Maybe, because they have snakes in their heads...........
George Kennan vs. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Kristol, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter
George Kennan's 15 May 1953 speech at the University of Notre Dame was delivered at a time, when the right-wing anti-communist hysteria, inflamed by Senator Joseph McCarthy, was at its peak. Yet, it courageously exposed the demagogic McCarthyites for the ignorant, self-righteous, fear-mongering extremists they were. Thus, one can hardly avoid the conclusion that John Lukacs appended the speech to his new book about George Kennan, because it has much to teach us about courage during the current campaign of fear orchestrated by today's American equally self-righteous right-wing extremists.
Kennan excoriated McCarthyism's "alarmed and exercized anti-communism," as "an anti-communism of a quite special variety, bearing an air of excited discovery and proprietorship, as though no one had ever known before that there was a communist danger, as though no one had ever thought about it and taken its measure, as though it had all begun about the year 1945 and these people were the first to learn of it."
President Bush behaved the same way, as if "alarmed and exercised" anti-terrorism rhetoric would enable him to hide his failures to prevent 9/11, notwithstanding numerous warnings about impending terrorist attacks. Attempting to gain proprietorship, Bush's numerous asinine assertions about the terrorists demonstrated that he didn't have a clue.
First, he ignorantly claimed: "They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Then he foolishly promised to "rout out terror wherever it may exist." [Woodward, p.73] More ominously, he would "make no distinction between those who planned these acts and those who harbor them." [p. 30] Finally, he also promised to "rid the world of evil." [p. 67]
Such words befit an overeager, ignorant, petulant child, not a mature statesman. Yet, can any less be said of all the Americans, who found such nonsense persuasive? No wonder citizens throughout the rest of the world consider the United States to be the greatest menace to world peace.
Kennan considered President George W. Bush to be a "profoundly shallow" man. And in September 2002, at the age of 98, Kennan not only asserted that alarmed and exercized attempts to link Iraq to al Qaeda was "pathetically unsupported and unreliable," he also castigated Democrats for "timidity out of concern for the [November 2002] elections."
Unfortunately, Kennan already was bedridden when the evil, fear-mongering Darth Cheney - who, I remind you, was the negligent sitting Vice-President when al Qaeda's terrorists successfully attacked the U.S. on 9/11 - asserted: "A November win by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would put the United States at risk of another "devastating" terrorist attack." [CNN.com, Sept. 7, 2004]
A few months after Kennan's death, but long after it became clear that the Bush administration's incompetence had lost Osama bin Laden, and was losing its war in Iraq (perhaps, Afghanistan, as well), Karl Rove still was asserting: "Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war, liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding."
Beyond this McCarthyite smear, Rove committed others: "Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see…Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia." [Joe Conason, It Can Happen Here, pp. 24-25] Thus, as he did from 9/11 forward, Rove was betting that a majority of the electorate could be frightened to vote Republican by Republican hate- and fear-mongering.
Worse still, with the aid of America's warmongering neoconservatives (those brave folks who, somehow, never get around to serving in the military, themselves) such as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, Bush and Cheney were able "to divert America's wrath away from those who perpetrated that attack and turn it against those [in Iraq] who did not." [Scott McConnell, "The Weekly Standard's War," The American Conservative, September 21, 2005]
As Scott McConnell has written, in 1997 Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote an article, "Saddam Must Go," in which they asserted: "We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it's time to start thinking the unthinkable." After 9/11, Kristol's Weekly Standard propagandists incessantly beat the war drums for invading Iraq. And they did so by repeating their BIG LIE - Saddam was linked to al Qaeda.
For, as Scott McConnell notes, in the very first issue published after 9/11, the Weekly Standard "laid down a line from which the magazine would not waver over the next 18 months." Their line was "to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers, and then lay out a strategy that actually gave attacking Saddam priority over eliminating al Qaeda." [McConnell, The American Conservative]
Moreover, the most zealous neocon, Douglas Feith, used his position within the Department of Defense to fabricate bogus intelligence to present to fellow neocon, Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Darth Cheney, who would then present the BIG LIE to the public. Supplementing the BIG LIE was the superficial nonsense spouted by America's neocons about the ease with which democracy and freedom could be exported to the Middle East - even at the point of a gun.
How serious is the BIG LIE? Consider Robert Parry's observation: "Under principles of international law applied from Nuremberg to Rwanda, propagandists who contribute to war crimes or encourage crimes against humanity can be put in the dock alongside the actual killers." [Consortium News, Posted August 21, 2006]
But what about the water-carriers for Bush, Cheney, Rove and Kristol, such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter? They certainly meet the criteria Kennan observed in 1953, when he said: "[T]hey claim the right to define a certain area of our national life and cultural output as beyond the bounds of righteous approval… One has the impression that if uncountered, these people would eventually narrow the area of political and cultural respectability to a point where it included only themselves, the excited accusers, and excluded everything and everybody not embraced in the profession of denunciation."
Like the McCarthyite and virulent racist, J. Edgar Hoover, who was "so malicious that he would stop at nothing to destroy" Martin Luther King Jr., "a man who believed in justice," [NY Times Jan. 18, 1998] today's McCarthyite and virulent racist, Rush Limbaugh, is leaving few stones unturned in his attempt to destroy Senator Barack Obama. Limbaugh, you'll recall, decades ago told an African-American caller to "take that bone out of your nose." Judging by his recent assaults on Senator Obama, it doesn't sound like Limbaugh has ever learned from the errors of his ways.
Intending to "destroy the burrhead," Hoover's men let King know about the damaging material gathered on him by the F.B.I. and suggested, "he do the honorable thing and take his own life." They didn't know the great character possessed by the man they were dealing with. [Ibid]
And while we can only speculate whether Limbaugh intended to provoke the racist threats that require unusually early Secret Service protection for Senator Obama, who can doubt that Limbaugh is pandering to the low class white racism of his half-witted audience through thinly-veiled racist taunts. He energizes both his and the Republican Party base with his racial references to: "Halfrican American," "Obama Osama," and by playing "Barrack, The Magic Negro."
But Limbaugh's McCarthyism extends far beyond his racist Hooverism. In 2003, for example, Limbaugh called the patriots who protested America's impending invasion of Iraq, "anti-American, anti-capitalist Marxists and communists." On August 15, 2005, he asserted: "Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country, to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out. We'd get rid of Michael Moore, we'd get rid of half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous. The Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea out there."
On June 27, 2006, he launched a McCarthyite smear of the New York Times: "If you look at The New York Times and the kind of stories they're leaking and running and the information they're getting, it's clear that they're trying to help the terrorists….80 percent of their readers have to be jihadists." And, then, on April 5, 2007, in the great tradition of tail gunner Joe, Limbaugh pimped for Cheney when he asked about Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi: "Is this what they really intend, to lose the war, to make sure we come home defeated?"
I've written about Limbaugh's McCarthyism before; see:
http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/Limbaugh.html
Bill O'Reilly is no better. On September 14, 2001, three days after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. O'Reilly added his voice to the BIG LIE: "I believe that you're going to find out that money from Iraq flowed in and helped this happen." And on March 18, 2003, Mr. O'Reilly lent his support to another BIG LIE, the one about Iraq's so-called WMD: "And I said on my program, if -- if -- the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." (Yet, Mr. O'Reilly continues to serve as a cheerleader of Bush's illegal, immoral war.)
On August 10, 2006, Mr. O'Reilly made a McCarthyite smear against the "far left." "The far left in America is dominated by haters, people who despise their own country and want to injure those with whom they disagree. These smear merchants are now all over the mainstream media and have spread like lice on the Internet." At one point, in July 2005, Bill O'Reilly announced that he would be exposing and naming all the people and organizations he considered to be helping the terrorists.
Thanks, however, to some media researchers at Indiana University, who've sampled O'Reilly's McCarthyite tactics, we now know that he "employed six of the seven [classic] propaganda devices nearly 13 times each minute of his editorials." In this, he "is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than [the anti-Semite and fascist, Father Charles] Coughlin."
"Fear was used in more than half (52.4 percent) of the commentaries, and O'Reilly almost never offered a resolution to the threat."
Worst of all, however, is Ann Coulter. After the 9/11 attacks, Ms. Coulter made the following outrageous statement: "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." As if Ms. Coulter knew anything about war.
In her book, Treason, Ms. Coulter defended the BIG LIE of warmongers who claimed the existence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. And, on December 21, 2005, Ms. Coulter made the outrageous assertion: "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."
Ms. Coulter makes great sport of demoninzing liberals. As she wrote in Treason, "Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country is only part of the left's treasonous scheme. They aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and truth."
And she's a great fan of McCarthy: "The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times…Liberals weren't cowering for fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name." Now, whom are you going to believe, George Kennan - "the conscience of America" -- or someone who's probably certifiably insane?
(I took great delight in the widespread anger that this review -- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/20/RV153961.DTL -- provoked among Ms. Coulter's fans.)
The erudite Middle East scholar, Juan Cole has dismissed such McCarthyites with the following observation: "Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them in their mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies. One of their jobs is to marginalize progressives by smearing them as unreliable." [Cole, Informed Comment, Feb. 08, 2005]
Kennan took them much more seriously. Noting that "the forces of intolerance…are incompatible with the flowering of the human spirit," Kennan observed: "There is no greater mistake we of this generation can make than to imagine that the tendencies which in other countries have led to the nightmare of totalitarianism will, as they appear in our own midst, politely pause - out of some delicate respect for the American tradition - at a point where they would begin to affect our independence of mind and belief. The forces of intolerance and political demagoguery are greedy forces, and unrestrained. There is no limit to their ambitions or their impudence."
To those, like the writer, who are inclined to fight fire with fire, the following observations seem inescapable: In light of the fact that the Bush/Cheney regime started an illegal, immoral war against Iraq, based upon lies and exaggerations about Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction and so-called links to al Qaeda; in light of the fact that the lives of more than 3,300 American soldiers have been wasted for such lies and exaggerations, as well as, perhaps, the lives of some hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and in light of the facts that this illegal, immoral war has increased terrorist attacks seven-fold around the world, elevated Iran to a position of regional dominance, infringed upon domestic liberties in the U.S. and caused a worldwide explosion of hatred of the United States; isn't it plausible to claim that the real traitors to the United States are the members of the Bush administration, the neocons and their McCarthyite water-carriers? ?
Kennan, however, wouldn't approve. Although speaking about the McCarthyites in 1953, his following admonition has universal application: "I tremble when I see this attempt to make a semi-religious cult out of emotional-political currents of the moment, and particularly when I note that these currents are ones exclusively negative in nature, designed to appeal only to man's capacity for hatred and fear, never to their capacity for forgiveness and charity and understanding. I have lived more than ten years of my life in totalitarian countries. I know where this sort of thing leads."
In the name of "forgiveness and charity and understanding," then, let's simply work to assure that the Bush administration, the neocons and their McCarthyite water-carriers receive justice. Which would include impeachment for some and jail time for all!
Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).
(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.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Read and Sign The Nuremberg Declaration
The following is the full text of the Nuremberg Declaration delivered to the head of the Documentation Center for the Crimes of the Nazi Party, the group responsible for maintaining Room 600 in the Nuremberg Courthouse where Nazi leaders were tried and convicted of war crimes in 1945 and 1946. The declaration calls on the United States to reverse the decision of the Bush administration and re-sign and ratify the International Criminal Court treaty (Rome statute).
NUREMBERG DECLARATION
on International Criminal Court
The Nuremberg War Trials marked the birth date of a new age in international law -- the creation of an International Tribunal to try war criminals. Mr. Robert Jackson, the Allied Forces' Chief Prosecutor, stated on various occasions in 1945 that, "the U.S. itself will be bound in the future by the rules they are imposing on the German war criminals in Nuremberg today.
Fifty seven years elapsed between the Nuremberg War Trials and the commissioning of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague on July 1, 2002. However, the United States, under the presidency of George W. Bush, did not participate in the foundation of the ICC.
Instead, the Bush administration threatened the use of military forces in the event that an American national was ever tried before the ICC.
The continued refusal of the United States government to become a party to the ICC is an ongoing violation of the promises made at Nuremberg in 1945. The conduct exhibited by the United States over 61 years constitutes a breach of good faith proclaimed in 1945. A breach of faith that contravenes the moral basis for the Nuremberg War Trials of 1945 and is a lasting obstacle to the efforts of all peaceful nations that believe in the rule of law. Americans are urged to encourage their government to fulfill the promises made by Robert Jackson at Nuremberg in 1945 and become a party to the ICC as soon as practicable.
Declared on the Documentation Center former Nazi Party parade grounds, Nuremberg, Germany, Dec. 7, 2006.
There were six original signers of the declaration and it may be available for signatures by visitors to the Nuremberg Courthouse. We are also soliciting signatures for the Nuremberg Declaration by professionals from various sectors, including current and/or past affiliations. The following sectors are included:
1. Current and former members of legislatures -- national, state/provincial/territorial, local/municipal.
2. Current and former executive government officials -- national, state/provincial, local/municipal, tribal and territorial. (e.g., governors, mayors, county executives).
3. Current and former jurists -- national, state/provincial/territorial, local/municipal.
4. Members of the Fourth Estate, the press/media, publishers, editors, journalists.
5. Officials and faculty of educational institutions.
6. Legal professionals.
7. Members of the clergy/lay leadership.
8. Current and former members of the diplomatic corps.
9. Current and former non-governmental organization (NGO) officials
10. Current and former members of the military.
11. Current and former trade union officials.
12. Current and former business community officials.
13. Current and former intelligence agency and law enforcement officers.
14. Members of the film, art, literature, sports, and entertainment communities.
15. Political party officials.
Signatures can be sent to: wmreditor@waynemadsenreport.com
waynemadsendc@hotmail.com
The current plans are to collect signatures from Nuremberg and from e-mail and present them, along with the Nuremberg Declaration, to the relevant congressional committees with a view to persuade them to initiate the proper legislation to ensure that the United States becomes a full party to the International Criminal Court and agree to hand over for prosecution those American officials who violated the Paris Peace Pact of 1928, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions.
The ICC treaty has been ratified by 104 nations, including Afghanistan, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Serbia, South Africa, United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
Iraq's Transitional National Government was set to ratify the treaty but reversed course after pressure was exerted by the United States.
The following nations are in the process of ratifying the ICC treaty: Chile, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Japan, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Yemen.
Israel "de-signed" the ICC treaty at the same time the Bush administration withdrew its signature. (Outlaw Nations)
(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.
NUREMBERG DECLARATION
on International Criminal Court
The Nuremberg War Trials marked the birth date of a new age in international law -- the creation of an International Tribunal to try war criminals. Mr. Robert Jackson, the Allied Forces' Chief Prosecutor, stated on various occasions in 1945 that, "the U.S. itself will be bound in the future by the rules they are imposing on the German war criminals in Nuremberg today.
Fifty seven years elapsed between the Nuremberg War Trials and the commissioning of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague on July 1, 2002. However, the United States, under the presidency of George W. Bush, did not participate in the foundation of the ICC.
Instead, the Bush administration threatened the use of military forces in the event that an American national was ever tried before the ICC.
The continued refusal of the United States government to become a party to the ICC is an ongoing violation of the promises made at Nuremberg in 1945. The conduct exhibited by the United States over 61 years constitutes a breach of good faith proclaimed in 1945. A breach of faith that contravenes the moral basis for the Nuremberg War Trials of 1945 and is a lasting obstacle to the efforts of all peaceful nations that believe in the rule of law. Americans are urged to encourage their government to fulfill the promises made by Robert Jackson at Nuremberg in 1945 and become a party to the ICC as soon as practicable.
Declared on the Documentation Center former Nazi Party parade grounds, Nuremberg, Germany, Dec. 7, 2006.
There were six original signers of the declaration and it may be available for signatures by visitors to the Nuremberg Courthouse. We are also soliciting signatures for the Nuremberg Declaration by professionals from various sectors, including current and/or past affiliations. The following sectors are included:
1. Current and former members of legislatures -- national, state/provincial/territorial, local/municipal.
2. Current and former executive government officials -- national, state/provincial, local/municipal, tribal and territorial. (e.g., governors, mayors, county executives).
3. Current and former jurists -- national, state/provincial/territorial, local/municipal.
4. Members of the Fourth Estate, the press/media, publishers, editors, journalists.
5. Officials and faculty of educational institutions.
6. Legal professionals.
7. Members of the clergy/lay leadership.
8. Current and former members of the diplomatic corps.
9. Current and former non-governmental organization (NGO) officials
10. Current and former members of the military.
11. Current and former trade union officials.
12. Current and former business community officials.
13. Current and former intelligence agency and law enforcement officers.
14. Members of the film, art, literature, sports, and entertainment communities.
15. Political party officials.
Signatures can be sent to: wmreditor@waynemadsenreport.com
waynemadsendc@hotmail.com
The current plans are to collect signatures from Nuremberg and from e-mail and present them, along with the Nuremberg Declaration, to the relevant congressional committees with a view to persuade them to initiate the proper legislation to ensure that the United States becomes a full party to the International Criminal Court and agree to hand over for prosecution those American officials who violated the Paris Peace Pact of 1928, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions.
The ICC treaty has been ratified by 104 nations, including Afghanistan, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Serbia, South Africa, United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
Iraq's Transitional National Government was set to ratify the treaty but reversed course after pressure was exerted by the United States.
The following nations are in the process of ratifying the ICC treaty: Chile, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Japan, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Yemen.
Israel "de-signed" the ICC treaty at the same time the Bush administration withdrew its signature. (Outlaw Nations)
(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.
Peace People and D.C.
Antiwar Groups Use New Clout to Influence Democrats on Iraq
By MICHAEL LUO
WASHINGTON, May 4 — Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.
Shortly after, in a cramped meeting room here, they convene for a call with organizers across the country. They hash out plans for rallies. They sketch out talking points for “rapid response” news conferences. They discuss polls they have conducted in several dozen crucial Congressional districts and states across the country.
Over the last four months, the Iraq deliberations in Congress have lurched from a purely symbolic resolution rebuking the president’s strategy to timetables for the withdrawal of American troops. Behind the scenes, an elaborate political operation, organized by a coalition of antiwar groups and fine-tuned to wrestle members of Congress into place one by one, has helped nudge the debate forward.
But there are tensions in the relationship between the groups, which banded together earlier this year under the umbrella of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and the Democratic leadership. The fissures could be magnified in coming weeks as the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, struggle to cobble together a strategy after President Bush’s veto of the $124 billion Iraq spending bill that tied the money to a timetable for withdrawal.
On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, including Tom Matzzie, the group’s Washington director who also serves as the campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership.
“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”
The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”
The antiwar coalition combines the online mobilization capabilities of MoveOn with the old-school political muscle of organized labor. They have been working in tandem with Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate on a systematic strategy to unify Democrats, divide Republicans and isolate the president.
The alliance, including MoveOn, chose to stick with Ms. Pelosi as she ushered through a war financing bill that included a timeline for withdrawal, but many peace advocates called the measure too timid. Some critics accused the alliance of becoming too cozy with the Democratic leadership and selling out the cause.
“There’s a dividing line between those groups who feel the most important thing is to be clear on bringing the troops home as soon as possible, and the groups that feel that unity within the Democratic Party is most important and the most important thing is for the Democrats to win the White House,” said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of Code Pink, an antiwar group that is not part of the alliance. “So the groups who feel the most important thing is to win the White House would naturally be more inclined to listening to Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she says the only way we can get a vote through is if we water it down.”
Many of the major players in Americans Against Escalation in Iraq earned their stripes not from sit-ins, marches and other acts of civil disobedience but as Democratic operatives on Capitol Hill and in political campaigns. The sophisticated political operation they have built is a testament to how far the antiwar movement has come since the Vietnam era.
But Tom Andrews, a former Democratic congressman from Maine and the national director of Win Without War, a member of the coalition, said there existed a “healthy tension” between working closely with Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill, many of whom were former colleagues and friends, and continuing to prod them to end the war.
“Our constituency is the people across this country who want to shut this war down,” Mr. Andrews said. “It’s not the Democratic Party.”
Mr. Matzzie underscored the coalition’s approach to a roomful of members on Thursday at the outset of a planning retreat at the headquarters of the Service Employees International Union here.
“The principle under which we’ve been operating is more like a political campaign,” Mr. Matzzie said. “The central strategy is creating that toxic environment for people who want to continue this debacle.”
The discussion at the retreat mirrored that of planning meetings for traditional political campaigns, with presentations on polling, strategy and field operations.
“It’s no different than if you went over to the offices of Clinton for President, Obama for President, Giuliani for President,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, which has roots in organized labor and came out of the legislative battle over social security in 2005.
The coalition, which has raised $7.1 million since January, has concentrated its activities on 57 House districts and senators in nine states, places where they believe Republican lawmakers face tough races in 2008 or have shown signs of wavering in their support for the president.
The service employees’ union has mobilized its phone bank in New York City and asked local leaders to call members of Congress. Leaders of the union, long closely allied with liberal lawmakers, helped assuage many progressives who were uneasy about voting for the war-financing bill, fearing criticism from the left.
The National Security Network, a collection of liberal-leaning military and foreign policy experts headed by Rand Beers, former national security adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry, has deployed former generals and officials to persuade individual lawmakers.
The coalition’s influence comes from its connections on Capitol Hill and political shrewdness, as well as its grass-roots reach. “The whole movement has updated themselves to be where campaign-style politics are generally,” said Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist. “They’re just incredibly savvy, tactically and politically. They know how to use the news cycle.”
Most important for lawmakers, said Mr. Andrews, the former congressman from Maine, the coalition members are committed to using their resources to changing the political climate in their districts, which gives them credibility on Capitol Hill.
“We want members of Congress to do the right thing and do very well as a result,” he said. “We’re not just there asking them to do the right thing without fully recognizing the task we have on hand.”
Rodell Mollineau, a spokesman for Mr. Reid’s office, said the coalition amplifies what Democrats are trying to do in Washington to end the war.
“It helps us reverberate a unified message outside the Beltway,” he said. “These groups give voice to a message we’re trying to get outside.”
One of the coalition’s strengths is its diversity, bringing to together groups like MoveOn.org and organized labor on one end and former Iraq veterans in the group Votevets.org on the other, members said. But that diversity can also create some tense moments, as each of the groups have different constituencies and some of the groups are more invested in the Democratic Party than others.
But the organizations came together based on a sense of pragmatism, said Mr. Woodhouse, of Americans United for Change, “that we’re better fighting together than fighting apart.”
After the president’s veto this week, the coalition organized 358 rallies and more than 20 news conferences across the country. Organizers had met with leadership staff members the week before to coordinate.
On Friday, in a daily conference call, Tara McGuinness, the coalition’s deputy campaign manager, told members that leadership aides had expressed gratitude for the work, saying it had helped bolster members of their caucus.
Ms. McGuiness also told them that she had received assurances from leadership staff members that all options were still being considered for the new version of the war spending bill.
“The latest word from them is they are talking more and more about a short-leash option,” she said, referring to a plan in the House that would finance the war for only about three more months and require the administration to report back on progress being made by the Iraqi government. Congress would then vote again on the rest of the money requested by Mr. Bush.
Members of the Senate appear to be cool to the idea, but it has currency among some liberal advocates and members of the coalition.
Mr. Matzzie, of MoveOn, was clear about the stakes in the coming weeks, saying his group was only getting started. He emphasized that the next emergency spending bill must be one “to end the war.”
“This is act one of a three-act play,” he said. “Act two will be the summer. During the summer, our job is to create a firestorm of opposition.”
(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.
More Bushites Jumping Ship
Bush Aide to Leave No. 2 National Security Post
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 5, 2007; A09
Deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch II, who helped spearhead the recent policy review that led President Bush to send more U.S. troops to Iraq, announced yesterday that he will step down early next month, becoming the latest key aide to depart the White House at a critical juncture.
Crouch, the No. 2 official at the National Security Council, has been a pivotal figure on a series of difficult issues, including Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and the detention policy for terrorism suspects. And it was his interagency group meeting at the White House complex for many weeks last winter that resulted in the ongoing troop buildup in Iraq, which has become the defining decision of the year for Bush.
In an interview, Crouch said he is leaving to devote more time to his family after six years in the administration. He expressed confidence that Bush's policy of trying to build democracy in Iraq and spread it around the world will ultimately pay off. "I worry about it," he said. "I think it's important to question your assumptions, always ask yourself if you're on the right track. But as I look at the agenda that the president has set out, I think it's the right agenda, and history will vindicate that."
Crouch becomes the second top official involved in crafting the new Iraq strategy to leave before it is clear if the new approach will work. Meghan O'Sullivan, the deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, also plans to resign soon. The departures will leave national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley huge holes to fill even as he tries to find a new "war czar" to oversee Iraq.
"He has been a critical player in terms of developing and supporting the president's policies," Hadley said of Crouch. He credited Crouch with easing the internal tensions of the first term. "At the end of the day, people are comfortable with the decisions the president makes, and you didn't have reports of fighting . . . you had in the past."
Crouch is a conservative in a White House that has angered the right recently by reaching out to Iran and North Korea. As an academic in 1995, Crouch wanted to bomb North Korea if it did not give up nuclear weapons; now Bush has made a deal with Pyongyang that conservatives deem weak. "It's a sad day because he had a very clear-eyed view of Iran and North Korea," said John R. Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations. "He understands the nature of the threat. . . . He was a very steady voice for sensible policy, and now there will be one less voice in the administration."
Some associates said Crouch has grown disenchanted with the shift in direction, even if he remains publicly circumspect. "Are there issues where he may not have agreed with the outcome?" asked a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Sure there are. Is he frustrated about some of them? Yes. But he's been a good soldier."
Crouch denied that he was discouraged by the decisions Bush has made on Iran and North Korea. "I have total confidence in him and in his judgment on these things," he said. "The only bitterness . . . is that I can't stay here forever and work with this president."
Colleagues said Crouch served as an honest broker despite strong personal views. "While not disguising his views or pretending he didn't have any, he managed to be incredibly fair and objective and ran an even-handed process that gave everybody a chance to put their oar in the water," said Undersecretary of Defense Eric S. Edelman.
Staff writer Michael Abramowitz contributed to this report.
(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.
The GOP and Rampant Hypocrisy
Published on Friday, May 4, 2007 by The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
‘Family-Values’ Cloak Lifted From GOP
by Bonnie Erbe
President Bush’s budget-busting, spendthrift tactics have robbed the GOP of its claim to the title, “Party of Fiscal Conservancy.”
Now the perverse antics of some high-level Bush appointees and his party’s power elite are lifting the cloak of “family values” from the GOP, too.
The “D.C. Madam” scandal is the latest in a string of stories revealed during Bush’s second term showing that the private lives of some of his most powerful appointees bear little resemblance to the Ozzie-and-Harriet-like ideal the party tries to mimic.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey is in court battling charges of running a high-class prostitution ring from California. She maintained a 46-pound Rolodex that has caused the resignation of one State Department potentate and reportedly contains the names of more elite administration officials and Republican Party donors. The first resignation was that of Randall Tobias, who last week fled a top State Department perch. While there, he not only managed foreign-assistance programs but also, according to The New York Times, “ran agencies that required foreign recipients of AIDS assistance to explicitly condemn prostitution, a policy that drew protests from some nations and relief organizations.”
As “AIDS czar,” Tobias alienated many AIDS-plagued, developing nations by requiring recipients of U.S. foreign aid to sign a pledge against prostitution. Donee nations complained the pledge effectively prevented organizations from befriending sex workers so as to teach them HIV/AIDS prevention. Tobias also promoted faithfulness and abstinence over condom use to prevent AIDS transmission.
Now the joke’s on Tobias, who has the gall to claim his patronage of the D.C. Madam’s women involved “no sex” and that he paid a reported $300 per session for “the gals” (as he put it) to give him massages. Yeah, right.
Even in pricy Washington, in my humble opinion, $300 seems like an awful lot for a garden-variety massage. And Bush is a uniter, not a divider.
Would that the D.C. Madam scandal were the only example of family-unfriendly behavior by powerful GOP Washingtonians. Let’s ignore, for the moment, the congressional page scandal in which disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley traded lewd e-mails with young male pages. Let’s ignore, too, the resignation of former Food and Drug Administration appointee — and evangelical Christian gynecologist (whatever that is) — Dr. W. David Hager.
Hager urged his female patients to pray for relief from medical conditions. Worse yet, The Nation Magazine reported that Hager’s ex-wife said that while he publicly sermonized and moralized on sexual matters, he repeatedly sodomized her without her consent over a seven-year period.
Let’s focus, instead, on the post-resignation antics of the man Bush appointed to lead the Office of Population Affairs. This office is in charge of doling out almost $300 million worth of contraceptives to low-income women. Yet appointee Eric Keroack once described contraceptives as “demeaning to women.” And he came to the administration’s attention due to his management of an affiliation with a string of crisis-pregnancy centers. These are the “centers” that lure pregnant women in by masquerading as women’s health service providers. Instead, they proselytize and show women ultrasound images of fetuses to dissuade them from having abortions.
Keroack resigned abruptly about a month ago, after less than five months in the job, because (as The Boston Globe reported) he was “notified that the state’s Medicaid office had launched an investigation into his private practice.”
Don’t get me wrong. Democrats have their famous foibles, too. I still say former President Clinton should have resigned for having oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, rather than drag the nation through the trauma of impeachment proceedings. But the lesson of Bush’s GOP and its agglomeration of perverse appointed and elected officials is that neither party should ever lay claim to that mantle again.
Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com.
© 2007 The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
(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.
‘Family-Values’ Cloak Lifted From GOP
by Bonnie Erbe
President Bush’s budget-busting, spendthrift tactics have robbed the GOP of its claim to the title, “Party of Fiscal Conservancy.”
Now the perverse antics of some high-level Bush appointees and his party’s power elite are lifting the cloak of “family values” from the GOP, too.
The “D.C. Madam” scandal is the latest in a string of stories revealed during Bush’s second term showing that the private lives of some of his most powerful appointees bear little resemblance to the Ozzie-and-Harriet-like ideal the party tries to mimic.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey is in court battling charges of running a high-class prostitution ring from California. She maintained a 46-pound Rolodex that has caused the resignation of one State Department potentate and reportedly contains the names of more elite administration officials and Republican Party donors. The first resignation was that of Randall Tobias, who last week fled a top State Department perch. While there, he not only managed foreign-assistance programs but also, according to The New York Times, “ran agencies that required foreign recipients of AIDS assistance to explicitly condemn prostitution, a policy that drew protests from some nations and relief organizations.”
As “AIDS czar,” Tobias alienated many AIDS-plagued, developing nations by requiring recipients of U.S. foreign aid to sign a pledge against prostitution. Donee nations complained the pledge effectively prevented organizations from befriending sex workers so as to teach them HIV/AIDS prevention. Tobias also promoted faithfulness and abstinence over condom use to prevent AIDS transmission.
Now the joke’s on Tobias, who has the gall to claim his patronage of the D.C. Madam’s women involved “no sex” and that he paid a reported $300 per session for “the gals” (as he put it) to give him massages. Yeah, right.
Even in pricy Washington, in my humble opinion, $300 seems like an awful lot for a garden-variety massage. And Bush is a uniter, not a divider.
Would that the D.C. Madam scandal were the only example of family-unfriendly behavior by powerful GOP Washingtonians. Let’s ignore, for the moment, the congressional page scandal in which disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley traded lewd e-mails with young male pages. Let’s ignore, too, the resignation of former Food and Drug Administration appointee — and evangelical Christian gynecologist (whatever that is) — Dr. W. David Hager.
Hager urged his female patients to pray for relief from medical conditions. Worse yet, The Nation Magazine reported that Hager’s ex-wife said that while he publicly sermonized and moralized on sexual matters, he repeatedly sodomized her without her consent over a seven-year period.
Let’s focus, instead, on the post-resignation antics of the man Bush appointed to lead the Office of Population Affairs. This office is in charge of doling out almost $300 million worth of contraceptives to low-income women. Yet appointee Eric Keroack once described contraceptives as “demeaning to women.” And he came to the administration’s attention due to his management of an affiliation with a string of crisis-pregnancy centers. These are the “centers” that lure pregnant women in by masquerading as women’s health service providers. Instead, they proselytize and show women ultrasound images of fetuses to dissuade them from having abortions.
Keroack resigned abruptly about a month ago, after less than five months in the job, because (as The Boston Globe reported) he was “notified that the state’s Medicaid office had launched an investigation into his private practice.”
Don’t get me wrong. Democrats have their famous foibles, too. I still say former President Clinton should have resigned for having oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, rather than drag the nation through the trauma of impeachment proceedings. But the lesson of Bush’s GOP and its agglomeration of perverse appointed and elected officials is that neither party should ever lay claim to that mantle again.
Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com.
© 2007 The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
(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.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Congressional Wool-gathering
Can't say I can really disagree with any of this:
I would like to have 10 percent of the monetary value of the man hours expended by members of the House, the Senate, and their respective staffs that was piled atop the redolent heap of history's wasted gestures in the recent exercise in futility that was the fight over the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.
Republicans joined with Democrats in making a spectacle of themselves as ineffectual windbags without a cause, proving publicly, once again, that most of them have no respect for this republic, it's people or the business they are paid so handsomely to conduct.
Knowing that the eminently hardheaded little man who occupies the big house on Pennsylvania Avenue would veto any bill which included deadlines for troop withdrawals, and knowing that the same cynical little man would use the pork content of the bill against them, they made him a gift of a bill that he could veto and look "presidential" while doing it. They gave Bush exactly what he wanted.
Have these people so little respect for the people's business that they believe they can fritter away all this expensive hot air drafting bills that they know full well will never pass? The votes on this were counted weeks ago, the Emperor's objections were well known, there was no doubt about the outcome from the beginning.
In my humble opinion the 110th congress is not greatly improved over the 109th version of Zen and the art of doing nothing. While I appreciate that the Democrats now have a measure of control, I would like to see them begin to use whatever power they have for something more substantive than assigning themselves better offices and furniture, climbing in bed with their corporate sponsors and lobbyists and playing silly and futile power games with the executive department.
This war needs to end. Ending the war and bringing the troops out will take courage, infinitely more courage than the unthinking, flag waving, lemming-like mad dash that got us embroiled in Iraq four long, painful years ago.
Courage has never been a strong suit in American politics, which I suppose, is why it shines so brightly when it occasionally emerges from the dark alleys of the cover your ass opportunism that passes for leadership in Washington these days.
We are sacrificing our children and grandchildren on an altar of corporate greed, imperial megalomania and rabid religiosity and the people who enabled this national crime with their cowardice in the face of power and public opinion, those who can make it end by refusing to fund it, by withdrawing the authorization for it, by simply telling the truth, these same people will allow the slaughter to continue month after month, year after year, because they lack the spine to take a solid stand against what can only be seen as a completely rogue executive department.
All measures must be taken now to stop funding for anything other than a fighting redeployment or withdrawal from this madness. The time for the Iraqi Army to stand up is now, the time for an Iraqi political solution is now, not twenty months and two or three thousand dead Americans from now.
It is said that the Iraqi Parliament will begin a two month recess at the end of June, a fact which tells me that they are not overly committed to solving their own crises. How many of our troops will die while Iraq's parliament vacations?
Yes, we, the administration broke Iraq, and now we must pay for the repair of much of what they have brought to ruin. Make no mistake though, Iraq was broken long before our arrival, it was broken when western colonial powers drew it's borders ninety some years ago and again when it's people allowed themselves to fall under the control of despots.
The people of Iraq must bear the ultimate responsibility for what they suffered under Saddam during the four decades since his ascendancy.
The sectarian hatreds and ancient animosities so central to the myriad impediments to stability and national cohesion in that "country" are not American or Western creations and will not be solved by Americans or Westerners.
Can anyone tell me whose side we should take in this madness? Shiites? Help them gain national control and possibly create a Shiite super state with Iran that continues to threaten the stability of the greater Middle East?
Should we bring the minority Sunnis back to power and let them continue to molest their Shia and Kurdish neighbors with the help of oil money donated by our Saudi "allies"? Do we ignore Turkey and back the Kurds?
No, Iraqis, all of them, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, every hare brained sect and faction, every clan and family are going to have their little "free for all" with or without our presence. They will engage in civil war, a great cleansing of thousand year old grievances and in the end will have to sort out their own problems. It will not be pretty, it will be yet another horrible tragedy of history, a continuation and likely an amplification of the current bloodbath, but with help of the United Nations and the more rational of the neighboring states, they may be able to achieve some sort of national equilibrium over the next couple of years.
Success or failure will be up to the people of Iraq, all of them.
Iraqi security, stability, equilibrium, peace, whatever, is no longer possible while we stand in the middle of the flames and fan them with our own hated presence.
We need to bring our troops home and we need to stop the bleeding, both literal and figurative. We need to come home and do some housecleaning of our own and we need to do it this calendar year.
The people of this country showed their rejection of the Cheney/Bush neo-conservative megalomania last November and the number of Americans that no longer support their empty headed neo-colonial aspirations are growing as the subpoenas are answered and the facts are revealed.
Impeachment and criminal sanctions of those who were central to creating this quagmire and deceiving the American people and the congress into this criminal nightmare must not only be "on the table" they must be a centerpiece of our public policy in the immediate future in order to prove to ourselves and to the world that America has regained her sanity and is once again capable and deserving of a leadership position among nations.
And, perhaps, in September, when the Iraqi leadership returns from Damascus, Paris, London or wherever they spend their holiday, they will find the time to run their country and we can begin to repair ours.
Bob Higgins
Worldwide Sawdust
(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.
I would like to have 10 percent of the monetary value of the man hours expended by members of the House, the Senate, and their respective staffs that was piled atop the redolent heap of history's wasted gestures in the recent exercise in futility that was the fight over the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.
Republicans joined with Democrats in making a spectacle of themselves as ineffectual windbags without a cause, proving publicly, once again, that most of them have no respect for this republic, it's people or the business they are paid so handsomely to conduct.
Knowing that the eminently hardheaded little man who occupies the big house on Pennsylvania Avenue would veto any bill which included deadlines for troop withdrawals, and knowing that the same cynical little man would use the pork content of the bill against them, they made him a gift of a bill that he could veto and look "presidential" while doing it. They gave Bush exactly what he wanted.
Have these people so little respect for the people's business that they believe they can fritter away all this expensive hot air drafting bills that they know full well will never pass? The votes on this were counted weeks ago, the Emperor's objections were well known, there was no doubt about the outcome from the beginning.
In my humble opinion the 110th congress is not greatly improved over the 109th version of Zen and the art of doing nothing. While I appreciate that the Democrats now have a measure of control, I would like to see them begin to use whatever power they have for something more substantive than assigning themselves better offices and furniture, climbing in bed with their corporate sponsors and lobbyists and playing silly and futile power games with the executive department.
This war needs to end. Ending the war and bringing the troops out will take courage, infinitely more courage than the unthinking, flag waving, lemming-like mad dash that got us embroiled in Iraq four long, painful years ago.
Courage has never been a strong suit in American politics, which I suppose, is why it shines so brightly when it occasionally emerges from the dark alleys of the cover your ass opportunism that passes for leadership in Washington these days.
We are sacrificing our children and grandchildren on an altar of corporate greed, imperial megalomania and rabid religiosity and the people who enabled this national crime with their cowardice in the face of power and public opinion, those who can make it end by refusing to fund it, by withdrawing the authorization for it, by simply telling the truth, these same people will allow the slaughter to continue month after month, year after year, because they lack the spine to take a solid stand against what can only be seen as a completely rogue executive department.
All measures must be taken now to stop funding for anything other than a fighting redeployment or withdrawal from this madness. The time for the Iraqi Army to stand up is now, the time for an Iraqi political solution is now, not twenty months and two or three thousand dead Americans from now.
It is said that the Iraqi Parliament will begin a two month recess at the end of June, a fact which tells me that they are not overly committed to solving their own crises. How many of our troops will die while Iraq's parliament vacations?
Yes, we, the administration broke Iraq, and now we must pay for the repair of much of what they have brought to ruin. Make no mistake though, Iraq was broken long before our arrival, it was broken when western colonial powers drew it's borders ninety some years ago and again when it's people allowed themselves to fall under the control of despots.
The people of Iraq must bear the ultimate responsibility for what they suffered under Saddam during the four decades since his ascendancy.
The sectarian hatreds and ancient animosities so central to the myriad impediments to stability and national cohesion in that "country" are not American or Western creations and will not be solved by Americans or Westerners.
Can anyone tell me whose side we should take in this madness? Shiites? Help them gain national control and possibly create a Shiite super state with Iran that continues to threaten the stability of the greater Middle East?
Should we bring the minority Sunnis back to power and let them continue to molest their Shia and Kurdish neighbors with the help of oil money donated by our Saudi "allies"? Do we ignore Turkey and back the Kurds?
No, Iraqis, all of them, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, every hare brained sect and faction, every clan and family are going to have their little "free for all" with or without our presence. They will engage in civil war, a great cleansing of thousand year old grievances and in the end will have to sort out their own problems. It will not be pretty, it will be yet another horrible tragedy of history, a continuation and likely an amplification of the current bloodbath, but with help of the United Nations and the more rational of the neighboring states, they may be able to achieve some sort of national equilibrium over the next couple of years.
Success or failure will be up to the people of Iraq, all of them.
Iraqi security, stability, equilibrium, peace, whatever, is no longer possible while we stand in the middle of the flames and fan them with our own hated presence.
We need to bring our troops home and we need to stop the bleeding, both literal and figurative. We need to come home and do some housecleaning of our own and we need to do it this calendar year.
The people of this country showed their rejection of the Cheney/Bush neo-conservative megalomania last November and the number of Americans that no longer support their empty headed neo-colonial aspirations are growing as the subpoenas are answered and the facts are revealed.
Impeachment and criminal sanctions of those who were central to creating this quagmire and deceiving the American people and the congress into this criminal nightmare must not only be "on the table" they must be a centerpiece of our public policy in the immediate future in order to prove to ourselves and to the world that America has regained her sanity and is once again capable and deserving of a leadership position among nations.
And, perhaps, in September, when the Iraqi leadership returns from Damascus, Paris, London or wherever they spend their holiday, they will find the time to run their country and we can begin to repair ours.
Bob Higgins
Worldwide Sawdust
(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.
There Is No Winning An Illegal War
Well, I can certainly speak for the entire I.U. community on this issue, as we have discussed this many, many times.
The GOP, in general, and the Bush administration, in particular, set themseleves up as the epitome of morality and swore to bring dignity and integrity back to the White House. George W. Bush is, without a doubt, the most obviously religious American president in modern times, if ever, or appears to be..
Yet, they do not seem to understand how the laws of the universe (God) work.
From the moment the White House began lying to the American people about Iraq, and actually deceiving many, the war was lost.
Before the first bomb fell on Baghdad, the chances of "victory in Iraq," whatever that meant, were zero.
Deception, especially in the form of fear-mongering, is one of humanity's great evils. No good ever comes from such behavior. When you scare a person or a people, with wild talk of mushroom clouds rising over American cities and drones spraying the Eastern seaboard with some horrible bioweapon, you can count on bringing out the very worst in that person or people
Scared people do crazy things, like giving Bush, Cheney and the NeoCons a blank check to wreak havoc in the world.
But not only did the administration's lies cause an already shocked and scared America to back this insane and criminal war, it convinced many Americans that Saddam had something to do with the events of 9/11. Some of those deceived Americans would invade Iraq, with vengeance on their minds, not liberation.
So, the mother of all war crimes, a war of aggression, led inevitably to crimes against humanity. That was predictable. What was shocking was the extent and depravity of the cruelty our soldiers and others would inflict, in our name, mostly on innocent people, not that it matters whether or not the people treated so horribly were innocent. No one should be treated with such cruel contempt. Stooping to the level of the enemy (supposedly Al Qaeda) makes "winning" impossible.
What does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?
Ask Dick Cheney and others who have become very wealthy off this war; off the misery of so many. But wait until they begin to reap that which they have sown, and they will. It is as sure as the sunrise.
What's coming will be a karmic gob-smack that will go down in history, hopefully as a lesson to all leaders who contemplate such actions. Unfortunately, those of us who saw through the illusions painted by the Bushites and tried to warn our neighbors and friends, our countrymen and women, cannot but be smacked as well.
That's life; that is the way of the universe. Actions bring about reactions.
And so it goes.....
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_gina_mar_070503_you_can_t_win_an_ill.htm
May 4, 2007
You can't Win an Illegal War
By Gina-Marie Cheeseman
Republican Representative Devin Nunes of California, and my representative, declared this week that he saw progress in Iraq during a recent trip to the Green Zone in Baghdad. The only places he visited were U.S. military bases.
The conservative Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and one other House Republican, traveled with Nunes. The Congressional members did not visit Iraqi markets or neighborhoods. During their trip at least 687 Iraqis were killed, and nine American service members.
The simple fact remains that you cannot win an illegal war. When President Bush took the Presidential Oath of Office during his inauguration, he pledged to “guard against presidential excess or wrongdoing.” He also pledged to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If the president “intentionally” subverted or undermined the Constitution then he perverted the oath.
Furthermore, Bush also violated the UN Charter by invading and occupying Iraq. International law experts refer to the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a preventive war. Preventive war violates the UN Charter. The preamble states that “armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.”
The second article of the Charter states that member nations must “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” The UN Charter prohibits wars which the UN Security Council did not authorize, save for self defense.
The UN Charter is part of US law. It was signed by then President Harry Truman, and subsequently ratified by the Senate. The Executive Director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, Ann Fagan Ginger, describes the UN Charter as the “supreme law of the land.” When the Senate ratified the Charter, “the United States made certain commitments to all other member nations to obey the law set forth in the Charter.”
According to Richard Falk, retired international law professor, the UN Charter “carries forward the idea that all wars that are not fought in self defense or with the approval of the UN Security Council are illegal wars…a crime against peace.” Falk believes the US has violated the UN Charter by invading and occupying Iraq, and violates the “spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution.”
Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan answered yes when he was asked if the invasion and occupation of Iraq were illegal. ““I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal,” he went on to say. A spokesman for Annan, Fred Eckhard said during a September 2004 press conference in New York, “He has over the past more than a year used the words 'not in conformity with the Charter' to describe his view of the Iraq war… His purposes in establishing the UN panel on change was to look at the question of preventive war and try to bring that in conformity with the Charter principles, which do not promote preventive war.”
In an article for the journal Foreign Affairs, professor of international law at Tufts University, Michael Glennon stated that UN Resolution 1441 which found Iraq in “material breach” of past resolutions did not “explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.” Glennon also noted that the UN Charter’s Article 51 “permits the use of force only in self defense…if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN.”
A treatise by Duncan E.J. Currie who practiced international law for over 20 years referred to the Bush administration’s preventive war doctrine as “departure from the prohibition of the use of force under international law” which is a part of the UN Charter. Currie described the Bush administration document the “National Security Strategy of the United States,” published in 2002, as implying “that the U.S…is willing to act beyond the constraints of international law and even beyond limits it has observed in the past.”
The British law practice Matrix Chambers published four opinions about military force against Iraq. One of the opinions declared that the “use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law” unless Baghdad directly attacked the U.S. or U.K., or the UN Security Council “authorized the use of force in clear terms.” They wrote concerning UN Resolution 1441, “Russia, China, and France made clear: they did not want the resolution to authorize force.”
Scott Ritter and other experts on Iraq’s WMD capabilities
Bush also violated the Presidential Oath of Office by making misleading claims about Iraq. The Congress authorized the Bush administration to use force against Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Scott Ritter was the UN’s top weapons inspector until he resigned in 1998. Ritter debunked the administration’s claims in a series of editorials in various American and British newspapers. He insisted that there was a “90-95 percent level of verified disarmament.”
All chemical weapons Iraq produced pre-1990 “would have degraded within five years” except for mustard gas, according to Ritter. He assured that biological weapons “would have neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture.” Furthermore, Ritter declared that the monitoring of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological weapons) from 1994-1998 did not produce “any evidence of retained proscribed activity” by Iraq to reproduce chemical and biological weapons.
Ritter had strong words concerning the Bush administration’s statements about Iraq’s WMD capability, namely that the administration “provides only speculation,” and failed to provide factual details of their claims. “To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.”
The man the Bush administration chose to finish Iraq’s weapons inspections stated in a report released in 2004 that the ability of Iraq to produce nuclear weapons “progressively decayed” since 1991, and Iraq had not made efforts to restart the program. Duelfer told a Senate panel in October 2004, “We were almost all wrong [on Iraq].”
The top intelligence official at the U.S. State Department until resigning prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Greg Thielmann, told Frontline the Bush administration diverged from “the kind of qualified and fairly carefully structured intelligence that they were being provided.”
Thielmann believed the stories about Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium from Niger “bad intelligence…it was something that made no sense, in terms of the structure of the country that was allegedly planning to provide the uranium.”
Authors Website: www.truthtellingforum.com
Authors Bio: Gina-Marie Cheeseman is a freelance writer with a passion for social justice. She grew up on a vineyard ranch in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Her brain has not been fried from too much Fresno sunshine.
Sent in by Hawkeye
(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.
McGovern on Tenet's Continuing Ignorance
Poor George Tenet; He Still Doesn't Get It
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Sunday 29 April 2007
"If you can't say something positive about someone, don't say anything." This was drummed into me by my Irish grandmother and, as most of her admonishments, it has stood me in good stead. On occasion, though, it been a real bother - as when I felt called to comment on George Tenet's apologia, "In the Center of the Storm," coming to a bookstore near you tomorrow.
On the verge of despair, I ran into an old schoolmate of Tenet's from PS 94 in Little Neck, Queens, who told me that George was more handsome than his twin brother Billy, and that his outgoing nature and consummate political skill got him elected president of the student body.
Positive enough, Grandma? Now let me add this.
George Tenet's book shows that he remains, first and foremost, a politician - with no clue as to the proper role of intelligence work. He is unhappy about going down in history as "Slam Dunk Tenet." But, George protests, his famous remark to President Bush on December 21, 2002 was not meant to assure the president that available intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a "slam dunk." Rather he meant that the argument that Saddam Hussein had such weapons could be enhanced to slam-dunk status in order to sell war on Iraq. Those of you tuning in to CBS's "60 Minutes" tonight will hear Tenet explain what he meant when he uttered the words he now says everyone misunderstood or distorted in order to blame him for the Iraq war. What he says he meant was simply:
"We can put a better case together for a public case." (sic)
Tenet still doesn't get it. Those of us schooled in the craft and ethos of intelligence remain in wide-mouthed disbelief, perhaps best summed up by veteran operations officer Bob Baer's quip:
"So, it is better that the 'slam dunk' referred to the ease with which the war could be sold? I guess I missed that part of the National Security Act delineating the functions of the CIA - the part about CIA marketing a war. Guess that's why I never made it into senior management."
George's concern over being scapegoated is touching. But could he not have seen it coming? Not even when Rumsfeld asked him in the fall of 2002 (that is, before the war) whether he had put in a system to track how good the intelligence was compared with what would be found in Iraq? The guys I know from Queens usually can tell when they're being set up. Maybe Tenet was naive enough to believe that the president, whom he describes as a "kindred soul," would protect him from thugs like Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, even when - as was inevitable - someone had to take the fall. Or did he perhaps actually believe the Cheney dictum that US forces would be greeted as liberators?
So now George is worried about his reputation.
He tells "60 Minutes:"
"At the end of the day, the only thing you have ... is your reputation built on trust and your personal honor, and when you don't have that anymore, well, there you go."
I immediately thought back to former Secretary of State Colin Powell's response when he was asked if he regretted the lies he told at the UN on February 5, 2003. Powell said he regretted that speech because it was "a blot on my record."
So we've got ruined reputations and blots on records. Poor boys. What about the 3,344 American soldiers already killed in a war that could not have happened had not these poor fellows deliberately distorted the evidence and led the cheering for war? What about the more than 50,000 wounded, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis whose deaths can be attributed directly to the invasion and its aftermath? There are blots, and there are blots. Why is it that Tenet and Powell seem to inhabit a different planet?
Despite all this, they still have their defenders ... or at least Tenet does. (Powell's closest associate, Col. Larry Wilkerson, decided long ago to turn state's evidence and apologize for his and Powell's role in the intelligence fiasco, but Powell has tried to remain above the battle. He may, I suppose, be writing his own book to explain everything.)
Yesterday on National Public Radio, Tenet's deputy and partner in crime, John McLaughlin, went to ludicrous lengths reciting a carefully prepared list of "all the things that the CIA got right," while conceding that it (not "we," mind you, but "it") performed "inadequately" in assessing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Picky, picky.
Defending Torture ... Again
Hewing to the George W. Bush dictum of "catapulting the propaganda" by endlessly repeating the same claim (the formula used so successfully by Joseph Goebbels), Tenet manages to tell "60 Minutes" five times in five consecutive sentences: "We don't torture people." Like President Bush, however, he then goes on to show why it has been absolutely necessary to torture people. What do they take us for, fools? And Tenet's claims of success in extracting information via torture are no more worthy of credulity than the rest of what he says.
His own credibility aside, Tenet has succeeded in destroying the asset without which an intelligence community cannot be effective. And that is serious. He seems blissfully oblivious to the damage he has done - aware only of the damage others have done to his "personal honor."
Lessons Learned
If any good can come out of the intelligence/policy debacle regarding Iraq, it would be the clear lesson that intelligence crafted to dovetail with the predilections of policymakers can bring disaster. The role that Tenet, McLaughlin and their small coterie of senior managers played as willing accomplices in the corruption of intelligence has made a mockery of the verse chiseled into the marble at the entrance to CIA headquarters: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Had Tenet been tenaciously honest, his analysts would have risen to the occasion. And there is a good chance that they could have helped prevent what the Nuremburg Tribunal called the "supreme international crime" - a war of aggression, and a war that Tenet and his subordinates knew had nothing to do with the "intelligence" adduced to "justify" it, as Tenet now admits in his book.
No director of the CIA should come from the ranks of congressional staff, since those staffers work in a politicized ambience antithetical to substantive intelligence work. Tenet is Exhibit A. Outside of intelligence circles, it was considered a good sign that, as a Congressional staffer, Tenet had been equally popular on either side of the aisle. But this raised a red flag for seasoned intelligence professionals.
As we had learned early in our careers, if you consistently tell it like it is, you are certain to make enemies. Those enjoying universal popularity are ipso facto suspect of perfecting the political art of compromise - shading this and shaving that. However useful this may be on the Hill, it sounds the death knell for intelligence analysis. Tenet also lacked experience in managing a large, complicated organization. Such experience is a sine qua non.
Finally, it is a mischievous myth that the CIA director must cultivate a close personal relationship with the president. Nor should he/she try to do so, for it is a net minus. The White House is not a fraternity house; mutual respect is far more important than camaraderie. A mature, self-confident president will respect an independent intelligence director. The latter must resist the temptation to be "part of the team" in the way the president's political advisers are part of the team. Overly close identification with "the team" can erode objectivity and cloud intelligence judgments. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, like Cheney a frequent visitor to CIA headquarters in 2002 to "help" with the analysis on Iraq, told the press that Tenet was "so grateful to the president [presumably for not firing him after September 11, 2001] that he would do anything for him." That attitude is the antithesis of what is needed in senior intelligence officers.
Much is at stake, and it will be an uphill battle to bring back honesty and professionalism to the analysis process and impede efforts to politicize the intelligence product. In an institution such as the CIA, significant, enduring improvement requires vision, courage and integrity at the top. It has been three decades since the CIA has been led by such a person.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. His responsibilities during his 27-year service as a CIA analyst included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President's Daily Brief. 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. 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.
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Sunday 29 April 2007
"If you can't say something positive about someone, don't say anything." This was drummed into me by my Irish grandmother and, as most of her admonishments, it has stood me in good stead. On occasion, though, it been a real bother - as when I felt called to comment on George Tenet's apologia, "In the Center of the Storm," coming to a bookstore near you tomorrow.
On the verge of despair, I ran into an old schoolmate of Tenet's from PS 94 in Little Neck, Queens, who told me that George was more handsome than his twin brother Billy, and that his outgoing nature and consummate political skill got him elected president of the student body.
Positive enough, Grandma? Now let me add this.
George Tenet's book shows that he remains, first and foremost, a politician - with no clue as to the proper role of intelligence work. He is unhappy about going down in history as "Slam Dunk Tenet." But, George protests, his famous remark to President Bush on December 21, 2002 was not meant to assure the president that available intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a "slam dunk." Rather he meant that the argument that Saddam Hussein had such weapons could be enhanced to slam-dunk status in order to sell war on Iraq. Those of you tuning in to CBS's "60 Minutes" tonight will hear Tenet explain what he meant when he uttered the words he now says everyone misunderstood or distorted in order to blame him for the Iraq war. What he says he meant was simply:
"We can put a better case together for a public case." (sic)
Tenet still doesn't get it. Those of us schooled in the craft and ethos of intelligence remain in wide-mouthed disbelief, perhaps best summed up by veteran operations officer Bob Baer's quip:
"So, it is better that the 'slam dunk' referred to the ease with which the war could be sold? I guess I missed that part of the National Security Act delineating the functions of the CIA - the part about CIA marketing a war. Guess that's why I never made it into senior management."
George's concern over being scapegoated is touching. But could he not have seen it coming? Not even when Rumsfeld asked him in the fall of 2002 (that is, before the war) whether he had put in a system to track how good the intelligence was compared with what would be found in Iraq? The guys I know from Queens usually can tell when they're being set up. Maybe Tenet was naive enough to believe that the president, whom he describes as a "kindred soul," would protect him from thugs like Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, even when - as was inevitable - someone had to take the fall. Or did he perhaps actually believe the Cheney dictum that US forces would be greeted as liberators?
So now George is worried about his reputation.
He tells "60 Minutes:"
"At the end of the day, the only thing you have ... is your reputation built on trust and your personal honor, and when you don't have that anymore, well, there you go."
I immediately thought back to former Secretary of State Colin Powell's response when he was asked if he regretted the lies he told at the UN on February 5, 2003. Powell said he regretted that speech because it was "a blot on my record."
So we've got ruined reputations and blots on records. Poor boys. What about the 3,344 American soldiers already killed in a war that could not have happened had not these poor fellows deliberately distorted the evidence and led the cheering for war? What about the more than 50,000 wounded, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis whose deaths can be attributed directly to the invasion and its aftermath? There are blots, and there are blots. Why is it that Tenet and Powell seem to inhabit a different planet?
Despite all this, they still have their defenders ... or at least Tenet does. (Powell's closest associate, Col. Larry Wilkerson, decided long ago to turn state's evidence and apologize for his and Powell's role in the intelligence fiasco, but Powell has tried to remain above the battle. He may, I suppose, be writing his own book to explain everything.)
Yesterday on National Public Radio, Tenet's deputy and partner in crime, John McLaughlin, went to ludicrous lengths reciting a carefully prepared list of "all the things that the CIA got right," while conceding that it (not "we," mind you, but "it") performed "inadequately" in assessing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Picky, picky.
Defending Torture ... Again
Hewing to the George W. Bush dictum of "catapulting the propaganda" by endlessly repeating the same claim (the formula used so successfully by Joseph Goebbels), Tenet manages to tell "60 Minutes" five times in five consecutive sentences: "We don't torture people." Like President Bush, however, he then goes on to show why it has been absolutely necessary to torture people. What do they take us for, fools? And Tenet's claims of success in extracting information via torture are no more worthy of credulity than the rest of what he says.
His own credibility aside, Tenet has succeeded in destroying the asset without which an intelligence community cannot be effective. And that is serious. He seems blissfully oblivious to the damage he has done - aware only of the damage others have done to his "personal honor."
Lessons Learned
If any good can come out of the intelligence/policy debacle regarding Iraq, it would be the clear lesson that intelligence crafted to dovetail with the predilections of policymakers can bring disaster. The role that Tenet, McLaughlin and their small coterie of senior managers played as willing accomplices in the corruption of intelligence has made a mockery of the verse chiseled into the marble at the entrance to CIA headquarters: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Had Tenet been tenaciously honest, his analysts would have risen to the occasion. And there is a good chance that they could have helped prevent what the Nuremburg Tribunal called the "supreme international crime" - a war of aggression, and a war that Tenet and his subordinates knew had nothing to do with the "intelligence" adduced to "justify" it, as Tenet now admits in his book.
No director of the CIA should come from the ranks of congressional staff, since those staffers work in a politicized ambience antithetical to substantive intelligence work. Tenet is Exhibit A. Outside of intelligence circles, it was considered a good sign that, as a Congressional staffer, Tenet had been equally popular on either side of the aisle. But this raised a red flag for seasoned intelligence professionals.
As we had learned early in our careers, if you consistently tell it like it is, you are certain to make enemies. Those enjoying universal popularity are ipso facto suspect of perfecting the political art of compromise - shading this and shaving that. However useful this may be on the Hill, it sounds the death knell for intelligence analysis. Tenet also lacked experience in managing a large, complicated organization. Such experience is a sine qua non.
Finally, it is a mischievous myth that the CIA director must cultivate a close personal relationship with the president. Nor should he/she try to do so, for it is a net minus. The White House is not a fraternity house; mutual respect is far more important than camaraderie. A mature, self-confident president will respect an independent intelligence director. The latter must resist the temptation to be "part of the team" in the way the president's political advisers are part of the team. Overly close identification with "the team" can erode objectivity and cloud intelligence judgments. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, like Cheney a frequent visitor to CIA headquarters in 2002 to "help" with the analysis on Iraq, told the press that Tenet was "so grateful to the president [presumably for not firing him after September 11, 2001] that he would do anything for him." That attitude is the antithesis of what is needed in senior intelligence officers.
Much is at stake, and it will be an uphill battle to bring back honesty and professionalism to the analysis process and impede efforts to politicize the intelligence product. In an institution such as the CIA, significant, enduring improvement requires vision, courage and integrity at the top. It has been three decades since the CIA has been led by such a person.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. His responsibilities during his 27-year service as a CIA analyst included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President's Daily Brief. 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. 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.
Goodling Weeps About Her Career: Political Storm Is Going To Errupt
Goodling Shed Tears Before Revelations About Firings
By James Rowley
Bloomberg
Friday 04 May 2007
A former U.S. Justice Department official and central figure in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys tearfully told a colleague two months ago her government career probably was over as the matter was about to erupt into a political storm, according to closed-door congressional testimony.
Monica Goodling, at the time an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sobbed for 45 mi'utes in the office of career Justice Department official David Margolis on March 8 as she related her fears that she would have to quit, according to congressional aides briefed on Margolis's private testimony to House and Senate investigators. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity.
Margolis's description of the emotional scene in his office sheds new light on divisions that were developing in the Justice Department's Washington headquarters as the Democratic-controlled Congress was demanding documents that might show White House involvement in the dismissals.
Goodling, 33, who was Gonzales's White House liaison, resigned April 6 and has invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer lawmakers' questions about her role in the firings. Her lawyers cited accusations by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty that Goodling and others had misled him about the firings as a basis for refusing to testify.
Compelled Testimony
The House Judiciary Committee has voted to compel her testimony by granting limited immunity from prosecution. Goodling may have signaled in a letter yesterday - sent by her lawyers to the Justice Department - that she is eager to tell Congress her side of the story.
The letter noted that the Justice Department, which is conducting its own inquiry into whether Goodling improperly considered the political affiliation of applicants to be prosecutors, is powerless to block the congressional grant of immunity.
D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, resigned March 12, the day before documents disclosing that the White House initiated the dismissals were turned over to Congress. The revelation intensified calls among lawmakers for Gonzales to resign. The attorney general held a March 13 press conference to acknowledge "mistakes" for failure to supervise Sampson's handling of the firings.
Gonzales blamed Sampson for not keeping him informed. Democrats accused Gonzales of trying to make Sampson a scapegoat. On March 29, Sampson contradicted his former boss in testimony to Congress, saying the attorney general was wrong in minimizing his own role in the firings.
Consoling Goodling
Margolis testified in private that he tried to console Goodling and listened to her discuss her personal life, a congressional aide said. He recalled telling a colleague that he was concerned about Goodling's emotional state, the aide said.
Jeffrey King, one of Goodling's lawyers, declined to comment on the episode.
Three hours before Goodling visited his fourth-floor office, Margolis told House and Senate investigators that Sampson dropped by to say he had information Margolis needed to know, one congressional aide said.
Margolis recounted that Sampson read his e-mail exchanges with White House aides that showed the decisions on firing the prosecutors were closely coordinated with members of the president's staff, the aide said.
Stunned Reaction
Margolis recalled that he was stunned to learn the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals, congressional aides said. Margolis testified that preparation for McNulty's Senate testimony - which took place more than a month before his meetings with Goodling and Sampson - was based on the assumption that the White House only became involved at the end of the firing process, the aide said.
McNulty told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6 that the White House's only involvement was that presidential aides were informed of the decision before the U.S. attorneys were told. Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat leading the Senate investigation into the dismissals, has since said that he believes McNulty may have been misled by Sampson.
Margolis testified that Sampson didn't explain why he hadn't disclosed the consultations with White House Counsel Harriet Miers and other White House aides nor did Margolis ask him, the aide said.
Margolis testified that he believed Sampson informed him of the e-mails because the two had enjoyed a cordial relationship, the aide said. Margolis told investigators he believed Sampson felt a need to inform McNulty and Gonzales because the two had endured criticism for the firings, the aide said.
After Sampson left his office, Margolis testified that he went toward McNulty's office to inform his boss and stopped because Sampson had already gone into the room carrying the binder filled with White House e-mails, the aide said.
(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.
More Walls and Disaster
BAGHDAD - A senior U.S. commander has been wounded by small arms fire while inspecting a security wall being built around a Sunni enclave in Baghdad.The military says the attack was in an area whose residents have been victims of retaliatory mortar strikes by Shiite militants -- often following bombings blamed on Sunnis.
Construction of the wall has drawn strong criticism from residents who say it is a form of sectarian discrimination. Followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (mook-TAH'-duh ehl SAH'-dur) say they fear Shiite areas in Baghdad, such as Sadr City, will be next to see the U-S-built barriers.
Much of the construction is being done at night by troops wearing night-vision goggles. But the officer was wounded while conducting a daytime survey. The military has not released his identity.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
(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.
A Complete Battery of Psychological Exams, Please
We, the people, need to know...are we dealing with a pathological liar, a crook or someone made paranoid and delusional by heart medications.
This matter is of grave importance, and even graver consequences for us all, I'm afraid.
Is Cheney NUTZ??
Sure the hell sounds like it... in my humble, but educated opinion.
Please, don't stop with Vice. There are some very sick tickets in this White House
Video: Cheney continues claims of Saddam-Qaeda connection
RAW STORY
Published: Friday April 6, 2007
Vice President Dick Cheney has continued to claim a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein during an interview with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, as RAW STORY reported earlier.
"[Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi] went to Baghdad, he took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene," Cheney told Limbaugh. "This is Al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
But according to MSNBC News guest Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, the American intelligence community has long concluded that no such link existed.
"The bottom line, and this is something that goes back to the 9/11 commission report and even before the invasion of Iraq, was that the consensus opinion inside the intelligence community was that there was no linkage between, no meaningful linkage between, Iraq and Al Qaeda," said Preble.
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.
Oh, For Christ's Sake; Literally
Un-freakin'-believable!
(Sorry, Sisters, for the language)
Nuns are a security risk? To Wally-world?
Geeze Louise, what's next? The "Paranoid Olympics?"
Wal-Mart labels Boerne nuns a security threat
Web Posted: 05/05/2007 01:41 AM CDT
Nydia Lopez
KENS 5 Eyewitness News
It's a David versus Goliath battle heating up in the Hill Country — a group of nuns from Boerne is taking a stand against Wal-Mart.
The corporate giant reportedly labeled the nuns a security threat after they raised questions about Wal-Mart's business practices.
Sister Susan Mika is part of the Benedectine Sisters, which is part of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. The center has been questioning Wal-Mart's business practices for years.
"We've been raising questions with them for about 17 years, so it's not like they don't know it," Sister Mika said.
Now, the sisters find themselves on Wal-Mart's security threat list. Sister Mika said the group has been wrongly labeled.
More coverage
• KENS video: Watch the broadcast
"In no way have we ever been a threat to the company in that sense. We might be a threat in the kind of questions that we're asking, but not a security threat," Sister Mika said.
The sisters have raised questions on wages, human rights, health care and the pay disparity between CEOs and workers. They believe that's why Wal-Mart has launched a surveillance operation on the small church group.
"We wanted to find out more about what was actually happening, and did they do any surveillance on us, either personally or as a community, and to let us know what that would be, and to apologize to us," Sister Mika said.
Calls from KENS 5 to a Wal-Mart spokesperson went unreturned.
The nuns say they want an apology and will continue to raise concerns and issues until someone launches an investigation into thousands of allegations against Wal-Mart.
(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.
(Sorry, Sisters, for the language)
Nuns are a security risk? To Wally-world?
Geeze Louise, what's next? The "Paranoid Olympics?"
Wal-Mart labels Boerne nuns a security threat
Web Posted: 05/05/2007 01:41 AM CDT
Nydia Lopez
KENS 5 Eyewitness News
It's a David versus Goliath battle heating up in the Hill Country — a group of nuns from Boerne is taking a stand against Wal-Mart.
The corporate giant reportedly labeled the nuns a security threat after they raised questions about Wal-Mart's business practices.
Sister Susan Mika is part of the Benedectine Sisters, which is part of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. The center has been questioning Wal-Mart's business practices for years.
"We've been raising questions with them for about 17 years, so it's not like they don't know it," Sister Mika said.
Now, the sisters find themselves on Wal-Mart's security threat list. Sister Mika said the group has been wrongly labeled.
More coverage
• KENS video: Watch the broadcast
"In no way have we ever been a threat to the company in that sense. We might be a threat in the kind of questions that we're asking, but not a security threat," Sister Mika said.
The sisters have raised questions on wages, human rights, health care and the pay disparity between CEOs and workers. They believe that's why Wal-Mart has launched a surveillance operation on the small church group.
"We wanted to find out more about what was actually happening, and did they do any surveillance on us, either personally or as a community, and to let us know what that would be, and to apologize to us," Sister Mika said.
Calls from KENS 5 to a Wal-Mart spokesperson went unreturned.
The nuns say they want an apology and will continue to raise concerns and issues until someone launches an investigation into thousands of allegations against Wal-Mart.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
