« Media Desecration of the Flag Amendment | Main | Superhighways to Global Warming »
Phone Call with Peter King's Staff
I've been accused of being like a dog with a bone when I get on an issue. I can live with that. Proudly. And I am sure some will accuse me of that with my follow-up to Peter King's remarks about what constitutes treasonous behavior, a capitol crime, in this day and age. Again, I will live with that. Proudly.
In my previous post, I stated that enquiring minds want to know if Congressman King was including Karl Rove and Lewis Libby in his remarks about leaking information in wartime being a treasonous act.
So I called his office. Twice so far. I posted the first converstion on the thread of my first post.
Here's my transcript, as best as I could manage and still talk on the phone at the same time, of the second phone call. I imagine there will be a third. But in the meantime:
I called and spoke to "F" at King's office. The standard line from the King office phone staff was handed forth: F can't speak for the Congressman.
I said, "Who asked you to? It's just that the Congressman made remarks on what constitutes treason, and that would seem to include Karl Rove and Lewis Libby. It seems that he should have been on the record about this at some point, so what is his stand on that?"
F: Well, it's not the job of staff to do research for people
so you should look that up for yourself on the internet.
CM: Excuse me? No, that's not an acceptable answer. It is DEFINETLY your job to provide people with information on the Congressman's position on matters which he himself has chosen to take a stance on. So what's the Congressman's stand on people who leak government secrets, treason or not?
F: Well, those are two different things--different than the other.
CM: No F, it isn't. It's the same matter, with the slight moral distinction that one is protected free sppech by the First Amendment, and the other is a base political strategy. So what does the Congressman have to say about Libby and Rove.
F: I don't know. I can't speak for the Congressman, the person you would have to talk to about that is M.I.
CM: I see, and when will MI be available?
F: In two weeks.
CM: F, that's absurd. THe Congressman is getting a lot of media attention over this and you are telling me that the person handling that is out of the office for two weeks? I don't think so. Who's your supervisor, F?
F: (silence)
CM: Who's your supervisor, F?
F: ....no one.
CM: You don't have a supervisor, F? You're telling me that you are just hanging loose at the Congressman's office, doing as you please, with no supervision whatsoever? Is that what your telling me, F?
F: (silence) I have to take another call now. We have lots of calls today.
CM: F, I don't hear any phones ringing. Who's your supervisor? F? Who's your supervisor?
F: Um, A.D.
CM: I see, and what's A.D's title?
F: Intern Supervisor.
CM: So you're an intern, F. I'd like to speak to a real staff member please. How about R.T, the Congressman's Press Secretary?
F: He's busy.
CM: No he's not, F. Put me into his voicemail please.
F: I don't think I can do that.
CM: F, You're an intern, you don't have the authority to blow me off. Seriously, you don't, so put me into the voicemail please.
F: Umm...
CM: F., put me into his voicemail right now, please. Or you can put me into your supervisor's voicemail. It's up to you. I would suggest R.T's voicemail.
F: Okay, have a nice day.
CM: Thanks, F. You, too.
-------
This is the conversation as close as I could type it while I was talking to the intern. There is some part of the conversation left out in the beginning, establishing my bonafides, like F and I were born in the same hospital, that type of stuff. But I pick things up where we get to the meat of the conversation.
Now, will I ever get through the noise machine? I don't know, I will keep you posted. But that's not completely the point, is it?
The point is to make people accountable for what they say. To ask the questions that media should ask. To BE THE MEDIA.
If they won't ask the questions, we will.
Because someone ought to.
Yeah, I just heard there's a pic of Casey up in the milk-and-cookies room at the HOB--Intern Terrist.
I call it education.
They need to know they work for we, the people.
Casey:
I would HATE to be on the receiving end of your fact-finding calls.
Well, poor intern. Let's just say that if you're going to come straight out of a Young Conservatives University (breeding pond), they're going to have to take classes in "How to Think for Yourself".
Hmmm. Maybe if they did, they would quit working for dimwits like Peter King and get a real job in the public sector. I can think of a few social service agencies in the inner city that could use fresh meat...
Cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to top $500 billion in 2007
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday June 27, 2006
The costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wil pass the $500 billion mark next year, says a Congressional Research Service report, the National Journal's CONGRESS DAILY has reported today. The Congressional Research Service is a non-partisan arm of Congress. Excerpts from the registration restricted article follow:
#
The overall cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other global anti-terror operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will top $500 billion next year, according to congressional estimates and expectations of future funding.
more...
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Cost_of_wars_in_Afghanistan_and_0627.html
Count DeMonet
I don't think anyone would mind being on the end of my calls who is actually telling the truth. I have had several lovely conversations with people whose offices I have called. Senator Warner's staff comes to mind off the bat.
But if your intent is to provide cover for people who want to silence a free press, well, someone needs an education.
Casey:
As someone who works in the public sector, I would thoroughly enjoy your calls!
SNOW BATTING 1000:
Tony Snow Tells E&P: 'NYT' Deserves Special Criticism
By Joe Strupp
Published: June 27, 2006 12:45 PM ET
NEW YORK White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told E&P today that The New York Times deserves the brunt of criticism for disclosure of a secret bank records monitoring program, even though two other newspapers - The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times - reported the same story at almost the same time.
But he added that, no matter what the National Review argues, the Times will not be losing its White House credentials.
Snow, along with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, on Monday criticized the Times for publishing the story despite administration efforts to halt it. He told E&P that the criticism was directed at the New York paper because it "was way ahead of the other two and started [reporting on the story] much earlier. The other two were playing catch up."
Reminded that the administration had reached out to both The New York Times and Los Angeles Times with requests to hold the story, Snow repeated his assertion. "The other newspapers were not involved to the same extent," he added. "The Times is really pulling the train on this one."
Snow noted that the Treasury Department had been in talks with the New York Times for several weeks trying to get them to withhold publication, a fact previously confirmed to E&P by Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, one of two reporters on the story. He also said that the delay allowed the other papers to catch up.
"They had been working with the Times for a long time, more than a month," Snow said. "It had been a considerable period of time."
When asked why the administration had not asked the Wall Street Journal to hold off publication as it had with the other two papers, Snow said he did not know, referring such inquiries to Treasury Department Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tony Fratto. "I don't think they did because the Journal was so late to the story," Snow said. "But I don't know."
Fratto could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.
Although both Executive Editor Bill Keller of The New York Times and Los Angeles Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet have written explanations to readers about why they published the stories, the Journal's editors have remained silent on the subject.
Journal managing editor Paul Steiger has not been reachable for comment since Monday, but Journal spokesman Robert Christie said he knew of no effort by the administration to halt his paper's story prior to publication.
The paper's Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot declined to comment when asked if he planned to editorialize on the Journal's decision to publish the story, saying in an e-mail message through Christie that he does not discuss pending editorial subjects. Whatever he produces will be interesting, given the paper's conservative and pro-Bush editorial line.
Snow declined to comment on other criticism of The New York Times from outside the White House, such as New York Republican congressman Peter King's assertion that the paper should be prosecuted and National Review's Monday editorial urging that the Times' White House press credentials be revoked. "They are not going to lose their credentials," he said.
"Congress acts on its own without White House direction," he added about King's comments. "I don't want to get in any further on this than we have. We have said what we are going to say."
link:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002728765
New Gallup Poll - 57% believe that Congress should come up with a plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
Posted by: Cyrano at June 27, 2006 05:56 PM
I bet we don't hear the press call it an overwhelming majority.
from Taylor Marsh:
______________________________________
AOL Online Poll, This Morning:
(Over 50,000 responses)
1. Which branch of government do you trust the most?
Judicial: 55%
Legislative: 24%
Executive: 20%
2. What do you think of the way President Bush uses presidential power?
He goes too far: 74%
I approve: 23%
He doesn’t go far enough: 4%
From previous thread:
Posted by: Fe at June 27, 2006 02:42 PM
GO BERKELEY!!! :-)
F: Well, it's not the job of staff to do research for people so you should look that up for yourself on the internet.
Posted by Casey Morris at June 27, 2006 03:00 PM
Ummmmmm..... So, what is an intern's job, then??? Isn't it part of any politician's staff to do research so the legislator has correct facts to deal with?
Er... well, neffer mind. That's a logical question, and I keep forgetting that neoCons don't deal with FACTS.
Perhaps the toughest job the intern you spoke with has to deal with is getting coffee or soft drinks for the office. Clearly, answering the phone and giving truthful answers to anyone who calls is not one of the job requirements.
Wanna read something that will really scare you?
Here's an interview with Jane Mayer from the New Yorker. She wrote an article called "Cheney's Cheney" about David Addington in the most recent issue. You'll get the gist of the article in this interview, but go out & buy the issue if you dare...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/060703on_onlineonly01
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/flag_amendment
Senate rejects flag desecration amendment
WASHINGTON - A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.
The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.
More on link....
{{{Okay... politicizing and posturing over gay marriage and flag burning time-wasting debate regarding non-issues over with for another political year... now can our legislators PUH-LEEZE get on to something important... like stopping those stupid illegal wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and bringing our troops home so the US can stop participating in Bu$hCo WAR CRIMES there and at Gitmo with torture, etc...?!?!?}}}
Did Congressman King or his staff mention anything about Cheney's treasonous leaks?
By the way the following are the only countries who currently have flag burning statutes:
1. China
2. Iran
3. Iraq
4. Cuba
that is ceratinly great company for the US to emulate.
If we have any bloggers here who live in King's district with a New York zip code they would be more persuasive to King's staff.
Posted by: madame defarge at June 27, 2006 09:13 PM
Chilling description of - dare I say - Cheney's brain. What I find to be most interesting though is the fact that legally we are not at war. Congress did not declare war. It only gave the President the right to use military force. The NeoCons have created an argument that by any standard - not just war - the President can do anything he/she damn well pleases. These false arguments are absolutely baseless because we are not at war. When Congress decides to declare war, then the NeoCons might have an argument.
Should it be illegal to burn the American flag? * 2278 responses
Yes
20%
No
80%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13583165/
How could such a stupid resolution lose by only one vote? Talk about being out of touch with the people. The Dems are stupid, they really are so scared of their own shadow, they don't realize when they are on the winning side of an issue. Pathetic.
oncall its not an issue its a political wedge. healthcare, war and peace, energy independence, immigration, national security those are issues.
If we had any sense we would just stand on the sidelines and watch the Republicans hang themselves with their brinkmanship and laugh. People I have spoken to think they are just playing games while Rhome is burning.
Social Security privatization, Energy Independence, Iraq war policies, flag burning and now immigration reform all doa by this do nothing Congress.No one is taking them seriously, why should we oncall? Personally I wish more of congress would register a protest vote by just voting present and sending a message for them to stop this nonsense.
Had Enough?
Must reading -- hattip to ePM post at dailykos.
Citizen journalism / blogging at its best...
Who really stalled the Voting Rights Act renewal?
by Duke1676
Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:03:58 PM EST
Using the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act as a proxy for the current immigration debate, 79 Representatives last week prevented the House from reauthorizing the bill. But they were not working alone. They had powerful allies in the anti-immigration lobby, allies with some rather disturbing skeletons in the closet.
lots more to read below...
http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/6/27/14358/0575
I saved off the word document and have screen prints of the word document properties replete with creation dates and KC McAlpin's name.
Ira,
You are right. The Dems would have been smart to have just voted Present.
while Rome is burning.
Wow - flag amendment defeated by just one vote, as predicted.
They try this every so often & with the Senate stacked more & more in favor of conservatives, they've gotten cockier.
In other news -
Just read in The Independent that in UK, wives of military are receiving death threats and other harassments, from insurgent sympathizers in their country (anonymous).
Heard on NPR that in Iraq (this was in translation from an Iraqi soldier), a military recruit can earn more than most, given the high unemployment. They can earn $300/month, which is better pay than most other options. The system is so corrupt that they have to pay a kickback of $600-700 to get in, so the only ones who can afford to join are gang member types.
My son reminded me (I heard this too) that the military doesn't like this out, but it's popular now for insurgents to join the Iraqi military to receive training and equipment. Then they may even kill their trainers. One mother here in US did so much research on this that when the military finally admitted to her that her son had died this way (one year after his death), she knew almost more than they did about it.
Also heard Lakoff speaking about "framing" the Iraq War. First of all, it's not a war. When Bush said "Mission Accomplished," the major war was over because our army basically defeated Saddam's army. Now it's an Occupation, but the conservative framers insist on calling it a war. A "war on terror," which it isn't and never was. Terrorists declared war on us, so we sort of declared it back (even though it's asymmetrical and illogical and even impossible to conduct).
When "war on terror" or "cut and run," for that matter (which is also remembered from Vietnam), is repeated over and over, people start to believe it.
We are occupying Iraq. We need to call it "an occupation" more times than the conservatives call it a "war" and finally it will sink in. The conservatives use the media echo chamber to repeat and brainwash.
I keep noticing that the "angry left" (another conservative frame) do repeat effectively but don't have big media outlets. Nevertheless, Bush Bashers over time have distributed his "resume," noted similarity to chimp, the box on his back, his misspeaks etc. to where I do think it's affected his perception. It's just that this hasn't spread widely enough.
I think it's bleeding over though. Today I noticed that in the prayer book at the chapel (Navy town), someone had written "Down with Bush" and I swear it wasn't me!!
There is always the thought that Democrats, liberals, progressives, good guys - whatever - need also to define what they're going to do. That's assuming there is one big homogenous group, which there isn't and never was or will be.
Still, it's interesting to note lately that there is a big focus on the environment! It's not just "No Blood for Oil" but actually emphasis on "Less Oil" as well as the "Blood" part! Al Gore's movie, Kerry's speeches, more global warming in the news, actual shitty weather - and now Move On is having (tomorrow) 300 events focussed on the whole Oil Culture.
Another thing Lakoff said was that it's not just Global Warming that is an "inconvenient truth" - the Occupation of Iraq is another "inconvenient truth" - something that is very true but that people don't relish talking about. I think he was trying to tie together the environmental and antiwar (antioccupation, in this case) movements and with one sort of phrase. That seems smart.
Alot of food for thought - felt good enough to switch the station & catch some African music (Amadou & Mariam, from Mali).
Ira wrote:
By the way the following are the only countries who currently have flag burning statutes:
1. China
2. Iran
3. Iraq
4. Cuba
that is certainly great company for the US to emulate.
Well check this out:
William Fisher | Crocodile Tears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062706A.shtml
"If you're into black humor, you might find it amusing that two of the countries with some of the world's worst human rights records are making international propaganda hay out of America's performance in prisoner abuse and civil liberties," writes William Fisher.
Posted by: Fe at June 27, 2006 04:49 PM
I saw the interview with Eric Lichtblau (think on PBS's News Hour) regarding this story, and he said the NYT sat on the story for weeks or months - at the request of the White House - before deciding to publish the story. Bu$hCo is still trying to control the press, in other words.
I'm with the NYT, WSJ, and LAT on this one. Per the First Amendment, they have an obligation to try to keep the citizens of this nation informed.
True, I suspect the NYT has taken heat for this story and others recently 'cuz they're trying to make up for the debacle surrounding Judith Miller (and to their credit, NYT got rid of her).
However late in making amends in keeping the public informed, I will give them credit for trying on this particular story.... I just hope they keep it up. If they start to consistently print the truth about the criminals in the current administration, they will take more heat for it, and be called all sorts of names by the neoCons who will try their best to get the people at the NYT accused of treason or some other lame and trumped up charges. I only wonder if the kool-aid-drinking sheeple will side with the newspaper and support the First Amendment or if they will side with the criminals in office...? Rovian brainwashing tactics have been remarkably successful since 2000, and a lot of de-programming has to be done.
Pine Ridge Leader Faces Battle Over Abortion Ban
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/062706WA.shtml
The South Dakota abortion ban inspired Cecelia Fire Thunder, president of the Oglala Sioux Nation, to call for a clinic to be built on the reservation. It is, she says, the start of a quiet revolution. She now faces impeachment as a backlash of tribal members is organized against her.
CO2 Is Creating Acid Seas
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/062706EA.shtml
"The oceans are inexorably becoming corrosive. Unknown to the greater public, this process - due to the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions - will have considerable impact," writes Stephane Foucart. "[This] is all the more worrying in that the affected flora and fauna constitute the first links in the marine food chain."
What I find to be most interesting though is the fact that legally we are not at war. Congress did not declare war. It only gave the President the right to use military force. The NeoCons have created an argument that by any standard - not just war - the President can do anything he/she damn well pleases. These false arguments are absolutely baseless because we are not at war.
Posted by: oncall at June 27, 2006 09:52 PM
That's the part I've always found the most... frustrating and dumbfounding... when it comes to all the nonsense that 'we are at war' and DumDum thinks he has the right to seize all these extraordinary executive powers to spy on our own citizens and take away our rights (it seems to me it would be illegal to do so under our Constitution, whether at war or at peace, but certainly not when involved in unconstitutional and illegal wars and occupations). The resolution to authorize DumDum to use military force did NOT include usurping the power of Congress to vote on whether to go to war or not, and DumDum does NOT have the authority to declare war against any nation on his own say-so... under the Constitution, NO president has that power; only Congress can elect to go to war - or not. We are NOT 'at war' JUST because DumDum says 'we are at war.' That, in itself, is a LIE (and only said to justify his bullying so he can say he will be remembered as a 'war president' per his delusion).
We are NOT "at war" simply because DumDum authorized military force to illegally invade another country (it was clearly a war crime to invade Iraq; invading Afghanistan may be questionable since there was some kind of UN sanction for it, but it's certainly illegal to occupy Afghanistan). Congress NEVER voted to go to war!!! Congress ONLY authorized the use of military force, and if my memory is still functioning, I think at the time it was only to go after Osama Bin Laden via Afghanistan (and then OBL was let go at Tora Bora anyway, so we have no business even staying in Afghanistan, since it seems OBL has gone into Pakistan - or wherever - and I'm quite sure OBL will never be captured as long as DumDum is resident, unless it's an October surprise in '08 for which he may declare martial law and want to remain resident to complete a trial against OBL, if he doesn't decide to bomb Iran or Korea to smithereens and justify martial law by more of his illegal wars and call elections off by then). The US has no legal authority to OCCUPY either Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone have a president declare war against anyone, or make of his office a 'unitary executive' presidency (aka dictatorship) that has eroded so many of our civil rights and privileges as citizens of this nation.
MORE frustrating yet are the actions of our senators and representatives who have gone along with all of Bu$hCo's nonsense, starting with the Patriot Act(s), from the first one to the revisions when they discovered DumDum would seize powers not even authorized by the questionable Patriot Act first passed, then amended, not to mention the other abuses of laws that are normally only enforced legally with search warrants by the CIA or the FBI that Congress has refused to investigate fully... and then there are those questionable 'signing statements' that DumDum signs that indicate he fully believes he is above any laws enacted by Congress....
Quite clearly the frustration Democrats and Independents share, and which we've been complaining about - at length - for so many years, is the meek and sheeple-like actions of our senators and representatives who have displayed little or no backbone against Bu$hCo for seizing dictatorial power when he has no right to do so under our Constitution, and had no right to 'interpret' as being given power to do more than being authorized to use military force to go after OBL because of 9/11, if OBL even had a role in planning it (never mind the fact that all the criminals who perpetrated the crimes that day died with their victims, so we can't prosecute the criminals who killed so many people, a frustration in and of itself, but we have to get over the fact that there is no one to punish for the crimes committed that day - and I'm not sure Moussaoui's confession was more than trying to associate himself with an infamous day so he could label himself a martyr). Bu$hCo slaughters all of our Congressional people by calling them unpatriotic or not supporting our troops every time it seems they may not want to vote in favor of all these "emergency spending bills" that are financing Bu$hCo's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan - and putting us trillions of dollars in debt that our great-great-great-grandchildren will probably still be paying for long after we're dead, since the tax cuts for the rich and for corporations certainly have not financed Bu$hCo's wars and occupations, and it's those same people and corporations who are benefiting the most from Bu$hCo's illegal wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone in Congress has just thrown up their hands and said 'okay, okay, you'll get your emergency money for your wars if you'll just quit calling us unpatriotic' it seems. Aside from fear of being called unpatriotic or having the charge of not supporting the troops leveled at them: Why?
If anyone has a LOGICAL explanation for the way the majority of senators and representatives have voted for these illegal or immoral acts and laws passed in Congress since 2000, please let me know what those LOGICAL explanations are. For the life of me, I just have not been able to figure out any LOGICAL explanations as to why they've gone along with Bu$hCo, why Dems have just fallen back on the excuse 'oh, we can't do anything against a Republican-controlled Congress' (whiners!) - but yet have voted with those same neoCons to finance the wars and occupations...! It makes no SENSE whatsoever! I can't even come up with a half-excuse rationalization to explain their actions. To stop Bu$hCo's illegal occupations would require they just simply vote against financing the wars and occupations with "emergency spending bills." Isn't that partly how they finally ended the war in Viet Nam? Congress just refused to authorize the money for it? Aside from the fact that people demanded the war end, of course, and were finally heard. Right now a majority of people think the Iraq war is a mistake and want the troops home... but no one is listening... yet... it's barely ever mentioned in Lamestream Media, and I think the last time it was mentioned was the day the last polls came out.
Oh, yes, I do hold Lamestream Media responsible for their part in the bandwagon patriotic hoo-ha and goo over 'brave soldiers fighting for our freedom' - Nope! - our military in Iraq and Afghanistan is fighting to preserve, protect, and defend the oil wells or pipelines in the occupied countries, NOT for our freedoms here at home - we were NOT attacked by any country that US military forces are currently occupying! (Besides which, the mere fact that our guard and reserve troops are not here at home, where they belong, has left us militarily weak and vulnerable here in this nation, not to mention they could be used to help fight forest fires and rescue flood victims at the moment, and clean up after those disasters....) But if Dems had spoken up sooner, gotten Lamestream Media attention and a few sound bytes by speaking up sooner... couldn't Bu$hCo's illegal actions have been spotlighted sooner??? Couldn't the idiotic color coded 'ter-ra alerts' been exposed for the manipulative lies they were so close to election? Couldn't they have made a bigger deal out of stolen elections? Something stinks about the whole thing, and media must be held responsible for their part in keeping Bu$hCo in power with all the faux bandwagon patriotism and passing White House and Pentagon propaganda and LIES off as truth. Lamestream Media has a LOT of 'splainin' to do for their part in keeping the dictator wannabe in power....
The fiasco of the installation of Bu$hCo to their offices by SCOTUS in their infamous 2000 decision made me disappointed and angry. The stolen election of '04, and the Dem non-response to it left me befuddled and angry and confused. No, I won't get over it, and I'm still pissed about it all. (I voted; that gives me the right to complain!) I don't understand the non-response, and no namby-pamby explanation I've heard or read has sufficed; there was no LOGIC to the explanations (sounded like weak excuses for back room deals to allow Bu$hCo to get into, and then stay, in power quite frankly).
So, if Dems and Independents do not take advantage of the FACT that the wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal war crimes, not to mention the war crimes with concentration camps and torture at a US military base in Gitmo and make a big stink about it during their campaigns, not to mention the FACT that damn near everything Bu$hCo has done is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, unjust, dishonorable, and unethical, actions that certainly require impeachment proceedings at the very least..., then they are fools....
That whole topic of war crimes is a hot potato that, if thrown, puts the hot potato in the neoCons' camp... and then the neoCons would be put on the defensive for a change. For almost everything else, the Rovian slime machine can go into full force and be used to do all sorts of name-calling against Dems... but not the charge of war crimes - all of which are Bu$hCo offenses. If Dems and Independents don't bring up war crimes and unconstitutional actions, followed closely by the suggestion of impeachment proceedings against this administration (and maybe even turning the lot of 'em over to The Hague for war crimes trials), then the candidates for '06 will deserve to lose against the Rovian slime machine (which has proved so successful in the past in areas where voting machines may not have been rigged, but paper ballots used instead), and we'll be stuck with more (or the same!) neoCon dictators in '08 because no one will have replaced the voting machines that can be hacked into.... (I don't buy the lame excuse that impeachment proceedings would detract from the "war effort," that it then leaves Cheney in power - he's already in power, for cryin' out loud - and both of them can be impeached anyway.)
I'm heartily sick and tired of idiotic side-issue blather about things that are technically non-issues for the majority of people, and it's time to get back to basics, time to (once again) write senators and representatives and remind them what their constitutional duties are (they have read the Constitution, haven't they, so they do know how much power they really have, yes?), remind them of what their jobs are (they work for us, not the other way around - and if they're not going to work for us, then why did they just vote themselves a pay raise? Don't they get enough money from PACs?), and time to (once again) write to them and remind them that war crimes are an impeachable offense - and write to candidates and remind them of the same things....
Sometime before I die, I'd like to once again be proud to be an American instead of having to hang my head in shame like I have been since 2000.... Quite frankly, it's not just the bone spur in my neck that's causing so much pain; it's also from hanging my head in shame....
Okay... rant over... for the moment.... It's a subject to which I will return time and again in the future, I'm sure.
Matthew Rothschild | Bush Goes After the New York Times
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062706M.shtml
Matthew Rothschild writes, "the President doesn’t deserve a seat at the editorial meetings of the New York Times - or any other newspaper. That is not his place. He is commander in chief, not editor in chief. It is up to reporters, and editors, and publishers to decide what is news - not the branch of government they are supposed to be covering."
Larry Johnson | Vice President Cheney, Chef in Chief
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062706L.shtml
"The evidence now on the public record is overwhelming and, if we could have a jury, Vice President Dick Cheney would be found guilty of cooking the intelligence and lying us into war," Larry Johnson writes. "Three remarkable and compelling pieces of evidence have hit the streets within the last two weeks."
{{{The quote from Suskind's book, and the last paragraph reiterate and add little details to what we already knew....}}}
Murtha Says US Poses Top Threat to World Peace
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062706J.shtml
American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Congressman John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.
US to Deploy Interceptor Missiles in Japan
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062706K.shtml
The US will deploy advanced Patriot interceptor missiles on Japanese soil this year for the first time as the region braces itself for a possible test launch by North Korea of an intercontinental ballistic missile, local media reports said today.
{{{Those bloody fools are going to get the world into an all-out war yet... if they are not stopped and forced to settle differences diplomatically....}}}
Judge to Tom DeLay: "Run Like a Rabbit"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062706P.shtml
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, testified at a hearing today in the federal courthouse in Austin regarding a lawsuit filed by Democrats who argue that DeLay is still legally the GOP Congressional candidate for his district, despite his resignation from the House.
{{{Very interesting....}}}
High Court Strikes State's Campaign Fund Limits
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062706N.shtml
A bold experiment in Vermont that sought to address the often thorny connection between money and politics has come to an end. On Monday, the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the most controversial aspects of Vermont's campaign-finance law - including restrictions on the amount of money candidates for public office may spend in their campaigns.
"Breathtaking" Waste and Fraud in Hurricane Aid
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062706O.shtml
Among the many superlatives associated with Hurricane Katrina can now be added this one: it produced one of the most extraordinary displays of scams, schemes and stupefying bureaucratic bungles in modern history, costing taxpayers up to $2 billion.
{{{Well..., DUH...! Wasn't that a predictable outcome because of that monumental white elephant known as Department of Homeland Security?!?}}}
Can Republicans run anything right? Where is the CEO administration that was supposed to straighten out government? It may be that Bush deserves credit for having initially opposed a DHS, knowing that Republicans would make a giant new federal agency. But he later changed his mind and supported the thing. The rest us thought we were getting an agency that would provide homeland security, but what an endless saga of misspent money, stupid decisions, waste, fraud, abuse and political logrolling -- and still no port protection.
It seems to me there is a direct connection between the Republicans' inability to run anything governmental ("Heckuva job, Brownie") and the fact that they don't believe in government. The simplest purposes of government have long been defined for us -- to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It is, or should be, a benign enterprise, making life better for citizens.
I carry no special brief for government -- many years of studying the Texas Legislature will disenchant anyone. But if you are put in charge of government, the least you can do is run it well. Bill Clinton took government seriously -- he was interested in how to make it work better, interested in government policy. Clinton declared the era of Big Government over and indeed pruned the federal structure and finished with a surplus. Bush is giving us fat, bloated, inefficient, corrupt government, all of it running on a huge deficit -- not counting the expense and growing body count in Iraq.
As the man said -- "2,500 is just a number."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/20/ivins.hastert/index.html
Photo shows Ney at meeting he can’t remember
Picture connects congressman to tribe that was an Abramoff client
By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
June 27, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Tigua of El Paso, an Indian tribe and former client of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, released a photo Tuesday of a meeting that members had with Ohio Republican Rep Bob Ney — a meeting the congressman told Senate investigators he did not remember having.
The photo, which was taken on Aug. 14, 2002, in a House hearing room, shows the Tigua tribe's Lt. Gov. Carlos Hisa and tribal council member Raul Gutierrez with Ney. Less than a week earlier, Ney had returned from an expenses-paid golf junket to Scotland with Abramoff, Ralph Reed, David Safavian, Neil Volz and others.
On Nov. 12, 2004, in an interview with Senate investigators, Ney said that "he was not familiar with the Tigua." But the report quotes tribal representatives as testifying that they met with Ney for about two hours and he assured them he could help with legislation.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13582611/
George Lakoff went toe-to-toe with Frank Luntz in this audio clip from All Things Considered yesterday and did very well.
It's not very long. I recommend a listen just to hear how he used his language in directing the conversation. He did very well and Luntz couldn't help but point it out. He knew George was directing the conversation as well.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5516284
Dwahzon
Thanks for the clip! I heard that while driving home & it was short but good!
NonnyO
That was a rant and a half!
As We See It: Bush's pattern of secrecy continues.
Like so many issues nationally, the matter of private information and the threat of terrorism has been buried in the noise of partisan politics.
The New York Times last week published a story about the Bush administration's secret access to banking records during investigations into terrorism.
The Times held the story while it considered whether releasing the information would be damaging to this country. Ultimately, the editors decided to publish the story, and no sooner had the paper hit the streets than administration officials and its supporters launched into a broad attack against the newspaper.
Not only did President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney fire off condemnations against The Times, vocal supporters immediately took off after the Times, essentially accusing the newspaper of helping the enemy.
Unfortunately, discussion of this issue of open government has become so toxic that it's difficult to wend one's way through the issue to decide whether The Times' decision to publish is defensible.
We acknowledge our bias: We've always leaned toward publishing information rather than colluding with the government to keep information private. Of course, here in Santa Cruz that decision more often has to do with matters of personal privacy or taste than it does national security.
However, we know that editors don't make decisions on whether to publish sensitive information lightly.
(more at link)
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/June/28/edit/stories/01edit.htm
reading news laterly, I notice Bill Gates, Warren Buffet & even Jackie Chan are leaving alot of their money to charity - getting involved in philanthropic acts
so finally old Dick Cheney decides to make a donation - to the Cardiology place that keeps his ticker working
Someone sent me an AOL story that Americans are most patriotic on earth (flag-waving, nationalistic). Now Obama says we must court Evangelicals. I guess it's just reality.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5916849,00.html
What does any of this have to do with civil rights, peace, justice or the environment and how does it improve policy for health, education and the general welfare? I really don't know!!
I am not used to donating money for mid-term elections.
I am doing it. Al Gore had a good pitch.
reading about efforts to stop child porn on the internet - there is Legislation pending to make it more uniform how long service providers must keep user records - can't this be used to increase surveillance on anyone if something is deemed in the interests of national security? add to this the net neutrality thing being undermined so those with less assets will be not be as able to afford speed & bandwidth as easily?
It's all rather creepy.
GOP drafting resolution condemning media's terror finance reports
By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans sharply criticized The New York Times and other news media Tuesday for disclosing a secret Bush administration effort to track terrorist financing, and House GOP leaders hurriedly drafted a resolution condemning the stories.
A vote was possible as early as Wednesday, according to House Republican officials.
While a "free and objective independent media is necessary to the maintenance of liberty," a draft of the resolution said, "The New York Times and other media outlets that solicit the discovery of sensitive information and unilaterally determine to publish such information could be placing lives at risk."
more...
http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-19/115145996628790.xml&storylist=simetro
How many lives have been put at risk... or worse... by this administration, and by the party in power?
You say you want a resolution?
Revolting.