Another Sad Anniversary

Excellent pictures DiAnne. You're right, the cost in money terms is horrific. The cost in human terms amongst the survivors of the wars, as well as the dead, is beyond words, beyond 'horrific', beyond 'obscene'. Means to an End? What End could ever be worth this cost.

The world can be rich without dollars. How much poorer we are now without the hundreds of thousands of people who are dead or damaged by insane war-mongers. The dollars mean absolutely nothing by comparison.

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

From the last thread sparrow, Jesselyn has been on my mind too since the Attorney General fired all those lawyers. I did feel some comfort that she is no longer alone in her struggle. And I believe that this long and lonely experience will serve her well in the future. She is a great asset to United States future.

This year is going to be such an eye opener to those who've kept their heads in the sand for way too long. I hope it continues to snowball and gather the crap all the way to the very top and down again.

DiAnne,

You have an amazing way of capturing the deepest facial expressions with your camera. That child at the top is breaking my heart.

Every single one of these captures the hope, despair, weariness, and grief we all feel.

To those who perpetrated all of this, may the sharpness of a knifepoint pierce your black hearts and may you know the pain you have caused.

(FBI/NSA: That's a metaphor--look it up.)

That child at the top is breaking my heart.

Posted by: karen at March 22, 2007 12:18 AM

Same here Karen and I'm drawn to go back and back and it is still the saddest most resigned face. What are the grownups doing to his world?

The thing breaking my heart is the fact that the House committee meeting (on Wed.) did not result in any subpoenas being issued.

Basically, it was only a contingency vote that says if/when the administration can't get their way and arrange a private conversational interview with no transcript, then maybe they can then issue subpoenas. The Dems appeased the neoCons on the committee. A private, off-the-record conversation with no transcript will only result in a he/she said - he/she said flap that will prove nothing, but it will give the Sunday morning bobble-heads something to talk about for the next two years. Any and all questions and answers regarding the prosecutor firings (which does not involve national security after all, so nothing should be classified about it) - or anything else involving this adminsitration - needs to be UNDER OATH, be taped on camera for all the world to see, and have written transcripts of the exchanges. Period.

If we are truly an open republic with nothing to hide, nothing needs to happen behind closed doors, everything needs to be out in the open, available for public scrutiny, and transparent processes need to be obvious to even kool-aid-drinking sheeple.

I've a foreboding feeling that the administration will - once again! - do an end-run around Congressional investigations and authority with some major stalling tactics, just as they have for six miserable years.

If Rove, Miers, et al., are issued subpoenas, it might happen by the fall of 2008, and too late to bother with more than a cursory questioning that no one will pay any attention to because of all the campaigning and mud-slinging that will be going on. Poof. No chance for impeachment proceedings, because not only will the adminsitration stall, but Congress will (again!) passively let them get by with their criminal activities.

I don't have any good feelings about any of this. It's all taking too long, the Dems are STILL appeasing the neoCons, the subjects are talked to death (just as ending the Iraq war is being talked to death and nothing is stopping the administration), but nothing whatsoever is actually getting accomplished.

The AUMFs and Patriot Acts and MCA '06, etc., by comparison, were passed with breathtaking speed (some in less than a week or two), some of those bills were not even read before the rushed up-or-down-vote, and now we're stuck with a dictatorial administration.

When will this nightmare end? Will Congress ever, in our names, investigate the criminal actions of this administration and hold them responsible and accountable for the crimes (crimes, to our everlasting shame, done in our names without our express authorization)?

Libby, Delay, Cunningham, Abramoff, et al., were minor players compared to Shrub, Chinkster, Rove, et al., depending on which criminal behavior one is talking about.

I want to see some perp walks by the major criminals who have been lying about their war crimes and high crimes and misdemeanors all these years... and I want to see that within the next month....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ad
Mystery creator of anti-Clinton ad ID'd
WASHINGTON - The mystery creator of the Orwellian YouTube ad against Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic operative who worked for a digital consulting firm with ties to rival Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record).

Philip de Vellis, a strategist with Blue State Digital, acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press that he was the creator of the video, which portrayed Clinton as a Big Brother figure and urged support for Obama's presidential campaign.

De Vellis said he resigned from the firm on Wednesday after he learned that he was about to be unmasked by the HuffingtonPost.com., a liberal news and opinion Internet site.

Blue State designed Obama's Web site and one of the firm's founding members, Joe Rospars, took a leave from the company to work as Obama's director of new media.

"It's true ... yeah, it's me," de Vellis said Wednesday evening.

He said he produced the ad outside of work and that neither Blue State nor the Obama campaign was aware of his role in the ad.

"But it raises some eyebrows, so I thought it best that I resign and not put them in that position."

{{{More on link, including links to the YouTube ads. I watched two of the anti-Clinton ads after I read a story about this a couple of days ago; the ads are both clever and tacky at the same time.}}}

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/21/boxer-tells-inhofe-an-inconvenient-truth/
Boxer Tells Inhofe “An Inconvenient Truth”
{Short video.}

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/21/when-they%e2%80%99re-dissembling-they%e2%80%99re-lying/
When they’re dissembling, they’re lying

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/21/court-rejects-suit-against-enron-banks/
Court Rejects Suit Against Enron Banks

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/21/jon-stewart-vs-john-bolton/
Jon Stewart vs. John Bolton
{Yikes! Talk about dissembling....}

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/21/daily-show-what-is-a-loyal-bushie/
Daily Show: What is a “Loyal Bushie”?
{ROTFLMAO!}

John Edwards to Discuss Wife's Health

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards accompanied his wife, Elizabeth, who has been treated for breast cancer, on a doctor's visit Wednesday. His campaign said they would hold a news conference in their hometown Thursday to discuss her health.

Campaign officials refused to answer any questions about what the Edwardses learned at the doctor's appointment or how it might affect his candidacy. Edwards had cut short a trip to Iowa Tuesday night to be with his wife Wednesday but still attended a barbecue fundraiser later in the evening in their hometown of Chapel Hill, N.C.

The campaign had said that Mrs. Edwards, 57, had a follow-up appointment to a routine test she had Monday. The campaign explained that she had similar follow-ups in the past but they always resulted in a clean bill of health.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102744.html

My thoughts are of Elizabeth & family this morning, with hopes that it will all work out & that soon someone will find a cure for this horrible disease. It has taken the life of too many great women.

Thanks NonnyO
I wish we could get some of our interviewers to challenge the interviewee. And Jon Stewart does it in a tough but extremely polite way.

madame
I agree. It is awful and it takes too many great women, including one of my dearest friends at the age of 34 - 22 years ago. I still think of her daily.

NonnyO - no sooner had I watched Jon Stewart vs Bolton than I came upon this article.

Bolton admits Iraq 'mistake'
London
March 22, 2007 - 12:46PM

The coalition forces that invaded Iraq in March 2003 made a "mistake" in not handing power to Iraqis quickly enough, former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said in an interview today.

"The real problem was in not relying more on Iraqis," Bolton told the BBC.

cont. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bolton-admits-iraq-mistake/2007/03/22/1174153219857.html

John and Elizabeth Edwards have scheduled a press conference at Noon today, apparently to discuss her medical condition. We can only hope that Elizabeth's cancer remains in remission - as much for the Edwards family’s sake as for our own. Edwards continue to lead the polls in Iowa, and has the kind of star quality that can win national elections in our media driven age. He also brings a message of economic populism to this field - at a time when establishment Democrats seem more intent on addressing the concerns of investment bankers and a well-heeled economic elite than the working poor and middle class.

The United States began with a debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, between Democratic Republicans and Federalists, centering on the virtues of what we would come to call “supply side economics”. Few prominent Democrats in recent years have seriously attempted to argue the Jeffersonian position – leaving the burden of defending the middle class to unlikely spokesmen like Lou Dobbs. But even long-time Republicans like Dobbs understand today that this nation’s drift towards oligarchy would have disastrous implications for American democracy.

The path to the White House in 2008 is likely to run through the middle, but not necessarily the cultural middle that certain Democrats so carefully seek to cultivate, but rather through the economic middle. The time is ripe for a vigorous debate about our country’s trade policies, about the very morality of oligarchy within an allegedly “Christian” country, and ultimately, about the proper role of government in spurring the kind of grassroots economic renewal that Thomas Jefferson understood to be essential if the promise of America were to be fulfilled. Regardless of which side ultimately prevails in 2008, I’m wagering that John Edwards is the most qualified person in this field to champion the Jeffersonian side of that economic argument in this election cycle.

CNN: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, is unharmed but ducked behind a podium as a rocket or mortar round landed in Baghdad's Green Zone during a televised news conference.

Feel safer?

What about Bidens? I was really impressed with his passionate address to the president about the war. He's the first person I've heard say it like it is. He seems not to mince words when direct speech is necessary. However, before last week I hadn't heard of him, so I don't know. And I won't be voting anyway. Just interested. And it really matters to the world that you get a good person next time.

Woz
I would love to see Biden or Richardson or Dodd as they are very experienced in relevant areas, but the media has not chosen them as first tier candidates, so they can't generate the necessary money from Hollywood, etc. This is the way politics works in America and it is disgusting. I will vote Democrat in the general election, of course. I supported Kerry as a very early adopter, because of his voting record and qualifications, although he is a charming and phenomenal person too. Now you know why in America, movie stars have been governors in California and one was even president of the Republic, though they were heroes only in the cinema.

Thanks to those who liked the photos. I can never figure out my motivation for taking them. It seems to be to document something that I can barely influence at all. The mood of the 4th anniversary protests was the most somber yet. There was a sadness but also kind of a subdued anger or bitterness, and not a strong feeling of hope, even among the young. Something is badly wrong when it's like that.

The truth is that I like Joe Biden quite a lot.

But he supported that miserable bankruptcy bill, a bill that makes it much harder for the working poor and middle class to discharge the kinds of medical debt that is driving more and more families to financial ruin. The healthcare system in America is broken, and IMHO Congress had a moral obligation to fix that system before coming to the rescue of lending institutions, whose ethics more resembles that of drug dealers than those of virtuous victims.

The irony inherent in that bankruptcy bill is that it encourages Americans to lose their jobs, since the terms of discharging debt are more favorable for the unemployed than that of working poor and middle class.

SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- Call it Round 2 in the battle between Arnold and Rush, although this time the jabs were a little more gentle -- and were thrown head to head, on Limbaugh's radio show.

The feud was launched Tuesday when California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the conservative radio talk show host "irrelevant" on NBC's "Today" show. The comment was in response to Limbaugh's characterization of Schwarzenegger as a "closet liberal."

"I'm not his servant," Schwarzenegger said Tuesday. "I'm the people's servant of California."

Wednesday, in a telephone interview on Limbaugh's radio show, Schwarzenegger was asked if he didn't "get a little flustered whenever they throw my name at you." Schwarzenegger sounded anything but flustered.

"I pay very little attention if someone criticizes me or calls me, that I'm turning left, that I'm selling out or whatever," he said. "I have to stay focused on results."

So, Limbaugh asked, "Why are you selling out instead of being the true conservative you are?"

"I'm not selling out," the governor replied. "It's just doing work for the people. ... I can understand where you're coming from ideologically, but when I became governor, I became the people's governor."

Limbaugh countered that "conservatism is the best way to serve the people. Raising the minimum wage is not improving people's lives."

"But I have had hundreds of people come up to me and say it did improve their lives," Schwarzenegger shot back.

more... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/arnold.rush/index.html

In case you haven't seen this, Jesselyn Radack speaks quite forcefully in her latest diary at Daily Kos.

Why the whole pack should be impeached...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/16/53337/5384

It's hard to stop thinking about 04 when you see more of their stuff...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=467855&mesg_id=467855

Apparently there is a legal remedy for refusal to respond to a Congressional subpoena by use of a criminal indictment which may ensue for contempt of Congress if Bush's staff continues to refuse to abide by their subpoenas, certainly subject to the role of the federal judiciary and potentially the US Supreme Court rulings.

Washington Post

snip

"If the White House refuses to comply, the judiciary committees will meet in coming weeks to decide whether to issue citations for contempt of Congress. If they do, the full Senate and House would have to follow suit."

"That would set in motion the extraordinary spectacle of Congress enlisting the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to impanel a grand jury to seek the indictment of administration officials over their refusal to testify on the firings of eight of his colleagues."

Can't vote from here on the diary - received it in email then saw it here (Sparrow) - it's good.

Sub-penis for Rove.
Love not Rove.

Love not Rove.

Posted by: not my president at March 22, 2007 11:05 AM

No danger in confusing the two.

Another whistelblower (truthteller) goverup1 has a fantastic diary at kos. It sunk but it's well worth the read.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/19/18334/7157

And if politics hasn't brought you to tears yet, this article will finish the job for you.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/WorldChocolateShortageAhead.aspx

MSNBC.com
Sources: Edwards to suspend presidential run due to wife's ill-health.

CNN:
The Senate Judiciary Committee today authorized its chairman to issue subpoenas to force key White House aides to testify about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

Posted by: monkey at March 22, 2007 11:41 AM

Very sad for both of them.

I can't describe how much I admired E.E. for her tenacity in 04 and her humor and her skill.

That's sad about Edwards. Someone from Kerry's campaign once told me that Edwards had a really good campaign in 2004 and could have probably taken the nomination if he could have held out another month. I haven't repeated it til now.

My mother had breast cancer and that issue is foremost in my mind. He would have been as good as anyone running and infinitely better than what we have.

I hope that some of the other "second tier" candidates can raise their profile and not drop out, because it's far too early to have it narrowed down to two. That would be ridiculous, especially if they might somehow end up running together anyhow. That's one reason I don't like to trash any Dem on the internet, but maybe discuss the policy in question.

It is ridiculous to think in terms of just the first woman or first minority. We already have a prominent black woman as a neocon. What about policy? Why is it always just politics? Politics is so dirty that the guy who made the spoof ad about Clinton/Obama can be argued to be kind of a Rovian of liberals. For shame.

Anyway, best of luck to the Edwards family.

Wife's illness won't idle Edwards ’08 campaign
‘Campaign goes on,' Democratic hopeful says despite return of wife’s cancer

BREAKING NEWS
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - The wife of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards has a recurrence of her cancer, but her husband's campaign for the presidency will go on, the candidate said Thursday.

“We are very optimistic about this,” Edwards said. “Having been through some struggles in the past, we know the key is to keep your head up and keep moving.”

“We feel incredibly optimistic. I do not expect my life to be significantly different,” Elizabeth Edwards said.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17730088/

Man, I hate "sources".

He is still running .. well that's good, I guess.

Monkey and NMP,

I hate "sources" too. It was likely someone who overheard a discussion but wasn't part of the upper level team.

And it's way to early to have the field narrowed down. I will try not to diss dems (and for now most Repub's are off my list) but I am already ticked at the lack of focus on 07 instead of 08 anyways.

Posted by DiAnne Grieser at March 21, 2007 09:00 PM

The number of our military wounded actually is up over the 200,000 mark, as exposed by Bob Woodruff on his ABC documentary "To Iraq and Back." It was exposed in that documentary that the U.S. government had issued "gag orders" so that the number would not get out to the citizens of the U.S. or the world.

At work but came online to see if there was any announcement by Edwards yet.

Sad, but optimistic too.

He is still running .. well that's good, I guess.

Posted by: not my president at March 22, 2007 01:03 PM

That IS good... Edwards has a lot to offer to the discussion, and I would have hated to see his campaign stop.

(I don't have a favorite candidate - yet.)

Hoping for the best in EE's future in any case.

Senate and House beginning debate on supplemental now.

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at March 22, 2007 01:54 PM

The Edwards have more to offer every single day.

Journeyman

Pelosi in 2007

Man, I hate "sources".

Posted by: monkey at March 22, 2007 12:57 PM

Hmm, wait a tick. By so flippantly forwarding on such news as reported by "sources". am I not guilty of being one as well?

Thing that make ya go, "Waiter, I'll have another, on the rocks... with salt."

The Sourcerers Apprentice

Maxine Waters on the phone now:

Synopsis of bill: Supplemental includes some language that would require the President to provide appropriate support for troops.

The Blue Dogs insisted President should be able to waive the Murtha provisions (adequate supplies and leave time between deployments and adequate training).

This bill includes requirements of Iraqis and Bush, and sets benchmarks in order to determine how long we stay in Iraq.

This bill would force the Pres. to be out by Aug. 2008, at the latest. It requires a progress report by July, 2007. If the benchmarks are OK by Oct. 2007, we will stay in Iraq. If not, we would have to be out by Dec. 2007.

We would stay until next March if they are doing what we want.

The supplemental bill provides 1000 billion for the above.

24 billion of this is basically pork: the Blue Dogs were catered to with additional $$ for a variety of unrelated projects. Like spinach.

All the new people are voting for this bill. Even though many of them professed to be with the progressives, only TEN strong progressives are left.

The leadership have the votes--This morning, the Progressive Caucus released all of its Members to do what they want. Some will vote their conscience; most will vote with the majority.

Waters mentioned that the following Members are likely to vote no:

Woolsey
Lee
Kucinich
Waters
Lacey Clay
Lewis
Grijalva
Payne
Millender-MacDonald
Doggett

Rep. Waters went on to point out that they had lots of pressure from MoveOn.org. MoveOn claimed that 80% of their members supported voting for this bill.

Many on the call pointed out that this was a phony poll: a misrepresentation by MoveOn. Sue Udry pointed out that a minute number responded and Barbara Lee's amendment was not included in the question.

Some of the thinking behind voting FOR the supplemental: If we have to have supplemental monies and if that gave progressives too much, the Blue Dogs would turn and go with Republicans and give free rein to Bush.

At the Rules Committee last night: There were no votes supporting that the Lee Amendment be heard.

The vote will be tomorrow, debate tonight.

What we should do: Let them know about the bogus poll MoveOn did. Let MoveOn know that they should do another, more valid poll! email: eli@moveon.org

Maxine: Remember that the people who got elected in 2006 are not grounded in progressive politics and are beholden to corporate support. One new Member had dinner with Maxine the night before last and toasted to being with the progressives. The next day this Member told her they were voting for the supplemental. Maxine said she is heart-broken. This has been a terribly difficult time for those who have worked so hard to end this war.

Many Members are saying they are not yet decided: Keith Ellison, for one. It is not too late to call!!

They are being told that this is the best we can get; that it's the first time there are target dates and this provides forward movement for Nancy Pelosi.

Discussion continues about what we can do to bring some pressure to bear on getting a deadline sooner. Raed Jarrar spoke on this call and said that the Iraqi people need to know that people do care and are willing to work to end this as soon as possible.

No matter what your Member is saying, please call and let them know if you want the Iraqi people and
our children to know we mean what we said in November: we want OUT of this nightmare.

Here's a gem...

Commentary: Gonzales being whacked like a piñata
POSTED: 3:42 p.m. EDT, March 22, 2007

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- In the flap over the ousted U.S. attorneys, Alberto Gonzales has been hoisted up as a political piñata.

The nation's first Hispanic attorney general is being pressured to resign by -- pick 'em -- Democrats trying to make hay, an elite media that long opposed him, civil libertarians who condemn administration policy on detainees and wiretaps, conservatives who think Gonzales is too liberal, and liberals who think he's too conservative.

The list even includes a pair of immigrant-baiting members of Congress -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado -- who fell out with Gonzales over the prosecution of two ex-border patrol agents.

Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.

Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.

Gonzales' persecutors are blind with rage, or maybe just blind. Surely they see that the push to dump the U.S. attorneys came from White House political adviser Karl Rove.

The attorney general does have one person in his corner. President Bush came out swinging Tuesday, insisting that Gonzales has his support and warning Democrats not to go on "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance.

"I have an obligation...to ensure that we have the best people we can have in here," he said. "All I will say is that the decisions that were made...were based upon performance, and there are many factors that go into that."

An avid baseball fan, Gonzales even pitched an analogy. "What I care about is -- are we trading up?"

As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.

He comes across as a straight shooter. What you see is what you get. He is also human, and he makes mistakes.

It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.

Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/22/navarrette/index.html

Posted by: monkey at March 22, 2007 04:00 PM

Note that the article was written in Southern California, where reactionary immigrant communities rule.

Dems will surely suffer in SoCal, but they have been nonexistent here (at least, for the motorists and sportsmen) since the Reagan days anyway.

Republican using the race card to try and save Gonzales. Reminds me a lot of the language we heard during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing and Anita Hill testimony, his use of phrases like high tech lynchings. I suspect this strategy came right out of the Frank Luntz playbook.

Somebody should ask Mr. Navarrette how he feels about Alberto Gonzalez' treatment of David Iglesias.

So I was at the hairdressers this a.m. and the gal said to me "Everything you told me is coming out in the news now, it's being exposed, and I told my husband that you knew it WAY BEFORE anyone else did, you are very learned."

Still educating them one person at a time in the heartland......

Pete Domenici has apparently retained a lawyer.

Posted by: Cyrano at March 22, 2007 06:03 PM

Oh, the irony of the party who slams lawyers every chance they get, needing them so badly.

Lex Loser

Posted by: TSP at March 22, 2007 05:46 PM

You go girl.

March 22, 2007
Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce
By MARK LANDLER

FRANKFURT, March 22 — A German judge has stirred a storm of protest here by citing the Koran in turning down a German Muslim woman’s request for a fast-track divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

In a remarkable ruling that underlines the tension between Muslim customs and European laws, the judge, Christa Datz-Winter, said that the couple came from a Moroccan cultural milieu, in which she said it was common for husbands to beat their wives. The Koran, she wrote, sanctions such physical abuse.

News of the ruling brought swift and sharp condemnation from politicians, legal experts, and Muslim leaders in Germany, many of whom said they were confounded that a German judge would put 7th-century Islamic religious teaching ahead of modern German law in deciding a case involving domestic violence.

The woman’s lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, said she decided to publicize the ruling, which was issued in January, after the court refused her request for a new judge. On Wednesday, the court in Frankfurt abruptly removed Judge Datz-Winter from the case, saying it could not justify her reasoning.

“It was terrible for my client,” Ms. Becker-Rojczyk said of the ruling. “This man beat her seriously from the beginning of their marriage. After they separated, he called her and threatened to kill her.”

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/world/europe/22cnd-germany.html

Culinary Democracy is at Hand!

March 21, 2007
It Boils Down to This: Cheap Wine Works Fine
By JULIA MOSKIN

IN the beginning, there was cooking wine.

And Americans cooked with it, and said it was good.

Then, out of the darkness, came a voice.

Said Julia Child: “If you do not have a good wine to use, it is far better to omit it, for a poor one can spoil a simple dish and utterly debase a noble one.

And so we came to a new gospel: Never cook with a wine you wouldn't drink.

For my generation of home cooks, this line now has the unshakable ring of a commandment. It was the first thing out of the mouth of every expert I interviewed on the subject.

But it is not always helpful in the kitchen. For one thing, short of a wine that is spoiled by age, heat or a compromised cork, there are few that I categorically would not drink. (Although a cooking wine, which is spiked with salt and sometimes preservatives, has never touched my braising pot.)

And once a drinkable wine has been procured, trying to figure out whether it is the best one for a particular recipe can seem impossible. How much of the wine's subtler qualities will linger in the finished dish? How much of the fruit flavor? Does it matter whether the wine is old or young, inexpensive or pricey, tannic or soft?

Two weeks ago I set out to cook with some particularly unappealing wines and promised to taste the results with an open mind. Then I went to the other extreme, cooking with wines that I love (and that are not necessarily cheap) to see how they would hold up in the saucepan.

After cooking four dishes with at least three different wines, I can say that cooking is a great equalizer.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/dining/21cook.html

Many Members are saying they are not yet decided: Keith Ellison, for one. It is not too late to call!!

They are being told that this is the best we can get; that it's the first time there are target dates and this provides forward movement for Nancy Pelosi.

Discussion continues about what we can do to bring some pressure to bear on getting a deadline sooner. Raed Jarrar spoke on this call and said that the Iraqi people need to know that people do care and are willing to work to end this as soon as possible.

No matter what your Member is saying, please call and let them know if you want the Iraqi people and
our children to know we mean what we said in November: we want OUT of this nightmare.

Posted by: karen at March 22, 2007 03:13 PM

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

And let's not forget that whatever the Democrats produce in the House will be vetoed by Bush later. A deadline is probably the best the Dems can get - and what happens after the veto will be even more important. Defense SEc. Gates said today that the military is running low on money and any delay in the supplemental.

Let's also not forget the Sen Lieberman won in blue-state, (anti-war?) Connecticut against anti-war Dem. Senate candidate Lamont.....

I went to a World Can't Wait lecture at Western Michigan University yesterday. Featured speakers were Marine Sgt. Liam Madden (of Appeal For Redress) and Sunsara Taylor (WWC). The crowd was not particularly big - about 60 people. Madden was very good, he gave a very comprehensive and forceful speech.

Many in the audience were frustrated at the two party system etc... and the Dems support of the war (or at least passive support). I did point out, during the Q and A afterward, that when Ann Coulter appeared at WMU almost 1,000 people showed up and of course there was local media attention for Coulter. There was no media for WWC and SGT. Madden - not even a print reporter... (let alone TV...). The conservatives are very well organized, well financed and still somewhat popular...

At last - a little sanity and morality from the RAAF. More defiance of immoral orders needs to be the Order.

RAAF warns crews on moral courage in war missions
Brendan Nicholson
March 23, 2007

RAAF aircrew involved in coalition operations have been warned that they must have the moral courage to abort missions if they breach Australian laws.

The RAAF's new air power doctrine also strongly emphasises the need for all personnel to have the courage to give the Government honest advice, even when they know it might be unwelcome or that it could be politicised.

The doctrine amounts to a blueprint for the conduct of RAAF operations and its strong emphasis on personal responsibility of aircrews comes after years of concern about high civilian casualties in Iraq and episodes such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

Cont. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/raaf-warns-crews-on-moral-courage/2007/03/22/1174153254935.html

Posted by: Cyrano at March 22, 2007 07:31 PM

This is what I call "political correctness" gone amok.

I will NEVER count Koranic beatings or honor killings as immigrants' contributions to a given society. EVER.

It's bad enough that immigrant homophobia has gotten so out of hand here in Los Angeles.

Congrats on the new Mac, Ally.

At last, some science to back up the beliefs. This article is originally from the LATimes.

Brain damage can alter moral compass
Denise Gellene
March 23, 2007

DAMAGE to an area of the brain behind the forehead, centimetres behind the eyes, transforms the way people make moral judgements in life-or-death situations, scientists are reporting.

Asked to resolve hypothetical dilemmas — such as tossing a person from a bridge into the path of a runaway train carriage to save five others — people with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex tended to sacrifice one life to save many, according to a study published by the journal Nature.

People with intact brains were far less likely to kill or harm someone when confronted with the same scenarios.

Cont. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/brain-damage-can-alter-moral-compass/2007/03/22/1174153254728.html

A good photo collection of 4th Anniversary protests held worldwide - Phillipines, Korea, Japan, San Francisco, New York etc...

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/031806antiwar;_ylt=ApP0JK6Ubbdc9pupCBdWsWdhWscF

Congrats on the new Mac, Ally!

After a long afternoon on the Hill, I have mixed feelings about this supplemental bill. On the one hand, I see the incrementalism might just help gather some steam towards a real solution. On the other hand, this bill is not a real solution.

We were completely inspired by John Lewis, who received a Backbone Award today. That video should be up on YouTube later tonight. I hope it inspires you as it moved us today.

Every day feels like an uphill battle, and the hill gets higher, but still we trudge.

Thanks to all of you. On days when I work a long shift and commute, it's very hard to keep up & I trust you all to filter it and think it through. It's just great.

Ally, congrats on your computer - you'll love it & I really hope to replace this one soon. We are torn between a faster desk computer and a laptop (which I don't have) and probably can't get both at once.

from pollster Mark Mellman:

Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

Investigation Finds Gap in Justice-White House Emails
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032207J.shtml
A 16-day gap in email records between the Justice Department and the White House concerning the firing of US attorneys last year has attracted the attention of Congressional investigators. The Justice Department on Monday handed over 3,000 pages of documents to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but the documents included no correspondence about the firings in the critical time period between November 15 and December 2, 2006, right before the attorneys were asked for their resignations.

Excerpt:

Members of a House Judiciary subcommittee voted Wednesday to authorize the committee's leaders to issue subpoenas to force testimony from key White House and Justice Department figures in the controversy over the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.

The vote does not mean that subpoenas will be issued; only that they could be used if at least four White House officials and a former Justice Department official do not voluntarily come to testify before the committee.

{Hmmmm... Important words are missing: "Under oath; in public...." Echoes of 18 minutes of missing tape....}

White House Aides Face More Potential Subpoenas
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032207R.shtml
A second US Congressional panel authorized subpoenas of White House aides on Thursday, clearing the way for subpoenas of Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political strategist.

Excerpt:

"We're told that we can have a closed-door meeting with no transcript, not under oath, limited number of people, and the White House will determine what the agenda is. That, to me, is nothing," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee.

"I know he (Bush) is 'the decider' at the White House. He is not the decider for the United States Senate," he said.

House of Representatives Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said the White House had made a "good-faith effort" to provide Congress with the information it needed but that "Democrats on Capitol Hill want a political sideshow."

Without a compromise, a lengthy court fight could ensue, possibly lasting until after Bush leaves office in January 2009. Republicans and Democrats have urged that common ground be sought.

{{{Now both House and Senate have a contingency plan. But, with less than two years to go on Shrub's residency, he can out-stall them, methinks. Memo to Boehner: No, we don't want a political sideshow. We want transparency in our government...! Why don't you (and the Bush administration and those who continue to drink the kool-aid) get that? Without government transparency, all the continued secrecy lets us know that criminal activities still abound unchecked in the White House.... If Georgie and Dickie and Turd Blossom and Harriet and Gonzo, and whomever else, have nothing to hide, what's the problem with testifying under oath in front of cameras before judiciary committees in the House and/or Senate...??? If they don't testify under oath in front of cameras for all the world to see, then it's just more evidence to We The People that they will continue to lie and commit more crimes or authorize criminal acts and more war crimes, just as they've been doing since they were given their offices in the SCOTUS decision of December, 2000. Memo to Congress Critters: Screw your contingency plan. Issue the subpoenas already!!!}}}

Waxman Provides Precedent for Subpoenas
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032207A.shtml
In a letter late Wednesday, Rep. Henry Waxman presented numerous instances in which subpoenas were used by Congress to compel the testimony of presidential staff in former administrations.

Cheney and Libby: Lying About Lying
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032207M.shtml
Here is the real news from the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial: Evidence released during the case indicates not only that Libby lied to the grand jury (the crime for which he was convicted), but that the Office of the Vice President — specifically Vice President Dick Cheney, Libby and Cathie Martin, Cheney's press secretary — tried to cover up the Bush administration's original lies to Congress and the American people about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with more lies.

Ann Wright | The Sheikh and the Torture Senator
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032207L.shtml
Ann Wright writes: "I am horrified that US senators have been complicit in knowing of criminal acts of our intelligence agencies and doing nothing to stop them. Graham told 400 of us in the audience on February 22 that he knew of the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Graham is a military lawyer and a civilian lawyer. He knew that the torture of Sheikh Mohammed was a criminal act and did nothing to stop it."

Excerpt:

Senator Levin, if you want to know about torture committed by US government officials, please put under oath your colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, and ask him "what he knew and when he knew it."

P.S. HBO filmed the senator's remarks. Please watch the HBO video and see his comments for yourself.

Robert Parry | US News Media's "War on Gore"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032207I.shtml
Robert Parry explores the continued media mistreatment of Al Gore, and asks: "Why did the US news media continue ridiculing Gore in 2002 when he was one of the most prominent Americans to warn that George W. Bush’s radical policy of preemptive war was leading the nation into a disaster in Iraq?"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/22/daily-show-bushs-reasonable-proposal/
Daily Show: Bush’s “Reasonable Proposal”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/22/colbert-dares-democrats-to-impeach-bush/
Colbert Dares Democrats to Impeach Bush

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/22/tony-snow-gets-into-it-with-harry-smith-at-cbs-over-the-atty-scandal/
Tony Snow gets into it With Harry Smith at CBS over the Atty scandal

Woz,

So that's what they are: people with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex. I knew there had to be a name for their condition!

I imagine that witnessing and participating in horrific and barbaric behaviour would cause brain damage if it wasn't already damaged.

I have just watched your News Hour program that you've already had on your tv. Gonzales almost made me throw up - he was so arrogant in his ha ha ha - you can't touch me - statements about it being the president who says what happens - who is sacked and who is not. Yikes. This administration will be full of Bush-clones at this rate. Snow's snow-jobs aren't worth listening to.

I wish I didn't get so agitated about it all.

And every time I read and refresh or post, I see that young boy's haunting expression in the top picture. I think that maybe impotent-patience isn't what the voters wanted. Isn't there someone, preferably somehundred, in Congress to do the plain-speak that Bidens used the other day.

Thanks for the congrats!

I've already had to reinstall the OS on the new Mac, but it was my fault (made a mistake with Boot Camp while upgrading the OS), and the reinstall was clean as a dream.

Robert Parry | US News Media's "War on Gore"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032207I.shtml

Posted by: NonnyO at March 23, 2007 01:27 AM

I have a feeling that the whole "Sore Loserman" campaign stuck in the people's collective minds... and it was a devastating one, combined with the whole "Al Bore" image.

I've met with Gore twice, and know better. He's no bore, and certainly no sore loser.

Posted by: not my president at March 22, 2007 11:44 PM

Re: Fox News watchers being the biggest block of voters that voted for George Bush.

Freaky. I work with a gal who watches Fox, and so do some others I come in contact with regularly. Even in the face of disclosure of dishonesty and complete inadequacy, these people have been programmed - just as sure as if they were Manchurian candidates, and they will admit the dishonesty and inadequacy, then turn around and defend them.

I told the Fox gal I work with today about EE, and she said "Oh, that's too bad. They seem like such nice people, too." Then in the same breath she said "They have alot of money, and just moved into a huge mansion. Alot of people are questioning where they got all that money."
Bingo! It sounded like Fox News programming to me.

Gore has been to Australia a couple of times Ally. He's extremely popular here. Lots are hoping that he'll run next year. Mostly that's because little johnny howard, our pm, refused to sign the Kyoto commitments - because his HERO, your president, refused to sign it.

Australians have been furious. It's only a month ago that he said, ok - maybe there is something to this global warming. I think he's left his mind changes a bit late. There's a federal election here this year sometime. He gets to decide which Saturday that will be. We all expect it will be on the last Saturday of December unless that happens to be Christmas Day - even he couldn't get the Governor General (Queen's servant) to accept that day for his dismissal.

Posted by: not my president at March 22, 2007 11:44 PM

Re: Fox News watchers being the biggest block of voters that voted for George Bush.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 23, 2007 02:49 AM

OMG.....Now this makes sense! I wish they'd stay out of it, but - where there's money there's some kind of seedy behaviour. Does this include Fox News?

Heavyweights gang up on YouTube
March 23, 2007 - 6:19AM

NBC Universal and News Corp joined forces on Thursday with several major Internet companies to distribute TV shows, video clips and movies online in an effort to better control their programming and counter competition from YouTube.

The new network, which would launch this summer, comes in response to the explosive growth Google Inc.'s YouTube, a do-it-yourself video-sharing site that is being sued by Viacom Inc., another major media company, for copyright infringement.

cont. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztech/heavyweights-gang-up-on-youtube/2007/03/23/1174153290147.html

The Edwards couple have made an excellent decision. To not run so they could concentrate on Elizabeth's health and treatment would have seemed like a surrender to them, I think. And neither of them seems like a quitter to me. However, if they had dropped out at this point I would be saying how sad, but perfectly understandable.

They sure have the tenacity to deal with many complex issues at the one time. And they have a far better comprehension of the frailty of life than the current President has. They'd make an exceptional first family - imho. They have the strength to face all battles they're called upon to face, I'm sure. I've got a really good feeling about them both. Yet I hadn't heard of him until John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html
My National Security Letter Gag Order

It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces. In this case, an exception has been made because the author -- who would have preferred to be named -- is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter. The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author's attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.

Excerpt:

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

The inspector general's report makes clear that NSL gag orders have had even more pernicious effects. Without the gag orders issued on recipients of the letters, it is doubtful that the FBI would have been able to abuse the NSL power the way that it did. Some recipients would have spoken out about perceived abuses, and the FBI's actions would have been subject to some degree of public scrutiny. To be sure, not all recipients would have spoken out; the inspector general's report suggests that large telecom companies have been all too willing to share sensitive data with the agency -- in at least one case, a telecom company gave the FBI even more information than it asked for. But some recipients would have called attention to abuses, and some abuse would have been deterred.

I found it particularly difficult to be silent about my concerns while Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 and early 2006. If I hadn't been under a gag order, I would have contacted members of Congress to discuss my experiences and to advocate changes in the law. The inspector general's report confirms that Congress lacked a complete picture of the problem during a critical time: Even though the NSL statute requires the director of the FBI to fully inform members of the House and Senate about all requests issued under the statute, the FBI significantly underrepresented the number of NSL requests in 2003, 2004 and 2005, according to the report.

I recognize that there may sometimes be a need for secrecy in certain national security investigations. But I've now been under a broad gag order for three years, and other NSL recipients have been silenced for even longer. At some point -- a point we passed long ago -- the secrecy itself becomes a threat to our democracy. In the wake of the recent revelations, I believe more strongly than ever that the secrecy surrounding the government's use of the national security letters power is unwarranted and dangerous. I hope that Congress will at last recognize the same thing.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2007/03/23/notes032307.DTL&nl=fix
Is Your Fetus A Republican?
Soon, DNA testing will tell if your baby is gay. Or smart. Or the next George Bush. Ready?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6478533.stm
Washington diary: Sweating bad blood

It is springtime in the capital. The magnolias are already out, the cherry blossom is itching to bud, the air is filled with the sweet promise of warmth and the political mood is as bitter and bilious as old spinach.

Excerpt:
Once again it may not be the scandal itself that causes the damage but how it is handled.

When Bill Clinton was being hauled over the congressional coals by the Republicans, his men also argued that there was a show trial and that executive privilege was being abused.

But the subpoenas rained down like cherry blossom and more than a dozen Clinton officials testified no fewer than 47 times under oath.

The bar has been set.

The White House will probably have to comply and a furious president may be force-fed humble pie. Spring is definitely here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201799.html
An Inside-the-Bushies Mentality

Excerpts:
The Bush political operatives have become the people the Republicans once warned the country against -- a club of insiders who seem to think that they're better than other folks. They are so contemptuous of government and the public servants who populate it that they have been unable to govern effectively. They are a smug, inward-looking elite that thinks it knows who the good guys are by the political labels they wear.
~~~~~
Here's the challenge for the Democrats: Become the party that fixes things, that solves problems, that respects expertise and professionalism. Let the GOP be the party of smart alecks and know-it-alls and smirking e-mail writers. The Republicans have made a bed of political arrogance; let them sleep in it for a good long while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/us/23awol.html
Army Revises Upward Number of Desertions in ’06
A total of 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted the Army last year, or 853 more than previously reported, according to revised figures from the Army.

NonnyO
In an interview with Australian Broadcaster Peter Adams, Joshua Key, a deserter living in Canada, said there are over 8000 deserters since the war began. They don't all live in Canada. Many are in the US - underground. Josh has written a book with a journalist. It's a narrative from his decision to join. His training. His experiences in Iraq. His story is extremely disturbing.

Woopsy!

Britain's Ministry of Defense confirms to CNN that Iranian naval vessels have seized 15 British Navy personnel on patrol in the Persian Gulf.

Sources.

Posted by: woz at March 23, 2007 08:05 AM

I personally wish all of the enlisted troops would follow Ehren Watada's example and simply refuse to go to Iraq. Watada's reasons for not going make sense. The invasion of Iraq is/was a war crime and unconstitutional. Since the Nuremberg judgment after WWII, and incorporated into the Geneva Conventions (which the US is signed on to, thus making it part of our Constitution) and the military code of conduct, soldiers can refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders ("I was only following orders" is not a legal defense for committing war crimes, per the Nuremberg judgment). Watada is within his rights. Any other soldier who refused to go to Iraq and kill people for lies and oil in Bush's illegal war would simply be refusing to participate in his war crimes as an accessory; it's really quite elementary and very simple: he does not wish to commit war crimes. I would have no problem with that on a legal or moral or ethical basis if other soldiers made the same decision.

If there were ever another genuinely justified war (like WWII, with an open declaration of war delivered to the proper authorities by Japan and Germany, followed by Congress voting for the war, per the Constitution, since only Congress can make a declaration of war), my opinion would change. But for unjustified wars, like Bush's war crime in Iraq, that's a whole 'nuther story.

Perhaps the greatest lie ever told...

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

And the scariest truth ever told...

"I'm the decider."

And another lie for Bush's Greatest Lie Album, "I'm a compassionate-conservative."

U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald on Thursday carefully sidestepped the political firestorm over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys but conceded he's been the butt of ribbing from friends over a mediocre rating from the Justice Department.

"Look, it really is not that big a deal to me," Fitzgerald said at a news conference announcing the latest public corruption indictment under his leadership. "I just do my job."

http://tinyurl.com/yvdatg Chicago Tribune

... and who can forget this platinum selling single,

"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation building."

And who can forget the only true thing he ever said...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

DarkSyde has a terrific biology today.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/23/7211/91161

New e-mails prompt the question: Did Bush make the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys?

Submitted by CREW on 22 March 2007 - 5:51pm.

McClatchy's article from earlier today discusses the potentially overlooked role of President Bush in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys:

Internal administration e-mails show that the Justice Department postponed the firings for nearly three weeks late last year while awaiting White House approval. The final consent came on Dec. 4, four days after Bush returned from an overseas trip, once several senior White House officials signed off on the plan. It is not known if Bush himself did.

Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, had warned in a Nov. 15 e-mail to the Justice Department that approval of the firings would be delayed if Bush had to OK the plan.

"Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention. If it does, he just left last night, so would not be able to accomplish for some time," Miers wrote in the e-mail, which was among a batch of e-mails and other internal documents related to the firings that were released by the Justice Department last week.

As you can see by reading that e-mail interaction here, Miers response prompted Kyle Sampson to ask: Who will determine if this requires the President's attention?

Interestingly, as Miers forewarned, the decision was delayed, coincidentally, for the amount of time Bush was away for Thanksgiving and a foreign trip:

more...

http://blog.citizensforethics.org/node/749

drip, drip, drip...

Posted by: sparrow at March 23, 2007 10:28 AM

That dripping sound is the drool coming out of Harriet Miers mouth whenever she talks of her beloved Dubya, no matter what the topic.

That chick skeeves me out.

http://www.bartcop.com/good-harriet.jpg

http://www.rmcgcreative.com/nby/toons-05/20051004.jpg

O’Donnell Tells Leahy: ‘You’re Going To Get The Truth From Karl Rove’

The White House refuses to allow Karl Rove and other top aides to testify about the administration’s prosecutor purge. Instead, it has offered closed door “interviews” with no oath and no transcript. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have rejected that offer and authorized subpoenas of White House officials.

Borrowing the White House’s talking points, MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell pestered Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about why he was insisting on “putting on a show trial.” She told him the White House offer was perfectly acceptable. “You’re going to get the truth from Karl Rove. What’s wrong with that?” Later, O’Donnell asserted, “You don’t trust the White House. The bottom line, you don’t trust the White House.” Watch it at link:

As Leahy told O’Donnell, this is about more than whether or not the Senate trusts the White House. “We want to have hearings the way this country has had hearing for over 200 years,” Leahy stated. “Do it open. Do it under oath. And then let the American people decide.”

(HT: Political Discontent)

Transcript:

O’DONNELL: Well Senator, Tony Snow said today that you guys want the truth. And in this interview, you’re going to get the truth from Karl Rove.

LEAHY: Oh, really?

O’DONNELL: What’s wrong with that?

LEAHY: Oh, really? Oh, really? I’ve not seen any indication that we do. We’re allowed to ask just a few specific questions in a closed session with no transcript? C’mon, I spent –

O’DONNELL: You don’t trust the White House. The bottom line, you don’t trust the White House.

LEAHY: No. I spent eight years as a prosecutor and I know that if you really want to get the truth, and you really want to have a record, you have a transcript, you have people under oath. Which is what we want to do. We’ve had a number of these private meetings where they’ve come up and they’ve met with a few members of the Senate and the House and said, here, we’ve given you the whole story. Two days later, we pick up the newspaper. Find they left out half of it. And then they call and say, oops, sorry. We had more we wanted to give you.

O’DONNELL: But Senator, he says –

LEAHY: After that last time that happened with the Attorney General, I told him, no more of these closed-door hearings. Let’s have it in the open. And when you do it this way, please understand what happens. It is not just Democrats asking the questions. It is Republicans asking the questions. And our commitee has both Republican and Democrats, and the American people learn what the truth is. That’s really the way we should do it.

O’DONNELL: Senator, you’ve heard the President say though, that you’re putting on a show trial. And that Tony Snow said today, I thought this was a fact-finding mission, not a ratings-findings missions, and that you’re trying to create a courtroom atmosphere.

LEAHY: No, one thing they’re trying to define the terms on this. They say how open they’ve been by saying they’ve opened up 3,000 pages of repetitious things. But yet, on the important pages, look at those. They’ve been erased. We don’t know what’s in there. And that’s what we want to do. We want to have hearings the way this country has had hearing for over 200 years. Do it open. Do it under oath. And then let the American people decide. They want to do it behind closed doors with a limited amount of information. And say there, we’ve told everybody everything. I don’t think that makes much sense.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/23/odonnell-rove

Posted by: NonnyO at March 23, 2007 06:34 AM

Soon, all that "culture of life" stuff will go out the door. Hypocrites...

Posted by: monkey at March 23, 2007 09:10 AM
Posted by: madame defarge at March 23, 2007 09:41 AM

And don't forget another classic W quote:

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

He was referring to someone who simply spoofed his campaign website.

O’DONNELL: You don’t trust the White House. The bottom line, you don’t trust the White House.

Posted by: sparrow at March 23, 2007 11:09 AM

Why should Leahy trust the WH anyway, especially after being told to "f*ck himself?"

This is total smear job on the part of MSNBC.

Where is the LIBERAL MEDIA?

Australians have been furious.

Posted by: woz at March 23, 2007 02:49 AM

You better be furious, especially considering that much of the W presidency, which is propping up the Howard government, can be credited to your fellow countryman Rupert Murdoch.

PLEASE throw Howard out! Thanks.

Posted by: sparrow at March 23, 2007 11:09 AM

Great LTE along those lines in today's Chicago Tribune...

Nothing to fear

When President Bush and the Republicans were trying to pass the Patriot Act over the objections of rights advocates, the common argument used by many conservatives was that if one is doing nothing wrong, one should have nothing to fear from such a law. Now, Democrats want to interview White House officials under oath. Isn't it reasonable for Americans to expect that their President should have nothing to fear?
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/

NBC and FOX are going to try to counter the influence of YouTube.
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8005

I agree about Murdoch as he not only dominates our press control but also Britain's and Australia's and much of Asia and South America now. He runs the empire via nepotism and has moved way into global satellite. Read the Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk as he doesn't own it. Kill your television or at least boycott sponsors of the most offensive tripe and let them and the networks know you are doing it.

Telling the Truth Under Oath is nonnegotiable and I hope that Lehey sticks to his guns about Under Oath.

"The Washington Times' Jon Ward on Sen. Specter suggesting to White House counsel Fred Fielding yesterday that selected lawmakers could question Mr. Rove and other administration officials "in public, but not under oath."

Posted by: sparrow at March 23, 2007 11:09 AM

GO, Patrick Leahy!!! Sure and begorrah, yer on the right track... Sic 'em!!!

Under oath, in public, recorded for everyone to see, hear, have a transcript....

If they are not breaking the law and have nothing to hide, they have no reason to do other than testify in public, under oath....

We The People are sick and tired of being sick and tired of all this secrecy crap!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAMEZsmwMDY

must-see tv

One of the questions regarding the firing of the US Attorneys should be how high up the planning to add the provision in the Patriot Act allowing replacement of US Attorneys without Senate confirmation. Since Senator Specter says he was not aware of this provision until weeks after it was added, might this whole episode been planned right out of the Whitehouse to impede further federal investigations arising out of the Duke Cunningham and Congressman Jerry Lewis from further inquiry. And might there be additional emails which are being concealed which spelled this all out. Not usually a conspiracy theorist but that has been my thought since I have first heard the story and might explain why they don't want to testify under oath where these questions might be asked.

Check out the cover of Texas Monthly...
http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2007-01-01/index.php

And here's a thread with some of the comments people sent in about it (along with some good snark from DUers).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x486071

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002860.php

Sampson: It's A Date!
By Paul Kiel - March 23, 2007, 4:27 PM

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee extended an invitation for Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff Kyle Sampson to testify. If he didn't want to come voluntarily, the committee said, he'd be subpoenaed.

Today, via a letter from his lawyer to the committee, he accepted -- no subpoena necessary.

"Mr. Sampson looks forward to answering the Committee's questions," the letter reads. "We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States Attorneys."

The hearing will take place at 10 AM next Thursday.

This is from MoveOn re. McDermott. I knew he would do this if push came to shove and he did and I'm glad. He had been going to a retreat with Pelosi. We were able to ask him questions about it last Sunday night and also about impeachment, about Iran, about the Justice dept. scandal, about Plame/Rove etc. I have been voting for through 8 terms, I think. He went into politics after working with head-injured Vietnam vets. He has consistently been antiwar.

I am going to do as they suggest.

--

Rep. McDermott supported Speaker Pelosi in her strategy to wind down this war. Can you write him a quick note to say 'thanks' for bringing us one step closer and to keep up the fight until all our troops are home?

http://pol.moveon.org/endwar?id=10080-3132966-jfqs8V&t=1

There's no question that this bill was not as strong as most of us would have wanted—-and we're going to keep fighting together to bring the troops home sooner than next year. But it's an important step forward, and at today's vote 63 of the 71 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus voted for the bill. All but 2 Republicans voted against it.

Kerry Praises House Troop Withdrawal Deadline Vote

WASHINGTON D.C. – Senator John Kerry issued the following statement today following the House vote that sets a deadline for redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq by next year. Kerry is an original co-sponsor of similar legislation in the Senate:

“It’s time for Congress to take the steps that President Bush has been unwilling to take to resolve Iraq’s civil war,” Kerry said. “We need a deadline to hold the Iraqis accountable for assuming responsibility for Iraq, tracking extremists, reducing sectarian violence and fairly distributing oil revenue. Benchmarks must have consequences, and a deadline is critical to forcing the Iraqis to stop the squabbling and start resolving their differences. The House vote today is an important step forward and I wish the president was willing to get tough with the Iraqis instead of threatening a veto and questioning the patriotism of Democrats and Republicans who are brave enough to stand up for a new policy.”

I also heard the reasoning on radio yesterday of Portland district's Congressman, who has consistently voted against the war and against appropriations bills. He voted for this one because it was the first to have timelines at all. He said it was agonizing but for the best, given the circumstances.

One of the questions regarding the firing of the US Attorneys should be how high up the planning to add the provision in the Patriot Act allowing replacement of US Attorneys without Senate confirmation. Since Senator Specter says he was not aware of this provision until weeks after it was added, might this whole episode been planned right out of the Whitehouse to impede further federal investigations arising out of the Duke Cunningham and Congressman Jerry Lewis from further inquiry. And might there be additional emails which are being concealed which spelled this all out. Not usually a conspiracy theorist but that has been my thought since I have first heard the story and might explain why they don't want to testify under oath where these questions might be asked.

Posted by: Bubba at March 23, 2007 02:21 PM

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There is the strong smell of "obstruction of justice" in some of the firings - especially with Carol Lam who convicted Duke Cunninghan and has indicted others in the bribery scandal. I wonder if Rove and the White House did not suggest/orchestrate the firings and the political pressure to Sen. Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson with regard to U.S. Att. Iglesias.