As Pelosi Accuses The CIA of Lying.....

...things heat up regarding torture

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) opened a hearing on the Bush administration’s torture policy quoting Tallyrand: “The greatest danger in times of crisis comes from the zeal of those who are inexperienced.” Whitehouse promised to separate the “truth” from its “bodyguard of lies.” In doing so, the former federal prosecutor brought the shadowy world of intelligence into Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Former star FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, widely described as the bureau’s best and most effective interrogator working in the Arabic language, testified off-camera and behind a wooden partition. Concerned for his and his family’s security, he made the unusual demand a part of his agreement to appear and testify.

The effort to destroy the Zelikow memo is not just evidence of standard record-keeping practice; it may well spring from recognition that the memo might be used as evidence that the Bush administration was engaged in criminality.

The hearing produced two significant developments as well as a great deal of political rhetoric. Soufan’s testimony focused on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Throughout the history of the torture debate, the Bush administration has cited this as a triumph of its techniques. Sen. Whitehouse read Bush’s September 6, 2006, White House statement making one of these claims. Soufan, who was personally present through the process, called the Bush claims a “half-truth,” accurate as to the circumstances of Abu Zubaydah’s capture and detention, but not as to the claimed successes using highly coercive techniques. One of the Justice Department’s torture memos (from May 2005) contained a similar claim that actionable intelligence was obtained “once enhanced techniques were employed.” Soufan termed this a lie. He also noted that successful interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Jose Padilla, which gained useful intelligence, occurred before the introduction of the Bush program and therefore couldn’t be claimed as success stories for it. In his remarks, Soufan sharply repudiated the harsh techniques he observed. “These techniques... are ineffective, slow, and unreliable and, as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda," he said. He also downplayed claims that there was a dispute between the FBI and CIA about the use of the Bush techniques. CIA interrogators agreed with his assessment, he noted.

Philip Zelikow, a lawyer and history professor who had served as a counselor to Condoleezza Rice at the State Department, testified that the Justice Department had thwarted legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that prohibited cruel, inhuman, and degrading techniques on detainees. He noted that McCain and other sponsors understood the legislation as a prohibition on waterboarding and other harsh techniques, but through legal sleight of hand, Steven Bradbury, then head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had nevertheless found that the legislation was ineffective to make the expected changes. Zelikow recorded his opposition to this view in his own memo, which he disseminated widely within the Bush administration. It was made clear to him that his memo was not appreciated, and, moreover, an effort was made to collect and destroy copies of the memo. One copy has now been identified in the records of the State Department, he noted. Its declassification and release are anticipated shortly.

The story surrounding the efforts to corral and destroy the Zelikow memo is more than a curious vignette. Lawyers studying the issue of criminal liability of the memo writers are focused on evidence of mens rea—a state of mind that reflects recognition of criminal wrongdoing. The effort to destroy the memo is not just evidence of standard record-keeping practice; it may well spring from recognition that the memo might be used as evidence that the Bush administration was engaged in criminality.

Republicans called two legal experts to offer opinions but no fact witnesses. This raised the question of whether they have a CIA interrogator who is ready or willing to make a case to support Cheney’s claims about the efficacy of torture.

Page:     

1

2 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

GOP's Huge Failure Of Leadership

David Gergen excoriates the GOP’s “huge failure of leadership” for failing to get more than 1/3 of their caucus to vote for the bailout bill and calls them “poor babies” for using the Nancy-Pelosi-hurt-my-feelings excuse.

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather)

It’s really the house of Republicans whom I think bear it especially tonight. Two-thirds voted against it. You did have - to be fair to the Republicans, it was a Republican president, a republican Treasury Secretary who supported this, who pushed it, but it was House conservative Republican members who derailed it.

Now, they have strong reasons why they voted against it. But let there be no doubt that if we pay a huge price as we paid today, if we basically continue to pay a huge price in the next couple of days, lost a 1$.2 trillion as you said in equity value a day and it may get worse tomorrow and in the days following. Let there be no doubt it was the house Republicans who derailed this. They were against it from the beginning. They made that clear.

This business about Nancy Pelosi making a speech. Yes, she shouldn’t have said that and yes that was inappropriate. But the fact that they changed their minds because of that, oh poor babies, she has a few words and the House Speaker, you know, made them run back to their partisan corners. You know, forget that nonsense.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What Did Pelosi Say That Isn't True?

Even as the wreckage of the Wall Street bailout bill was still smoldering on the House floor Monday, Republicans held a news conference in which they blamed "partisan" remarks by the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for scuttling the bill.

But anyone who looked at the transcript of Pelosi’s speech released by her office might have been puzzled by the complaints.

The transcript seemed relatively tame — with only relatively mild shots at the Republicans in the text.

But a review of the video of Pelosi’s comments shows the speaker deviated substantially from her prepared remarks when she stepped into the well of the House at about 12:20 p.m. Monday afternoon – delivering a series of ad-libbed jabs at President Bush and his party.

Pelosi’s office continued to distribute the as-prepared version of her remarks as late as 1:24 p.m. — an hour after she had delivered the more incendiary version of her speech on the House floor.

Among the remarks Pelosi made on the floor that were not included in the prepared text:

See Also

• McCain takes credit for bill before it loses
• Obama blames loose market climate
• Politico's Game Day

"When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around ... and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free-market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. ..."

"... Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos."

Pelosi's office did not immediately return a call for comment.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Maliki Wants Us Out! Pelosi says:

On Maliki’s Call for a Timetable on U.S. Troops Withdrawing from Iraq

July 8th, 2008 by Speaker Pelosi

President Bush refuses to heed the clear warnings of our military leaders about the harmful impact the war in Iraq is having on the readiness of our armed forces and our country’s ability to fight the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world.

A bipartisan majority in Congress—representing the wishes of the American people — supports a timetable for redeployment as an essential step in ending the Iraq war, refocusing on the real war on terrorism, rebuilding our military and reinvesting in job creation and other critical priorities here at home. The President has refused to even consider taking steps toward ending a war that has now cost more than 4,100 American lives, seriously wounded tens of thousands of our troops, and cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.

President Bush refuses to listen to Congress or the American people, but he cannot support Iraqi political reconciliation and security and ignore Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s call for a timetable for the withdrawal.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Pelosi Vows To Block Convention Fight

Yeah, we will believe it when we see it.

What we would like to see is impeachment and war crimes trials? But that isn't gonna happen, is it?

05-28) 20:17 PDT San Francisco -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will step in if necessary to make sure the presidential nomination fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama does not reach the Democratic National Convention - though she believes it could be resolved as early as next week.

Pelosi predicted Wednesday that a presidential nominee will emerge in the week after the final Democratic primaries on June 3, but she said "I will step in" if there is no resolution by late June regarding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan, the two states that defied party rules by holding early primaries.

[Podcast: Listen to Pelosi's views on the presidential race, war and her legislative agenda.]

"Because we cannot take this fight to the convention," she said. "It must be over before then."

Pelosi made the comments during a wide-ranging hourlong session with The Chronicle's editorial board. She talked about the prospects for the election of a Democratic president this fall, the legacy of President Bush and the California Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

The speaker talked in depth about the party's dilemma as its primary process comes to a close after Sunday's Puerto Rico primary, in which 55 delegates are at stake, and Tuesday's South Dakota and Montana primaries, in which 33 total delegates are up for grabs.

Obama, according to the Associated Press, is within 45 delegates of winning the nomination, a number he could reach by Tuesday. Pelosi said she is confident the Democratic National Committee's rules committee, which meets in Washington on Saturday, will resolve the issue of Florida and Michigan.

Magic number

"For now, 2,026 is the magic number" of pledged and unpledged delegates needed by a candidate to win the party's presidential nomination, she said, but "if they decide to seat (Florida and Michigan) this weekend, there will be a new magic number."

While saying she believes those two states' delegates should be seated, Pelosi added that it must happen ''in a way that is not destructive to any sense of order in the party."

"If you have no order and no discipline in terms of party rules, people will be having their primary in the year before the presidential election," she said. "So there has to be some penalty."

She said the party committee will come up with a formula that is "fair and accepted by both campaigns," perhaps allowing the states 50 percent of their delegates. But "if the resolution is not appropriate, then it remains for the (Democratic National Convention) credentials committee to resolve it," she said. Then, "it will have to happen by the end of June" or she will intervene, she said.

The Democrats hold their convention in late August in Denver.

Pelosi said she has not been in contact with the Clinton or Obama campaigns on the matter because "I think it is all going in the right direction" and will be resolved "in an orderly fashion" as early as next week.

'Positive experience'

Despite the prolonged and often divisive primary process, Pelosi said it has been "a very positive experience" for the Democratic Party because of "millions of people who are attracted to this campaign, ... Hillary and her message, and the same thing for Barack Obama and his appeal."

"We will benefit from it in November," she said, predicting the party will be unified behind its standard bearer, whether it is Obama or Clinton. "People are already saying to me: I'll be ready - as soon as we have a nominee - to come around."

"(They) know at the end of the day we cannot have a Republican president, four more years of George Bush, tax cuts for the wealthy, a war without end - the list goes on and on," she said.

Pelosi, the nation's first female speaker of the House, said she is keenly aware of efforts, reported in The Chronicle this week, of the San Francisco political action committee, WomenCount, which is running full-page newspaper ads headlined "Not So Fast!" - warning against what it calls premature efforts to push Clinton from the race and crown Obama the party's nominee.

Susie Tompkins Buell, a longtime Clinton friend and one of the effort's organizers, said Wednesday the committee has raised $400,000 in the past 10 days from women across the country determined to make the case for Clinton all the way to the convention.

"God bless their enthusiasm," said Pelosi of the effort. "These women are fabulous, and I know many of them very well." But, she said, while "we all want to see a woman president ... they want me to be the chair of the convention, who is neutral. And yet they want me to be for Hillary Clinton."

But the speaker said that activist women who make up Clinton's supporters, blue-collar voters and Obama backers will come together when they realize they "have the most to lose by a Democratic defeat."

Yep, they sure do and so does the whole country. But, them go ahead blow the whole damn system up, who cares?

And she said voters, too, will be energized by the party's "progressive economic agenda to grow our economy, for real initiatives on health care," education, infrastructure, housing and other key "kitchen-table issues."

"We just won three special (House) elections that the GOP never thought they would lose in a million years," Pelosi said, referring to recent congressional races in Illinois, Mississippi and Louisiana.

"(Republicans) tried to make it about me and San Francisco values. They don't have a message," she said. "It's going to be a very bad year for Republicans."

I would not take that for granted, Speaker Pelosi. This bunch of fascist have been around a long time, since before my 60 years, and so have the theocrats. Even if it is a very bad year for Republicans, that doesn't mean the next election years will be. It largely depends on what the Democrats do and how the Republicans try and succeed to sabotage them. The Democrats, including the Clintons, had better be prepared to turn the whole rotten system on its head. Lead or get the hell out of the people's way

Pelosi addresses wide array of issues

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her own words, in an interview with The Chronicle editorial board Wednesday:

On the new book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who charged that the Bush administration bungled the Iraq war and failed to act quickly enough after Hurricane Katrina: "I totally agree ... this war is a big lie. It was a lie to begin with, and it continues to be a lie ... at some point, maybe the lies just got too heavy for him to carry."

On the California court ruling upholding same-sex marriage: "I've always been in favor of it. ... I'm excited about the new poll (showing most Californians support it) and I just hope that can be sustained and we can just put this thing to rest." Republicans "will try to use it in the rest of the country" during the election, but voters are "tired of people who will take you to war and get you involved in (these) cultural battles. ... They want to know: 'Are you getting me a job?' ... They're tired of these cultural issues being the currency of the realm."

I could not , personally, care less if Eric and Steve want to invite the law into their relationship and make Steve responsible for all of Eric's last minutes debt he ran up while suffering from AIDs of the brain. Nope, not for me. I try to keep my heart and mind as far as I can from the law, because it is usually heartless and demented.

On President Bush: "This president has caused great harm to America, and I say this with great sadness, because coming in as speaker, I'd hoped we could work together. ... He has refused to listen to the American people, (has shown) a tin ear to the American people, a blind eye to what was happening in Iraq. ... This president will go down in history as the worst, whether you're talking about jeopardizing our national security... (or) the worst record of job creation."

Is that all that's going to happen, madam speaker? You guys are truly pathetic and will get everything you deserve.

On presumed GOP nominee Sen. John McCain: "He was in the right place on immigration, and he reneged; he was in the right place on the president's tax cuts, and now he's changed his mind. I'm hoping that he doesn't change his mind on the global warming issue ... but I can't even think of a Republican president. It's simply not going to happen."

Not McCain, that's for damn sure. I can see why he and Hillary make such good drinking buddies. They will say anything to retain or gain power, and that is what we cannot abide.

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Clinton Supporter Threatens Pelosi

Something tells me that this was a very wrong-headed move. What's more, it says a lot about what a Clinton presidency would be like.

Clinton supporter pressures Pelosi over White House battle

Posted: 10:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON — In a heated phone call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi late last month, Hillary Clinton supporter Harvey Weinstein threatened to cut off campaign money to congressional Democrats unless Pelosi embraced a new plan by the movie mogul to finance a revote of the Democratic presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan, according to three officials who were briefed on the contents of the conversation.

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Speaker Pelosi Throws Some Ice-cold Water

But the MSM haven't quite figured it out yet; they've been too busy reporting on the rantings of two old senile people who aren't running for anything.

Who among us could run for anything, if we are to be held to account for everything our friends, pastors and employees say, especially when they are old and, probably senile.

Hey, MSM, let's move on, please, We have serious problems in this country, huge issues. I just heard that tent cities are going up in L,A. They ought to be on the National Mall, but nevertheless, the problems are staggering and they get more so every day.

Why are we wasting our time on this silliness.

And if we are going to start taping and showing sermons, lets get some on tape from the crusading crackpots. Some of those will raise the hair on the back of your neck. I know, I've heard some.

March 17, 2008

Of all the political statements and punditry that burst at the speed of light through an overburdened news delivery system, so many important statements get lost in the rush.

And that may be the case in the comments last week of one Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives -- and the "commander-in-chief" of the House Democrats. To put this in context in terms of the slimmest of hopes -- hanging by a scorched-earth policy of trench warfare for Hillary Clinton -- remember that every Democratic member of the House of Representatives is a Superdelegate to the Democratic Convention. And if you recall, that's well over 200 of the 750+ superdelegates. In short, while she doesn't control the House superdelegate votes, she does indicate which way the wind is blowing.

That is why much attention should be paid -- in a week when Obama gained 14 delegates on Clinton in states where primaries had already been conducted -- to a statement made by Speaker Pelosi last week. We will quote a large chunk of the Associated Press story so that you can get a feeling for the full potential impact of Pelosi's unambiguous, clear dictum:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Obama leads Clinton by 142 pledged delegates — those delegates picked in nomination contests to date, in The Associated Press' count.

Barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states, he will end the primary season with a delegate lead, but short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination.

That gives the balance of power to the so-called superdelegates, prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress or other leaders. Clinton leads Obama for their support in the AP count, 249-213.

Pelosi's comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.

In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.

"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

Note that not only does Speaker Pelosi strongly endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates; she also throws cold water on the Clinton strategy of trying to pass Obama in the popular vote (which he now leads) and then claim that the popular vote -- and Obama is likely to still end up leading in that category, too, barring some Clinton campaign-Bush 2000 like shenanigans such as using the race card to drive out the "Archie Bunker" vote to vote for "Hillary, the Great White Hope" -- supersedes the importance of pledged delegates.

Pelosi pretty much repudiates the Clinton campaign's hope of running up the negatives on Obama and praying hard for Obama to trip over himself with some mortal gaffe. Speaker Pelosi firmly announced, in translation: forget about the miracles, Hillary. I'm letting my House delegation know that I don't condone this divisive, unlikely low road to the Democratic Party nomination.

Indeed, Obama has climbed from around a 100 superdelegate deficit to just 30, and while he has incrementally been increasing his superdelegate count, Clinton has staid static for weeks.

Furthermore, Pelosi threw cold water on the Bill and Hillary Clinton phony enticement to undecided voters that Obama might make a good vice-president (even though Clinton has declared several times that John McCain is fit to be commander-in-chief -- a glaring error in judgment on Clinton's part -- but Obama isn't). Of the "Dream Ticket" gambit, Pelosi dismissed it with a wave of her hand: "It's not going to happen." In fact, her exact words were, "It's impossible."

So among all the top Democrats in Congress who have indicated in one way or another that Clinton should "hit the road, Jack," the most devastating blow may have been dealt last week by Speaker Pelosi.

It didn't hit the news big time -- what with all the controversy about Ferraro and Wright -- but you can be sure that uncommitted members of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives heard it loud and clear.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

BushThrows A Hissy-fit At The House

Bush's war on American liberty and freedom

He's Against It!

February 16, 2008 - 9:54am

(AFP)

By KERRY SHERIDAN

President George W. Bush lashed out at Democratic lawmakers Friday in a political tug-of-war over a wiretap program that pits US attempts to prevent terror attacks against its duty to protect civil liberties.

Bush accused Democrats in the House of Representatives of putting Americans at risk by blocking the Senate-passed legislation and allowing the post-September 11, 2001 measure to expire as they go on vacation.

"By blocking this piece of legislation our country is more in danger of an attack," Bush said.

Not unless Cheney is planning something. Doing what you've done to iraq has put us all is far more danger!

The program, set to end Saturday, authorizes intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance of US and foreign calls and electronic correspondence without first seeking a warrant and offers immunity to telecommunications companies that participate.

As part of the increasing brinkmanship between Bush's Republicans and the Democratic-controlled Congress, the Senate passed a bill that makes the law permanent, but House Democrats refused to rubber-stamp the measure.

The Senate Sucks!

"The Senate passed a good bipartisan bill to make sure our intelligence community has the tools to protect us from this real threat," Bush said after meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, intelligence officials and Republican lawmakers.

"There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," he said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so that we can stop it."

By enemy, he means anyone who disagrees with him, and that's who he's spying on, too.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, concerned about possible infringement of US privacy laws and the bill's blanket immunity for companies that engage in the surveillance, accused Bush of fear-mongering and trying to bully lawmakers.

"The president knows full well that he has all the authority he needs to protect the American people," Pelosi said Thursday before Congress went on recess due to Monday's President's Day holiday.

"President Bush tells the American people that he has nothing to offer but fear, and I'm afraid that his fear-mongering of this bill is not constructive."

Fear stopped working a long time ago, at least on us. What about Congress?.

In a bid to raise the stakes, Bush threatened to postpone a trip to Africa in order to urge the passage of the legislation.

Oh fergawdssake, go on to Africa and stay there!

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Bush "wouldn't have said it if he wasn't prepared to delay his trip" but that he went ahead with the travel plans anyway "because the House has made it clear that they don't intend to act."

Before leaving, Bush criticized House lawmakers for going on a 12-day vacation without passing the bill, and urged the House to "get a good bill to my desk, which is the Senate bill, as soon as possible."

The two sides have clashed over the issue of immunity for telecom operators.

What really concerns him is immunity for him and Cheney.

"Clearly the problem here is a majority of the Democrats in the House would rather see companies in court than they would terrorists in jail," Republican Senator Mitch McConnell told reporters after speaking with Bush.

Oh, Bullshit! The man who looks just like a dead baby bird has, once again, uttered complete nonsense.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has argued that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which has been around for 30 years, needs modernization to keep up with advances in technology.

Fine, but why did Bush and Cheney do this before 9/11 and not even ask congress for a change in the laws after 9/11? Could it be that congress was being spied on, not al Qeada?

"For almost two years, we have worked with Congress to modernize FISA and ensure that the intelligence community can effectively collect the information needed to protect our country from attack -- a goal that requires the willing cooperation of the private sector," he wrote in The Washington Post.

Yeah, after you got caught breaking the law. They should have slammed you all in jail, then!

"Without long-term legislation that includes liability protection, we will be delayed in gathering -- or may simply miss -- intelligence needed to protect the nation."

Is that going to be the next excuse?

But Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy dismissed the notion that businesses require immunity in order to cooperate.

"This is sheer nonsense. Under FISA, companies already have absolute immunity for any lawful cooperation. Future companies will be deterred only from cooperating with illegal surveillance requests, which is the whole point of the law."

Stanzel told reporters that the lapse of the law did not mean that surveillance efforts would stop, only that attempts to start new efforts might become more lengthy and cumbersome.

"Some of the efforts that are currently underway have an opportunity to continue; new efforts would have to go through the old process," Stanzel said.

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Watch Out, Madam Speaker!

Democrats and Independents alike are getting fed up.

Wasn't the reason you took impeachment off the table was so you could get on with what the people wanted. Well, we wanted impeachment, among other things, like universal health-care, money for higher education, a higher minimum wage, habeas corpus and the 4th amendment re-instated, our troops out of Iraq and no war with Iran, just to name a few.

We realize that Junior is a pain in the ass...what with his veto pen and all. Nevertheless, we want war on the Hill and in the streets of every major city. We are sick and tried of the bullshit. You had all better wake the hell up. We can have elections or revolutions. Which would you prefer?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's own party is turning on her, apparently because of a perception among California Democrats that she has not done enough to shake up the status quo in Washington, D.C., according to a Field Poll released Friday.

Congress overall is doing even worse with California voters, with an approval rating sagging to 30 percent or below for only the seventh time in the past 15 years, the poll of 1,201 registered voters found. Both Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who became speaker this year, and Congress as a whole have fallen short of voter expectations since taking over both houses, poll director Mark DiCamillo said.

"I think the reason for her decline and the low ratings Congress is getting is that voters here are not seeing any change," DiCamillo said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's approval rating of 51 percent is down 10 percentage points since March, but consistent with her average over the years. Sen. Barbara Boxer's rating also has slumped, from 54 percent in March to 44 percent. Both Boxer and Feinstein, however, still enjoy the approval of more voters than disapproval of them.

For Pelosi, it was the first time the poll showed more people disapproving than approving of her performance – 40 percent to 35 percent, with 25 percent having no opinion.

Other polls since 2003 have shown larger numbers of voters with no opinion, but Pelosi always won more approval than disapproval. As recently as March, California Democrats approved of Pelosi by a 5-to-1 ratio, DiCamillo said. Now it's less than 2-to-1. Nonpartisan voters also have soured on her.

Only 22 percent of voters approve of the job Congress is doing, the poll found, while 64 percent disapprove.

The six other times that congressional approval has dipped to 30 percent or below can be tied to specific events, such as the impeachment of President Clinton or the economic downturn of the early 1990s that hit California particularly hard, DiCamillo said.

During tough times, he said, voters saw Congress as a convenient target. "They were taking it out on anybody and everybody," he said.

Still, the Democrats now in charge of Congress fared better than Republicans, with a 34 percent approval rating compared to 20 percent for the GOP. California Republicans are more critical of their own party, the poll found, with only 29 percent approving of the performance of congressional Republicans.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Illegal Spying Began Long Before 9/11/01

NSA Spying: What Did Pelosi Know?

By Ray McGovern
October 15, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has admitted knowing for several years about the Bush administration’s eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant. She said she was briefed on it when she was ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. But was she told that the illegal surveillance began well before 9/11?

Referring to her briefing in an apologia-sans-apology Washington Post op-ed on Jan. 15, 2006, she wrote: “This is how I came to be informed of President Bush’s authorization for the NSA to conduct certain types of surveillance.”

Demonstrating her unconstitutionally subservient attitude toward the Executive Branch, Pelosi wrote:

“But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be shared by no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president’s surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more widely.”

How did the American people react upon learning in December 2005 of this glaring infringement on their Constitutional rights. Most reacted as they have been conditioned to act—out of the old fear-factor shibboleth: “After 9/11/2001, everything changed.”

Yes, just as after 2/27/1933, the night of the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag) in Berlin, everything changed.

As a German attorney there at the time put it:

“What one can blame them [German politicians and populace] for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the government took ‘decisive measures.’” [Defying Hitler, A Memoir, by Sebastian Haffner, p. 121]

And if the terrorists attacked on 9/11, it was perfectly in order that the Bush administration took “decisive measures”—Patriot Act and illegal measures. In reaction to the PR offensive to manipulate and exploit the trauma we all felt from 9/11, far too many of our politicians and fellow citizens exhibited sheepish submissiveness.

Pre-9/11 Spying

Now we learn that it is even worse. The eavesdropping abuses began as soon as the Bush administration came into office — WELL BEFORE 9/11.

In recent days, thanks to an enterprising reporter for the Rocky Mountain News, we learned that the president, vice president, and CIA director—not to mention the credulous crowd around Nancy Pelosi—have all been regurgitating a king-sized whopper aimed at providing “justification” for the National Security Agency program.

The White House PR folks made this easy by retroactively applying a clever label to the program: the “Terrorist Surveillance Program.” Nothing to fear, folks, unless you’re telephoning or e-mailing Osama bin-Laden.

Whopper? Well yes. It turns out that seven months before the threat of terrorism got President George W. Bush's attention (despite the best efforts of then-counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to install it on everyone’s screen-saver, so to speak), the administration instructed NSA to suborn American telecommunications companies to spy illegally on Americans.

The general counsel of Qwest Communications advised management that what NSA was suggesting was illegal. And to his credit, the head of the company at that time stuck to a firm “No,” unless some way were found to perform legally what NSA wanted done.

Qwest’s rivals, though, took their cue from the White House, and adopted a flexible attitude toward the law—and got the business. They are now being sued. Lawsuit filings claim that, seven months before 9/11, AT&T “began development of a center for monitoring long-distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA.”

Adding insult to injury, draft legislation now being pushed by the White House would hold AT&T and other collaborators harmless for playing fast and loose with our right to privacy in order to enhance their bottom line.

For its principled but, in government eyes, recalcitrant attitude, Qwest indicates that it lost out on lucrative government contracts.

Yes, BEFORE 9/11.

These illegal operations were enabled by Michael Hayden, then head of NSA and now head of CIA. Despite this history, Hayden has been out front “justifying” the illegal eavesdropping by citing what happened on 9/11.

Did he know the warrantless domestic spying was illegal? That one is a no-brainer. While at NSA, Hayden emphasized what was known as NSA’s First Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on Americans.”

When an unauthorized disclosure revealed the program to the press in late 2005, Hayden agreed to play point man with smoke and mirrors to conceal the full story. Small wonder that the White House later deemed him the perfect man to head the CIA.

Martinet

In testimony at his CIA confirmation hearings in May 2006, Hayden said that in the wake of 9/11 he “could not not do” what the president dubbed the “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”

A whiff of conscience showed through his nomination hearing, though, when he flubbed the answer to a soft-pitch from administration loyalist, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri:

“Did you believe that your primary responsibility as director of NSA was to execute a program that your NSA lawyers, the Justice Department lawyers, and White House officials all told you was legal and that you were ordered to carry it out by the president of the United States?”

Instead of the simple “Yes” that was in the script, Hayden paused and spoke rather poignantly—and revealingly: “I had to make this personal decision in early October 2001, and it was a personal decision...I could not not do this.”

Why should it be such an enormous personal decision whether or not to obey a White House order? No one asked Hayden, but it requires no particular acuity to figure it out.

This is a military officer who, like the rest of us, had sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; a military man well aware one must never obey an unlawful order.

President Bush assured us on Jan. 23, 2006, “I had all kinds of lawyers review the process.” Seems so. The same ones who were at the same time devising ways to “legalize” torture and indefinite detention without due process.

No American, save perhaps Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who was present at the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (and who has said the eavesdropping program is illegal), knew FISA better than Hayden.

Nonetheless, Hayden conceded that he did not even require a written legal opinion to satisfy himself that the surveillance program, to be implemented without warrant and without adequate consultation in Congress, could pass the smell test.

Small wonder that one of Hayden’s predecessors as NSA director, upon learning what Hayden had agreed to do, said angrily, “He ought to be court-martialed.”

And who was the NSA general counsel at the time? It appears to have been one Robert L. Deitz, who is now a “trusted aide” to CIA Director Hayden. Deitz has just been launched on an investigation of the CIA Inspector General, who apparently made the mistake of being too honest in investigating abuses like torture. Remarkable. [NYT, Oct. 11, 2007]

Where Was Congress?

What was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing all this time?

When the illegal eavesdropping was exposed, many asked why the administration did not simply go to Congress to secure changes in the already flexible FISA law, if such were needed. In an unguarded moment at a press conference on Dec. 19, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales let slip that the administration did take soundings in Congress:

"This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past - certain members of Congress - as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."

Were you one of those with whom Gonzales had discussions, Nancy?

Either way you were woefully derelict in your duty. Either they told you or they didn’t. Either way you come off as no leader.

Time to fish or cut bait. Assuming the Bush regime did not inform you regarding eavesdropping on Americans before 9/11, do not any longer cover up for the White House. Rather, these crimes demand impeachment.

If they did keep you fully informed and, out of obeisance to the executive branch you acquiesced and said nothing, you should lay down your duties as House leader, examine your conscience, and consider resigning.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer from 1962-64, and then a CIA analyst for 27 years. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Angry Nation

A nation listened with folded arms

A nation listened with folded arms

Be flexible with Flexcar

A testy exchange between President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reported in The New York Times captures a national mood.

In advance of his speech to the nation Thursday night, Bush met with Democratic leaders to explain how he was reducing troop strength in Iraq. Pelosi interrupted to say he was doing no such thing. A temporarily inflated number being dropped back to old troop levels yielded a phony reduction.

The president is no longer the best salesman for his own administration, which is why Gen. David Petraeus was drafted. He worked Capitol Hill and every other venue with a microphone before the chief executive spoke from the Oval Office.

The general and Ambassador Ryan Crocker provided cover for a speech that telegraphed no real change at all.

More and more, the president sounds like he has decided to play out the clock. After American troop levels surged to 160,000 over the past nine months, the number will be reduced to 130,000 by next summer. Petraeus was already committed to bringing several brigades home to meet a promise to limit tours of duty to 15 months.

Weary and wary Americans listening to their president are parsing out the rhetoric and vocabulary of presidential reports. Notice how the word victory is replaced by success, which is not defined.

The nation's doubts and questions are getting sharper. If the troop surge accounted for positive changes, why is the president proposing to reduce those levels? How will things change with the surge ending? As the White House hails success in Anbar province, how is the central government in Baghdad helping to assure political and military stability?

The assassination of a key Sunni ally in Anbar province, the head of a local alliance that decided to quit attacking U.S. forces and work with them, points to dubious gains in regional security.

Other tensions roil the notion of progress.

In the north, the Kurds are going it alone on oil contracts for their lucrative reserves. That undermines the goal of a centralized system that spreads Iraq's oil wealth around the country, especially to Sunni-held areas without oil.

A strong central government becomes irrelevant if the regions fend for themselves and organize for their own self-defense. No one — including the United States — trusts the national police, and the Iraqi army is not ready to go it alone.

All topics for future speeches. For now, the president will juggle troop numbers as the clock runs down on his term.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Pelosi: Impeachment is Still Off The Table

....But contempt of Congress is not.

Congress this week will take the next step to force the Bush administration to hand over information about the dismissal of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday.

The House Judiciary Committee will bring contempt of Congress charges against the administration this week, said the San Francisco Democrat. She did not specify who the subject of the action would be, but Pelosi spokesman, Brendan Daly, said later it would be former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who defied a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to appear.

"They have disregarded the call of Congress for information about their politicizing the Department of Justice. We can document that. Those are actual facts and we will bring the contempt of Congress forth," said Pelosi, who spoke with reporters at a San Francisco workshop for people who want to become U.S. citizens.

She also addressed criticism of the farm bill and reiterated her opposition to impeaching President Bush.

Lawmakers have increasingly put pressure on the administration to share documents and records -- and for officials to testify, under oath, in front of Congress -- about why nine U.S. attorneys, including Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, were dismissed from their jobs in December 2006.

Congress has for months been seeking information about which administration officials were involved in the dismissals of the attorneys. The White House, however, has claimed "executive privilege" for many of those requests, meaning the executive branch is free from oversight of the legislative and judiciary branches of the government in those instances. A House judiciary subcommittee has voted to reject such reasoning.

Contempt of Congress is defined by federal law as action that obstructs the work of Congress, including investigations. If both the White House and Congress stick to these positions, the matter could become a constitutional question for the courts to decide.

White House spokesman Rob Saliterman said such an action by the House Judiciary Committee shows an interest in "partisan attacks" above real finding of facts.

"It's unfortunate congressional Democrats are continuing on the course of confrontation," Saliterman said.

Pelosi also reiterated Saturday that she would not engage in what would perhaps be the biggest confrontation possible with the White House -- seeking the impeachment of Bush over the Iraq war.

The speaker said she had "no hesitation" criticizing the president about his handling of the war, but said there were more important priorities for lawmakers -- such as health care and creating jobs -- than the divisive pursuit of impeachment.

"Look, it's hard enough for us to end the war. I don't know how we would be successful in impeaching the president," Pelosi said.

She did note that calls for the president's removal are not coming just from San Francisco.

"I'm not unsympathetic to the concern people have -- I hear it all over the country. People here have said to me, 'Well, people on the left want the president to be impeached.' I hear it across the board across the country. It's not just the left," Pelosi said.

The speaker also addressed criticism that the version of the farm bill moving through the House does not go far enough with reforms. The bill, which Pelosi supports, is expected to be up for a vote by the House this week.

Bay Area food and environmental activists had formed a new coalition to compete with the traditional farm lobby on the bill. They wanted the bill to put more of a focus on diversity of crops, local farming and increasing fresh fruits and vegetables in school lunches and the food stamp program.

Activists also wanted lawmakers to move money from subsidizing crops to environmental and nutrition programs.

Pelosi said she is "very proud" of the bill and that reforms were made in it that will shift the country's agricultural policies.

"It is a careful balance that I think says you're never going to see a farm bill that looks like past farm bills again," Pelosi said. "This one takes us into the future."

E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bush Doesn't Give A Damn What The Majority of Americans Think.

Hey, screw us!

What the hell do we know?

Pelosi: Bush has 'tin ear' on Iraq
By Rick Pearson
Tribune political reporter
Published May 5, 2007


As the White House and congressional leaders struggle to reach a compromise on a new war funding bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused President Bush on Friday of a war strategy that ignores the public's will and internal strife in Iraq.Appearing at Rep. Jan Schakowsky's Ultimate Women's Power Lunch, a fundraiser hosted by the North Shore Democratic congresswoman at a downtown Chicago hotel, Pelosi (D-Calif.) defined the Iraq war as "the biggest ethical issue facing our country."

She questioned the ethics of sending troops to war "under a false pretense without a strategy for success," without proper equipment and training and without "demanding accountability from the Iraqi government while we dishonored our commitment to our veterans here at home."

"In the elections, when the American people were calling for a new direction, the one place where they called for it in the clearest possible way was in the war in Iraq," Pelosi told an audience of about 2,000 people."They wanted the war to wind down," she said. "Instead, the president has escalated it. He has a tin ear in terms of listening to the people and a blind eye as to what is going on in Iraq."

Meeting earlier with reporters, Pelosi defended the Democrats' move to tie funding to a withdrawal strategy for U.S. forces. Republicans have contended the withdrawal timetables amounted to a script for insurgents or Al Qaeda to take over the country, fostering new opportunities for terrorism."We'll fight terrorism," she said. "There is absolutely no question about the Democrats' commitment to fighting terrorism."

Pelosi said recent White House warnings that Al Qaeda is active in Iraq involves only "a small percentage of the insurgents and militias and those who are fighting there."

"The Iraqis will take care of Al Qaeda and we will fight terrorism wherever it exists," she said.

"But that doesn't mean we have to have our troops dying in a civil war that is not making our country safer."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who attended the event, said that while "profound disagreements" exist on a new war funding measure, he believes there is "a constructive and positive attitude" about reaching a compromise by the end of May.

But Durbin also noted that congressional efforts to revoke the 2002 war authorization, proposed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) would be fruitless because

Bush would never sign such a measure.----------rap30@aol.com

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Resignation for Alberto? How about Prison?

Pelosi Joins Calls For Gonzales Resignation
By: The Politico Staff April 20, 2007 02:56 PM EST


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has called on embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign a day after his lackluster performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"By his actions and with his testimony yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has lost the trust of the American people," the speaker said in a statement Friday afternoon.

"The nation cannot have a chief law enforcement officer whose candor and judgment are in serious question," Pelosi said. "The president should restore credibility to the office of the attorney general. Alberto Gonzales must resign."

Gonzales has been under fire over the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year, with critics accusing him of being dishonest about the reasons for the sackings. He has denied any "improper reasons" were behind the firings.

He was subdued and deferential on Capitol Hill on Thursday, but it was clear at the end of seven hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had not won over the panel, even enduring a stunning public demand for his resignation from a Republican senator.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was the third GOP senator to call for Gonzales to step down, telling him that it was the only way to restore public confidence in the Justice Department.

"The damage to the Justice Department, the attorney general's office and you personally has been significant," said Coburn, who added that Gonzales' handling of the matter "has been terrible."

"I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation," said Coburn, who joined Republican Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Gordon Smith of Oregon in openly urging Gonzales to step down from the post that he's held for the last two years.
Other Republicans were equally harsh.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee's ranking member, told Gonzales that his "credibility has been significantly impaired because of the panorama of responses you have made" over the last few months to questions about why the firings occurred and about his involvement in the process of selecting the prosecutors who would be replaced.

Specter also referred to "morale problems" at the Justice Department due to the public uproar that has engulfed Gonzales and other senior officials there, but he refrained from calling for him to step down.

Democrats were equally fierce in their treatment of Gonzales, with Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asserting the scandal was as serious as any he's seen since coming to Washington more than three decades ago.

"Today, the Department of Justice is experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its 137-year history," Leahy said in his opening statement. "The truth is that these firings have yet to be explained, and there is mounting evidence of improper considerations and actions resulting in the dismissals."

Gonzales, who publicly apologized to the fired prosecutors, said repeatedly that he could not remember any details of a critical Nov. 27 meeting at the Justice Department, where the plan to oust several federal prosecutors was discussed by senior department officials, or an Oct. 11 meeting to discuss voter fraud allegations with the president and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.

Gonzales did concede "mistakes" in the Justice Department's handling of the firings and his public response to questions about them, though he stuck by the decision to sack the prosecutors.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Madam Speaker is the Queen of Understatements.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she believes President Bush's judgment on the Iraq war "is a little impaired."

She also said his approach to Iraq is based on personal conviction, rather than political judgment.

"What I don't think is that it is a political decision on the part of the president. This is what he firmly believes," Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I just would hope that whatever he thinks about the war that he would also value the fact that the American people have lost confidence in him." (Watch how the Iraq war has changed public perception of Bush )

"I think his judgment is a little impaired on this war, with all due respect to the president and his good intentions," she told King.

Pelosi also blasted a comment made last week by Vice President Dick Cheney that legislative moves by Pelosi and other House Democrats to oppose Bush's war policy would "validate" al Qaeda's strategy.

"What the vice president said is beneath the dignity of his office and beneath the dignity of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform," Pelosi said.

"The vice president is in a place that is out of touch with the American people, out of touch with what so many generals are saying and out of touch with even a bipartisan majority in the Congress."

The speaker confirmed she called Bush to complain about Cheney's comments.

"The president had said to me ... that he would not tolerate any undermining of anybody's patriotism or our intention to protect the national security," she said.
"He said, 'Could you let me know if this happens?' So I wanted to let him know that it happened."

Pelosi, a California Democrat, became the first female speaker in American history in January.
Asked by King what about the job has most surprised her, she replied "the overwhelming show of enthusiasm across the country from women of all ages -- young girls to women my age -- who say they never thought that they'd see the day."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Vice Is Delusional; Call the Men in The White Coats

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 46 minutes ago

Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism.

"I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said. She said she tried to complain about Cheney to President Bush but could not reach him.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

In the interview, Cheney also said Britain's plans to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq — while the United States adds more troops — was a positive step. "I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," the vice president said.

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.

Later, Pelosi said she had tried to reach the president but was only able to get through to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten.

Bolten said he was certain no one was questioning her patriotism or commitment to national security, she told reporters.

"I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment," Pelosi said. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney "was not questioning anyone's patriotism." But she said Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha's "position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue."

As for Cheney's assertion that the partial British pullout is a sign that things are going well in Iraq, Pelosi said: "If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, said Britain's withdrawal, coupled with a Denmark's announcement to pull out its 460 troops by August, "accelerates the breakup of the coalition in Iraq."

He said the United States should reduce its forces "as a way of pressuring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to reach the political settlements that are essential to end the sectarian violence and defeat the insurgency."
Administration leaders, however, said Britain's decision was good news.

"The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a news conference in Berlin, where she was in meetings on the Mideast peace process.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, said the decision "reflects the progress that has been made on the ground in Basra and in the south," where British troops were stationed.

"So this is basically a good news story, an indication that progress is being made, and that events on the ground permit this kind of adjustment in forces," Hadley said. Still, he acknowledged the violence in Baghdad and said, "I'm not saying this is an unalloyed picture of progress."


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.