so are statements. Reid's statement is a rock solid, almost as if it was lifted from a blog. I commend him for it... let's see where it goes from here.

So I'm still here Ira. (Love ya man)

For the record I never faulted Ried.

I always think of him the velvet glove who protects the iron fist.

Iron Fist = Howard Dean

They make a pretty formidable team.

lets hope monkey that Harry Reid is the lead story on tonight's news. Reid has done exactly what Fitzgerald advised. Fitzgerald said Libby's indictment was not the answer for how we were lied to getting into Iraq, now for Phase II of the Intelligence Agency. Let's get to the bottom of what Libby was obstructing and how we truly became engaged in this war.

Here's some info that Reid's office has just emailed people on his email list about a closed senate session...

There is no more important decision a country can make than going to war. Last Friday, we clearly saw the efforts and lengths this administration would go to shape our entry into this War. The Senate Democrats went into closed session today to get answers. Some facts below (and key facts on secret session).

Closed Senate Session

· Most important decision a President makes is to put American lives at risk and go to war.

· Many of us supported the decision to invade Iraq based on the national intelligence presented at the time.

· Over the past few months, and vividly last Friday, we’ve learned that we were given bad information. Americans were intentionally deceived.

· White House indictments confirm Republicans tried to silence critics and cover up the real intelligence.

· America deserves answers. National security is at stake.

· If mistakes were made, we need to know. Otherwise, we are doomed to repeat them.

· Republicans committed to investigate how national intelligence was used to set the stage for war.

· Now, they are refusing to keep that commitment. What are they afraid of America learning?

· Republicans must come clean. It is our shared responsibility to be straight with the American people.

· Stakes could not be higher. That is why we are demanding answers through an unprecedented closed Senate session.

· We will not let up until America gets answers.

· Together, America Can Do Better

KEY FACTS ON SECRET SESSIONS OF THE SENATE

· Since 1929, the Senate has held 53 secret sessions, generally for reasons of national security.
· For example, in 1997 the Senate held a secret session to consider the Chemical Weapons Convention (treaty).
· In 1992, the Senate met in secret session to consider “most favored nation” trade status for China.
· In 1988, a session was held to consider the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and in 1983 a session was held on Nicaragua.
· In 1942, a secret session was held on navy plans to build battleships and aircraft carriers, and in 1943 a secret session was held on reports from the war fronts.
· Six of the most recent secret sessions, however, were held during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

SENATE RULES ON SECRET SESSIONS

· During a secret session, the doors of the chamber are closed, and the chamber and its galleries are cleared of all individuals except Members and those officers and employees specified in the rules or essential to the session.

· Standing Senate Rules 21, 29, and 31 cover secret sessions for legislative and executive business. Rule 21 calls for the Senate to close its doors once a motion is made and seconded. The motion is not debatable, and its disposition is made behind closed doors.

Frist throws temper tantrum when he learns doors will be closed. You would have thought they had just caught him trading HCA stock.

"Now here's another fine mess you've got us into Ollie"

And in the attempt to change the subject here's another fine mess Georgie has got us into.. Tax Reform
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9883726/

The big concern here? The Earned Income Credit. Read between the lines and you'll note that they are proposing to eliminate tax credits.

Raising the EIC was the crowning achievment of Clintons welfare reform, getting more people into the work force than any other program in history.
for an excellent over view read here:
http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/eitc.htm

For now it's just a report, but please keep this on your radar.. It could be used by the neocons to not only give yet another tax cut to the rich (of over 50% if this is accurate) but has the potential to send hundreds of thousands of childern and families back into poverty.

On the spot report from Karen at the Senate:

There is joy in mudville today.

I found my first "deep throat" who was on the senate floor near Senator Frist's office. He re-enacted the scene for me.

Message came through on blackberries, Reid's calling all dems to the floor.

After Reid called for rule 21 and it was seconded, there were staffers running around, waving arms in the air, screaming, "oh my god, oh my god."

This is about Dems refusing to just go along, to show that Dems care about national security.

This is accountability!!

This is what we pay them to do.

Whoever thought of this was brilliant. Today was supposed to be a slow news day.

Karen says, 'You can tell who's on which side in this building... they either have long, sad faces or happy faces.'

She's moving onto to find new source for us.

and for those in the California and the Pacific N.W. just think what illimination of the mtg deduction will do to your property values.

Dear Senators Boxer and Feinstein:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stand by Minority Leader Harry Reid and DO NOT GIVE AN INCH to the Republican Senators' squirming out of it. The Senate NEEDS to be accountable for the White House's rush to war and for misleading Congress.

The delays by the reporters to provide evidence COST US THE ELECTION. Don't EVER let these crooks do this to our country again!

And thank you in advance for doing it.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons -- the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

MY MY MY, all H3!! broke lose while I was composing the post above..

It's hit the MSM// here are the links
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9886959/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9886959/

...as impeachment and chemical weapons -- the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

Posted by: monkey at November 1, 2005 03:53 PM

Well, ok then, let's talk about impeachment & chemical weapons (aka WMDs). Bring it on!

Karen went over to JK's office and ran into Marvin, chief of stuff for JK, who says hi to all the bloggers. He said the staff in John's office didn't know anything at all. This was a complete surprise to them.

She's going to find the C-Span camera now.

Judge Perkins removed from DeLay case, what total b.s. Our judges are now intimidated by DeLay. Let's see if he is now assigned a Republican judge (not supposed to be like that) who has given thousands to the RNC.

The phones to the Washington offices of the Senate aren't just busy.. I'm getting a fast busy, means the entire system is swamped.
Did get one of Sen. Bingham's NM (D) state staff, they could confirm that he was there, in session, but they didn't have a clue about how it happened either.

I called both Dodd and Lieberman's DC offices earlier and told them to support Reid.

Charles Schumer on CSPAN2 live right now outside senate chamber doors

new thread...