Poverty and Energy

The NYT ties Abramoff to Bush???

November 10, 2005
Lobbyist Sought $9 Million to Set Bush Meeting
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - The lobbyist Jack Abramoff asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of a West African nation to arrange a meeting with President Bush and directed his fees to a Maryland company now under federal scrutiny, according to newly disclosed documents.

read more here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/politics/10lobby.html

Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation has an interesting blog entry about the WaPo's revelations on the CIA's secret prisons.

The money quote is:

What should not be overlooked is the historic significance of the Washington Post's decision. "This is probably the most important newspaper capitulation since the New York Times yielded to John F. Kennedy's call for them to not run the full story of planning for the Bay of Pigs," Peter Kornbluh, National Security Archive senior analyst, told Columbia Journalism Daily. "By withholding the country names, the Post is directly enabling the rendition, secret detention, and torture of prisoners at these locations to continue. That is a ghastly responsibility."

Read the whole entry here:

BLOG | Posted 11/06/2005 @ 7:48pm
The Wrong Journalistic Decision

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=34031

Break time. (Or breakfast time for those on the West coast...)

http://arnoldsneighborhood.com/

Posted by: dwahzon at November 10, 2005 10:28 AM

There is one more "money" quote too:

For more about the Washington Post's decision, and other recent cases in which news outlets have chosen to honor government requests for secrecy rather than the journalistic duty of informing the public about government wrongdoing, read Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting's valuable report, "The Consequences of Covering Up."

Posted by: dwahzon at November 10, 2005 10:28 AM

On the same topic, the NYT has a good editorial about the double standards this regime has regarding leaks and why they focus on stopping the information from getting out (and hence, covering their big, ugly butts) rather than changing their bad policies that promote torture & war.

Blaming the Messenger

In the last couple of days, the Republican leaders of Congress have been piously demanding a full investigation into the sources of a Washington Post article about the Central Intelligence Agency's chain of secret prison camps. These same leaders have spent 18 months crushing any serious look at the actual abuse of prisoners at those camps, and at camps run by the American military. And for more than two years, they have expressed no interest in whether the White House leaked the name of a covert C.I.A. operative to punish a critic of the Iraq war.

So why did they jump on last week's article in The Post before you could say "double standard"? The answer is painfully obvious: G.O.P. leaders, doing the White House's bidding, are trying to shut down discussion of the policies that led to the horrors of Abu Ghraib and the C.I.A.'s "black site" prisons. They are also delivering an oblique warning to the Democrats who want the Senate to say more than the White House wants to be said about another sensitive intelligence matter: whether President Bush and his team hyped Iraq's weapons programs.

--snip--
The truth is that the damage is caused by the administration's underlying acts and policies, not by the news media's disclosures, which serve only to hold officials accountable for their actions. It is the secret camps themselves and the abuse and torture of prisoners that smear America's image and jeopardize Americans serving their country, not newspaper articles.

If Republican leaders in Congress want to open investigations that serve the public, they can back an independent investigation into the origins of the Abu Ghraib scandal - and they can take the handcuffs off the unfinished Senate investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/opinion/10thur1.html?th&emc=th

Alito questioned about mutual fund case
Senate Democrats press nominee about possible ethics issues

Thursday, November 10, 2005; Posted: 10:15 a.m. EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats are pressing for extensive records on the participation of Judge Samuel Alito in an appeals case involving a mutual fund company with which he had a six-figure investment.

In their first coordinated challenge to Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday sent a letter to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying Alito had promised the panel in 1990 he would "disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

The letter requests the original opinion in the 2002 case, which was unpublished. It also seeks any communication "from or to the White House, the Justice Department ... or anyone else on their behalf" concerning Alito's decision to participate in the case, in which a three-judge panel ruled on behalf of Vanguard and other investment firms. The companies had been sued by a widow who claimed she was denied funds originally belonging to her deceased husband.

The White House, saying Alito has acted ethically throughout his career, dismissed the suggestion that there was something wrong in this case. "Judge Alito looks forward to answering any questions that committee members may ask him at the hearing about this issue," said Steven Schmidt, an administration spokesman.

Apart from the written requests, several Democrats who have met privately with Alito in recent days told reporters they had raised conflict-of-issue concerns. "I asked him a lot of questions about Vanguard and there are going to be more," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

more... http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/10/alito.ap/index.html

The GAO Voting Audit report has us all thinking about what needs to change in our voting and election processes.

Daily kos poster AdamB points us toward Sen. Obama's efforts in that area:

Sen. Obama: End Deceptive Voting Practices And Voter Intimidation
by Adam B
Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 07:51:22 AM PDT

We will be talking later today about regulation of political activity on the Internet, but in the meantime, Sen. Barack Obama introduced a bill on Election Day which all here should take notice of and applaud.

Here's part of his remarks introducing the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005:

read the rest here (includes links to other articles)...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/95123/325

One of the commenters on that thread provides the following information for those who want to follow up on voicing their thoughts about Obama's bill and other related bills:

When you call:

Please ask your representative to co-sponsor (not just support) Rep. Rush Holt's H.R. 550 on broad based voting reform in the hosue

Please ask your senators to co-sponsor (not just support) Ensign's S. 330 on auditable voting systems (including papertrails).

suggest to your senators to become an author/sponsor (or co-sponsor) a sister legislation to H.R. 550 in the senate.

I will post links to the bills as a followup.

thanks for your call, and thanks to AdamB for posting this.

[EDITED] I am suggesting these in addition to Sen. Obama's S. 1975, and as Adam suggests, I thank and applaud Sen. Obama for sponsoring this important piece of legislation.

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 08:06:12 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/11/10/95123/325/11#11

-----

NeuvoLiberal followed up with a longer comment... which I'm including in its entirety below. Please click thru on the link below to access the links that he included with his post.

Here is some more info (none / 1)

Bill pages etc

----

SENATE: we want to support:

SENATE: Sen. Obama's S. 1975, A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. No co-sponsors yet. Hopefully you will help change that by tomorrow :)

SENATE: Sen. Ensign (NV)'s S. 330, A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes. Eight co-sponsors. We want to see more.

Also, please call Sen. Dodd (CT) at: (202) 224-2823, even if you don't live in CT and tell him that you want to see S.330/S.1975 and similar measures pushed through the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration without blockage, ASAP. He is the ranking member on that committee, and is said to have raised objections to S.330. Later today, also write to Sen. Dodd here.

We would like to see sister legislation to Rep. Rush Holt's H.R. 550 in the Senate (should speed up the process if H.R. 550 passes the house in the near future).

----

HOUSE: we want to support

Rep. Rush Holt (NJ)'s H.R.550. To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent paper record or hard copy . Current cosponsors (156). We want more. Especially, we would like to add some 10 or more republicans to the list of co-sponsors (that'll ensure its passage, if the Democrats stick together).

Rep. Jim Gibbons, Jim (NV)'s H.R. 704. This is sister legislation to Senate's S.330. Cosponsor (1).

We'd like to see sister legislation to Obama's S. 1975.

---

We want to STRONGLY OPPOSE Republican Rep. Tom Sweeney 's S. 3910 (see this diary by Jennifer Clare), as it seems to be an attempt by the Grand Old Failure Party to subvert the electoral reform process by tying in with Voter ID measures. Cosponsor (8). We'd like to see this number shrink, and the bill to be buried.
---

Important links:

dKos diary by Jennifer Clare

verifiedvoting.org's legislation summary page

voter trust USA's analysis of the various bills and measures. See the remarks by Warren Stewart (its author) in Jennifer Clare's diary above.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/11/10/95123/325/30#30

Speaking of Arnold's Neighborhood, here's what the REPUBLICANS are saying (great oppo research):

Republicans Blame Schwarzenegger
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer
Thu Nov 10, 7:30 AM ET

LOS ANGELES - The across-the-board collapse of Gov.Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions came down to this: They were ideas with narrow appeal, further damaged by a flat-footed campaign and an unpopular messenger, the governor himself.

And that's just what his fellow Republicans said.

California's celebrity governor was elected in 2003 as a centrist Republican — an essential pedigree in a state that votes reliably Democratic. But by the end of his initiative campaign Tuesday, Schwarzenegger had alienated Democrats and independents and allowed his opponents to paint him as an extremist.

"What was defeated yesterday was a caricature of Arnold Schwarzenegger, not the reality of Arnold Schwarzenegger," Republican consultant Kevin Spillane said Wednesday.

Despite his moderate views on social and environmental issues, "that's not the tone and style and implicit message that came through in this campaign, and it played right into the hands of his opponents who depicted him as an ultraconservative Republican," Spillane said.

In many ways Schwarzenegger's failure at the polls spoke for itself. Voters turned away all four of his ballot initiatives, three of them by double-digit margins, according to unofficial returns.

The propositions sought to give the governor authority to make midyear budget cuts, take away the power of legislators to redraw their own political districts, restrict the money public employee unions could raise for political campaigns, and make it easier to fire teachers and harder for them to obtain tenure.

Several GOP analysts and consultants traced the start of the governor's troubles to his choice of propositions. For a while he talked about pushing pension reform, an issue that outraged labor unions but never made it to the ballot. In the end, the four proposals he did back generated little or no appeal with the political middle and left, limiting his support largely to Republicans who are a minority in California.

"They ran a Republican campaign in a Democratic state, and they saw that yesterday in the results," Republican analyst Allan Hoffenblum said.

Schwarzenegger, who has famously called some political opponents "girlie men" and said he was always kicking the butts of others, saw such remarks come back to haunt him, said John Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College who once worked as an analyst for House Republicans.

"His rhetoric put off a lot of voters, Pitney said. "'Girlie men' was a very expensive laugh line."

Analysts also said the campaign was too slow to answer criticism from opponents, who framed the governor and his proposals as extreme in a barrage of TV ads.

"Why did they wait several months to respond to attacks from unions?" Hoffenblum asked. "They made bad political decisions all the way through."

The campaign was limited to some extent in its response by the fact Schwarzenegger's opponents raised twice as much money.

"We had to weather the beating that we took," said campaign spokesman Todd Harris, who also complained of second-guessing by people he said weren't directly involved.

"There were people who didn't lift a finger to help in the fight for reform who will now take great joy in pointing out what we should have done differently," Harris said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_re_us/who_s_to_blame;_ylt=Ai1rVM2OZA6fkBAmGCPlVSftPRYi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Democrats apparently under the leadership of Howard Dean are learning the language of values and moral leadership. That should give us all hope for '06 and '08.

"If I were a Democrat," said Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, "I would make hay of this."

Republicans were especially alarmed at the defeat of gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore in Virginia after Bush personally endorsed him Monday. Polls showed the race tight before the president's visit. Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine won by about 6 percentage points.

The Democrat's first ad aired on a Christian radio station. The first TV ad he ran this fall highlighted his experience with Catholic missionaries.

"I'm not going to change my religious beliefs for one vote," he said.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean took note. "We want to be everywhere" in 2006, he said. "We want to talk about our faith and our moral values."

Kaine courted voters in the far-flung suburbs of northern Virginia, promising to help curb sprawl. It worked. He won Loudoun and Prince William counties, fast-growing communities that joined exurban counties across the country in backing back Bush in 2004.

We're sure, by now, you have all heard Howard Dean's assertion that he believes the Democratic Party is the party of "moral values." When Dean addresses groups around the country he cites the moral values of investing in healthcare, education, and security as winning issues for Democrats.

In his post-election press conference with Gov. Richardson yesterday, Dean spoke separately from his recitation of Democratic "moral values" about how important it was in Tim Kaine's victory that the Virginia Democrat was able to speak so comfortably about his personal commitment to his faith.

Dean went on to say that he believes Virginia is trending Democratic and that he expects it to be in the Democratic column on election night in 2008. When asked if that meant his party's nominee in 2008 must be comfortable talking to voters about his/her personal faith, Dean said that it likely does, but he wouldn't delve into which 2008 Democratic hopefuls appear to be at that comfort level."

Hopefully we have all learned a political lesson from the Kaine startegy on Tuesday. Especially the idea of standing up for our values and not being afraid of running commercials on Chrsitian radio stations, a strategy I have urged here in the DeLay race.

Posted by: Fe at November 10, 2005 12:21 PM

Fe,

I have to agree with Ed Schultz on this one, "When they run a real issue, not a phoney one like gay marraige, and they can't smear a candidate, they lose. They lose on their own ideas."

Posted by: Ira at November 10, 2005 01:38 PM

Ira,

I heard that from Lakoff before Dean. Dean is incorporating Lakoffs ideas, but either way...at least it's being done.

PLUS, I think it helps that Bush and the majority party are costing the media their reputation and their profits, so very, very slowly they allow Dean's words to be heard.

URGENT NOTE from daily kos poster SusanHu:

Republican Senator is trying to do an end-run around Supreme Court consideration of the rights of detainees so that Congress can ensure that Gitmo remains a gulag...

Senate VOTE at 2:30pm [EST]! PLS Call Sens. Now Re Gitmo Gulag

by SusanHu
Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 11:24:47 AM PDT

Call or e-mail your senators. We HEAR that the vote may take place as early as 2:30 pm ET. The votes are stacking up for passage so your immediate calls are critical. Thanks!

S. Amendment 1042 to the defense appropriations bill.

Via The Daou Report, posted at Martini Republic:

Make sure Gitmo stays a gulag

Senator Lindsey Graham has Cheney's back. Graham is considering attaching a stipulation to a defense bill - one which may get a vote as early as today - which would effectively end all current and future litigation brought by detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Jeralyn of TalkLeft reports that Graham's bill would prevent detainees from challenging any of the following in U.S. courts:

* The legality of their detentions
* The propriety of returning detainees to their home countries
* Adequacy of medical care at Guantanamo
* Quality of the food
* Speed of mail delivery
* Allotment of exercise time and other conditions of confinement. ...

From Crooks & Liars:

Sen Graham's End Run

Talk Left: Senator Lindsay Graham is introducing an Amendment to the defense appropriations bill pending in the Senate (S. 1042) that would strip those designated by the Administration as enemy combatants of the ability to seek habeas review in federal courts....read on

Obsidian Wings: This is seriously bad news. As best I can tell, it strips the courts of all power to hear any habeas motion from a detainee, or any other challenge to a detainee's detention, and that this applies to any cases that have already been brought and are now pending...read on

Body and Soul: If you've been under the impression that Lindsey Graham is one of the rare Republicans good guys on the torture issue, be prepared to lose your innocence...read on

S. Amendment 1042 to the defense appropriations bill.

go here to see all the embedded links...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/10/132447/11

Calling right now.

Here's a poll that needs freeping...

Cspan's Capital News
Poll Of The Day

Should there be limits on how long terror suspects can be held without charge?

Yes .... 55%

No ..... 45%

Total Votes: 1030

http://www.capitalnews.org/

A followup on Chalabi's speech... from TPM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006973.php

and the young blogger TPM links to is here...
http://kris.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/chalabi_in_dc.html

and he has more embedded links to Matt Yglesias and another acquaintance, David Donatio, who was at the speech and includes a pic of protesters at the end of his blogpiece...

Good for a chuckle, hat tip to Atrios...

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/11/republicans_sen.php

CNN just reported that the Republicans just pulled the budget from the floor vote.

They don't have the votes. This is bad news indeed for the Republicans.

casey I am not sure that is great news b/c 22 Republicans pulled Anwr from the budget last night and I suspect their leadership now wants to do an end run against these moderates to reinsert Anwr in conference and basically lie to these moderate renigades. Am I off base?

Oil and Grilling Don't Mix
Dana Milbank
Thursday, November 10, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902058.html

Senators struck a note of populist outrage when they ordered oil executives to appear before the Energy and Commerce committees to explain high fuel prices and record company profits. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), announcing the hearing, said it would expose "those who abuse the free-enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans."

But instead of calling oil executives on the carpet yesterday, senators
gave them the red-carpet treatment.

The companies summoned to testify have given about $400,000 in PAC money this year alone -- and much of that has found its way to those who served as the executives' interrogators. So while protesters came to the hearing wearing "Exxpose Exxon" T-shirts, most lawmakers opted to extol Exxon Mobil -- and Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell.

"First, let me begin by thanking each of you and the companies for what you all did to save lives, to save property, to restore the communities along the Gulf Coast," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has taken $249,155 in oil and gas money over five years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"There's a great deal we know about your industry; there's a great deal the average citizen does not know," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho, $96,950), explaining popular hostility to the industry. "I must tell you, it's not terribly fun defending you. But I do."

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H., $64,480) praised the executives for being "very reasonable." He said industry's profits are big "because they are very big companies," and he argued against higher taxes on their profits.

From the start, the ferocity of the questioning seemed to come in inverse proportion to the amount of industry funds a questioner had received.

When Energy Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, $102,190) announced that he would not require the executives to give their testimony under oath, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash., $9,400) asked for a vote on the issue. Stevens shot back: "There will be no vote . . . It's the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision."

"I move that we swear in witnesses," Cantwell persisted.

"I second the motion," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif., $9,450).

"That's the last we're going to hear about that, because it's out of order," a piqued Stevens replied. When the two women continued their protest, the chairman informed them that "I intend to be respectful of the position that these gentlemen hold."

Stevens did not fail in this goal. When Boxer later displayed a large chart showing the executives' pay, Stevens cut her off.

"We'll stop the clock right here for you, Senator," Stevens said, ordering the chart taken down because it was not "information that pertains to our issue."

From the audience, a woman called out: "How about the consumers?" When the same woman later let out a cheer, Stevens threatened to "clear the room."

At times, the senators seemed to be bigger boosters of the industry than
the executives themselves. Under questioning from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., $12,500), all five executives testified that they did not need the tax breaks in the recent energy bill.

"That energy legislation is zero in terms of how it affects Exxon Mobil," said the company's chairman, Lee Raymond.

This did not sit well with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex., $306,820). "But," she asked, don't the tax breaks "make a difference" in investment decisions?

Raymond would not play along. "They will not significantly alter the programs that we have," he said. Stevens scratched his head.

More than one senator begged the executives to help them explain high energy prices to consumers. "Please," said Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M., $164,158), "describe in detail how the price of oil is set." Nobody volunteered. So Domenici called on Raymond to "put yourself in my shoes."

The executives rebuffed requests from other friends. They wouldn't comment on a request by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M., $43,864) for their thoughts on fuel economy standards. When Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn., $117,450) asked whether they favor more efficient natural gas plants, Shell's John Hofmeister advised him: "That's a question for the utilities."

The executives were even less forthcoming when questions turned hostile. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J., $10,000) asked whether any of the companies had participated in Vice President Cheney's energy task force, and all five answered in the negative. Fortunately, they were not under oath: A report by the Government Accountability Office found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force.

Lautenberg did not press the issue. Those wearing the "Exxpose Exxon" T-shirts put on their jackets. The unscathed executives walked briskly with their security guards from the building, past a pair of demonstrators with "Return the Gas and Oil Money" signs, and into their waiting Cadillacs.

Al-Libi’s Tall Tales
A CIA document obtained by NEWSWEEK provides further evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had serious doubts about information from a high-level Qaeda detainee before the Iraq war.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 1:31 p.m. ET Nov. 10, 2005

Nov. 10, 2005 - A CIA document shows the agency in January 2003 raised questions about an Al Qaeda detainee’s claims that Saddam Hussein’s government provided chemical and biological weapons training to terrorists—weeks before President George W. Bush and other top officials flatly used those same claims to make their case for war against Iraq.

The CIA document, recently provided to Congress and obtained by NEWSWEEK, fills in some of the blanks in the mysterious case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured Al Qaeda commander whose claims about poison-gas training for the Qaeda group by Saddam’s government formed the basis for some of the most dramatic arguments used by senior administration officials in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991919/site/newsweek/

Rove aide called back to testify as inquiry into Rove's role wraps up, lawyers say

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will soon conclude his investigation into whether President Bush’s deputy chief of staff Karl Rove gave false statements to a grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA agent, attorneys close to the case say.

According to lawyers familiar with the case, Fitzgerald is trying to convince the grand jury that Rove made false statements during the three times he testified under oath and misleading statements to Justice Department and FBI investigators when he was first interviewed about his role in the leak in October 2003.

The attorneys told RAW STORY that Fitzgerald has called Rove’s former personal assistant, Susan B. Ralston -- who was also a special assistant to President Bush -- to testify before the grand jury for a third time, perhaps as early as Monday. She is not said to be in legal jeopardy.

Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn would neither confirm nor deny that Ralston would appear before the grand jury. Ralston’s attorney could not be reached for comment.

Ralston previously worked as a personal secretary to Jack Abramoff, the Republican power lobbyist being investigated for allegations of defrauding Indian tribes who was recently indicted on conspiracy and wire fraud charges. While working with Abramoff, Ralston arranged fundraisers and events at Washington MCI Center skyboxes for members of Congress. Ralston communicated with Rove on Abramoff’s behalf on tribal affairs, though she is not accused of wrongdoing.

Fitzgerald wants to question Ralston again about several telephone calls Rove allegedly made to a few reporters, including syndicated columnist Robert Novak, lawyers close to the investigation say. Novak first disclosed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson in his July 14, 2003 column.

Furthermore, the attorneys said that Fitzgerald wants Ralston to clarify some of her previous testimony regarding statements she made about a phone call Rove had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Ralston testified that Cooper’s name was not noted in the call logs from Rove’s office, those familiar with the case say.

more... http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Rove_aide_called_back_to_testify_1110.html

Posted by: monkey at November 10, 2005 04:49 PM

Gosh, can't help thinking Bush and Rove are doing a lot of sweating these days.

Can't help wondering how far Fitzgerald can take this investigation.

Either way, it's a sad day for all of us that this administration endangered our lives for political gain.

JK believes that the Repubs are not through with messing with Anwr and I agree with his email:

"Republican leadership was perfectly willing to use underhanded tactics to sneak destruction of the Refuge in the budget. We should not be surprised if they try again."

That is why Casey I was reluctant to agree with you that the fight over Anwr or the budget is over. I truly hope it is, but I don't expect them to backoff unless this Administration truly understood the voters' message on Tuesday loud and clear. But they are truly thick headed and don't seem to listen.

Kerry's ammendment (passes 82-9):

No Votes

Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
DeMint (R-SC)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Martinez (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting - 9

Alexander (R-TN)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Lugar (R-IN)
Santorum (R-PA)
Thomas (R-WY)

THIS ALMOST READS LIKE AN ARTICLE IN "THE ONION"

Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath By Alan Elsner
1 hour, 20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential conservative Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has a long record of similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W. Bush's most vocal international critics.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around one million. It is also broadcast around the world translated into more than 70 languages.

In voting on Tuesday, all eight Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members up for re-election lost their seats after trying to introduce "intelligent design" to high school science students as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer." Opponents say it is the latest attempt by conservatives to introduce religion into the school science curriculum.

The Dover case sparked a trial in federal court that gained nationwide attention after the school board was sued by parents backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The board ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it.

The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and recommended students read a book that explained the theory further. A decision in the case is expected before the end of the year.

In 1998, Robertson warned the city of Orlando, Florida that it risked hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist bombs after it allowed homosexual organizations to put up rainbow flags in support of sexual diversity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051110/ts_nm/religion_robertson_dc

good post from Huffington:

Boy, where to start on this....

I guess the best thing is to say this...in U.S. and English legal theory, there is the concept of equity. It merely means that in certain situations, people with a dispute can go to a court and ask the judge to make things right. But the most important thing about going to a court "in equity" was this: "He who asks for equity must give equity."

In otherwords, you can't ask a court to make a wrong a right if you yourself have dirty hands.

So here we have the United States. It has been wronged many times in its history. Yet there has always been the belief that by espousing democratic and humane concepts in the way it governs its own people, how it helps other around the world, and how it executes conflict and creates a peace, the U.S. occupied a higher moral ground with which it gained equity around the world. It is this equity that the U.S. goes to the world and says "make this wrong a right, either by us or by others in conflict with each other."

Yet by publically failing to denouce torture...AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TORTURE HERE...where has that equity gone? It is not enough to say "well others have not given us equity in return." That does not speak to the equity you bring to the table. You must say that "We have brought equity and therefore we seek equity."

So when we see video tapes of U.S. soldiers captured, being tortured or forced to say things that are not of their own free will, what can we say in return? What do we say of the nude prisoner forced to pile on top of each other, or forced to masturbate, or forced to sodomize others? What do we say of the prisoner who had dog collars on their necks, or the dead prisoners with the prison guards laughing and smiling with their thumbs held up?

He who seeks equity must give equity.

The other problem really goes to the core of what we mean by "civilization." We are not civil to each other because of fear. It is not the belief that another person has the greater strength and will to govern that keeps people in check or the power of our own hands to force our wills onto others that keeps civilization together. Civilization exists because we, as a people, believe that force is better checked than unchecked, that to rise above our base instincts is what makes us better than the other animals to populate this earth (YOU ALSO DO REALIZE THAT NO OTHER ANIMAL TORTURES THEIR OWN KIND...KILL YES, BUT TORTURE NO, SO MAY BE HUMANS ARE EVEN MORE BASE THAN OTHER ANIMALS, AND WE HAVE A HARDER CLIMB TO CIVILIZATION).

In short, civilization does not just happen. It is unnatural. You have to fight within yourself to keep it going.

To have your leaders espouse torture as a legitimate tool to acquire information, is a complete rejection of civilization and specifically a COMPLETE REJECTION OF OUR ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE CIVILIZED AND OUR ENEMIES ARE NOT. What is our definition of civilization if we say that we do not extend to our enemies the basic concepts of human civilization? How are we to define this differently than how our enemies define it?

Bush and Cheney, they who never fought to defend the country and its values, are trying to oppose the wisdom of those who did fight and nearly died defending the country? What is the equity that they bring to the table? What is it that they have added to humanity to say that such a stance in correct when those who nearly gave up their life as equity have said "we must go to the world with our morality and equity intact."

What do we say not only to the world, but to ourselves??? To the girl who escaped being tortured and used as a sexual slave in IL the other day? To the little girl whose parents killed her and decapitated her to dispose of the body and was only recently fully identified? What do we say to families of those killed in Columbine by two kids who felt it was within their right to do that act and die in a blaze of glory? What do we say to them?
Posted by: Gebbeth on November 10, 2005 at 06:53pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/10/mccain-vs-bush-on-torture_n_10441.html?p=5#comments

It seems to me that I don't see this discussion often enough.....

Fe,

Howdy. :-)

I've been looking into Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, and it really is a slimy marketing campaign one might compare to convincing a country to support a war. It's the same kind of hoax, and it turns out to be financed by Bush backers like Howard Ahmanson who is a power broker for the religious right.
And just like the war, the ID people have been laying there groundwork for quite a while, calling their handi-work 'The Wedge'.

This is a fascinating book on the whole PR campaign:

http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/

And here is a must read about Ahmanson because he has a lot of power to do harm:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/index_np.html

I vote for Pat Robertson as Kook of the Year.

Can I get an amen?

Posted by: monkey at November 10, 2005 08:39 PM

AMEN!

For phase two of WMD commission, Senator Durbin is inviting input on questions to ask. This was emailed around:

Dear ________,

The American people deserve to know the truth. That's why I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week to put the Senate into a special closed session to force the Republican leadership to face lingering questions vital to our national security. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth.

We want to know how and why the Bush administration distorted intelligence to lead us into war in Iraq. We want to know who else was involved in Lewis Libby's efforts to conceal the White House's deceptions. And we want to know why the Republicans who control Congress have, until just last week, repeatedly accepted the deception coming from the White House and refused to ask the hard questions about the misuse of pre-war intelligence.

Most of all we want to know when George Bush will stop misleading Congress and the American people, acknowledge the mistakes we've made in Iraq, and develop a strategy to achieve military, political and economic success to bring our troops home.

There's one more thing I want to know. What questions do YOU want answered? In a democracy, our leaders must be held accountable to all the people. I've told you some of the questions Senate Democrats will be asking, but I want to make sure we get the answers the American people want. Visit the DSCC website today to let me know what questions you want answered about how we were lead to war in Iraq.

http://www.dscc.org/demandthetruth

We know that there were no WMDs in Iraq and no connection to the terrorists who attacked America on September 11. Those at the highest levels of the White House have gone to great lengths to spread these myths as justifications for war. They have gone to even greater lengths to conceal the fact that their case for war was based on distorted intelligence. Senate Democrats are going to get the truth.

Join me in demanding answers on behalf of the American people. Together, we will hold the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress accountable and we will get the truth that every American deserves.

Sincerely,

Dick Durbin

P.S. Our leaders must be held accountable to ALL Americans. Forward this message to your friends and family and ask them what questions they want answered about how we were lead to war in Iraq.

http://www.dscc.org/demandthetruth

Senate Votes to Bar 'Enemy Combatants' From U.S. Courts
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Congress-Detainees.html?hp&ex=1131685200&en=5fd69c6f61c47036&ei=5094&partner=homepage

where is my country???????????????

Call To Action - Thanksgiving in Crawford
November 22-November 27, 2005
Crawford, Texas (Camp Casey 2)

Sponsors
* Gold Star Families For Peace
* Crawford Peace House

Endorsed by
* Iraq Veterans Against the War
* Veterans For Peace
* Code Pink

Schedule of Events
* 11/22 - Civil Disobedience
* 11/23 - Organization of Katrina relief/Meal Preparation
* 11/24 - Simple Thanksgiving Meal
* 11/25 - Memorial Dedication
* 11/26 - March/Rally- Possible Interfaith Service

Contact the Crawford Peace House at 254-486-0099 for more information. Keep checking the Crawford Peace House Website (http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/ )for updated information about the event.

Read more at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/10/201945/44

Posted by: Lou at November 10, 2005 07:55 PM

Welcome Home LOU!

AMEN, Brother !!!

Posted by: Lou at November 10, 2005 07:55 PM

Hi Lou,

I remember you from the Kerry blog. It's nice to see you here.

I just read your link on Ahmanson. He's a scary guy. They all seem to be corrupt, powerbrokers to the bone!

Posted by: mkh at November 10, 2005 07:39 PM

mkh,

I see the discussion often and people take sides. Either the 'wimpy left' will let those terrorist kill and maim your children type arguments or the left is in a room with more lefties and they all agree. But nowhere do I see the left making the 'right' change their stance.

They're not booing, they're yelling "Lou!"

Rove re-emerges at conservative lawyers' group
President's advisor addresses the Federalist Society

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 9:06 p.m. ET Nov. 10, 2005

WASHINGTON - Emerging from weeks of political hibernation, President Bush's longtime advisor Karl Rove told the right-wing Federalist Society that rulings by liberal judges will “provoke a strong counter-reaction” through laws or constitutional amendments to limit the judiciary.

Rove addressed the group Thursday evening at the Federalist Society's annual meeting in Washington.

“The public will reclaim its rights as a sovereign people,” Rove predicted, and “at the end of the day the views of the Founders will prevail.”

Rove was greeted by a standing ovation, but his speech lacked drama -- it was instead a meat-and-potatoes explanation of the conservative view of the judiciary.

Rove has been under a shadow for more than a week as some in Washington expected — and others hoped — that he might be indicted for disclosing classified information that Valerie Plame, the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. But only I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has so far been indicted in that case.

Rove made no reference to the Libby case in his 25-minute address Thursday.

Rove denounced recent examples of what he saw as liberal judicial activism such as the 9th Circuit court of appeals declaring that the recitation of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional

He also denounced last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling Roper v. Simmons in which five justices ruled that convicted murderers under the age of 18 could not be put to death. Rove noted that 20 states allowed capital punishment for those under 18 and argued that the high court was depriving those states of the right to self-government.

The Federalist Society includes influential figures on the Right, such as former solicitor general Ted Olson and unsuccessful 1986 Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

President George W. Bush, his father the 41st president, and President Reagan have drafted several of their roster of conservative judicial nominees from Federalist Society ranks.

Rove entered Washington’s Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in the company of Leonard Leo, the vice president of the Federalist Society who has spent seven of the past 12 months on leave from his Federalist Society job to help push the confirmations of first Chief Justice John Roberts and then White House counsel Harriet Miers through the Senate. During the final days of the Miers battle – regarded by some Federalistas as a sad and freakish episode – Leo looked frazzled by worry.

Rove briefly mentioned Miers in this speech; she was not a favorite of many Federalist Society members but they applauded politely when Rove mentioned her.

Rove noted that more than 200 Bush judicial nominees have been confirmed since 2001, “not easily not quickly but confirmed after a hard effort.”

He confidently predicted that soon Chief Justice John Roberts will be joined by “a proud member of the Federalist Society,” Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

As for those Bush judicial nominees still awaiting Senate confirmation, Rove said, “Any of you nominees, just remember, you wanted the job.”

Lou:

;-)

Can't talk right now. Just want to enjoy feeling the happiness I feel having you here.

Fe, Lou
Sent you something funny (for girls)

On November 11th, thousands of people, all across the world, will be falling silent in a ritual of
reconciliation and reflection.

Find out why and pledge your support at
http://www.twominutesofsilence.org

I just wanted to say that DiAnne and Fe are the best... that is all.

Posted by: Lou at November 10, 2005 07:55 PM

I vote for Pat Robertson as Kook of the Year.

Can I get an amen?

LORI!!!!

/hugs

Hey kyle. Nice to have you visit.

Check out today's Five Minutes--and happy Veterans Day--thanks to all who served, in every capacity: defense of country and truth telling in wartime.

msnbc.com

What do you think of evangelist Pat Robertson's claim that a vote against intelligent design in public schools is a vote against God?

* 35651 responses


It's justifiably righteous anger.
17%

It's misguided, but his heart is in the right place.
8%

It's pure idiocy.
71%

It's none of the above.
4%

AP poll: Most Americans say Bush not honest
Administration under scrutiny for justifications for Iraq war, CIA leak case

The Associated Press
Updated: 5:36 a.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005

WASHINGTON - Most Americans say they aren’t impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert CIA officer’s identity.

Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

Bush, who promised in the 2000 campaign to uphold “honor and integrity” in the White House, last week ordered White House workers, from presidential advisers to low-ranking aides, to attend ethics classes.

The president gets credit from a majority for being strong and decisive, but he’s also seen by an overwhelming number of people as “stubborn,” a perception reinforced by his refusal to yield on issues like the Iraq war, tax cuts and support for staffers under intense pressure.

More than eight in 10, 82 percent, described Bush as “stubborn,” with almost that many Republicans agreeing to that description. That stubborn streak has served Bush well at times, but now he is being encouraged to shake up his staff and change the direction of White House policies.

Concern about the administration’s ethics has been fueled by the controversy over flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the recent indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name.

That loss of trust complicates Bush’s efforts to rebuild his standing with the public. His job approval rating remains at his all-time low in the AP-Ipsos poll of 37 percent.

“Honesty is a huge issue because even people who disagreed with his policies respected his integrity,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist from the University of Texas.

The mandatory White House lectures on ethics for its employees came after the Libby indictment, and some people say they aren’t impressed.

“It’s like shutting the barn door after the horse escaped,” said John Morrison, a Democrat who lives near Scranton, Pa.

“This week’s elections were just a preview of what’s going to happen,” he said, referring to Tuesday’s New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, both won by Democrats. “People are just fed up.”

Some Republicans are nervous about the GOP’s political position.

“A lot of elected Republicans are running for the hills in the Northeast,” said Connecticut GOP strategist Chris DePino after what he called “a waterfall of missteps” by Republicans. Bush and the GOP must return to their message that the United States has been safe from terrorism during his administration, DePino said.

Only 42 percent in the new poll said they approve of Bush’s handling of foreign policy and terrorism, his lowest rating yet in an area that has long been his strongest issue.

Iraq war is a key issue
The war in Iraq is at the core of the public’s unrest, polling found.

In an AP-Ipsos poll in early October, almost six in 10 disapproved of the way Bush was doing his job, and Iraq was a dominant factor.

When those who disapproved of Bush were asked in an open-ended question the top reason, they most frequently mentioned the war far ahead of the second issue, the economy.

“To use an unfortunate metaphor, Iraq is a roadside bomb in American politics,” said Rich Bond, a former national Republican chairman.

Many of those who approve of Bush’s job performance cited his Christian beliefs and strong values, the second biggest reason for support after backing his policies.

“I know he is a man of integrity and strong faith,” said Fran Blaney, a Republican and an evangelical who lives near Hartford, Conn. “I’ve read that he prays every morning asking for God’s guidance. He certainly is trying to do what he thinks he is supposed to do.”

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Nov. 7-9 by Ipsos, an international polling firm, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Kyle!!
& I'd just thought of Lou when I heard Bert would be having breakfast with Max Clelland. I thought of her pushing him in his w/c, in Boston.