These people are problem-solvers! I hope Conyers accepts WO's volunteer offer, but you don't think WO would fix facts around the preferred outcome, do you? I don't. WO reminds me of Mike Ruppert. Ed.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
The Bushies are going to fight the subpoena; they have to. There's no way in hell they can let those documents and emails see the light of day. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the Bushies are done, deader than doornails, if they obey the subpeona(s).
So what will they do? Seems to me the WH only has two options:
1. Just ignore the subpoenas, which would mean finding the WH/DoJ in contempt. Does Congress go to the court then? Or send the Sargeant-at-Arms to enforce the subpeonas?
2. Comply in dribs and drabs. This seems a likelier scenario, since it avoids a legal showdown. Unless the Committees call them on it - but can they? They'd be working with an obvious but unprovable assertion that the response is dilatory. Can they issue a contempt order for foot-dragging?
Assuming either one, where does that leave Gonzales' appointment to testify on the 17th?
If the WH delays or ignores the supbpoenas, would Congress reschedule his testimony for after the showdown over the subpeonas? Or would the hearing go forward, and the subpoena fight continue at the same time?
Posted by: CaseyL | April 10, 2007 at 19:17
---------
Gonzales still testifies. Even if he resigns first, he still testifies. If he doesn't show, subpoena his ass.
I don't think he's going to show.
Posted by: tekel | April 10, 2007 at 20:05
---------
CaseyL--I don't see how they're going to fight this. If they miss the deadline, I think Conyers is just going to send the Sergeant-at-Arms over there to confiscate the computers. This has "last chance" written all over it.
Posted by: Frank Probst | April 10, 2007 at 20:07
---------
I'll agree with Casey, because there's so much there to hide. Part of the problem for the D's is that because they allowed W to pack the courts with ideologues, they may actually lose the rulings even though they have a strong objective case.
It's all about protecting W, Cheney,and Karl, at all costs.
Posted by: rugger9 | April 10, 2007 at 20:09
---------
TPM says the DoJ will fight the subpeonas as overly broad and intrusive.
A commenter there noted that neither the Senate nor the House has the authority to "civilly" enforce a subpoena, or a contempt order. I don't know if that means Congress does have authority to enforce a criminal order - and I don't know if Congress has the authority to even issue a criminal citation.
It'll have to go to the courts. That runs out the clock, if nothing else.
Posted by: CaseyL | April 10, 2007 at 20:48
---------
Conyers' people came across something big. They have Abu by the short hairs, and they showed just enough to let him know he's screwed no matter what, and big time. And so the subpoena is really just an invitation to get him a little bit off the hook. He's still going to be hooked. If this goes to the Supremes, and it surely will, the DOJ will lose. And though people still talk about running out the clock, remember, it's April 2007, and the clock will run to around September 2008. They've got lots of time, and lots of time to Impeach Bush in December 2008 to cut off the pardons.
Posted by: knut wicksell | April 10, 2007 at 20:49
---------
knut
We don't have that much time. At least in my state (one USA purged, the other seemingly bought off), the voter purge they've got planned will already be well under way.
They need to get Gonzales and Bush out by July 2008 at the latest if we really want to ensure the USA purge doesn't have its desired effect.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 10, 2007 at 20:52
---------
Oh man, I've been waiting for them to ask for this. I wonder if they'll release the files on their website. If not, I'll happily volunteer to help with the forensics.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 10, 2007 at 20:59
---------
Please do, WO, I haven't seen you this engaged since we considered how Rove's Hadley email could have escaped detection. I think we've got a pretty good idea of how that may have happened. But the technical fun, it seems, is just starting.
I'd be curious, btw, if you put a comment up about the full letter to Hertling. I skimmed the interesting non-technical details, but I'm curious if you think Conyers hit all the possible high spots.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 10, 2007 at 21:14
---------
Casey,
The House has no civil contempt procedure. The Senate does, but it's not available as against executive branch actors. But either House may avail itself of criminal contempt, either statutory or inherent. Since statutory contempt is prosecuted at the discretion of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, that's an unlikely route. Inherent contempt, however, is prosecuted and adjudicated by the aggrieved House itself.
That's the only real answer to this problem. Unfortunately, key members of the leadership still believe that going to court is a feasible option. If the "administration" simply flatly defies the subpoenas, I don't think the courts will find a justiciable question, at least in the first instance. I think they'll dismiss it as a political question, at least if the "administration" simply refuses to acknowledge the right of the legislative branch to compel action by the executive.
Posted by: Kagro X | April 10, 2007 at 21:44
---------
Thanks, Kagro; that's exactly the information I was looking for.
Assuming the Senate and House do issue contempt orders, is that when the Sgt at Arms has to go serve/enforce them?
Does he take law enforcement officers? Assistants? Dollies and a Mack truck?
Does he have the authority to enter the building, and offices, and take file cabinets, computers, Blackberries, etc.?
Posted by: CaseyL | April 10, 2007 at 22:09
---------
I agree with everyone here about the big picture. But I wonder about the "little people" involved.
It is one thing for Fielding to order dribs and drabs to be released, and for gwb to declare "never in hell" and string out the legal case in the courts. I agree with everyone that that is likely.
But what is the liability of the staff attorneys in the Office of Counsel who read and physically segregate documents. When the Dems take over in January 2009 will the loyal service of the staff attorneys look like obstruction of justice?
Are there safe areas, danger areas and gray areas? What can they do safely? What can they safely pretend to know or not know?
And, by the way, who are these people?
Posted by: jwp | April 10, 2007 at 22:10
---------
Seems to me that Conyers and his staff have been ahead of the blogs suggestions. Is it possible that we should consider how exactly the Sergeant At Arms would go about his/her business? How does that work.[?] Apparently they have the right to arrest and detain even the POTUS. If Conyers doesn't like dicking around, and we have emails proving the gumming to death strategy is in full force, why would he go to the courts?
Also, on the subpoena, at the end it said that the person delivering the documents (is that Alberto?) is "not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee." So maybe if Gonzo doesn't produce, they can just lock him away in the House.
Posted by: tomj | April 10, 2007 at 22:32
---------
I wonder if the WH tech people image the computers (that is, make a copy of all the stuff that's on them) in case they need to restore or rebuild it? Would that include any e-mail that's on it, in Outlook or whatever program they use? Who would have control of the images? Could the committees get hold of those?
(Just thinking off the top of my head. The company I work for does archive e-mails. Don't know for how long, but we're expected to keep the business stuff for legal reasons.)
Posted by: P J Evans | April 10, 2007 at 22:49
---------
It might be a good idea to run the Abramoff stuff through again, looking for USA and voting stuff. (I just did a quick pass through).
Susan Ralston was using addresses at rnchq.org in 2001-2002 and georgewbush.com in 2002-2004.
There's also an e-mail from Abramoff complaining about something getting into the WH e-mail system in 2003 (932_001 p 14 of 52, or p 16 of 52 - I was sticking it in a Notepad file and the system hung before I could save or post.)
Posted by: P J Evans | April 10, 2007 at 23:59
---------
bcc: data is very important, and I forgot about it. Conyers has good staff.
We still also haven't seen emails originating from RNC servers, only ones cited in .gov server replies. And native format plus metadata also means the revision history of Word documents, which provides dating evidence on docs that had been collaboratively edited.
I hope that Conyers can do a tag-team with Waxmanon this w/r/t security and archiving requirements. Because I'm pretty certain that a free-and-clear backchannel and a security clearance are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | April 11, 2007 at 00:46
---------
I realize we're a ways yet from the point where this is a concern, but might not the RNC have a slight problem of its own, you know, potentially, if e-mails discussing obstruction of justice schemes show up on servers it let people use? Especially since they seem to be holding the beneficial end of a lot of those schemes. At least, might they not have to explain some things in public about how they determine who uses their stuff and what kinds of business-like monitoring they do?
I wonder if the party has missed their chance to cut these guys loose—if that were possible.
Posted by: prostratedragon | April 11, 2007 at 03:06
---------
ew,
I'll say this. Conyers has a good technical staff. I especially like the bit requesting the DOJ to image the computers of folks in the White House and at the RNC. The only bit I'm unclear on is whether he actually requested the physical computers of the people who left the DOJ (Sampson, Goodling, Battle). If I were running this show, I would definitely want those.
It's obvious from the document dumps so far that several important pieces of the puzzle are being held back. For example, we clearly don't have the first version of Sampson's Word document (USA Replacement Plan.doc) because in the earliest version from the document dump, Iglesias has already been tacked on at the end (out of order).
By the way, I'm absolutely serious about volunteering. If Conyers wants help, I'll take the time off from my day job and go to D.C. Piecing this stuff together can be tedious, but it is more rewarding than finishing the Sunday NYT Crossword.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 11, 2007 at 09:00
---------
Keep in mind that the more detailed citations were from April 2, when Conyers was still operating under the assumption of cooperation. I think he was just saying, "we'll be wanting Monica's computer," at that point, which would be consistent with his request elsewhere in the letter that they hold onto things.
But then we've got another few layers of escalation before the Seargant at Arms goes and seizes Monica's computer. Luckily, computers don't have Fifth Amendment privileges.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 11, 2007 at 09:41
---------
It just dawned on me why Conyers is suspicious of bcc's. There are at least a few occasions where Kyle Sampson forwarded an email his own account. The only reason I've ever seen to do that is so you can bcc somebody else (although in more recent versions of Outlook you don't need to do that, you can bcc somebody without anyone in the to: field). Again, somebody working for Conyers has been around the block a time or two.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 11, 2007 at 10:30
---------
EW--Do we assume that Pat Fitzgerald knows about the RNC emails? He is too smart to have missed that trick unless he was lied to about that and told that the RNC emails contained no official White House business? The discovery requests included emails but did they specify emails only from the White House server when KR was doing 90% of his from his RNC account/s?
And one more thing, please WO, call Conyers office, even if their tech person picks your brain to make sure they've covered everything.
Posted by: Jane S. | April 11, 2007 at 11:17
---------
ew,
Take a look at OAG000000239 - 241 (pg. 54-56 of DOJDocsPt7-2070319.pdf). Michael Elston sends an email with the subject "Without Cause" [Quote marks in the original] to Sampson, Scolinos, Roehrkasse, Goodling, and Moschella. Elston sends the email at 10:07 pm on 01/17/2007. At 10:11pm, Sampson hits "Reply All" and responds "Got it." At 1012pm, Sampson forwards the email to his own account. The only reasonable explanation for that is so he could bcc somebody else. I'll make a wild guess that the account that was bcc'ed was kr@georgewbush.com.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 11, 2007 at 11:31
---------
WO
Or, at the very least, AGAG. After all, one or the other scenario is what happened with the other forwarded email we were talking about.
In other words, either ROve or AGAG were informed of every step of this process. But they don't want us to know taht.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 11, 2007 at 11:57
---------
Rove, obviously. They could never have counted on Alberto keeping things straight.
Posted by: Mimikatz | April 11, 2007 at 12:28
---------
ew,
I don't think AGAG uses email much. On a slightly related note, I think Conyers, et. al., might want to start a conversation with RIM (the Canadian firm that runs the Blackberry Service) to see what they may have in the way of responsive documents.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 11, 2007 at 12:35
---------
Agree with both of you--it's most likely Rove. Just wanted to raise the possibility it's AGAG, bc it would explain why he's so damn flummoxed right now. Then again, so would Mimikatz' eplanation: he's flummoxed because he can't keep things straight.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 11, 2007 at 12:41
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Secret Code -- Change The Subject!
Linked through from Crooks & Liars:
As Mark here points out, what does Plamegate have to do with Dr. Murphy's no-fly-list experiences and complaints? And what kind of 6th-grader mentality is the commenters' practice of insulting someone by de-capitalizing their name? Please. No wonder nothing can be taken seriously anymore.
I'm actually more surprised that they didn't jump all over Allen, below, for not believing Murphy's account. Ed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
How much is Bart DePalma being paid to divert our attention from the issue of the misuse of the terrorist watch list?
After all, none of the things he brings up have to do with the topic of the post, which is a clearly sourced story that illustrates how the Constitution is being dismantled by the Bush Administration.
Further, wasting the TSA's time harassing an "enemies list" is not the way to fight the real threat of terrorism. And why does "Brad" want us not to focus on this? Is Brad actually writing from Pakistan?
# posted by Mark : 8:10 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everybody knows that Valerie Plame sent her lucky-ducky husband Joseph Wilson on a vacation junket to Niger. That trip was a completely government-funded boondoggle. Likely as not, Joseph Wilson spent his entire trip sipping cool juices on the verandas of colonial villas while being fanned by the lovely women of Niger. What's some "former ambassador" going to know about gather intelligence? Nothing, that's what. Hence the juices and gals.
Oh, and every right-thinking person knows that Richard Armitage unknowingly and without the slightest criminal intent let slip Valerie Plame's name a good, you know, 3-9 days before His Hoary Eminence Robert Novak ever heard about her from that innocent victim of a partisan witchhunt Scooter Libby.
# posted by Bart Depalma Jr. : 3:57 PM
----------
Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime
I'd have a bit more respect for the good professor if he was not repeating long disproven nonsense such as this. It makes me wonder about his concern for the facts in other cases, such as his encounter with the TSA.
# posted by flenser : 4:39 PM
----------
One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said.
That part of the story seems a little over the top to me. I just can't imagine anyone affiliated with the airlines or with security saying "we ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I don't think they would have a job for very long, and for that reason, I don't believe it was said. It makes the whole story somewhat unbelievable, IMHO. Not to say it didn't happen, but it is hard to believe.
# posted by Allen : 5:12 PM
----------
I'd have a bit more respect for the good professor if he was not repeating long disproven nonsense such as this. It makes me wonder about his concern for the facts in other cases, such as his encounter with the TSA.
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
# posted by Mark Field : 5:49 PM
-----------
Mr. depalma
If you are so knowledgeable of the Plame case then perhaps you also know that Valerie Wilson DID NOT send her husband to Niger. She was asked to sound him out about going by other CIA officials.
Wilson had experience in Niger and it was thought he would be able to obtain any information about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake.
You must also know Valerie Wilson was pregnant at the time and would not want her husband gone if she could help it.
You would also be knowledgeable of how it came to be perceived that she sent her husband on the trip..a perception not investigated by either Rove or Cheney they just decided using this to discredit Wilson was more important than being truthful...something they excel at.
It appears you have selective studied the case and the facts.
# posted by Legerdmain : 6:22 PM
-----------
Mark Field said...
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
Novak and his colleagues discovered the information about Plame weeks before Wilson lied in his NYT op-ed about finding no evidence in Niger that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium.
Novak and his colleges initiated the contacts with the Bush Administration, not the other way around.
Novak's initial source was a state department war critic who had no ax to grind with Wilson.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:13 PM
-----------
Legerdmain said...
Mr. depalma, If you are so knowledgeable of the Plame case then perhaps you also know that Valerie Wilson DID NOT send her husband to Niger. She was asked to sound him out about going by other CIA officials.
This is in dispute. The initial CIA source who claimed that Plame recommended her husband changed his story later on. Plame did not comment on her role for a long time and has recently testified to Congress under oath that she did not recommend Wilson.
In any case, what got the VP's office so ticked off was that Wilson lied about being sent by the VP's office to Niger. Why would Wilson make up this story if not to protect the person which did send him? If that person was a simple functionary at the CIA WMD office, the lie makes no sense. If it was a case of nepotism by his wife, the lie makes much more sense.
Wilson had experience in Niger and it was thought he would be able to obtain any information about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake.
Wilson was and is a political operative who had no background in WMD. The fact that Wilson was unqualified for the job and a Dem political operative was what caused Novak to wonder why the Bushies would have sent Wilson in the first place.
You must also know Valerie Wilson was pregnant at the time and would not want her husband gone if she could help it.
Right. And that is why she either recommended Wilson or at the very least helped recruit him.
You need to take what Wilson and Plame have with an enormous grain of salt.
Wilson is a political partisan with a long track record of self serving lies.
Plame has been assisting him in this smear campaign so her political motives are also suspect.
Plame and Wilson are parties to a lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration seeking money damages.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:32 PM
-----------
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
# posted by Mark Field
Flenser has Stop The ACLU on his blogroll and reads The Anchoress.
Don't wear all black in D.C.
FBI Collected Intel on War Protesters in D.C., Lied About It
Where were all these skeptics back in 2003 before we invaded Iraq illegally based on lies?
El Cid's advice to us over at Glenn Greenwald's regarding Shooter 242, Bart's smarter brother:
Is this what people need to be filling up these pages with? Debating with someone who actually perceives a risk that the U.S. is in danger of 'surrendering' to an Islamic Caliphate and we risk in 50 years being forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day?
If someone here raises a truly interesting point worthy of debate, then by all means, debate it.
But if someone declares in a snide aside that "What are you liberals going to do when the mole-men hatch from their lava eggs and start forcing the human women to bear their larval children?", do the readers of this blog really have to fill up 50 pages to respond to such mentally ill paranoia?
Heh.
# posted by JT Davis : 7:37 PM
-------------
bart, the dems will do you a big solid and investigate this along with all the other crime your "leaders" have engaged in, including stolen elections. Very few will escape without the moron-in-chief exercising pardon powers that won't extend to himself. You're in for a bad time, as supporters of criminals and torturers should be.
# posted by Ron : 7:38 PM
-------------
People should know that there is no purpose served in discussing these things with bart depalma. Clearly he suffers from a personality disorder that prevents him from noticing obvious things. He could probably be standing on a beach and insist that there was no ocean.
I don't quite understand why he thinks "hiring or firing" subordinates shouldn't be of interest to Congress, when the people who tasked to defend these decisions have repeatedly lied to Congress. Lying to Congress is a crime, after all.
It is interesting to see somebody so blithely uninterested in the idea that a US federal prosecutor could be fired because he refuses to engage in politically-motivated prosecutions during election season, or another prosecutor fired because she has been systematically indicting and convicting a Republican congressman and his cronies. But depalma is an intellectual lightweight. He problem thinks that the prosecutors were fired because of performance issues.
It's not an explanation that bears up under scrutiny, but scrutiny is not something that a person like mr. deplama does well.
# posted by whispers : 8:07 PM
-------------
depalma
Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate yellowcake sales not WMDs, ust yellowcake. He is and was familiar with Niger since all his diplomatic postings were in Africa.
I am also curious as to why a career CIA officer whose current job at the time of your nepotism accusation was about WMDs would send her husband on a boondoggle to Africa? I know, even though she had been covert for many years she was secretly plotting the destruction of the Bush administration.
Do you know why Cheney and Rove jumped on the boondoggle angle? Because someone from another agency wrote a memo about the Joe wilson debriefing meeting at the CIA. This guy came in late and asked who had chaired the meeting and was told Wilson's wife introduced him...which it turned out is all she did as she left and went back to her job.
You have nothing credible to substantiate your allegations but like so many others it isn't a dispassionate analysis of facts you are interested in, just dogma and agenda.
# posted by Legerdmain : 8:09 PM
-------------
Holy crap Bartman, where'd you find these people.
Stop dredging them up from the musty backrooms of CPUSA.
And I used to think Arne was bad . . .
# posted by Someone : 8:16 PM
-------------
If true, and unfortunately I find it all too unlikely, then it is precisely of a part with the firing of US Attorneys. "Bart Depalma"--Can you not see this such as abuse flows from the politicizing of government? Government should be used to reward loyal Bushies and punish those who dare to disagree with King George?
How low have we sunk as a democracy that "someone" can write such drivel with a smug sense of righteousness: "I think we all agree that someone shouldn't be on a terrorist watch list even if they participated in a peace march." Yes, even if.
"But .... some individuals associated with the sponsors of the so-called "peace marches" are affilitiated with less than reputable organization that might warrant scrutiny."
A selective police state. Marvelous.
Why oh why do you hate us for our freedoms?
# posted by Tara : 9:27 PM
------------
I've seen a lot of comments about a lot of different issues but Mr. DePalma's deranged drivel about The Plame Affair may take the prize.
Not one assertion true.
A sense of pathetic outrage that 'folks' won't 'believe' the way the Fascist Scum Cheney and Bush want them to.
The man must be scared witless.
# posted by A. Citizen : 9:34 PM
As Mark here points out, what does Plamegate have to do with Dr. Murphy's no-fly-list experiences and complaints? And what kind of 6th-grader mentality is the commenters' practice of insulting someone by de-capitalizing their name? Please. No wonder nothing can be taken seriously anymore.
I'm actually more surprised that they didn't jump all over Allen, below, for not believing Murphy's account. Ed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
How much is Bart DePalma being paid to divert our attention from the issue of the misuse of the terrorist watch list?
After all, none of the things he brings up have to do with the topic of the post, which is a clearly sourced story that illustrates how the Constitution is being dismantled by the Bush Administration.
Further, wasting the TSA's time harassing an "enemies list" is not the way to fight the real threat of terrorism. And why does "Brad" want us not to focus on this? Is Brad actually writing from Pakistan?
# posted by Mark : 8:10 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everybody knows that Valerie Plame sent her lucky-ducky husband Joseph Wilson on a vacation junket to Niger. That trip was a completely government-funded boondoggle. Likely as not, Joseph Wilson spent his entire trip sipping cool juices on the verandas of colonial villas while being fanned by the lovely women of Niger. What's some "former ambassador" going to know about gather intelligence? Nothing, that's what. Hence the juices and gals.
Oh, and every right-thinking person knows that Richard Armitage unknowingly and without the slightest criminal intent let slip Valerie Plame's name a good, you know, 3-9 days before His Hoary Eminence Robert Novak ever heard about her from that innocent victim of a partisan witchhunt Scooter Libby.
# posted by Bart Depalma Jr. : 3:57 PM
----------
Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime
I'd have a bit more respect for the good professor if he was not repeating long disproven nonsense such as this. It makes me wonder about his concern for the facts in other cases, such as his encounter with the TSA.
# posted by flenser : 4:39 PM
----------
One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said.
That part of the story seems a little over the top to me. I just can't imagine anyone affiliated with the airlines or with security saying "we ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I don't think they would have a job for very long, and for that reason, I don't believe it was said. It makes the whole story somewhat unbelievable, IMHO. Not to say it didn't happen, but it is hard to believe.
# posted by Allen : 5:12 PM
----------
I'd have a bit more respect for the good professor if he was not repeating long disproven nonsense such as this. It makes me wonder about his concern for the facts in other cases, such as his encounter with the TSA.
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
# posted by Mark Field : 5:49 PM
-----------
Mr. depalma
If you are so knowledgeable of the Plame case then perhaps you also know that Valerie Wilson DID NOT send her husband to Niger. She was asked to sound him out about going by other CIA officials.
Wilson had experience in Niger and it was thought he would be able to obtain any information about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake.
You must also know Valerie Wilson was pregnant at the time and would not want her husband gone if she could help it.
You would also be knowledgeable of how it came to be perceived that she sent her husband on the trip..a perception not investigated by either Rove or Cheney they just decided using this to discredit Wilson was more important than being truthful...something they excel at.
It appears you have selective studied the case and the facts.
# posted by Legerdmain : 6:22 PM
-----------
Mark Field said...
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
Novak and his colleagues discovered the information about Plame weeks before Wilson lied in his NYT op-ed about finding no evidence in Niger that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium.
Novak and his colleges initiated the contacts with the Bush Administration, not the other way around.
Novak's initial source was a state department war critic who had no ax to grind with Wilson.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:13 PM
-----------
Legerdmain said...
Mr. depalma, If you are so knowledgeable of the Plame case then perhaps you also know that Valerie Wilson DID NOT send her husband to Niger. She was asked to sound him out about going by other CIA officials.
This is in dispute. The initial CIA source who claimed that Plame recommended her husband changed his story later on. Plame did not comment on her role for a long time and has recently testified to Congress under oath that she did not recommend Wilson.
In any case, what got the VP's office so ticked off was that Wilson lied about being sent by the VP's office to Niger. Why would Wilson make up this story if not to protect the person which did send him? If that person was a simple functionary at the CIA WMD office, the lie makes no sense. If it was a case of nepotism by his wife, the lie makes much more sense.
Wilson had experience in Niger and it was thought he would be able to obtain any information about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake.
Wilson was and is a political operative who had no background in WMD. The fact that Wilson was unqualified for the job and a Dem political operative was what caused Novak to wonder why the Bushies would have sent Wilson in the first place.
You must also know Valerie Wilson was pregnant at the time and would not want her husband gone if she could help it.
Right. And that is why she either recommended Wilson or at the very least helped recruit him.
You need to take what Wilson and Plame have with an enormous grain of salt.
Wilson is a political partisan with a long track record of self serving lies.
Plame has been assisting him in this smear campaign so her political motives are also suspect.
Plame and Wilson are parties to a lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration seeking money damages.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:32 PM
-----------
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
# posted by Mark Field
Flenser has Stop The ACLU on his blogroll and reads The Anchoress.
Don't wear all black in D.C.
FBI Collected Intel on War Protesters in D.C., Lied About It
Where were all these skeptics back in 2003 before we invaded Iraq illegally based on lies?
El Cid's advice to us over at Glenn Greenwald's regarding Shooter 242, Bart's smarter brother:
Is this what people need to be filling up these pages with? Debating with someone who actually perceives a risk that the U.S. is in danger of 'surrendering' to an Islamic Caliphate and we risk in 50 years being forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day?
If someone here raises a truly interesting point worthy of debate, then by all means, debate it.
But if someone declares in a snide aside that "What are you liberals going to do when the mole-men hatch from their lava eggs and start forcing the human women to bear their larval children?", do the readers of this blog really have to fill up 50 pages to respond to such mentally ill paranoia?
Heh.
# posted by JT Davis : 7:37 PM
-------------
bart, the dems will do you a big solid and investigate this along with all the other crime your "leaders" have engaged in, including stolen elections. Very few will escape without the moron-in-chief exercising pardon powers that won't extend to himself. You're in for a bad time, as supporters of criminals and torturers should be.
# posted by Ron : 7:38 PM
-------------
People should know that there is no purpose served in discussing these things with bart depalma. Clearly he suffers from a personality disorder that prevents him from noticing obvious things. He could probably be standing on a beach and insist that there was no ocean.
I don't quite understand why he thinks "hiring or firing" subordinates shouldn't be of interest to Congress, when the people who tasked to defend these decisions have repeatedly lied to Congress. Lying to Congress is a crime, after all.
It is interesting to see somebody so blithely uninterested in the idea that a US federal prosecutor could be fired because he refuses to engage in politically-motivated prosecutions during election season, or another prosecutor fired because she has been systematically indicting and convicting a Republican congressman and his cronies. But depalma is an intellectual lightweight. He problem thinks that the prosecutors were fired because of performance issues.
It's not an explanation that bears up under scrutiny, but scrutiny is not something that a person like mr. deplama does well.
# posted by whispers : 8:07 PM
-------------
depalma
Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate yellowcake sales not WMDs, ust yellowcake. He is and was familiar with Niger since all his diplomatic postings were in Africa.
I am also curious as to why a career CIA officer whose current job at the time of your nepotism accusation was about WMDs would send her husband on a boondoggle to Africa? I know, even though she had been covert for many years she was secretly plotting the destruction of the Bush administration.
Do you know why Cheney and Rove jumped on the boondoggle angle? Because someone from another agency wrote a memo about the Joe wilson debriefing meeting at the CIA. This guy came in late and asked who had chaired the meeting and was told Wilson's wife introduced him...which it turned out is all she did as she left and went back to her job.
You have nothing credible to substantiate your allegations but like so many others it isn't a dispassionate analysis of facts you are interested in, just dogma and agenda.
# posted by Legerdmain : 8:09 PM
-------------
Holy crap Bartman, where'd you find these people.
Stop dredging them up from the musty backrooms of CPUSA.
And I used to think Arne was bad . . .
# posted by Someone : 8:16 PM
-------------
If true, and unfortunately I find it all too unlikely, then it is precisely of a part with the firing of US Attorneys. "Bart Depalma"--Can you not see this such as abuse flows from the politicizing of government? Government should be used to reward loyal Bushies and punish those who dare to disagree with King George?
How low have we sunk as a democracy that "someone" can write such drivel with a smug sense of righteousness: "I think we all agree that someone shouldn't be on a terrorist watch list even if they participated in a peace march." Yes, even if.
"But .... some individuals associated with the sponsors of the so-called "peace marches" are affilitiated with less than reputable organization that might warrant scrutiny."
A selective police state. Marvelous.
Why oh why do you hate us for our freedoms?
# posted by Tara : 9:27 PM
------------
I've seen a lot of comments about a lot of different issues but Mr. DePalma's deranged drivel about The Plame Affair may take the prize.
Not one assertion true.
A sense of pathetic outrage that 'folks' won't 'believe' the way the Fascist Scum Cheney and Bush want them to.
The man must be scared witless.
# posted by A. Citizen : 9:34 PM
Saturday, April 7, 2007
GOPwarts' War OF Terror
From WORDS OF WISDOM by Richard Power, the only thing wrong here is this:
"Indeed (they) have sided with those who attacked us on 9/11 against those who would have helped us destroy them."
To which I say, "those" people never attacked us on 9/11. Bush/Cheney/CIA, etc., just made it look like they did, just as they're promoting/financing what Pakistani tribe Jundullah is doing to Iran now. Bush/Cheney/CIA wouldn't be able to control "those" terrorists the way that they do, if they were really the enemy.
Think about it. And let the 9/11 Truth movement climb another step toward exposing the monsters. Ed.
-------------
Here's the rest of Richard Power's SPOT ON statement, in context:
Bush-Cheney does not want peace or stability. It does not even want vengence. It wants empire, and it is willing to wage perennial war for it. Bush-Cheney is not running a "war on terror," it is running a war IN, OF, BY and FOR terror.
Indeed they have sided with those who attacked us on 9/11 against those who would have helped us destroy them.
When will the US mainstream news media back away from this treasonous cabal?
Probably never.
The corporatist stranglehold on the US government is in the media moguls' best interests, or so they think.
And Speaker Pelosi, who is third in the line of constitutional succession, is dangerous to them. She symbolizes the restoration of the Republic.
"Indeed (they) have sided with those who attacked us on 9/11 against those who would have helped us destroy them."
To which I say, "those" people never attacked us on 9/11. Bush/Cheney/CIA, etc., just made it look like they did, just as they're promoting/financing what Pakistani tribe Jundullah is doing to Iran now. Bush/Cheney/CIA wouldn't be able to control "those" terrorists the way that they do, if they were really the enemy.
Think about it. And let the 9/11 Truth movement climb another step toward exposing the monsters. Ed.
-------------
Here's the rest of Richard Power's SPOT ON statement, in context:
Bush-Cheney does not want peace or stability. It does not even want vengence. It wants empire, and it is willing to wage perennial war for it. Bush-Cheney is not running a "war on terror," it is running a war IN, OF, BY and FOR terror.
Indeed they have sided with those who attacked us on 9/11 against those who would have helped us destroy them.
When will the US mainstream news media back away from this treasonous cabal?
Probably never.
The corporatist stranglehold on the US government is in the media moguls' best interests, or so they think.
And Speaker Pelosi, who is third in the line of constitutional succession, is dangerous to them. She symbolizes the restoration of the Republic.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
It IS Scarfgate, after all...
How GOPwarts doesn't realize their own idiocy is puzzling. Rove is slipping. Ed.
-The abhorrence of any moderate form of hijab is a brazen embodiment of the U.S.’s fear and intolerance of people of the Muslim faith. A diplomat traveling abroad will obviously strive to adhere to the customs of the host-country, especially in a place of worship. I had thought it was common knowledge that, upon entering a mosque, you must remove your shoes and –if you are female–cover up all exposed skin save the hands and face. I had never thought it strange or extreme, having been raised Greek-orthodox. In addition to the headscarf, we would often have to wear long, black gloves!
The reaction to Mrs. Pelosi’s respectful and no doubt obligatory gesture reveals the ignorance and racism still harbored by most Americans. Hijab to them symbolizes something evil and threatening. It is endlessly frustrating.
Comment by Ariana — April 4, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
-Oh my gosh! THIS is the biggest story of the year so far! Forget all that stuff about Attorneygate or Plamegate or even Sanjaya from American Idol. This is it! Scarfgate!
Comment by Shawn — April 4, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
-It’s not about the scarf. It’s about the Speaker of the House off in a foreign country consorting with terrorists. Are you all really that dense? A rhetorical question based on what I read here.
Comment by David — April 4, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
-I’m laughing as I remember my mom fishing Kleenex out of her purse which she attached to our heads with a bobbypin….in the church vestibule. It was the 60s- if you forgot your hat, you had to substitute a snot rag.
Comment by formercatholic — April 4, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
-The abhorrence of any moderate form of hijab is a brazen embodiment of the U.S.’s fear and intolerance of people of the Muslim faith. A diplomat traveling abroad will obviously strive to adhere to the customs of the host-country, especially in a place of worship. I had thought it was common knowledge that, upon entering a mosque, you must remove your shoes and –if you are female–cover up all exposed skin save the hands and face. I had never thought it strange or extreme, having been raised Greek-orthodox. In addition to the headscarf, we would often have to wear long, black gloves!
The reaction to Mrs. Pelosi’s respectful and no doubt obligatory gesture reveals the ignorance and racism still harbored by most Americans. Hijab to them symbolizes something evil and threatening. It is endlessly frustrating.
Comment by Ariana — April 4, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
-Oh my gosh! THIS is the biggest story of the year so far! Forget all that stuff about Attorneygate or Plamegate or even Sanjaya from American Idol. This is it! Scarfgate!
Comment by Shawn — April 4, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
-It’s not about the scarf. It’s about the Speaker of the House off in a foreign country consorting with terrorists. Are you all really that dense? A rhetorical question based on what I read here.
Comment by David — April 4, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
-I’m laughing as I remember my mom fishing Kleenex out of her purse which she attached to our heads with a bobbypin….in the church vestibule. It was the 60s- if you forgot your hat, you had to substitute a snot rag.
Comment by formercatholic — April 4, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
FUTURE "Illegal Acts at the behest of the Power Structure" Exposed!
This remarker is SO correct in his analysis, it's a relief. Too bad the MSM will never approach the subject.
__________________________________________________________
Comment #61790 by SamSnedegar on 4/02 at 11:26 am
I came late to this party, but it ought to be noted that there is nothing WRONG with dumping as many US Attorneys as the Preznit likes.
What would have and will be wrong is for them to replace the dumpees with new US Attys who will have agreed before taking on the jobs to break the law. How? By engaging in selective prosecution and using a prosecution as did the Starr chamber, to harass and/or eliminate political enemies or opponents.
The Bushitter gang of thugs is quick to point out that they have broken no laws, and they are entirely correct, BUT....... if INTENT could be proven, then their culpability is already in place, just waiting for some evidence with which they can be prosecuted.
We only have heard about the one replacement who was Rove’s choice down in Arkansas, and if there breathes a man with brain so dead that he thinks THIS yahoo is honest, then I have a bridge to sell him along with a ticket on the Madrid lottery. No, NONE of the original planned replacements would have been either honest or expected ever to be so, and the crimes that the planners intended would have been ongoing for years to come.
Unfortunately for me, I do not hold with putting people in jail for planning a bank robbery that they finally figure out is not going to work, so they give up. It is too much like my going over to shoot my neighbor because my dog defecated on his lawn, and I know that my neighbor is coming over to beat my ass because of it, and I fear for my life, so as soon as he opens his door to me, I blow him away with a 12 gauge. Going after people for what they MIGHT do or might have done is stupid, and I won’t countenance it, terrorism or not. It is hard enough to get the evidence to make a real case against someone for what he ACTUALLY DID that broke the law.
And that brings us to the US Atty matter: they broke no laws except by PLANNING for illegal acts in the future. When they commit those acts will be time enough to prosecute them to the fullest.
In the meantime, they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and didn’t even get a half a cookie to eat. It will go away because there isn’t any thing there.
The scandal, if it exists, is for the public to know what they had to have PLANNED for the replacements, and that it was outside the law. One thing it might do: make it harder than ever to get GOOD men and women to become US Attys, because the implication will always be there from now on that “at the pleasure of the President” means “do illegal acts at the behest of the power structure.”
__________________________________________________________
Comment #61790 by SamSnedegar on 4/02 at 11:26 am
I came late to this party, but it ought to be noted that there is nothing WRONG with dumping as many US Attorneys as the Preznit likes.
What would have and will be wrong is for them to replace the dumpees with new US Attys who will have agreed before taking on the jobs to break the law. How? By engaging in selective prosecution and using a prosecution as did the Starr chamber, to harass and/or eliminate political enemies or opponents.
The Bushitter gang of thugs is quick to point out that they have broken no laws, and they are entirely correct, BUT....... if INTENT could be proven, then their culpability is already in place, just waiting for some evidence with which they can be prosecuted.
We only have heard about the one replacement who was Rove’s choice down in Arkansas, and if there breathes a man with brain so dead that he thinks THIS yahoo is honest, then I have a bridge to sell him along with a ticket on the Madrid lottery. No, NONE of the original planned replacements would have been either honest or expected ever to be so, and the crimes that the planners intended would have been ongoing for years to come.
Unfortunately for me, I do not hold with putting people in jail for planning a bank robbery that they finally figure out is not going to work, so they give up. It is too much like my going over to shoot my neighbor because my dog defecated on his lawn, and I know that my neighbor is coming over to beat my ass because of it, and I fear for my life, so as soon as he opens his door to me, I blow him away with a 12 gauge. Going after people for what they MIGHT do or might have done is stupid, and I won’t countenance it, terrorism or not. It is hard enough to get the evidence to make a real case against someone for what he ACTUALLY DID that broke the law.
And that brings us to the US Atty matter: they broke no laws except by PLANNING for illegal acts in the future. When they commit those acts will be time enough to prosecute them to the fullest.
In the meantime, they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and didn’t even get a half a cookie to eat. It will go away because there isn’t any thing there.
The scandal, if it exists, is for the public to know what they had to have PLANNED for the replacements, and that it was outside the law. One thing it might do: make it harder than ever to get GOOD men and women to become US Attys, because the implication will always be there from now on that “at the pleasure of the President” means “do illegal acts at the behest of the power structure.”
America Tells It Like It Is!
TRUTHDIG'S Joe Conason advises us to ignore the pundits and bark louder, when confronted with their warnings of Democrat mistakes; if the MSM says it's a mistake, you can be sure Dems are headed up the right tree.
Typos and grammatical errors corrected for ease of enjoyment. Ed.
------------------------------------------
Comment #61344 by Pete on 3/30 at 7:43 am
You want to rattle the Republican cage? Try these suggestions:
1. Scrap the recent bankruptcy “reform” act and return to the 1978 standard. Put the onus on lenders for stupidity.
2. Investigate the so called “right to work” think tanks. They’re nothing but union busting shills for the American Manufacturers Assn. and the Chamber of Commerce.
3. Charley Rangel is right; bring back the draft especially on the campussies of Yale, Harvard, ad nauseam. Those with the most to defend should be in the front line to defend it.
4. Bring back the Eisenhower tax code. 90% of 450 billion still leaves one with a nice piece of change and presumably a clear conscience for once.
5. Reintroduce the deduction for personal income for the middle class.
6. Restore the guards installed by FDR to prevent another depression, undone by republicans since 1994.
7. Investigate this baloney about “jobs Americans won’t do” like postal worker, pharmacist & nurse.
8. Throw out the H1B visa program. Does anybody really believe that there aren’t enough programmers, chemists or engineers graduating from American Universities?
Iraq has been an expensive subterfuge so that Newt’s “Contract ON America” could be pulled off. Down republicrats,up Kucinich!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------
Comment #61292 by Ralph David Hill on 3/29 at 9:08 pm
I’m 68. It seems that in recent years the too-frequent subtle shifts in meaning, the subtle rewrites of history -e.g. congressional Democrats voted FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ rather than VOTED TO GIVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO GO TO WAR, hoping against hope that that vote would help persuade Saddam to be more forthcoming and saying they expected Bush to use the power given him wisely (he didn’t), using military action as a last resort.
The latter is the way I understood it but (I think) highly skilled Republican operatives & rewriters of history introduced the idea that Congress had voted for going into war. Then Democrats seem to have just accepted that they had voted for the war in Iraq rather than having voted to give Bush the authority to go to war hoping that doing that would actually help to prevent a war.
Looking back of course it’s obvious now that Bush was no one worthy of being given any authority of any kind involving America’s safety, and those who voted to give him the authority to go to war in Iraq had mistakenly believed Bush was someone who could be trusted to act carefully and judiciously. But amazingly, many Democrats seem to have allowed that Republican rewrite to stand.
GOOD TO SEE I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE who hurts to see many pundits and “authoritative experts” treat important things as unimportant, etc. I don’t think the main thing for Democrats is to win points against the Republicans, but rather to reverse disastrous policies for the good of the country and to show up a lot of spin and deception presented with a tone of fairness and objectivity - seemingly the voice of expert authority - for what it really is - RUBBISH!!
---------------------------------------------
Comment #61287 by America on 3/29 at 8:01 pm
Dear Mr. Rove,
Even little old me in podunk Ohio knows you’re a crook. Thanks to the internet I know who you screwed, what you screwed em over for, when you screwed em, where you screwed em, how far and how long you screwed em.
You cannot hide from the American people forever. Your job is not safe and we don’t like you anymore. In fact we never did.
The only thing that keeps you in office is that little white crook in the big white house but that shit can’t last forever and definitely won’t last until 2008. God willing, yes, the same God that you have taunted the American people with and that Bush claims he serves but doesn’t - God willing, Cheney and Bush will be impeached and all of you will wind up in Federal - Pound- Your- Ass prison.
That way instead of screwing over the American People like you have for nearly a decade, you’ll be the one getting screwed instead.
Have a nice day and enjoy it while it lasts, but your time is done son. The media cannot shield you.
We Know!
Love,
America
--------------------------------------------
Comment #61224 by vanjejo on 3/29 at 2:20 pm
To alleviate this problem we could always put this administration under house arrest, elect a “commission” of “appointed” investigators to spend their time and look into it *kind of like the 9-11 commission* The country can be governed by the remaining elected officials who could get on with legislating what is best for the people of America; let Congress work on what they are paid to do, which is listen to us and “insure domestic tranquility”. D O M E S T I C.
I cannot fault Congress as long as they vote by the voices they hear. Read their mail and email and really listen when we call. Vote with American citizens FOREMOST on their minds.
They vote it and they cannot be held accountable if the decider vetos......
Just do the right thing - investigate and demand. Get going and stop stumbling - impeach.
Typos and grammatical errors corrected for ease of enjoyment. Ed.
------------------------------------------
Comment #61344 by Pete on 3/30 at 7:43 am
You want to rattle the Republican cage? Try these suggestions:
1. Scrap the recent bankruptcy “reform” act and return to the 1978 standard. Put the onus on lenders for stupidity.
2. Investigate the so called “right to work” think tanks. They’re nothing but union busting shills for the American Manufacturers Assn. and the Chamber of Commerce.
3. Charley Rangel is right; bring back the draft especially on the campussies of Yale, Harvard, ad nauseam. Those with the most to defend should be in the front line to defend it.
4. Bring back the Eisenhower tax code. 90% of 450 billion still leaves one with a nice piece of change and presumably a clear conscience for once.
5. Reintroduce the deduction for personal income for the middle class.
6. Restore the guards installed by FDR to prevent another depression, undone by republicans since 1994.
7. Investigate this baloney about “jobs Americans won’t do” like postal worker, pharmacist & nurse.
8. Throw out the H1B visa program. Does anybody really believe that there aren’t enough programmers, chemists or engineers graduating from American Universities?
Iraq has been an expensive subterfuge so that Newt’s “Contract ON America” could be pulled off. Down republicrats,up Kucinich!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------
Comment #61292 by Ralph David Hill on 3/29 at 9:08 pm
I’m 68. It seems that in recent years the too-frequent subtle shifts in meaning, the subtle rewrites of history -e.g. congressional Democrats voted FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ rather than VOTED TO GIVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO GO TO WAR, hoping against hope that that vote would help persuade Saddam to be more forthcoming and saying they expected Bush to use the power given him wisely (he didn’t), using military action as a last resort.
The latter is the way I understood it but (I think) highly skilled Republican operatives & rewriters of history introduced the idea that Congress had voted for going into war. Then Democrats seem to have just accepted that they had voted for the war in Iraq rather than having voted to give Bush the authority to go to war hoping that doing that would actually help to prevent a war.
Looking back of course it’s obvious now that Bush was no one worthy of being given any authority of any kind involving America’s safety, and those who voted to give him the authority to go to war in Iraq had mistakenly believed Bush was someone who could be trusted to act carefully and judiciously. But amazingly, many Democrats seem to have allowed that Republican rewrite to stand.
GOOD TO SEE I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE who hurts to see many pundits and “authoritative experts” treat important things as unimportant, etc. I don’t think the main thing for Democrats is to win points against the Republicans, but rather to reverse disastrous policies for the good of the country and to show up a lot of spin and deception presented with a tone of fairness and objectivity - seemingly the voice of expert authority - for what it really is - RUBBISH!!
---------------------------------------------
Comment #61287 by America on 3/29 at 8:01 pm
Dear Mr. Rove,
Even little old me in podunk Ohio knows you’re a crook. Thanks to the internet I know who you screwed, what you screwed em over for, when you screwed em, where you screwed em, how far and how long you screwed em.
You cannot hide from the American people forever. Your job is not safe and we don’t like you anymore. In fact we never did.
The only thing that keeps you in office is that little white crook in the big white house but that shit can’t last forever and definitely won’t last until 2008. God willing, yes, the same God that you have taunted the American people with and that Bush claims he serves but doesn’t - God willing, Cheney and Bush will be impeached and all of you will wind up in Federal - Pound- Your- Ass prison.
That way instead of screwing over the American People like you have for nearly a decade, you’ll be the one getting screwed instead.
Have a nice day and enjoy it while it lasts, but your time is done son. The media cannot shield you.
We Know!
Love,
America
--------------------------------------------
Comment #61224 by vanjejo on 3/29 at 2:20 pm
To alleviate this problem we could always put this administration under house arrest, elect a “commission” of “appointed” investigators to spend their time and look into it *kind of like the 9-11 commission* The country can be governed by the remaining elected officials who could get on with legislating what is best for the people of America; let Congress work on what they are paid to do, which is listen to us and “insure domestic tranquility”. D O M E S T I C.
I cannot fault Congress as long as they vote by the voices they hear. Read their mail and email and really listen when we call. Vote with American citizens FOREMOST on their minds.
They vote it and they cannot be held accountable if the decider vetos......
Just do the right thing - investigate and demand. Get going and stop stumbling - impeach.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
AG Spurning -- Half Price!
Comment by Cookie
March 30, 2007 @ 8:07 am
As far as I am concerned Alberto Gonzales is a disgrace to his race, and I am deeply offended that he is using us now that it is HE that needs US. I among a lot of Latina activists never supported him and questioned LULAC’s wholehearted endorsement of him — not to mention their push to nominate him for Supreme Court (!!!!!).
It’s not that I ever hated Sr. Gonzales, I just didn’t think he was qualified to hold such an important position — and he has since proven his is not. It is becoming common knowledge his appointment was a reward for his ability to get Jorgito out of jury duty when he was Governor of Texas, but that’s another story.
If anything Alberto is a disgrace to our race, displaying all the negative stereotypical qualities that so many of us have tried to disprove — lying, cheating, being ignorant. He has proven himself to be nothing more than an empty suit, and outdone so many other political appointees (read crony) in terms of being inept. Even gangs have a greater sense of pride and honor.
Not only am I offended by Betito playing the race card, I resent it. Let Bush carry his water, and leave Mi Gente alone. We were better off without him.
March 30, 2007 @ 8:07 am
As far as I am concerned Alberto Gonzales is a disgrace to his race, and I am deeply offended that he is using us now that it is HE that needs US. I among a lot of Latina activists never supported him and questioned LULAC’s wholehearted endorsement of him — not to mention their push to nominate him for Supreme Court (!!!!!).
It’s not that I ever hated Sr. Gonzales, I just didn’t think he was qualified to hold such an important position — and he has since proven his is not. It is becoming common knowledge his appointment was a reward for his ability to get Jorgito out of jury duty when he was Governor of Texas, but that’s another story.
If anything Alberto is a disgrace to our race, displaying all the negative stereotypical qualities that so many of us have tried to disprove — lying, cheating, being ignorant. He has proven himself to be nothing more than an empty suit, and outdone so many other political appointees (read crony) in terms of being inept. Even gangs have a greater sense of pride and honor.
Not only am I offended by Betito playing the race card, I resent it. Let Bush carry his water, and leave Mi Gente alone. We were better off without him.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Ego Peto Verum shows how it's done
This one, long, appeared today on Greg Sargent's article at TPM Cafe:
On March 28, 2007 - 7:36pm Ego Peto Verum said:
Bush is either clearly delusional- passing Karl Rove's gas- or both... Methinks that it is both.
Bush is a stupid man. And, he has bragged about not want to be exposed to:-- divergent opinions- facts that dispute his pre-conceived notions- and/or open discourse.
Ergo, Bush probably believes that the American people (whom he regards with contempt- treats like we're dupes to be fooled- and, tramples & treads upon) will blindly follow him off-the-cliff.
What is tragic is that he has succeeded in fooling a sufficient number of wind-bags who howl loudly-- that Congress actually doesn't realize how angry are the majority of the American people.
Whilst they do not want to do it-- I actually believe that should Congress grow a conscience and shore-up their rubber-spine, that they could perform the following, with the support of the American people:--
1. Cut-off funding for this illegal & immoral war upon Iraq-- which has claimed the lives of over 650,000 Iraqi civilians. Americans now know that the Iraqi people want us out of their country. Americans now know that Bush & Co. and the neo-con traitors (including AIPAC) lied us into their miserable failure.
2. Commence impeachment hearings of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove & Gonzales. Americans would be relieved, for they can hardly wait to rid our nation of the this neo-con plague which is a disease upon our Republic.
3. Roll-back the unethical tax-cuts for the richest-of-the-rich & corporations which have both been raping our nation (and certainly have been traitorous, not patriotic) whilst the poor and average Americans have been forced to sacrifice in blood & treasure. Americans will find-out the hard way that the historical-level debt (which will prove $1 TRILLION-- and, is approx.$450 BILLION to-date) will break their backs, whilst the carnage & maiming will break their hearts.
Our nation once respected and admired, is hated around the world. In short, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove & Gonzales have not only proved to be corrupt, incompetent & insane-- but, they are also contemptible...
Please refer to:--
1. Counting the cost: The figures have now been vindicated by the government's own advisers. It's time we held our leaders to account for the 650,000 Iraqi dead., by Richard Horton
"Our collective failure has been to take our political leaders at their word. This week, the BBC reported that the government's own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable. This paper was published in the Lancet last October. It estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American- and British-led invasion in March 2003..."...
Continued on http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_horton/2007/03/ counting_the_cost.html ...
...
2. Terrorized by 'War on Terror': How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America, by Zbigniew Brzezinski
[cont.]..."... The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself..."... [cont.]
Entire article on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/ 03/23/AR2007032301613_pf.html ...
...
3. The Crushing Fear That Stalks America: The country is not at war. It is the US military that is engaged in an Iraqi conflict, by Robert Fisk
[cont.]..."... And I realise that the girl in Dr Noll's seminar isn't spouting this stuff about "jihadists" travelling from Iraq to America because she supports Bush. She is just frightened. She is genuinely afraid of all the "terror" warnings, the supposed "jihadists" threats, the red "terror" alerts and the purple alerts and all the other colour-coded instruments of fear. She believes her president, and her president has done Osama bin Laden's job for him: he has crushed this young woman's spirit and courage.
But America is not at war. There are no electricity cuts on Valdosta's warm green campus, with its Spanish style department blocks and its narrow, beautiful church. There is no food rationing. There are no air-raid shelters or bombs or "jihadists" stalking these God-fearing folk. It is the US military that is at war, engaged in an Iraqi conflict that is doing damage of a far more subtle kind to America's social fabric..."... [cont.]
Entire article on http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2387832.ece ...
On March 28, 2007 - 7:36pm Ego Peto Verum said:
Bush is either clearly delusional- passing Karl Rove's gas- or both... Methinks that it is both.
Bush is a stupid man. And, he has bragged about not want to be exposed to:-- divergent opinions- facts that dispute his pre-conceived notions- and/or open discourse.
Ergo, Bush probably believes that the American people (whom he regards with contempt- treats like we're dupes to be fooled- and, tramples & treads upon) will blindly follow him off-the-cliff.
What is tragic is that he has succeeded in fooling a sufficient number of wind-bags who howl loudly-- that Congress actually doesn't realize how angry are the majority of the American people.
Whilst they do not want to do it-- I actually believe that should Congress grow a conscience and shore-up their rubber-spine, that they could perform the following, with the support of the American people:--
1. Cut-off funding for this illegal & immoral war upon Iraq-- which has claimed the lives of over 650,000 Iraqi civilians. Americans now know that the Iraqi people want us out of their country. Americans now know that Bush & Co. and the neo-con traitors (including AIPAC) lied us into their miserable failure.
2. Commence impeachment hearings of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove & Gonzales. Americans would be relieved, for they can hardly wait to rid our nation of the this neo-con plague which is a disease upon our Republic.
3. Roll-back the unethical tax-cuts for the richest-of-the-rich & corporations which have both been raping our nation (and certainly have been traitorous, not patriotic) whilst the poor and average Americans have been forced to sacrifice in blood & treasure. Americans will find-out the hard way that the historical-level debt (which will prove $1 TRILLION-- and, is approx.$450 BILLION to-date) will break their backs, whilst the carnage & maiming will break their hearts.
Our nation once respected and admired, is hated around the world. In short, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove & Gonzales have not only proved to be corrupt, incompetent & insane-- but, they are also contemptible...
Please refer to:--
1. Counting the cost: The figures have now been vindicated by the government's own advisers. It's time we held our leaders to account for the 650,000 Iraqi dead., by Richard Horton
"Our collective failure has been to take our political leaders at their word. This week, the BBC reported that the government's own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable. This paper was published in the Lancet last October. It estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American- and British-led invasion in March 2003..."...
Continued on http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_horton/2007/03/ counting_the_cost.html ...
...
2. Terrorized by 'War on Terror': How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America, by Zbigniew Brzezinski
[cont.]..."... The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself..."... [cont.]
Entire article on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/ 03/23/AR2007032301613_pf.html ...
...
3. The Crushing Fear That Stalks America: The country is not at war. It is the US military that is engaged in an Iraqi conflict, by Robert Fisk
[cont.]..."... And I realise that the girl in Dr Noll's seminar isn't spouting this stuff about "jihadists" travelling from Iraq to America because she supports Bush. She is just frightened. She is genuinely afraid of all the "terror" warnings, the supposed "jihadists" threats, the red "terror" alerts and the purple alerts and all the other colour-coded instruments of fear. She believes her president, and her president has done Osama bin Laden's job for him: he has crushed this young woman's spirit and courage.
But America is not at war. There are no electricity cuts on Valdosta's warm green campus, with its Spanish style department blocks and its narrow, beautiful church. There is no food rationing. There are no air-raid shelters or bombs or "jihadists" stalking these God-fearing folk. It is the US military that is at war, engaged in an Iraqi conflict that is doing damage of a far more subtle kind to America's social fabric..."... [cont.]
Entire article on http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2387832.ece ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)