It's Not About Us -- It's About Them

No dog here, really.

Just glancing at the main page of my Google - notice McCain apologizes about Iraq remark & head of Walter Reed is stepping down. Guess there are consequences sometimes.

Also have the prison address for Ney if anyone wants to be penpals.

Hannity above speculated Bush wouldn't be President now if hadn't been for the Swift Boat Vets. Well that may be true. He certainly wasn't running on even one cylinder. The "For Truth" part of their name is the lie.

I had to speedread the transcript as I certainly can't stand to watch anything like that but even reading it is brutally sickening.

Interesting... I posted the following link in the last thread:

McCain Says U.S. Lives 'Wasted' in Iraq
NewsDay http://tinyurl.com/2958sk

I just clicked the link & the story with the title above has been replaced by an update with the title:

McCain Says He Regrets Iraq Comment

snippette:
Republican presidential contender John McCain, facing criticism from Democrats, on Thursday said he regretted using the word "wasted" to describe the more than 3,100 U.S. lives lost in the Iraq war.

"I should have used the word, sacrificed, as I have in the past," the Arizona senator said after Democrats demanded he apologize as Sen. Barack Obama did when the White House hopeful recently made the same observation...

~snip~

In response, McCain issued the written statement indicating he regretted his word choice. He said the U.S. is seeking to correct its mistakes with Bush's new strategy.

"We have made many mistakes in the past, and we have paid a grievous price for those mistakes in the lives of the men and women who have died to protect our interests in Iraq and defend the rest of us from the even greater threat we would face if we are defeated there," McCain said.

Obama, for his part, gave the Republican a pass when asked about McCain's comments at a Senate news conference on an unrelated matter.

"As somebody who had the same phrase in a speech, I think nobody would question Senator McCain's dedication to our veterans," said Obama, the Illinois Democrat. "We have a duty to make sure that we are honoring their sacrifice by giving them missions in which they can succeed ... I'm positive that was the intent in which he meant it. It was the same intent I had when I made my statement."

In February in Iowa, Obama said: "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Later, he told a reporter: "I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term."

"Their sacrifices are never wasted," he said....

Well they both said it and whether they meant it or not, they were both right - people are dying for a lie - and that's a waste. Why is it taboo to talk about?

I had to speedread the transcript as I certainly can't stand to watch anything like that but even reading it is brutally sickening.

Posted by: not my president at March 1, 2007 03:45 PM

I agree, nmp... nausea is the operative word. I especially like Hannity's 'fair & equal' intro, using words & phrases like:
bitter and angry
went after Sam Fox
problem with the nominee
badgering

How objective... :p

re. Swift Boat Veterans of Truth as a now-discredited group...

Since the '04 election, I have gone in & out of keeping up with the news. We knew the truth about the Swift Boat Liars all along, but I don't remember a MSM moment when it was publicly recognized that the swifties did all they could to manipulate the media & the voters with their pack of lies.

Could someone remind me?

Neither Swift Boat Vets or Hannity have credibility but there are stupid people who still swallow it all whole.

I heard on local radio that during the last blizzard people were calling 911 and asking "When will my cable come back on?"

That is the level of intelligence of the person who pays attention to this stuff. Some of them must even get herded in to vote.

What has Hannity done for vets lately?

Press release from Kerry:

Kerry Welcomes New Leadership at Walter Reed
Vows to add $18 million to budget to improve VA Vet Center services

WASHINGTON – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) said today that he will immediately ask Congress to support $18 million for additional mental health staffing assistance for VA vet centers in the FY07 Emergency Supplemental. Kerry believes this funding is critical to ensuring that our veterans, especially those with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) who represent a large percentage of Vet Center patients, get the care they deserve. Lack of planning for the large influx of veterans has led to a shortfall, and given that approximately 30 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from some mental heath issue, increased staffing to meet these needs is vital.

Inadequate staffing and misuse of funds has led to problems in the Defense Department’s handling of medical care for our soldiers as well. Kerry also said that he approved of the Pentagon’s decision this morning to fire Major General George Weightman, the Commanding General at Walter Reed. Kerry visited Walter Reed on Monday to inspect the facility and meet with soldiers in the wake of press reports in the Washington Post and Army Times.

“It’s been clear to me for a long time that America’s heroes are not getting the type of care and attention they deserve,” Kerry said. “Now we see that even active duty military are sometimes treated as second-class citizens, housed in sub-standard facilities and subjected to unending bureaucracy. Those who have spoken out are even being told to keep quiet. This is unacceptable and it disrespects the sacrifice that our brave troops are making on behalf of every American. Walter Reed should have never been allowed to deteriorate to such a dangerous level and I’m relieved that there’s going to be new leadership. That alone won't get the job done. All of us in Congress will be watching closely to ensure the highest level of care for our soldiers.”

Sean Hannity claims in that interview that John Kerry "smeared" the reputation of Vietnam Vets.

But the facts are that Nicholas Turse, a Columbia University doctoral candidate, has used the Freedom of Information Act to unearth official military documents that chronicle the kinds of reports that soldiers attending the Winter Soldier Conference spoke of, and John Kerry reported to the United States Senate about:

"The archives have hundreds of files of official U.S. military investigations of such atrocities committed by American soldiers. I've pored over those records—which were classified for decades—for my Columbia University dissertation and, now, this Voice article. The exact number of investigated allegations of atrocities is unknown, as is the number of such barbaric incidents that occurred but weren't investigated. Some war crimes, like the Tiger Force atrocities exposed last year by The Toledo Blade, have only come to light decades later. Others never will. But there are plentiful records to back up Kerry's 1971 testimony point by point. Following (with the names removed or abbreviated) are examples, directly from the archives:"

"They had personally raped"

"On August 12, 1967, Specialist S., a military intelligence interrogator, "raped . . . a 13-year-old . . . female" in an interrogation hut in a P.O.W. compound. He was convicted of assault and indecent acts with a child. He served seven months and 16 days for his crimes."

"Cut off ears"

"On August 9, 1968, a seven-man patrol led by First Lieutenant S. entered Dien Tien hamlet. "Shortly thereafter, Private First Class W. was heard to shout to an unidentified person to halt. W. fired his M-16 several times, and the victim was killed. W. then dragged the body to [the lieutenant's] location. . . . Staff Sergeant B. told W. to bring back an ear or finger if he wanted to prove himself a man. W. later went back to the body and removed both ears and a finger." W. was charged with assault and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline; he was court-martialed and convicted, but he served no prison time. B. was found guilty of assault and was fined $50 a month for three months. S. was discharged from the army before action could be taken against him."

- more -

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0438,turse,56936,1.html

It's time that apologists like Sean Hannity and John O'Neal faced the dark side of America's involvement in Vietnam.

It's awful to feel kind of a sense of detachment about the 2008 elections so far, but it all seems to be like this - both parties - I guess that's what primary season is like when there is no incumbent:

Example:
Romney Distorts Giuliani's Same-Sex Marriage Stance

Matthew Carnicelli
It's no joke about atrocities committed in Vietnam. The whole scene there was insane.

I personally picked up hitch hikers in South Dakota who joked about machine gunning from helicopters while high on acid.

They tried to sweep it all under the rug then and they'll do it again.

Wait til we see what happens when some vets come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and start telling what they saw & others try to silence them. We'll see the same thing again. There are always those who can't admit we lost in Vietnam and we're losing in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan.

My dad used to argue with me, because he was a Vet. Even though he had horrible PTSS requiring electroshock and was paranoid as hell, he said that if military experts didn't know what to do about Vietnam, how could I? Well I turned out to be right, even though I was a teenager, and now some of us are middle-aged and we were right again. We predicted Iraq would be a quagmire and it is. Russian generals warned us about Afghanistan too.

Vets on the Street
Hundreds of U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are ending up homeless. How could this happen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17315490/site/newsweek/

FYI:

During those hearings on Tuesday Sam Fox claimed that he had no idea when, why, to whom, or for what he gave away the $50K. FEC records show him also donating another $50,000 to a SBVT sister 527 group, 'Progress for America', at the time as well.

One can only presume that he had no idea when, why, to whom, or for what he gave away that $50K, either. (Must be nice to be so rich one can hand out a hundred grand at a time without even being aware of it, ahem.)

Given the following news report from the Associated Press, once can hardly be surprised at his faulty memory while being questioned on the record about his 527-related activities:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01fec.html

-----------

Group Reaches Settlement With F.E.C. Over 2004 Campaign Advertising

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 -- A major conservative group agreed to pay a $750,000 penalty as part of a settlement with the Federal Election Commission, which found that the group violated campaign finance laws by spending more than $30 million on advertisements and mailings supporting President Bush's re-election.

[snip]

The agency found that the group, the Progress for America Voter Fund, operated as a political action committee, soliciting money and financing advertisements.

It spent $26.4 million alone on advertising in battleground states in 2004 for the purpose of retaining Mr. Bush as president.

Its actions violated campaign laws because it was not registered as a political action committee that would be subject to strict limits on donations. The agency said it circumvented a ban on corporate money and accepted contributions that well exceeded the caps on individual donations.

The group's most memorable advertisements included "Ashley's Story", featuring Mr. Bush hugging a girl whose mother died in the World Trade Center attacks and who said the president kept her safe. That cost $16.5 million and was broadcast in 11 states and on national cable, the agency said. ... {The group} reported raising $44.9 million in 2004, with nearly three-fourths from 13 donors.

[snip]

Benjamin L. Ginsburg, a prominent Republican lawyer representing the group in this case, cited the financial stakes as a reason for the agreement.

Mr. Ginsburg also represented the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, another 527 group, which attacked Senator John Kerry; it reached a settlement with the F.E.C. in December.

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

two POS's in a pod,
Otter

OT, but this is bothering me...

RE: Philip Perry -- Uncle Dick's son-in-law & general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security

Does anyone know if he's related in any way to the Perrys (specifically, Bob Perry of Houston) in Texas who were huge contributors to the Swiftboat bastards in the 2004 election?

Here's an interesting article about Philip Perry by Bill Maher: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/philip-perry-treasonous-_b_42377.html
Here's the info on Bob Perry: http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Six months left 'to win' Iraq war
Simon Tisdall, London
March 2, 2007

AN ELITE team of officers advising the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has concluded that his forces have six months to win the war or face a Vietnam-style collapse in support.

The loss of political and public support could force the military into a hasty retreat.

The officers — including Lieutenant-Colonel David Kilcullen, a seconded Australian officer and expert on counter-insurgency — are charged with implementing the strategy announced by President George Bush on January 10 that includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional US troops.

But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former US administration official familiar with their deliberations.

Cont. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/six-months-left-to-win-iraq-war/2007/03/01/1172338795525.html

I wish the media would report the real news story of the Bush administration:

DICK CHENEY, DE FACTO IS PRESIDENT etc...

Cheney has been giving a series of major foreign policy speeches as he travels around the globe. Speeches so important THAT GEORGE BUSH SHOULD BE GIVING THEM. It seems that Cheney DOES NOT CLEAR his speeches with anyone - not with the State Department, not with the CIA and not with the George Bush...

Cheney is the Decider...

Woz
Thanks for the article. Simon Tisdall is from the Guardian and a favorite of mine.

Ralpheh
About Cheney - I have been thinking that all week and waiting for someone to say it. Where are the polls on Cheney? Where are the comments that he ranks even lower than Bush for popularity? He should be a lame duck & somehow the press & neocons are giving him total dictatorial power. All hail.

Ralpheh:

"Libby Trial Exposes Neocon Shadow Government"

"Day by day, witness by witness, exhibit by exhibit, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the trial of Dick Cheney’s man, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, is accomplishing what no one else in Washington has been able to: He has impeached the Presidency of George W. Bush.

"Of course, it’s an unofficial impeachment, but it will also, through its documentation, be inerasable. The trial record—testimony, exhibits, the lot—will be there, in one place, for investigators, scholars, reporters and Congress to pore over. It goes far beyond the charges against Mr. Libby. It is, instead, a road map to the abuses of power that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and their shadow government of neoconservatives have committed as the neocons carried out what they had been planning for years: an invasion of Iraq—and other military excursions—for the purpose of expanding American dominion."

http://tinyurl.com/267gzn

Bad press for McCain today, with the "wasted" comment, esp in the foreign press (of course, they can't technically vote). Also on freeper sites he's not popular, nor are any of the projected "front-runners" or "first tier" conservative candidates. The only ones who support the social agenda the far right wants are really obscure.

Just think - for the first time since 1952, there is no incumbent in either party. This happened only 4x in the last century. Cheney isn't running. Neither party really has a front-runner.
The incumbent's record isn't as important and it's harder for his party to hog the spotlight. The candidates in both parties lack the name recognition of the President & VP, and the candidates will tend to have to run to his right or his left. No one will be running on or defending the Bush record. Every dog will be out for him or her self. The Democrats can't simply run as an "opposition" party. They will have to hash out the issues. I am going to go to Costco and get a giant bin of popcorn.

US Commanders Admit: We Face a Vietnam-Style Collapse

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0301-01.htm

March 2, 2007
Most Support U.S. Guarantee of Health Care
By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public’s domestic agenda, ranked far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values.

Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the health insurance issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats were more likely to improve the health care system.

Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs to guarantee health insurance for all, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts.

But the same divisions that doomed the last effort at creating universal health insurance, under the Clinton administration, are still apparent. Americans remain divided, largely along party lines, over whether the government should require everyone to participate in a national health care plan, and over whether the government would do a better job than the private insurance industry in providing coverage.

Looking ahead to the presidential campaign, 36 percent of Americans polled said they had confidence in the ability of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, to “make the right decisions on health care,” while 49 percent said they were uneasy about her.

But Mrs. Clinton retained the confidence of nearly 6 in 10 Democrats on the issue, despite the politically devastating collapse 13 years ago of the national health initiative she helped develop early in her husband’s presidency.

The poll helps explain why health care already looms large in the presidential campaign, and in statehouses from California — where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has proposed a sweeping coverage plan — to Massachusetts, now instituting a program passed under Mitt Romney, the former governor and current Republican presidential candidate.

John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate and former senator from North Carolina, recently unveiled his own attempt at a consensus plan, one that would require everyone to have insurance and require employers to provide it or pay into a fund that would do so. Nearly 4 in 10 said that was a good idea; nearly half said they were unsure.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html

Shortages threaten Guard’s capability
88 percent of units rated ‘not ready’

By Ann Scott Tyson
The Washington Post
Updated: 4 minutes ago

Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready" -- largely as a result of shortfalls in billions of dollars' worth of equipment -- jeopardizing their capability to respond to crises at home and abroad, according to a congressional commission that released a preliminary report yesterday on the state of U.S. military reserve forces.

The report found that heavy deployments of the National Guard and reserves since 2001 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other anti-terrorism missions have deepened shortages, forced the cobbling together of units and hurt recruiting.

"We can't sustain the [National Guard and reserves] on the course we're on," said Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the 13-member Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, established by Congress in 2005. The independent commission, made up mainly of former senior military and civilian officials appointed by both parties, is tasked to study the mission, readiness and compensation of the reserve forces.

"The Department of Defense is not adequately equipping the National Guard for its domestic missions," the commission's report found. It faulted the Pentagon for a lack of budgeting for "civil support" in domestic emergencies, criticizing the "flawed assumption" that as long as the military is prepared to fight a major war, it is ready to respond to a disaster or emergency at home.

From Virginia and the District of Columbia to Indiana and New Mexico, National Guard units lack thousands of trucks, Humvees, generators, radios, night-vision goggles and other gear that would be critical for responding to a major disaster, terrorist attack or other domestic emergency, according to state Guard officials.

The equipment shortage extends to Gulf Coast states such as Louisiana and Mississippi -- devastated in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina -- where Guard units have only a fraction of what they would need to respond to another large-scale disaster.

The Louisiana Guard, its gear depleted by Iraq and Katrina, is short of Humvees and trucks such as high-water vehicles critical for a major evacuation. "We are really concerned about vehicles," said Lt. Col. Pete Schneider, a spokesman for the Louisiana Guard. "We would have enough for a small-scale issue . . . maybe a Category 1 tropical storm we could handle -- an event that doesn't involve massive flooding or massive search and rescue," he said. But for bigger disasters, Louisiana would need help from other states.

Mississippi lacks trucks and is relying on contractors to fill gaps in engineering vehicles, according to the state Guard's assistant adjutant general, Maj. Gen. Ike Pylant. "We will make do with what we got," he said.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17390852/

Feel safer?

Gosh, who called this one 3 years ago?

Op-Ed Contributor
A Divorce the Church Should Smile Upon
By JACK MILES

Los Angeles

THE decision of the global Anglican Communion to threaten the Episcopal Church, its American affiliate, with expulsion is about much more than the headline issue of homosexuality. Yes, the impending divorce has been precipitated by the decision of the Episcopal Church to consecrate a gay bishop and to allow individual congregations to decide whether or not to allow gay marriages. But as so often in religious history, the deeper issue is one of church governance. In effect, the Episcopalians left the Church of England more than two centuries ago.

The problem dates back to the time of the American Revolution, when the Church of England in America was just what that name says: it was the Church of England, merely in America. Since the 16th century, when King Henry VIII made himself, in effect, the pope of England, the English king had been the supreme church authority. Time had somewhat eroded this authority by 1776, thanks in part to the Puritan revolution in the mid-17th century. Nonetheless, the authority structure within the church remained officially monarchical.

So it was no surprise that after the newborn United States broke with the crown in the political realm, the Church of England in the United States did so in the religious realm as well, establishing a democratic form of self-governance under a “presiding bishop,” whose title echoed that of the chief executive of the new nation. The name the new church adopted — from episkopos, the ancient Greek word for bishop — signaled that its governance would be neither by pope nor by king but, as in early Christianity, by elected bishops.

British colonial history did not end in 1776, of course. As the British Empire grew, the Church of England went wherever the crown went, evolving in the process into a religious multinational, called the Anglican Communion, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised a global spiritual jurisdiction. Structurally, however, the Episcopal Church, though long since reconciled with Britain, remained uneasy under this arrangement.

Why? Because the deepest rationale for the creation of the Church of England had been that church governance through separate national churches better reflected the practice of the early church than did papal governance. During its first centuries, Christianity had governed itself as separate but equal dioceses or administrative units, each coinciding with a great capital city, each headed by a bishop; the pope, at that time, was merely the bishop of Rome.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01miles.html

I sense a TAO piece coming...........

Morning campers! Walter Reed guy: GONE
Scooter/Rove: DISMANTLED

I am working on a thread header about our evening with Joe Conason and his new book.

Pieces fall into place--

Updated: 5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq could allow victorious Muslim extremists to fan out into other countries, with some militants going to Afghanistan to fight alongside a resurgent Taliban, Vice President Dick Cheney says.

The vice president, just back from a trip that included unannounced stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, addressed a conservative conference Thursday night where he sharply criticized efforts by some Democrats to restrict funds for President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq or to place restrictions on their deployment.

While noting that the House already had passed a nonbinding resolution voicing opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy, Cheney said that “very soon both houses of Congress will have to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding.”

The legislation would, among other things, help pay for the additional 21,500 troops Bush is sending to Iraq.

“I sincerely hope the discussion this time will be about winning in Iraq, not about posturing on Capitol Hill. Anyone can say they support the troops, and we should take them at their word. But the proof will come when it’s time to provide the money and the support,” Cheney said. “We expect the House and the Senate to meet those needs on time and in full.”

The vice president spoke at an annual dinner of the Conservative Political Action Conference. The audience included conservative activists, leaders and policymakers.

moreon...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17415846/

CheNey The Money

“If our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance. The violence would likely spread throughout the country and be very difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, the (militants) would look for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban,” Cheney said.

He said others would head for capitals across the Middle East and work to undermine moderate governments. “Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents. Such chaos and mounting danger does not have to occur. It is, however, the enemy’s objective,” Cheney said.

“In these circumstances, it’s worth reminding ourselves that, like it or not, the enemy we face in the war on terror has made Iraq the primary front in that war,” he added. Then, to laughter and applause, Cheney said, “To use a popular phrase, this is an inconvenient truth.”

It was a play on the Academy Award-winning environmental documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us,” Cheney said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17415846/

Supposed to be getting ready for work, but quickly checking email I see two interesting rumors:

1. FishbowlDC has learned that former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) has signed on to be a contributor to Fox News Channel.

2. RawStory has learned that a Washington DC Madame has
agreed to sell her 10,000 name phone list, to pay for her legal expenses.

RE: what's becoming known as the Pearl Harbor Day Massacre -- the firing of US attorneys on Dec. 7th, 2006

This could get very interesting next week when the Judiciary committee starts their hearings on Tuesday when the subpoenaed attorneys will be telling their stories.

There's a lot of attention on New Mexico's two Republic Party lawmakers (Sen. Domenici and Rep. Wilson) who allegedly tried to influence a federal investigation. But there are also serious issues regarding the fired attorneys in Seattle & San Diego.

Here's a bit from TPMmuckaker:

So what do the other U.S. attorneys who will testify, Seattle's U.S. Attorney John McKay and San Diego's Carol Lam, have in store for the committee? That's not clear.

McKay is sure to get questions about persistent rumors in the Seattle legal community that he was pushed out "to appease Washington state Republicans angry over the 2004 governor's race." As The Seattle Times reported, "Some believe McKay's dismissal was retribution for his failure to convene a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the race." McKay, who reportedly got one of the most glowing performance reviews from the Justice Department, has already said that he was given no reason for his dismissal.

But the one prosecutor people are most eager to hear from -- Lam, who headed up the Duke Cunningham investigation -- has been utterly silent (except for those indictments two days before she stepped down, you know). The top FBI official in San Diego has already said, "I guarantee politics is involved." Will Lam say the same?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002661.php

There are also a couple of good diaries up about this:

BREAKING: Sources Tell All About US Attorney Firing!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/1/232551/2224

December's U.S. Attorney Massacre: The Plot Thickens
by Jesselyn Radack
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/2/8124/06248

Ralpheh:

"Libby Trial Exposes Neocon Shadow Government"

"Day by day, witness by witness, exhibit by exhibit, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the trial of Dick Cheney’s man, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, is accomplishing what no one else in Washington has been able to: He has impeached the Presidency of George W. Bush.

@@@@@@@@@

I have been listening to the audio recording of Libby's testimony before the Grand Jury. I must say that I think Libby is lying about almost all aspects of the "Wilson/Plame leak".

For example, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald asks Libby, "Were you and the Vice President upset about Joe Wilson's op-ed piece?" Libby's answer, "Not upset, we just wanted to get the facts out about the uranium ore and get the facts straight..." I will bet that Libby and Cheney WERE LIVID ABOUT JOE WILSON'S PIECE. I can imagine lots of swearing and threats of revenge towards Wilson.

Fitzgerald asks Libby about the imminent publishing of Bob Novak's smear column on Joe Wilson: "Were you and the Vice President happy and relieved that, for the first time, someone in the press was going to counter Wilson's charges in print?" Libby's answer (patently unbelievable) "No we didn't really care about Novak's column, we were more concerned with George Tenet's statement regarding Wilson's trip."

BTW it sounds like Libby, Rove, and Cheney were twisting Tenet's arm, to get him to say - on the record - that Wilson was liar and the Iraq was trying to build a nuclear bomb etc.. When in fact both the State Department and the C.I.A. had long ago concluded that Iraq HAD NO ACTIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. Libby, in his Grand Jury testimony is even lying on this point - claiming that the C.I.A. had determined that Iraq was "vigorously seeking" to rebuild its nuclear weapons program etc...

IF LIBBY IS CONVICTED.....

Will the impeachment of Cheney be put "on the table" by the Democrats in the Congress??

Posted by: Ralpheh at March 2, 2007 10:51 AM

Damn well better be.

Will the impeachment of Cheney be put "on the table" by the Democrats in the Congress??

Posted by: Ralpheh at March 2, 2007 10:51 AM

I hope so, or I have cast my last vote for a Democratic politician.

There were impeachment hearings yesterday here in WA but I don't think they'll go anywhere, locally or nationally. I will continue to vote for Democrats as long as I am residing in the US and paying taxes, but I have always had to do some nose plugging. I'm a realist. There are things I don't like about my job, other facets of my life, & I don't just quit them.

Posted by: madame defarge at March 2, 2007 09:58 AM

Hate to change the subject, but are federal attorney jobs "at-will?"

At-will employment laws are evil, and must be put away. Here in California, it renders the state's extensive antidiscrimination ordinances toothless, for example, by allowing employers to state no reason for firing someone they don't like, if the real reason is illegal. (I've lost quite a few jobs that way in San Francisco's Republican-dominated Financial District.)

At-will employment laws also hurt employee-employer loyalty, because the relationship can be ended at a whim. Employers won't invest in employees who could leave at anytime, and employees won't have qualms leaving an employer either. I've heard tons of complaints from both employees and employers regarding the at-will employment laws.

RE: what's becoming known as the Pearl Harbor Day Massacre -- the firing of US attorneys on Dec. 7th, 2006

This could get very interesting next week when the Judiciary committee starts their hearings on Tuesday when the subpoenaed attorneys will be telling their stories.

There's a lot of attention on New Mexico's two Republic Party lawmakers (Sen. Domenici and Rep. Wilson) who allegedly tried to influence a federal investigation. But there are also serious issues regarding the fired attorneys in Seattle & San Diego.

@@@@@@@

YET MORE CAUSE FOR IMPEACHMENT...

BTW: If Cheney broke the law in regard to the Wilson/Plame leak and told others to break the law, doesn't that DEMAND an impeachment inquiry??

I think it does. I also think that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald agrees with me...

I wouldn't shed any tears if it did happen (impeachment of Decider Cheney), as it would have been better had he never gone into politics as a helper to Nixon in the first place. He chose to get 5 deferments & should have stayed on the ranch.

"AVALANCHE" OF SUBPEONAS REGARDING KATRINA WILL BE SENT OUT FROM CONGRESS:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030207A.shtml

Democrats Send Out First Round of Subpoenas
By Susan Crabtree
The Hill

Thursday 01 March 2007

A House Judiciary subcommittee approved today the first in what is expected to be an avalanche of subpoenas to Bush administration officials. They will likely explore corruption and mismanagement allegations on everything from pre-war Iraq intelligence to the mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina.

The first round of subpoenas concern the recent controversial firings by the Bush administration of seven U.S. attorneys, some of whom were pursuing public corruption cases against Republican members of Congress.

The House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, chaired by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), approved subpoenas requiring four former U.S. attorneys to appear at a subcommittee hearing next Tuesday. The former U.S. attorneys include Carol Lam of California, David Iglesias of New Mexico, H.E. Cummins III of Arkansas, and John McKay of Washington state. The subcommittee approved the subpoenas by voice vote; no Republican lawmakers were presen