Fallen Soldier's Father: "Dear Mr. Bush..."

Thanks for sharing this story.

Rick,

Thanks for sharing this letter. It's so heartbreaking! I just can't understand how these parents can bear the pain.

And I can't understand how these neocons think that they can murder other people's children without any punishment.

And now Pres. Bush just insists he will fight any subpeonas regarding the attorneys and likely everything else.

'Scuse me Mr. Bush but "Bring it on!"

Commin' right at you!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002827.php

Letters like that affect me more than anything because sometimes they are people who really trusted in our system, as they should be able to be.

Thanks for passing it on!

Another sickening feeling as I feel the pain of parental loss and realize again what a crime this war is on so many levels.

By way of an informational update, a friend of ours just pointed out over on Democratic Underground that a certain tall senator from Massachusetts had already beat me to the punch on this one -- which is fine by me, since being aware of stuff that matters is part of his day job and it's nice to know he's not slacking off.

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

From the Senate record of a speech on Iraq given by Senator John Kerry on February 16, 2007:

"Since the end of last month when we started talking about talking about Iraq, 60 American troops have died in Iraq. There is a fellow by the name of Kevin Landeck, whom I just learned yesterday was killed on February 2 by an IED. Kevin Landeck comes from Wheaton, IL. He was a member of a Ranger unit over there. I have a wonderful photograph, a digital photograph on my computer of Kevin and a bunch of his other troops standing on a stairwell celebrating Christmas. The Christmas stockings are all hanging from the stairwell. I am proud that our office -- Mary Tarr in our office particularly -- has led an effort to help send packages to those troops regularly. Our office sends them boxes full of goodies, at Christmastime particularly -- the stockings.

"Sadly, Kevin has given his life in the ultimate act of patriotism, a courageous young man, admired by his fellow soldiers. That happened during the time that we couldn't even debate this issue on the floor of the Senate, during a time that the Senate avoided its responsibility.

"We have every right to expect that the people who were elected to protect Kevin Landeck and the rest of those troops get this policy right -- for their parents, for them, and for all of us."

A father's anguish

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/165219/591

My son will be 26 soon. No one is ever going to make me feel guilty that I didn't encourage him to sacrifice himself on the petrol altar.

One of the best adjectives for Little George...

Pugnacious

Thanks for the great thread header, Rick. I saw this story in the Trib & it took my breath away. Too many have died for nothing.

Crooks and Liars has the video of the pressor up.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/20/president-bush-i-will-resist-all-attempts-to-subpoena-wh-officials/

I'll give you a guess which key words Bush used as his talking points. (And I'm sure Karen could write a novel on his body language on this one!)

Well, here's my talking points:

Prosecutors serve for the well being of the COMMON GOOD. That means they serve US not "Mr. President."

The common good was found in the Bill of Rights and serving King George was found elsewhere!

Next...Partisan, Partisan, Partisan. Mr. Bush seems to think it's ok to have attorney's fired, despite the common good, because partisan firing is ok, but accountability is now called a 'partisan attack by Democrats.'

Well, it ain't so George. EVEN Republicans are not toeing your line on this one.

Now for the common good of all of us, may we put Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, and others under a polygraph test so that we can have irrefutable proof that these people are partisan, spoiled, and irresponsible children with grey hair?

Suz, I would have to agree that Da Prezzle shot himself in the foot bigtime this afternoon.

His body language, his phrasing, his tone of voice all said "I'm pissed and I'm petulant and I'm gonna hold my breath until I turn blue!"

I'm sure he thought he was being forceful, but anyone outside the die-hard circle of red kool-aid drinkers is going to look at his chewing the scenery in this afternoon's over-the-top performance and think that the Bushie doth protest too much.

There's no doubt that he drew a line in the sand and double-dog-dared the Dems to step across it. Thing is, his credibility is so shot and his arrogance so naked and his ground so shaky by now after all the out-of-line crap that's been piling up around him that this may well have been the worst possible time for him to try turning it into a pissing contest.

And not just the wrong time, but the wrong issue. Bear in mind that virtually everyone in the House and the Senate, not to mention most all the other government officials, are lawyers by trade & training, many of them former prosecutors and/or trial lawyers. So even the pro-Repub ones are still gonna get their fur up about him fuxing around with the rank-and-file judicial operating staff like this.

I was thinking while I was watching him during his live presser the same thing that I'm thinking again now -- oh boy, Georgie, you done gone way too far this time and now you are really screwing the pooch but good.

And it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy, either. Whatever ton of bushit cuts loose and lands on his head now, he piled it up and hung it there all by himself.

(BTW, text transcript is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20bush-text.html )

fiddling while bush burns,
Otter

Here comes today's Bush scandal. People in his administration who don't even have Bachelor's degrees monkeyed around with climate change data. Waxman is on their trail.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-20-10.asp

Unfortunately many here are too young to have gone through Watergate and Nixon, but Bush's behavior this week is earily similar. Its really too bad that Bush is not in his 3rd 4th or 5th year in office because his refusal to allow Gonzales and Rove to testify and using Executive Privilige assertions, is Nixonian.He wants a Constitutional crisis, just brings on shades of Watergate Mr. President, make my day, you your 28% of the country, Tom Delay and Joe Lieberman. That will seal the '08 Presidential election andt not even John McCain will want the nomination and a possible 50 state loss. Perhaps the south, and even Texas might then be in play. No Deal Mr. President we are not interested in Karl Rove not being sworn, under oath, and telling lies in some Senate office. Did I mention that Tom Delay is going to trial this summer, hopefully Bush and the Republican party will ty their future to this impending debacle. Have the networks who have given DeLay top billing this week totally forgotten that there are still criminal charges pending against Tom Delay?

Posted by: Otter at March 20, 2007 11:12 PM

I couldn't read past DimWit's answer to a reporter about "getting good decisions." The Cretin has NO public speaking ability or good grammar skills.

BUT, to the pretzelnit I'd say this: Listen up, Frat Boy!!! If you truly want to prove that the US has a free and OPEN republic (note: OPEN, as in everything that happens the public can know about when it regards our elected or appointed public officials), and prove that you have nothing to hide (we know you lie every day!), then "let" your staff personnel testify UNDER OATH in an open committee meeting, televised for all to see/listen to.

The process of appointing prosecuting attorneys does NOT, after all, involve any classified information regarding your illegal war in Iraq, even if it does involve the sneaky insertion into one of the so-called Patriot Acts (all of which need to be repealed in their entirety, along with MCA '06, and the guard and reserve troops need to once again be under the command of state governors!).

So, Frat Boy, prove to us you can *sometimes* act like a grown man and stop your silly spoiled brat reactions to everything Congress does. "Let" your staff testify UNDER OATH, and in open meetings that are televised for all the world to see - if you really are proud of your staff members and how they serve you (we certainly know they don't truly serve this country).

Memo to Patrick Leahy: Sic 'em!!! "We The People" want those bam dastards UNDER OATH and testifying IN PUBLIC for all of us to see.

We KNOW they'll squirm like worms dropped on a hot plate and with the exception of their names every word out of their mouths will be LIES, but that's beside the point. The point is: We The People want those lying criminals to testify UNDER OATH. Period.

If any of this triggers a constitutional crisis, so be it. You have our blessings to proceed with removing Bush and/or Cheney from office, or at least torturously slap them firmly upside the head with a copy of the Constitution to remind them that the executive branch does NOT have dictatorial power!

Sic 'em!!!

Senate Limits Gonzales' Hiring Authority by 94-2 Vote
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032007S.shtml
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill US attorney vacancies. The vote was a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors.
{The bill still needs to pass in the House.}

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html
Why I Was Fired
By David C. Iglesias

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/us/politics/21attorneys.html
Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors

Excerpts:
Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.

“I don’t accept his offer,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “It is not constructive, and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation or to prejudge its outcome.”
~~~~~
One of two Republican lawmakers who attended the meeting, Representative Chris Cannon of Utah, said in an interview afterward that he had pressed Mr. Fielding on whether he “understood that a lie would be prosecutable,” even if the interview was not conducted under oath. “He said, ‘Yes, we understand that,’ ” Mr. Cannon said. Lying to Congress can be a crime even if the false statements are not made under oath.

But Democrats dismissed Mr. Fielding’s offer as window dressing. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, suggested that the administration had misled him, and released a Justice Department letter that said it was not aware that Mr. Rove had played any role in the decision to appoint one of his former deputies as United States attorney in Arkansas.

“I want to hear Karl Rove testify under oath about the role he played in this whole affair,” Mr. Reid said.
~~~~~
“The time for slippery explanations is over,” Mrs. Feinstein said Tuesday, after the Senate voted 94 to 2 to repeal the Patriot Act provision. “We don’t intend to stop now. We intend to flesh out who did what, when and why.”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/20/conyers-heads-up-hearing-on-fbi-use-of-natl-security-letters/
Conyers Heads Up Hearing on FBI Use of Nat’l Security Letters
Two videos.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2007/03/21/notes032107.DTL&nl=fix
Do Evil CEOs Sleep At Night?
In other words: Does Kentucky Fried Chicken deserve a blessing from the pope?

And I can't understand how these neocons think that they can murder other people's children without any punishment.

Posted by: sparrow at March 20, 2007 08:13 PM

Well, they've murdered over 403,000 of other peoples kids - so I guess they do it because they can. No one is going to stop them. Sad as it is. It seems that they are unstoppable.

Our Chicago rally & protest march drew over 4000 people last night. There may have been more, but that's the "official" count from the press. They at least admitted that it was twice as large as the march in October.

Here's a great photo of the march down Michigan Avenue...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-03/28528522.jpg

And here's the Trib story:
Anger over war in Iraq has thousands on march
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070320march,1,3060547.story?coll=chi-news-hed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001604.html
Senate Bill Would Mandate Disclosure of Data Mining

The Justice Department is opposing bipartisan Senate legislation that would require federal agencies to disclose to Congress data-mining programs they use to find patterns of criminal or terrorist activity, saying that it duplicates a reporting requirement mandated in the 2006 renewal of the USA Patriot Act.

The department, however, missed the March 9 deadline to report on its data-mining programs as required by the law. Senate Democrats, who have pressed for disclosure to ensure that privacy and civil liberties were not violated, are not pleased.

"This is more stonewalling by the administration to avoid congressional oversight," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who co-sponsored the data-mining provision with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and John E. Sununu (R-N.H.). "We specifically placed sunshine provisions in the Patriot Act reauthorization to ensure some reasonable checks on the department's data-mining activities that affect millions of Americans," Leahy said.
~~~~~
In January, Leahy asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales whether the Justice Department would produce a report on its data-mining activities. He received no reply.

But Friday, with the department trying to contain fallout from the inspector general's report and a controversy over its firing of eight U.S. attorneys, Richard A. Hertling, the acting assistant attorney general, wrote Leahy that the department was "working diligently" to complete the report and send it to Congress "as expeditiously as possible."

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/fu/
The Fusco Brothers
{Happy Vernal Equinox!}

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brownstein21mar21-2,0,4942983.column
Who's watching the president?
The GOP abandoned White House oversight, and the results were disastrous.
Excerpt:
Tuesday's stormy news conference suggests that Bush will push back against tough oversight. But his presidency might have turned out a lot better if he hadn't spent his first six years virtually immune from it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001931.html
Watching Big Sister
'1984' Takeoff on YouTube Is a Sign Of Why 2008 Won't Be Like 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001428.html
God and His Gays

Dick - This one's especially for you....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001762.html
The CBS Report That Helped 'Silent Spring' Be Heard

Posted by: madame defarge at March 21, 2007 08:07 AM

I hope you know just how LOVELY the photo is to my eyes...!!! :-)

Thanx for the pix and the article. I noticed the organizers said the crowd was closer to 5000, not the 'official' estimates....

Well, this is an article one will not find in a US Lamestream Media outlet, or talked about on TeeVee....

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032007B.shtml

US Troops in Iraq Want Out
By Bryan Pearson
Agence France-Presse

Tuesday 20 March 2007

For US troops from 9th Cavalry Regiment bumping around the dangerous streets of Baghdad in Humvees after dark, news that their deployment in Iraq could be extended fell like a hammer blow.

Their commanders had cautioned that their second one-year tour due to end in October could be prolonged while US President George W Bush later warned troops it was too soon to "pack up and go home".

The expletives during the four-hour night patrol turned the air in the Humvee, already thick with cigarette smoke, a dark shade of blue.

"We just want to get out of here as soon as possible," said one vehicle commander in one of his few printable comments.

"It's because the Iraqi army is so scared that we have to come here to die," he added, asking not to be named.

"Ninety-five per cent of Iraqis are good but five per cent are bad. But the 95 per cent are too weak to stand up to the five per cent."

"Bush should send all the Death Row prisoners here and they can be killed fighting the terrorists. We've had enough," said another soldier, as the Humvee accelerated past a roadside car in case it exploded.

Another soldier said: "Bush can come fight here. He can take my $US1,000 ($1,252) a month and I'll go home".

{More on link... two articles, plus the third article is a timeline of dates connected to Bush's Iraq war.}

Mme D

Fantastic photo - what a crowd! Well done everyone.

Have to run to work but just checked mail & HuffPo reports a new poll of Iraqis that says things are going better in their country.

It turns out Halliburton did the poll.

The New York Times | What People Really Need
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107L.shtml
"In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that 'people just need to hear the truth' about the firing of eight United States attorneys. That's right. Unfortunately, the deal Mr. Bush offered Congress to make White House officials available for 'interviews' did not come close to meeting that standard," writes the New York Times.
Excerpts:

The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed.
~~~~~
The Bush administration is trying to hide behind the doctrine of "executive privilege." That term does not appear in the Constitution; the best Mr. Bush could do yesterday was a stammering reference to the separate branches of government. When presidents have tried to invoke this privilege, the courts have been skeptical. President Richard Nixon tried to withhold the Watergate tapes, but a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against him.

It is no great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress. This is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government. Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public. If Congress has more questions, they should be recalled.

That would not be "partisanship," as Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe. It would be Congress doing its job by holding the president and his team accountable - a rare thing in the last six years.

{I don't know about anyone else, but the recent editiorials in the NY Times have surprised me with their common-sense rhetoric.}

Posted by: not my president at March 21, 2007 09:46 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/halliburton-polls_b_43877.html

Simon Jenkins wrote to Arianna Huffington:

These polls are meaningless, done only because polling organizations have squeezed large sums out of the media. I call them Halliburton polls. The assumption, common in Britain and America, that a Baghdad street is like Fifth Avenue or Bond Street goes straight to the heart of the west's misunderstanding of Iraq. Iraqis are not used to being asked political questions by strangers in the street. Any answer risks a bullet. It is plain stupid. The polls are utterly unreliable (whether or not we support their outcome). The methodology is shocking, since there is no demographic control group to balance the 5,019 respondents or give a reliable trend line.

{So, no, Halliburton did not do the actual polling, but because the results are skewed, Jenkins calls them 'Halliburton polls.' Click link for the rest of the story.}

Attorney Scandal Without Precedent: CRS Report Reveals Audacity of Dismissals
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107K.shtml
The December firings by the Bush administration stand in even more stark contrast with the firings that took place in previous administrations when the grounds for the departures are examined. The innovative philosophy of the current Bush administration with respect to the service of US attorneys is worthy of the attention it is now receiving. Those eight forced resignations threaten the very basis of our justice system — to quote the words written above the pillars on the west front of the Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law."

John F. Ince | Think the Nation's Debt Doesn't Affect You? Think Again
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107M.shtml
"In addition to borrowing from the world's poorest countries, Bush & Co. are secretly confiscating your hard-earned dollars to support their out-of-control spending habits," writes John F. Ince.
{VERY interesting!!!}

Scientist Accuses White House of "Nazi" Tactics
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107N.shtml
James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under sharp questioning by a federal panel for his outspoken views on global warming, stood by his view today that the Bush administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

Wonderful pics from last Saturday's March, Code Pink:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63946635@N00/sets/72157600007564513/show/

Also, watch Midge Potts from last Friday: She is a wonderful activist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arc-9gsOSKw

A House subcommittee voted today to authorize subpoenas for President Bush's key adviser, Karl Rove, and other top White House aides, in the probe of ousted U.S. attorneys.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors

House panel OKs Rove, Miers subpoenas

WASHINGTON - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote and without dissent, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

{More on link. Monkey beat me to it with the news, but I just have to share what made me smile today....}

Posted by: monkey at March 21, 2007 10:59 AM

You smell that? Do you smell that? Subpoenas, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of subpoenas in the morning. It smells like...victory [democracy].

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6473621.stm
Bush rejects Senate 'show trials'
~~~~~
Oh, you just have to get a look at the picture of the Decider looking down his smug patrician nose from up in the rarified air and those unpleasant little snarly puckered lips as he looks down on the peasants....!

News Flash pretzelnitwit: Subpoenas be comin' soon...! If you try to get it so your trusted kiss-butts don't have to testify UNDER OATH before We The People, then your poll ratings will go lower than the 29% that I saw last....

I think this deserves some "Way To Go!" emails to reps and senators....! :-)

The Iglesias piece is one hell of an indictement of the foul culture that pervades the Republican Party. Domenici and Wilson should emerge every bit as soiled by this ugly behavior as Gonzalez and the Bush Administration. These hacks don't want bipartisan, even-handed justice, they want Federal Prosecutors to become an arm of the GOPs GOTV strategy.

Somebody in New Mexico should be demanding that Wilson and Domenici resign.

Long as I remember, the reign been comin down.
Clouds of mystery pourin' confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages, tryin to find the sun;
And I wonder, still I wonder,

Who'll Stop the Reign?

NonnyO
Thanks for the info on the polling.

HERE'S TO THE BLOGGERS!!!!

Bloggers Storm the Senatorial Gates
In the latest sign of the growing strength of the liberal "net roots" community, Senate Democrats have invited a trio of prominent bloggers into one of their formal, inside-the-Capitol luncheons for the first time.

On Thursday, John Aravosis of AMERICAblog, David Waldman, a contributing editor at Daily Kos, and Duncan Black of Eschaton are slated to brief the Senate Democratic Policy Committee luncheon.

That's a weekly gathering of the Democratic caucus, led by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), and held inside the stately Lyndon Baines Johnson room just off the Senate floor. This particular meeting is always a bit less formal than the Tuesday caucus luncheons, where group policy decisions are hashed out. Instead, the Dorgan meetings are meant to stir discussion and long-term thinking about issues.

In an interview with Capitol Briefing today, Dorgan acknowledged this was a big step for the group, actually inviting the progressive supporters (and sometimes agitators) into their meetings. "It's a new world out there," Dorgan said. "The Internet is changing everything."

Dorgan declined to elaborate on what he expected from Aravosis, Waldman and Black, whether they would be specifically asked to stick to talking about technology or whether they would also be advising the caucus on tactics. But he said he's particularly interested in learning more about what the Internet has done to transform public discourse on issues and politics.

"How are these [technological] changes affecting the public dialogue?" he asked.
Normal attendees to Dorgan's luncheon are establishment liberal-to-moderate activists, authors and former officials. In recent years that's included figures such as New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman, Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. A few years back, when Dorgan really wanted to stir the pot, he invited Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp. and the head of FOX News, into the Democratic lion's den.

Senate Democrats have grown closer to the net roots crowd in the last two years, including moves by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), to hire a staffer more than two years ago whose sole job was to work with progressive bloggers.

But the blogosphere has never before been invited into the Capitol to address the Democratic caucus, according to Dorgan. The closest it has come was two years ago at an informal policy retreat the caucus held across the street in a meeting room of the Library of Congress.

Considering the distinguished tenures and ages of some members of the caucus -- Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), 89; Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), 75, just to name two -- how much will they be able to follow along with the high-tech dialogue on Thursday?

"Every member of our caucus is sharp as a tack, up to date and Internet savvy," Dorgan said, pausing for effect. "That's our position and we're sticking to it."

HERE'S TO THE BLOGGERS!!!!

Bloggers Storm the Senatorial Gates
In the latest sign of the growing strength of the liberal "net roots" community, Senate Democrats have invited a trio of prominent bloggers into one of their formal, inside-the-Capitol luncheons for the first time.

On Thursday, John Aravosis of AMERICAblog, David Waldman, a contributing editor at Daily Kos, and Duncan Black of Eschaton are slated to brief the Senate Democratic Policy Committee luncheon.

That's a weekly gathering of the Democratic caucus, led by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), and held inside the stately Lyndon Baines Johnson room just off the Senate floor. This particular meeting is always a bit less formal than the Tuesday caucus luncheons, where group policy decisions are hashed out. Instead, the Dorgan meetings are meant to stir discussion and long-term thinking about issues.

In an interview with Capitol Briefing today, Dorgan acknowledged this was a big step for the group, actually inviting the progressive supporters (and sometimes agitators) into their meetings. "It's a new world out there," Dorgan said. "The Internet is changing everything."

Dorgan declined to elaborate on what he expected from Aravosis, Waldman and Black, whether they would be specifically asked to stick to talking about technology or whether they would also be advising the caucus on tactics. But he said he's particularly interested in learning more about what the Internet has done to transform public discourse on issues and politics.

"How are these [technological] changes affecting the public dialogue?" he asked.
Normal attendees to Dorgan's luncheon are establishment liberal-to-moderate activists, authors and former officials. In recent years that's included figures such as New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman, Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. A few years back, when Dorgan really wanted to stir the pot, he invited Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp. and the head of FOX News, into the Democratic lion's den.

Senate Democrats have grown closer to the net roots crowd in the last two years, including moves by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), to hire a staffer more than two years ago whose sole job was to work with progressive bloggers.

But the blogosphere has never before been invited into the Capitol to address the Democratic caucus, according to Dorgan. The closest it has come was two years ago at an informal policy retreat the caucus held across the street in a meeting room of the Library of Congress.

Considering the distinguished tenures and ages of some members of the caucus -- Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), 89; Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), 75, just to name two -- how much will they be able to follow along with the high-tech dialogue on Thursday?

"Every member of our caucus is sharp as a tack, up to date and Internet savvy," Dorgan said, pausing for effect. "That's our position and we're sticking to it."

Posted by: monkey at March 21, 2007 10:59 AM

:-D

Apparently, Schwartzenegger said on the Today Show that Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant. He is too, as most of those Freepers can't vote in California anyhow! I'm not fond of Arnold, but Limbaugh was saying he didn't measure up to Reagan and of the two, I'd actually pick Arnold. He at least favors use of stem cells, which most of the Reagan lovers don't, even though they have potential to help Alzheimers.

Rick,

Thanks for the thread header. The depth of pain and sorrow inflicted on people is so immense, that, some days, I can hardly bear "to go there".

I have a dear loved one serving in the armed forces, and his/her mother and I can't even speak of it.

I am past the point of "shock and awe", which is where this administration had our citizens in '04. People were still frozen in fear and numb to the realities of casualties of this war.
Last year many in my community had reached the anger stage.

What adds insult to injury is the fact that this administration has treated the casualties of this war so - casually.

I am even past the rage and anger point. I'm not at apathy - I'm at prayer. It's not passive, it's active.

a monkeys twisted musical innerds meets ...

dah-dah ....DAH!!!!!

The Subpoenas....
(Tony Subpoena, lead vocals)

what would you say if I sang out of tune,
should I stand up and cop me a plea?
Lend me your dears and I'll sing you a song
And I'll try not to tarnish the king...

C-SPAN-3

SnowJob........

madame, this of course makes you Carmella Subpoena.

You got a problem with that?

The words coming out of SnowJob's mouth are not snow.... The Bu$h!te is so deep I'm drowning in Bu$hDoubleSpeak.

Ugh.

Articles of Impeachment:

Article 1
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

A composite biography of Nixon's public statements and the history of Watergate.

http://www.wfu.edu/~louden/Political%20Communication/Bibs/NixonRichard.htm

Imagine what will be added to this:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/pubpapers/search.html

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States

Bush and all his crimes will far supercede these documented crimes in the WAPO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/front.htm

We're finally on the cusp.

Posted by: monkey at March 21, 2007 01:18 PM

Nope, Tony, I don't have a problem with that.

Gore Warns of Planetary Emergency
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/21/america/web.0321goresub.php
- in Congress

Meanwhile, even FOX News made the subpoena thing sound very serious for Rove. Even FOX News pointed out that in 2004, Condi Rice had to testify under oath in Congress & was not able to evoke Executive Privilege.

Tony Snow Backs 'Executive Privilege' Now -- But Hit It Back in Clinton Era

By E&P Staff

Published: March 21, 2007 10:55 AM ET

NEW YORK With the crisis over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys mounting, President Bush and his spokesman Tony Snow have roundly embraced the concept of "executive privilege" to deny Congress and testimony and documents from key White House insiders. But Snow was singing a different tune during the Clinton era, when a president claimed the same during the Lewinsky scandal.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003560724

Now, now, sparrow, you know that this regime gets to make up their own rules as they go, regardless of the hypocrisy.

Along those lines, here's a great diary from Rep. Brad Miller (NC):

I hate to say it...

I’ve written here before about the Republican aversion to accountability, or at least to holding Republicans accountable.

Any effort at accountability is "finger pointing" or "reopening old wounds." Either way it is just distasteful partisanship by Democrats, an effort to gain partisan advantage by assigning blame instead of finding solutions.

--snip--
In other words, they think we’ll act like Republicans. After Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, the House Government Reform Committee issued more than 1000 subpoenas to investigate alleged misconduct by the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party, or two for every day Congress was in session.

Read the rest here ==> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/21/113650/894
It's worth it.

CNN QuickVote

Do you agree with President Bush that requiring White House advisers to testify under oath would damage their ability to give the president 'candid advice'?

Yes 26% 25853 votes

No 74% 72089 votes
Total: 97942 votes

Posted by: madame defarge at March 21, 2007 03:32 PM

Uh OH! RUN FOR COVER, NOW! I feel a rant coming on!

Fact one: Whitewater, Paula-gate, Lewinsky-Gate, BJ-gate, Kenneth Star (Leaker-gate) and every single one of them were rumors not even worthy of a middle school investigation. They were not in any way close to an impeachable offense.

Fact two: High Crimes and misdemeanors. These investigations are based on the fact that even one piece of Bush's actions are worthy of the investigation. Even one piece may be worthy of impeachment. But when you add them all together, what you have is a man and an administration so corrupt and so tyrannical that he could be impeached on 10 or more offenses and probably still have more charges that could be pending.

Now, it would be pure partisanship if the Democrats decided to do a full fledged investigation to see if Bush is sleeping with Condi; if he and Laura are living in separate rooms (or buildings); or if he is inappropriately touching female leaders from our country or other countries.

Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here. So why am I doing this?

But my hope is that people in the real world are not as dumb as Bush thinks they are. I already know "Christians" who voted for Bush in 2000 who feel absolutely betrayed. And I know people who think Bush and the Republicans just stink because they're killing the middle class.

I urge everyone to go the CNN site and play the Boxer Video telling Inhofe that elections have consequences. See this gavel, she says, I run this committee now, not you.

Priceless.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Inhofe finds out "elections have consequences"
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-California, had some choice words Wednesday for Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, when he tried to frame the rules of former Vice President Al Gore's testimony about the dangers of global warming before the committee.

Inhofe, the former chairman of the panel and a skeptic of global warming, said Gore should respond to one of his questions in writing because it would likely be a "very long response, I'm afraid." The question referenced critics of Gore who claim he is being to alarmist on the issue of global warming.(Related video: Gore urges action on global warming)

Boxer quickly interrupted Inhofe, saying she would freeze the time to allow Gore to respond to his question. When the Oklahoma senator said Gore could have as much time as he wanted at the end of the hearing to answer the question, Boxer took the opportunity to remind Inhofe that she now controls the committee.

"That isn't the rule," Boxer said. "You're not making the rules - you used to when you did this. You don't do this any more."(Watch video: Boxer boxes out Inhofe)

"Elections have consequences," she added, referencing the Democratic victories in November that propelled her party into the Senate majority.

John Kerry Praises Al Gore on His Leadership Fighting Global Warming

"Vice President Gore did America a great service through his testimony today. Through his sustained advocacy and forward thinking on climate change, he has helped to push one of the greatest threats to our survival onto the national agenda where it can no longer be ignored.

"It is long overdue to make the hard choices -- about alternative energy and clean coal, conservation and fuel efficiency -- that will free our future from the dominance of big oil and yesterday's fossil fuels, a dominance that in the era of global climate change threatens the future itself. Here's the bottom line: within the next decade, if we don't deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren will have to deal with global catastrophe. We cannot postpone the reckoning until the day after tomorrow. If you offend no one, you change nothing. The world is changing and now the reckoning is real. The House and the Senate need to act on global climate change.

---my Comment---Sometimes I think maybe Gore and Kerry can do more from outside the Presidency they were respectively cheated of, as Bush has made the US Presidency less respected or relevant in today's world. Maybe the time is better spent in sectors, local to global, where they aren't hampered by having to undue the reputation of Bush, which may take decades.

Seminal case on executive priviledge, UNITED STATES . NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=418&invol=683

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
418 U.S. 683
UNITED STATES v. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
No. 73-1766.

Argued July 8, 1974.
Decided July 24, 1974. *

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 73-1834, Nixon, President of the United States v. United States, also on certiorari before judgment to the same court.

Following indictment alleging violation of federal statutes by certain staff members of the White House and political supporters of the President, the Special Prosecutor filed a motion under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 17 (c) for a subpoena duces tecum for the production before trial of certain tapes and documents relating to precisely identified conversations and meetings between the President and others. The President, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The District Court, after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged, concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 17 (c) had been satisfied. The court thereafter issued an order for an in camera examination of the subpoenaed material, having rejected the President's contentions (a) that the dispute between him and the Special Prosecutor was nonjusticiable as an "intra-executive" conflict and (b) that the judiciary lacked authority to review the President's assertion of executive privilege. The court stayed its order pending appellate review, which the President then sought in the Court of Appeals. The Special Prosecutor then filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment (No. 73-1766) and the President filed a cross-petition for such a writ challenging the grand-jury action (No. 73-1834). The Court granted both petitions. Held:

1. The District Court's order was appealable as a "final" order under 28 U.S.C. 1291, was therefore properly "in" the Court of Appeals, 28 U.S.C. 1254, when the petition for certiorari before judgment was filed in this Court, and is now properly before this Court for review. Although such an order is normally not final and subject to appeal, an exception is made in a "limited class of [418 U.S. 683, 684] cases where denial of immediate review would render impossible any review whatsoever of an individual's claims," United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 533 . Such an exception is proper in the unique circumstances of this case where it would be inappropriate to subject the President to the procedure of securing review by resisting the order and inappropriate to require that the District Court proceed by a traditional contempt citation in order to provide appellate review. Pp. 690-692.

2. The dispute between the Special Prosecutor and the President presents a justiciable controversy. Pp. 692-697.

(a) The mere assertion of an "intra-branch dispute," without more, does not defeat federal jurisdiction. United States v. ICC, 337 U.S. 426 . P. 693.

(b) The Attorney General by regulation has conferred upon the Special Prosecutor unique tenure and authority to represent the United States and has given the Special Prosecutor explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of his specially delegated duties. While the regulation remains in effect, the Executive Branch is bound by it. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 . Pp. 694-696.

(c) The action of the Special Prosecutor within the scope of his express authority seeking specified evidence preliminarily determined to be relevant and admissible in the pending criminal case, and the President's assertion of privilege in opposition thereto, present issues "of a type which are traditionally justiciable," United States v. ICC, supra, at 430, and the fact that both litigants are officers of the Executive Branch is not a bar to justiciability. Pp. 696-697.

3. From this Court's examination of the material submitted by the Special Prosecutor in support of his motion for the subpoena, much of which is under seal, it is clear that the District Court's denial of the motion to quash comported with Rule 17 (c) and that the Special Prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify a subpoena for production before trial. Pp. 697-702.

4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e. g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 . Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 703-707.

5. Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 190, 191-192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Pp. 707-713.

6. On the basis of this Court's examination of the record, it cannot be concluded that the District Court erred in ordering in camera examination of the subpoenaed material, which shall now forthwith be transmitted to the District Court. Pp. 713-714.

7. Since a President's communications encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of an ordinary individual, the public interest requires that Presidential confidentiality be afforded the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice, and the District Court has a heavy responsibility to ensure that material involving Presidential conversations irrelevant to or inadmissible in the criminal prosecution be accorded the high degree of respect due a President and that such material be returned under seal to its lawful custodian. Until released to the Special Prosecutor no in camera material is to be released to anyone. Pp. 714-716.

No. 73-1766, 377 F. Supp. 1326, affirmed; No. 73-1834, certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members joined except REHNQUIST, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.

Leon Jaworski and Philip A. Lacovara argued the cause and filed briefs for the United States in both cases.

James D. St. Clair argued the cause for the President [418 U.S. 683, 686] in both cases. With him on the briefs were Charles Alan Wright, Leonard Garment, Michael A. Sterlacci, Jerome J. Murphy, Loren A. Smith, James R. Prochnow, Theodore J. Garrish, James J. Tansey, and Larry G. Gutterridge. William Snow Frates, Andrew C. Hall, Spencer H. Boyer, and Henry H. Jones filed a brief for respondent Ehrlichman in No. 73-1766. John M. Bray filed a brief for respondent Strachan in No. 73-1766.Fn

Fn [418 U.S. 683, 686] Norman Dorsen and Melvin L Wulf filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance of the District Court judgment.

Sparrow
You really want to get rid of him right?! LOL

Reuters is covering the Clinton/Obama video war, which thankfully was not something we had to contend with in 2004 between Kerry/Dean, though we had our primary moments. It's amazing how much technology will change in 4 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2129417520070321

I read last week that Rove said YouTube and blogs cause people to concern themselves with things they don't need to (that's a paraphrase). I wouldn't be surprised if these videos in question are produced by GOP psy-ops. I wouldn't put it past them.

They are revisionists.

DOJ Made Memos After the Fact to Pacify Democrats' Probe
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107R.shtml
Senior Justice Department officials began drafting memos this month listing specific reasons why they had fired eight US attorneys, intending to cite performance problems such as insubordination, leadership failures and other
missteps if needed to convince angry Congressional Democrats that the
terminations were justified.

NMP,

Yes, I'd like for any lurkers to see the similarities between Nixon and Bush. Though I personally believe Bush is 1000x more tricky than tricky-Dick was.

Also, I'm not surprised to hear that they tried to create evidence. After all, they've had years to destroy evidence, coverup evidence, and create their own evidence. Still doesn't mean that they didn't screw up somewhere. A theif always gets over-confident and messes up. And that's what happened to them.

Bubba, here is the link with Boxer. I thought she was quite classy in her comments and was simply trying to maintain control of the hearing.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/inhofe-finds-out-elections-have.html

Somebody explain to me who this new Arnie Schwarzenegger is. Because wasn't he the same one who made an outreach to all people in the opposition party by calling them "girly men" and by trying to crush Nurses, teachers, and firefighter unions in CA?

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/schwarzenegger-to-limbaugh-results.html

May I introduce to you the new and improved, and at risk of using the f-f word, flip/flopped Arnie Schwarzenegger!

Gore is getting good press for doing something positive - in business world, in the world at large.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070321_292624.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_companies

Bush is being pugnacious. Who thought we would have President Beavis?

It reminds of of Goofus and Gallant in the old Highlights for Children magazines in the dental waiting rooms.

Sparrow

It's because he represents The People of Gollifornia.

Sparrow

& deep down, a psychopath wants to get caught.
He flirts with the law, daring them to come after him, trying bigger and bigger schemes til he fails through his inability to exhibit human empathy. Also, he may embody the Peter Principle, where he has risen to his level of incompetence and it is catching up. Then there is the violation of the laws of Karms.

Speaking of the Nixon crowd and parallels with now, this is from Amazon review of John Dean's book:

Looking back on the development of conservative politics in the U.S., Dean notes that conservatism is regressing to its authoritarian roots. Dean draws on five decades of social science research that details the personality traits of what are called "double high authoritarians": self-righteous, mean-spirited, amoral, manipulative, bullying. He concludes that Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich, and Tom DeLay are all textbook examples. Dean calls Vice-President Cheney "the architect of Bush’s authoritarian policies," and deems Bush "a mental lightweight with a strong right-wing authoritarian personality."…

OT, but tonite in SoFla, it's crystal clear and cool. Just peered at the moon thru my telescope, and the low angle of the moon this early in the evening is casting shadows in the craters, very easy to see, even with decent binoculars.

Pretty awesome...
Ground Control to Major Tums

More about authoritarians (from review of Dean's book) - defines "double high authoritarians"

First there is the conservative with a conscience as exemplified in the person of the late Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater.

Then there are the "conservatives without a conscious," (1) the leaders who orientate toward "social dominance," and (2) their followers, "right-wing authoritarians." If a person scores high on both "social dominance orientation" and "right-wing authoritarianism," that person is said to be a "Double High authoritarian."

Examples of double high authoritarians:
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Dick Cheney Karl Rove, Bill Frist, M.D., Pat Robertson. These guys and others like them have taken over the Republican party, have sullied the name of conservatism, and are hell bent for leather to take over the country.

There are other sorts of conservatives that Dean mentions, most prominently neoconservatives, "a new aristocracy of aggression that combines 19th century Prussian pigheadedness with a most un-Prussian inability to read a man or a ledger book, and a near total lack of military--let alone combat--experience. Ask these people to show you their wounds and they'll probably wave a Washington Post editorial at you." (J. Dean)

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute: "the Bush administration is to checks and balances what Paris Hilton is to chastity." (p. 82)

Dean says again and again that authoritarian followers do not often question authority figures (e.g., p. 123). People like Karl Rove and George W. Bush take advantage of this phenomenon. Note too that because they are so monolithic in following whomever they see as a leader, evangelicals are a prize capture for anyone interested in political power. If you get one, you get them all since they all think pretty much the same way.

--I need to read the book. Patti F read it.

Sparrow and others US v Nixon is not on point that was a case we discussed ago in Conlaw in law school. Leon Jaworski argued that executive privlege could not be used to conceal evidence in a criminal case. I doubt that any Democrati will allege criminal Obstruction of Justice although we will not know that until we hear sworn testimony. The next issue will be the judciary's committee's enforcement of contempt charges against Meirs and Rove. Since Harriet Miers was the past president of our state bar, she might care about that. Rove thinks he is above the law and no one will touch him. I will do some legal research and see whatelse I can ad to that conversation, although I don't claim to be a constitutional law expert.My guess is that Bush and Fielding our counting on Alito and Scalia to carry their water, that was made clear at Alito's confirmation hearing and a consideration that got far less attention then his stand on Roe v Wade, but which I suspected might someday become significant when it comes to his position on Presidential (Republican that is) Poweres and his belief in a Unitary Executive.

Bubba,

They need to talk to Jesselyn Radack and other whistleblowers before they decide there was no criminal obstruction of justice.

I, however, believe Jesselyn Radack's case was the first of many such incidences where they destroyed evidence (criminally!) and covered it up. I have heard from others that this is likely the case.

But first they must investigate. And they must listen to the testimony before they exclude the likelyhood of criminal conduct.

Hello to all, sorry to disrupt the train of discussion here...just wanted to send greetings from Charleston where I've been for the past couple months.

Headed via Atlanta back home & then immediately via Key West back to meet the ship. We're scheduled to get back from being underway sometime early/mid April.

Good to see that the ship is slowly sinking. Goodness knows the rats have been jumping off for a while.

Posted by: V at March 21, 2007 08:59 PM

Hi V.

Can you send the jumping rats a heavy anchor?

Thanks

**new thread**

Posted by: sparrow at March 21, 2007 07:51 PM

I know that Ahnuld is mulling a Senate run in 2010, to oust our beloved Barbara Boxer. That's why he is suddenly painting himself as a moderate, when he is in reality anything but.

Be glad that he's foreign born though, because otherwise he'd be running for President, and repeating the Reagan years all over again. But his foreignness may be the key to his success though, given that California is 1/4 foreign born, and that, contrary to liberal fantasies, includes some very reactionary demographics who readily identify with Ahnuld's background.

In any case, Phil Angelides did a pathetic job of campaigning, when he challenged Ahnuld for governorship in 2006. If this is all the California Dems can do, Ahnuld *will* destroy Boxer.

Barbara Boxer is no Phil Angelides. We all knew it was over for Angelides when he proposed raising state taxes to balance your 12 billion dollar deficit. A responsible position but political suicide even in California.You could tell it was over just like when you saw Dukakis's head sticking out of the tank, Mondale announcing I will race your taxes and tell you, Reagan will not, and unfortunately many of us sensed that Kerry would lose when we saw the Swiftboat ads. Don't underestimate Senator Boxer Ally. The pundits had written her political obituary when she ran for re election against Huffington and she ended up winning by a fairly comfortable margin. Unlike Angilides she is politically savy and knows how to connect with California voters. Her performance today visa vie Senator Inhofe today was masterful and not mean spirited, and before you write her off for 2010 you should look at Sparrow's post above with a link to view Senator Boxer's video as how she handled her position as committee chairwoman during Gore's testimony this afternoon. Her environmental record is something Ahnold can't touch and will distinquish her in 2010, that is why she chose the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works crucial to Californians. She will also make a strong case why Californians are more aligned with democratic party values, even though I know Ally you often post here about how weak the Democratic Party is in California. If you are delusioned with the California Democratic Party I welcome you to come visit me down here in Texas. I think your state's problem is often choosing the wrong candidates to run. Leon Paneta or Diane Feinstein or even Jerry Brown would have made superior candidates against Ahnold and they all would have known how to run a credible race against Ahnuld for governor. Ahnuld has high name recognition and monied interest behind him but he's not invincible if running against a seasoned politician. Campaigning for public office is a highly developed skill that only certain candidates possess and Phil was one of the least skilled and worse candidates I have ever seen. He had all the money he need to run a competitive campaign, he just didn't have any idea how to campaign and didn't connect to voters. Hopefully your state party has learned something from that debacle and won't make it going forward. I have met and spoken with Senator Boxer here in Texas at Emilys List fundraisers and have the utmost respect for her and will be by her side in 2010 working in California on her campaign. We will not lose her seat;that is my pledge.