Our Corrupt Monarchy

Nauseating to the max.

...and those responsible for this horrible nightmare will pay, sooner or later.It is the way of things.

Bush Asserts a King's Prerogative
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Wednesday 25 July 2007

In theory, President Bush is sworn to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. In reality, he has treated federal law as a menu from which he picks and chooses those laws he likes, while ignoring those that do not suit his taste.

That royalist attitude may soon inspire a constitutional confrontation unrivaled in U.S. history.

At the moment, the president's penchant for ignoring laws he finds inconvenient is best displayed in the standoff with Congress over subpoenas. Congress has demanded the sworn testimony of White House officials as part of an investigation into the Justice Department; the White House is refusing to allow that testimony, citing executive privilege.

In itself, that conflict is hardly unusual; it continues a traditional contest of wills between presidents and Congress that goes back to the earliest days of the Republic. The conflict is so standard that federal law lays out a clear process for resolving it. If witnesses refuse to honor congressional subpoenas and are found in contempt, the matter is referred to the U.S. attorney from Washington, D.C., "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

The wording of that law doesn't give the U.S. attorney any leeway. It doesn't say that he or she "can" or "may" bring it before the grand jury. It says he or she "shall" bring the matter to the grand jury, so the courts can resolve the conflict between the other two branches of government.

Bush, however, claims the right to ignore that law. He not only refuses to allow his aides to testify, he refuses to allow the U.S. attorney to refer the matter to the grand jury, as the law says he must. In essence, Bush is denying Congress access to the courts as an impartial arbiter of their dispute.

Now, in most other eras in American history, that would be the making of a serious confrontation between the congressional and executive branches. But in the Bush administration, it's a minor prelude to what may be coming next.

For months now, Congress has been debating ways to force a change of course in Iraq. Under the Constitution, the president is commander- in-chief, but Congress has the power of the purse - the right to fund or refuse to fund government activities. That means that the most obvious means of forcing a change of policy in Iraq is through the appropriations process. Congress could chose to fund military operations in Iraq only until a certain date, or only under certain conditions.

The Bush administration argues strongly against taking that course, as is its right. However, the White House also claims that any provision that sets a date certain for withdrawal would "infring[e] on the president's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief." In other words, the White House believes that any law telling the president what to do in Iraq would be unconstitutional, and thus could be ignored.

The administration has already refused to abide by numerous other provisions of law that it considered an unconstitutional assault on its powers, with the law regarding congressional subpoenas only the most recent. And within the administration, that a hard-nosed approach toward executive power has been championed most strongly by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Cheney did not come to that position lately. He expressed similar opinions 20 years ago, when he was still a member of Congress from Wyoming and vice chairman of a committee investigating the Iran-Contra scandal.

The heart of that scandal involved the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. That provision - a clear case of Congress exercising its power of the purse - barred the U.S. government from sending financial or military aid to the Contra guerrillas, who were trying to overthrow the Communist government of Nicaragua. When a cabal inside the Reagan White House arranged secret means to fund the Contras anyway, in clear violation of federal law, a scandal was born.

Most congressmen, Republican and Democratic alike, believed the White House had broken the law by funding the Contras. Cheney did not. In a minority committee report, he and others argued that the right to conduct foreign policy belongs exclusively to the president, and the Constitution "does not permit Congress to pass a law usurping presidential power."

"Congressional actions to limit the president in this area therefore should be reviewed with a considerable degree of skepticism," the 1987 report argued. "If they interfere with core presidential foreign policy functions, they should be struck down."

"The power of the purse ... is not and was never intended to be a license for Congress to usurp presidential powers and functions," the report concluded.

That attitude clearly animates the Bush administration in its dealings with Congress on lesser issues, and if applied to Iraq could have enormous ramifications. It provides the philosophical foundation - a foundation poured, set and cured over the previous six years - for the administration to continue trying to fight in Iraq no matter what restrictions Congress may choose to enact. And that would set the stage for a whole range of nightmares, up to and including impeachment.

Jay Bookman, for the editorial board.

(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.

Can You Smell The Fascism?

Dark Powers, the Sequel
By Rosa Brooks
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 27 July 2007

The president's recent executive order allows the CIA to detain anyone the agency thinks is a terrorist - or a terrorist's kid.

"We ... have to work the dark side, if you will," Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert, five days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "We've got to spend time in the shadows using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies. That's the world [terrorists] operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal."

It was an odd thing to say. Throughout our history - from John Winthrop's 1630 "City Upon a Hill" sermon to President Clinton's foreign policy speeches - our leaders have been quick to assure us of the opposite premise: We will prevail against our enemies because (and only if) we're on the side of light, rather than the side of darkness. We will prevail not through spending "time in the shadows" but through our commitment to freedom, democracy, justice and the rule of law.

Granted, previous rhetorical commitments to the side of light were at times accompanied by some pretty dark episodes. But if we didn't always manage to live up to the values we publicly embraced, our public commitments at least gave us a yardstick for measuring ourselves - and declared to the world our willingness to be held to account when we fell short.

But in keeping with Cheney's admonition to "work the dark side," this administration has openly embraced tactics that no previous administration would have formally condoned. In prior wars, for instance, we granted the protections of the Geneva Convention to our enemies as a matter of policy, even when those enemies - like the Viet Cong - lacked any legal claim to the convention's protections. Yes, some U.S. soldiers abused Viet Cong prisoners anyway - but when they did so, they violated the clear written laws and policies of the United States.

Contrast that with the Bush administration, which refused to recognize any Geneva Convention rights for the "unlawful enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror until finally ordered to do so by the Supreme Court.

Within months of Cheney's "dark side" comments, Guantanamo filled up with hooded, shackled prisoners kept in open-air cages. The Justice Department developed legal defenses of torture, we opened secret prisons in former Soviet bloc countries and the president authorized secret "enhanced" interrogation methods for "high-value" detainees.

And despite the best efforts of human rights groups, the courts and a growing number of congressional critics from both parties, Cheney's still getting his way. On July 20, President Bush issued an executive order "interpreting" Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, as applied to secret CIA detention facilities. On its face, the order bans torture - but as an editorial in this paper noted Thursday, it does so using language so vague it appears designed to create loopholes for the CIA.

Just as bad, though barely noted by the media, last week's executive order breaks new ground by outlining the category of people who can be detained secretly and indefinitely by the CIA - in a way that's broad enough to include a hefty chunk of the global population. Under its terms, a non-U.S. citizen may be secretly detained and interrogated by the CIA - with no access to counsel and no independent monitoring - as long as the CIA director believes the person "to be a member or part of or supporting Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated organizations; and likely to be in possession of information that could assist in detecting, mitigating or preventing terrorist attacks [or] in locating the senior leadership of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces."

Got that? The president of the United States just issued a public pronouncement declaring, as a matter of U.S. policy, that a single man has the authority to detain any person anyplace in the world and subject him or her to secret interrogation techniques that aren't torture but that nonetheless can't be revealed, as long as that person is thought to be a "supporter" of an organization "associated" in some unspecified way with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and as long he thinks that person might know something that could "assist" us.

But "supporter" isn't defined, nor is "associated organization." That leaves the definition broad enough to permit the secret detention of, say, a man who sympathizes ideologically with the Taliban and might have overheard something useful in a neighborhood cafe, or of a 10-year-old girl whose older brother once trained with Al Qaeda.

This isn't just hypothetical. The U.S. has already detained people based on little more. According to media reports, the CIA has even held children, including the 7- and 9-year-old sons of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In 2006, Mohammed was transferred from a secret CIA facility to Guantanamo, but the whereabouts of his children are unknown.

It's dark out there, all right.

(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.

On the DC political situation.

...and the fact that Americans may be more intelligent and savvy than the GOP believes, since they have been playing to their base all this time and paying no attention to Americans as a whole.

They have suicided with independents!

Did Democrats aim too high?

July 27, 2007 - 8:57am.

Ambitious agenda fell short of expectations

By DAVID ESPO

Beset by poor approval ratings and internal differences, congressional Democrats hope to give themselves a triumphant send-off when Congress departs on a monthlong summer vacation.

"They can't possibly do all the things they want to do," counters Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader.

Perhaps not.

But Democratic leaders, seven months in power, have set an ambitious agenda for themselves for the next 10 days, even momentarily dispatching their efforts to end the Iraq war to the background.

They intend to send President Bush bills to counter terrorism and tighten congressional ethics, measures that were among the party's half-dozen top priorities when Congress convened in January.

The House and Senate are scheduled to vote on legislation expanding the health care program for low-income children — a signature issue for the new majority — and raise tobacco taxes to finance it.

After more than a decade out of power, House leaders intend to place their stamp on farm programs. And begin the dismantling of a Republican-enacted alternative to traditional Medicare that provides billions in federal subsidies to insurance companies. Additionally, some Democrats still harbor hope of passing of an energy measure.

"Republicans on both sides of the Capitol are in a mode of delay. I think they fear we will pass our agenda, which the American people supports," said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader.

"Obviously, we do have some internal divisions," he conceded, adding, "Sometimes you have to get right up to the point of decision making before they're resolved, but we think we'll do that."

Even if they succeed, it's not clear congressional approval ratings will improve much. Just 24 percent approved of Congress' job performance in the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll, and other surveys suggest much of the dissatisfaction is the result of Congress' inability to force an end to the war.

Those efforts will resume in earnest in the fall.

On the farm bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intervened in recent days to add $4 billion in funding for nutrition programs. The move was designed to appeal to urban liberals in her caucus after they complained that the bill had largely failed to rein in payments to wealthy farmers in a time of high commodity prices.

Ironically, Pelosi's earlier talk of imposing even greater changes in the farm programs brought protests from rural state Democrats, many of them first-termers from swing districts.

To pay for the additional funds, Democrats came up with a tax increase aimed at domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Democrats said it was nothing the Bush administration hadn't embraced years ago, but it brought howls of protests from Republicans.

"We feel very betrayed by that," said Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the top Republican on the Agriculture Committee. (now you know how the rest of us have felt for 6 years)

And that, in turn, sent Democrats scurrying for additional changes. The solution — another $800 million for international food as well as an undetermined amount to settle racial discrimination claims black farmers lodged several years ago against the Agriculture Department.

The low-income children's health measure has strong support within both parties in the Senate. "Americans overwhelmingly support getting kids covered," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., as he guided the bill through the Senate Finance Committee. Supporters said the $35 billion measure would allow 6.6 million people to maintain their current health coverage, and provide protection for another 3.2 million uninsured children. It is financed by a 61 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.

Bush has a veto threat pending against the bill, which he has said would expand government-run health care.

But given the popularity of the measure, his allies in the Senate have a modest objective. They hope to show enough strength to sustain his threatened veto.

In the House, Democrats drafted a companion measure that underscores a dramatic ideological divide between the parties on health care. Like the Senate bill, it expands health coverage for the low-income.

In addition, it cuts $157 billion over the next decade from federal subsidies to HMOs that provide private coverage under Medicare, and repeals other provisions that Republicans enacted to give seniors an alternative to traditional Medicare.

"We think if this passes and becomes law, Medicare Advantage over much of the country will not continue," said Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.

Republicans adopted a strategy of delay on the measure. And there was talk of trying to win approval of an amendment that defined a fetus as a living person — a tactic designed to embarrass Democrats, if not thwart passage of the overall bill.

Elsewhere, Republicans picked their spots.

They claimed credit when Democrats jettisoned two provisions from the compromise anti-terrorism measure, including one conferring new labor rights on security workers. The legislation would enact many of the remaining recommendations from the 9/11 commission.

Nor does the GOP seem eager to block enactment of an ethics bill that requires greater disclosure of fundraising by lobbyists and mandates that senators divulge their own attempts to gain federal funding for pet projects.

_____

David Espo is AP's chief congressional correspondent.

(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.

Grave Danger For Americans...

...and others, no doubt.

This mess is only going to get worse, by leaps and bounds, in the nest 18 months

ACLU: US Constitution in Grave Danger
United Press International

Wednesday 25 July 2007

Washington - The American Civil Liberties Union Wednesday said it is "do or die time" to save the U.S. Constitution.

The ACLU in a statement urged the U.S. Congress to "vote to hold White House officials in contempt for refusing to cooperate with legitimate congressional subpoenas."

The ACLU statement said the issue had become "a constitutional crisis that threatens to destroy the separation of powers."

"Presidents have tried in the past to overreach in claiming executive privilege," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "However, Congress has long served as a check to such abuses of power, slapping the president's hand when needed and pursuing contempt or enforcement actions that eventually resulted in the release of crucial information. Today's Congress must do the same if it wishes to remain a meaningful and independent branch of government."

The ACLU said it "rejected claims that Congress' responsibility to conduct oversight or investigate executive misconduct was somehow less important than its legislative function and therefore not worthy of compulsory enforcement."

"It's do-or-die time for the separation of powers," Fredrickson said. "Congress is facing a historic moment when it can fight for its rightful place in our Constitution or accept the president's continued and sweeping claims of supremacy."

The ACLU noted that U.S. courts "have long supported Congress' authority not only to pass laws, but also to investigate their application. The courts have asserted that claims of executive privilege are a potentially dangerous proposition that should only be applied, and can only be upheld, under narrow circumstances."

The confrontation between the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress and the Bush administration on warrant-less surveillance has been escalating in recent weeks, with both sides hardening their positions.

(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.

Our Young Folks

Yes, many are leaving the GOP, but they are not, en mass, signing for the Democratic party either. They are becoming independents politically.

Many of them are the grandchildren of the 60s generation, and our future and the future of the nation and the world depends on them.

I think they can handle what's coming.

They are much smarter than we were and more skilled in the latest technology.

Stop! Hey what's that sound ...

by roxy317
Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:56:54 PM EST

promoted by avahome

Well, according to a study recently released by Democracy Corp (PDF) its the deafening sound of young people leaving the Republican Party.

This study shows that there is a not just a "shift," but a wave:

A major, multi-mode survey of America's young people recently conducted by Democracy Corps shows young people profoundly alienated from the Republican Party and poised to deliver a significant majority to the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.

This should spell good news for Democrats, if they take the time to understand:

[...] young people's economic struggles, more than any other issue, defines their political agenda.

(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.

WHite House and Wingnuttia bloggers

There comes a time, for many of us, when trusting in one's life-experiences and minds; when faith means trusting in ones own mind and in the basic goodness and the decency of humanity is imperative, if one we want to do what is necessary to awaken the people of every nation

At times like these it is difficult in the extreme. There certainly seems to be no one in which we can trust. Not true. Only the loudest ones who should be considered lunatic and whom cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. They are in more of a minority than we are led to believe, daily, by the MSM and Cabal News.

Time is of the essence.

Our time is now.

White House Convenes Right-Wing Blogger Propaganda Conference Call

By: SilentPatriot @ 6:01 PM - PDT

Once again Bush is hoping to “catapult the propaganda”:

Raw Story:

At the urging of top conservative bloggers, the White House set up a Friday morning conference call to promote its message on the subject of executive privilege, RAW STORY has found.

“The White House hosted a blogger conference call to discuss the issues surrounding the Bush administration’s use of executive privilege in the probe of the firings of eight federal prosecutors,” wrote Ed Morrissey, who produces the blog Captains Quarters. “The White House arranged the call based on a recommendation by this blog, in order to familiarize the blogosphere with the legal and political arguments on which the administration will rely to prevail in the upcoming fight regarding the contempt citations Congress seems likely to approve.”

I’m very curious to know who else was in on this conference call. I’m equally as curious to know if the hate-site-sponsoring Michelle Malkin was on the line. Or if the al-Qaeda-plot-supporting Charles Johnson was there, too. Perhaps in attendance were those who helped leak onto the internets blueprints for nuclear weapons (in Arabic, no less.)

Maybe BillO — otherwise known as the Non-Partisan “Aribter of Upstanding Political Discourse” — will launch a full-scale outrage campaign and demand answers & accountability. Stay tuned…

(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.

Bus goes after Michael Moore

Am I having some kind of horrid Nixonian flashback or what?

Michael Moore Says He's Been Served
United Press International

Thursday 26 July 2007

Burbank, California - Michael Moore said Thursday that the Bush administration has served him with a subpoena regarding his trip to Cuba during the making of his new film, "Sicko."

The Oscar-winning filmmaker, who appeared Thursday on NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," said he was notified about the subpoena at the network's studios in Burbank, Calif.

"I haven't even told my own family yet," Moore said. "I was just informed when I was back there with Jay that the Bush administration has now issued a subpoena for me."

Moore filmed the trip as part of his film comparing the U.S. healthcare system with government healthcare systems in other countries.

He took three Sept. 11, 2001, emergency rescue workers to Guantanamo Bay "because I heard the al-Qaida terrorists we have in the camps there, detained, are receiving free dental, medical, eye care, the whole deal, and our own (Sept. 11) rescue workers can't get that in New York City."

Moore said the film's distributor, the Weinstein Co., will donate 11 percent of "Sicko's" box-office receipts Aug. 11 to "help these workers and the other workers who need help."

(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.

Tony Snow-job is sounding like he has mets to the brain

Tony is a really a pathetic soul

I happen to have stage three carcinoma, so I know a little about facing death. If I were Tony, I would choose to spend my latter days with family and friends, not trying to excuse the inexcusable, committed by American's number one extended crime family, the Bushites.

White House tackles AG's contradictions

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press WriterFri Jul 27, 6:03 PM ET

The White House labored on Friday to explain how apparently dueling testimony from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller actually was not at odds.

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly and emphatically said the president's secret warrantless domestic spying program was not the subject of internal disagreement in 2004 within the Bush administration. Mueller, appearing Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, said it was.

The apparent contradiction only compounded problems for Gonzales, who is losing support among members of both parties even as he retains that of President Bush.

The Justice Department chief has been on the political defensive — mostly over doubts about his credibility — since Congress seven months ago began investigating the firings of U.S. attorneys. In the process, questions have arisen about Gonzales' involvement in the surveillance program, designed to monitor the international communications of people in the United States with suspected ties to terrorists.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Gonzales testified accurately that there was no internal dispute over the spying activities the administration launched in 2001 that have since been called the "terrorist surveillance program," or TSP.

"There has never been at any juncture along the line any disagreement about the propriety or legality of that program," he said.

Snow stressed that the program's "legal basis" was not at issue and repeatedly emphasized that his statements only applied to a program as "defined very narrowly and carefully."

Otherwise, he did little to dispel the mystery.

He acknowledged that other matters were a subject of controversy. But he said that since they are classified, he could not address what they were or even whether they were in any way connected to the eavesdropping program. The eavesdropping was conducted without public knowledge until it was disclosed in the media in December 2005 and without any court approval until last January, when the program was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"This is where you get into the fact that there is a possibility that there were broader discussions, and I'm not going to get into any of the context of those," Snow said. "There are many different things that involve the gathering or use of intelligence. Some of those may, in fact, have themselves been subjects of controversy."

The issue arose because former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told Congress that he, Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft were among top Justice Department officials who believed the program was illegal and were prepared to resign over it.

Comey described a dramatic hospital bedside visit in March 2004 by then-White House Counsel Gonzales to Ashcroft that involved the dispute. Mueller also said this week that the hospital room confrontation concerned the terrorist surveillance program. Gonzales said it was not, as did Snow.

"I don't want to stand here as the judge to try to interpret for you what everybody means when they use that term, when they use `terrorist surveillance program,' because it may have different significations to different people," Snow said. "I've told you the narrow construction that the attorney general has used."

When asked if both Mueller and Gonzales were telling the truth, Snow said, "Yes, I think so. ... I'm sure that both men were up there telling the truth and the whole truth as they understood it."

Gonzales testified previously that the dispute was over "operational capabilities" that remain classified.

During a secure briefing July 19 at the Capitol, Gonzales discussed the reasons behind the bedside visit, lawmakers told reporters immediately afterward. Rep. Sylvestre Reyes, D-Texas, who as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is privy to classified details, said Gonzales explained the visit "very well in terms of why they had gone there."

But Reyes told The Associated Press on Friday that he found Gonzales' explanation "curious." Asked if he sees the distinction Gonzales made this week between the TSP and other unnamed activities, Reyes responded: "I don't see it."

Earlier Friday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused Senate Democrats of waging a campaign of "constant attacks" aimed at bringing down Gonzales.

(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.

OMG! Tillman Fragged?

AP: New details on Tillman's death

By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer

Thu Jul 26, 7:59 PM ET

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

• In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

• Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

• The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.

• No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

With questions lingering about how high in the Bush administration the deception reached, Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week.

The Pentagon is separately preparing a new round of punishments, including a stinging demotion of retired Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., 60, according to military officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the punishments under consideration have not been made public.

In more than four hours of questioning by the Pentagon inspector general's office in December 2006, Kensinger repeatedly contradicted other officers' testimony, and sometimes his own. He said on some 70 occasions that he did not recall something.

At one point, he said: "You've got me really scared about my brain right now. I'm really having a problem."

Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, who has long suggested that her son was deliberately killed by his comrades, said she is still looking for answers and looks forward to the congressional hearings next week.

"Nothing is going to bring Pat back. It's about justice for Pat and justice for other soldiers. The nation has been deceived," she said.

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along.

"Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked.

The documents also shed new light on Tillman's last moments.

It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who was at Tillman's side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again.

But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed.

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

___

Associated Press reporters Scott Lindlaw in Las Vegas and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this story.

(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.

Is Lil Alberto Toast Yet?

Or is he going be just one part of a big stew, boiling dry over the fires of hell?

Listen how carefully FBI Director Robert Mueller testifies in front of the House, but leaves little doubt that his recollections are in direct conflict with Alberto Gonzales’s testimony before the Senate on Tuesday:

With Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee:

Download (163) | Play (259) QT later…

JACKSON LEE: Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?

MUELLER: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a…on a…NSA program, yes.

JACKSON LEE: I guess we use TSP, we use warrantless wiretapping, so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?

MUELLER: It was…the discussion was on a national…a NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.

And with Rep. Mel Watt:

Download (142) | Play (167) QT later…

WATT: …Can you just give us…I won’t program what he said…I’d rather hear what you have to say about that whole sequence of events.

MUELLER: I don’t dispute what Mr. Comey said in terms of receiving a call, requesting I -by going to the hospital and alerting persons that Mr. Comey wanted to be present during any conversations had with the Attorney General.

WATT: And he further says he that the President met with you and after that meeting emerged and informed Mr. Comey that the President had authorized the program that had been sought by the Justice Department, can you confirm that’s correct also?

MUELLER: I don’t dispute what Mr. Comey says.
[..]
WATT: Can you confirm that you had some serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program that kind of led up to this?

MUELLER: Yes.

(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.

Rover Gets His Subpoena

At least one was issued, but Old Rover might be hiding from it...maybe in one of Cheney's hidey holes.

I bet Rover has an underground political bunker somewhere in a cave in the mountains of Maryland.

Just kidding....I think.

Rove is THE untouchable, unelected official in the White House (that is if one believes that any of them were elected, which we don't, but let's pretend for a moment the Bush myth that Bush and Cheney actually were elected is true).

Karl Rove will never honor a subpoena from Congress...not in this lifetime.. They might as well go ahead and write up the contempt citation.

What if everyone in the United States, just for one week, acted like the Bushites?

They seem to believe what Nixon said. If the president does it it's legal. Well, if it's legal, it's legal.

Everyone who works for this administration is acting as an agent of the president, therefore everything they do must also be lawful.

So, forget showing up for court America! Screw subpoenas. Refuse to talk to anyone with any authority and if you do, lie your ass off. After all, you will only be following Dear Leader's example of how to conduct yourself as a patriotic America.

Leahy issues subpoena for Rove

By Klaus Marre

July 26, 2007

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday issued a subpoena for top White House adviser Karl Rove to compel him to testify about the firing of several U.S. attorneys. “The evidence shows that senior White House political operatives were focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases,” Leahy said. “It is obvious that the reasons given for the firings of these prosecutors were contrived as part of a cover-up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort.” Leahy issued the subpoenas, one to Rove and one to White House aide Scott Jennings, after consulting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee’s ranking member. “The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances,” Leahy added. “Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.” The move is a further escalation of the constitutional battle between Congress and the White House over whether Bush administration officials must provide testimony and documents to legislative branch investigators. Leahy said he is not taking this step lightly and only decided to proceed after “[exhausting] every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings.” The Judiciary Committee chairman concluded that the investigation has “reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States attorneys last year.” In a letter to Rove, Leahy gives the White House official a week to appear before the panel and testify under oath. “I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys,” Leahy said in his letter. “I am left to ask what the White House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged.”

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

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

What Joe And Valerie Wilson Managed To Accomplish

For us and for our country.

Thanks, Mr. and Mrs Wilson.

We just hope it isn't in vain.

Published on Thursday, July 26, 2007 by FindLaw.com

Joe Wilson’s War:

Though He and His Wife Valerie Plame Lost Their Lawsuit against Cheney and Others, It’s Only One Battle in a Fight that Flushed Out Much Truth

by John W. Dean

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, lost their lawsuit seeking to hold a number of defendants responsible for the personal damage they caused when they revealed her CIA covert status, but they won the battle to get to the truth. Joe Wilson has exposed much more than the bogus claim underlying the efforts to justify an invasion of Iraq. In the larger picture, the ruling dismissing their lawsuit is of little long-term historical significance, compared to the information the Wilsons have forced to the surface. It is only unfortunate that the Wilsons had to pay dearly in order to speak the truth.

Dismissal of the Wilsons’ lawsuit, in fact, illuminates yet another oft-forgotten truth: Officials like Vice President Cheney, his former top aide Scooter Libby, White House political adviser Karl Rove, and former State Department official Richard Armitage can easily escape civil legal liability for even highly irresponsible conduct. U.S. District Court Judge John Bates’s ruling reminds us that the federal judiciary today, under the dictates of a conservative Supreme Court majority, has a remarkable array of technical rules it can invoke to prevent anyone from holding high-level federal officials civilly responsible for irresponsible or illegal behavior.

Although the Wilsons plan to appeal Judge Bates’s decision, it was based on a phalanx of prior holdings denying such relief against high level officials, so do not hold your breath anticipating a higher court reversal. Instead, it seems an appropriate time to tally a few high points of the impact of Joe Wilson’s actions. It is easy to forget that his actions were the catalyst to the public’s learning how this very secretive White House truly operates, and coming to understand the inadequacy of the law protecting covert agents (even from their own government playing politics), and the propensity of conservatives to play dirty and get away with it.

A half-dozen or so examples of the revelations the scandal prompted make the point:

The Revelation of Bush’s Concocted Justification for the Iraq Invasion

Joe Wilson’s July 6, 2003 OpEd piece in the New York Times — “What I Didn’t Learn In Africa” — put the lie to a crucial Bush/Cheney Administration claim that Bush had put forward in his 2003 State of the Union address justifying his war in Iraq — namely, that Saddam had been importing a key ingredient in making atomic weapons, uranium, from Niger. Wilson, who traveled to Niger at the request of the CIA, determined the contention was a false statement. Eventually, the Administration was forced to admit that Bush’s statement was wrong.

The Revelations Concerning Bush Administration Incompetence

Claiming that Iraq was importing uranium from Africa was not a small mistake. The president has a National Security Council (NSC), which is plugged into the CIA and State Department, to avoid making such mistakes, particularly when they involve life-and death decisions associated with war. After Ambassador Wilson revealed that his investigation showed that, in fact, no uranium had been sent from Niger to Iraq, it was disclosed that the CIA and State Department had both warned the White House that the assertion to the contrary would be wrong. Incompetence, if not duplicity, explains how the NSC, White House speechwriters, and the President’s personal staff allowed him to make this false statement.

The Evidence that Conservatives Fight Dirty and Dishonestly

Soon after Ambassador Wilson published his OpEd disproving the President’s assertion, the White House commenced a full-scale attack on Wilson, although they had been working on discrediting him since as early as March, when he raised the question on CNN. Because they could not discredit his message, which was unimpeachable, they did what conservatives always do — attack the messenger. This was accomplished by doing something else conservatives have made standard practice: attacking Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, who was a covert CIA agent working in the field of weapons of mass destruction. Falsely, they claimed that Valerie Plame Wilson had arranged for her husband to make this trip to Niger or that, as suggested by Dick Cheney, she had sent him on a boondoggle. Even after the CIA made clear that Valerie Wilson in fact did not make the decision to send her husband to Niger, the White House and its apologists like Senator Orrin Hatch still insisted on continuing to falsely accuse her. Her career at the CIA was effectively ended by these partisans attacking her husband; she became collateral damage.

The Evidence that The Intelligence Identities Protection Act Is Deeply Flawed

The CIA sought to protect Valerie Wilson’s status as a covert agent by referring her case to the Justice Department on July 30, 2003, under the Intelligence Agents Identities Act. Clearly, the CIA believed that she qualified as a “covert agent” under the criminal provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA). This meant that the CIA was still actively trying to keep her true identity secret at the time Cheney and others were making it public, and that she had undertaken a covert operation within the preceding five years. The Department of Justice instituted a formal investigation, indicating that they too believed the IIPA had been violated. Notwithstanding calls for an independent Special Counsel, Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft at first insisted upon remaining the titular head of the investigation. But on December 30, 2003, Ashcroft recused himself, and the next day, Deputy Attorney General James Comey selected Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Counsel. Thus, six months into the investigation, the Department of Justice, like the CIA, must have believed there was a violation of the IIPA. Special Counsel Fitzgerald conducted a narrow investigation under this law for several years, for he too found the law potentially applicable. But the Special Counsel was ultimately unable to develop a criminal case against those who willfully revealed Valerie Plame’s covert status. Clearly, this is a law that needs remedial amendment to correct its flaws.

Appointing A Special Counsel To Investigate Was the Result of A Fluke

It remains unknown why Ashcroft recused himself. This much is clear, however: Comey was a straight-shooter when serving as Deputy Attorney General, and Ashcroft appears to have greatly respected his judgment. In addition, we know now that some seventy days after Ashcroft recused himself, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales traveled (with White House chief of staff Andrew Card) to the hospital to get a semi-conscious Ashcroft, barely out of emergency surgery, to overturn Comey’s refusal to sign off on the illegal surveillance of millions of Americans, contrary to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The White House only backed down from this push when it was learned that the entire senior management staff of the Justice Department - that is, all of Bush’s political appointees - were universally ready to resign if the White House insisted on going forward. This threat of a mass resignation could not have been prompted by a single event; rather, this must have been a reaction to many such events. So it is not a great leap to think that Ashcroft likely recused himself from the Plame investigation because it was one of many efforts by the White House to politically strong-arm the Justice Department. It was a fluke, however. And it shows the need for a more standardized procedure for the selection of special counsel - something between the disasters created by the Independent Counsel Act (which has expired) and the current situation (which is clearly less than adequate).

The Revelations Regarding Dick Cheney’s Dominant Role in Foreign Policy

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald operated as the exact opposite of former judge and later Independent Counsel Ken Starr, who had investigated Bill Clinton endlessly and broadly. Yet as limited and narrow as Fitzgerald’s inquiry and subsequent indictment of Scooter Libby were, the evidence he used to try Libby still provided considerable hard information confirming the remarkable role that Vice President Dick Cheney plays in the operations of the Bush White House. Throughout Libby’s trial (for false statements to the FBI, perjury before the grand jury, and obstruction of justice relating to the White House efforts to “out” Valerie Plame Wilson as part of the attack on Joe Wilson), Cheney was the looming presence - or absence, when he failed to show up to testify. Details of his dominant authority in making foreign policy surfaced, and Fitzgerald all but announced that Libby’s lies had blocked his investigation of Cheney - who may well have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act due to his own actions and statements regarding Valerie Plame Wilson.

Indications that Conservative Hypocrisy Remains High

Republicans like to boast of their hard-nosed, no-nonsense beliefs about law and order. Their motto is, “Do the crime, do the time.” However, President Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence of 30 months in jail again has showed how authoritarian conservatives want the world to “Do as we say, not as we do.” Remarkably, all the leading GOP candidates vying for their party’s nomination clamored to see who could best display his hypocrisy by calling for Libby’s pardon, notwithstanding the seriousness of Libby’s offenses. Conservatives easily ignored the fact that today’s brutal federal sentencing structure, under which Libby was sentenced and was being dispatched to prison, exists only because conservatives have demanded this very structure. But in the end, I do not believe it was their clamor that resulted in Bush’s commuting Libby’s jail time to zero, while leaving in place his $250,000 fine and probation. Rather, it was pure self-protection. Bush, too, was overwhelmingly likely to have been involved in the attacks on Joe Wilson - including authorizing Libby to leak classified information. Thus, Bush could not risk Libby’s thinking that his friends had deserted him, for Bush surely knew that Libby could sink not only Cheney, but Bush himself as well. Does anyone seriously believe that Bush will not pardon Libby, on his way out of office in January 2008, in order to complete this GOP hypocrisy? Does anyone really doubt that this is one of the most successful coverups any White House has ever pulled off?

I’ll resist, for now, the temptation to Monday-morning-quarterback the case filed by the Wilsons. Suffice it to say that a narrow action against one or more of the reporters involved in carrying water for Cheney, Libby, Rove, and the White House attack machine might have had a stronger potential of getting past the motion-to-dismiss stage of the lawsuit, which would have enable the Wilsons to undertake discovery - although such discovery, too, would have been confronted with claims of executive privilege. All the roads the Wilsons might have taken were extremely difficult.

More to the point, and much more importantly, is the service the Wilsons have provided to us all by exposing the truths I have set forth above, not to mention many other truths as well. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for a public service that was far beyond any call of duty, and I look forward to Valerie Wilson’s book regarding their ordeal - if Bush and Cheney do not block that as well.

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

© 2007 FindLaw

(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.