Do they have to be caught eating puppies?

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

I was originally going to call this diary So, did you call Mrs. Ashcroft, George? but then Kagro X posted another front page story about the NSA program which, as much as I can’t believe I am saying it, is moving me from the “it would be great if he/they were impeached” camp into the “they did WHAT? Are you fucking kidding me???” camp.

While I still think that Gonzales, for all of the lines he has crossed, for all of the acts that he has sanctioned, laws he has disregarded, treaties he has rendered as “quaint” and collusion with others in this administration – he is the last line of defense for Bush and the republican party as a whole. My gut feel is that all of this goes back to election fraud and while there may be more egregiously illegal acts, that is the one that will resonate further with the electorate if and when enough comes out.

However, the events of the past few days, especially Comey’s testimony on the illegal recertification of the NSA program, despite objections by Comey, Ashcroft and the DOJ have made me think that we have more than Bush “just” admitting to an impeachable offense. What about direct involvement in obstructing justice, exerting pressure on a critically ill Attorney General (who was reported to be “out of it” at the time) to certify a program that was already deemed to be illegal, then continuing the illegal program and, here is the kicker, selectively blocking investigations while allowing investigations of those who reported this illegal act.

No, none of this is “breaking news” other than the testimony by Comey (which isn’t even breaking to us). But it does raise some specific points that hit to plausible deniability. This has been the “get out of jail free card” (literally) for Reagan in the Iran-Contra fiasco, among others. And it is something that this administration knows and uses well – especially since Cheney’s hero, Richard Nixon didn’t have it.

As ridiculous as it may sound (and as much as it would make Gonzales look even worse than he already looks), Bush could, in theory, have indicated that he relied on Gonzales (as White House Counsel) and Card (as his Chief of Staff) with respect to the certification process – did he at the time know that DOJ refused to sign off on it? Or could Gonzales have said to Bush – even after his and Card’s late night raid of Ashcroft’s hospital room – yes, we were able to get the verbal approval that the program was legal? I know, it sounds absolutely insane, and would mean one of two things: (1) Gonzales lied in telling Bush that the program was legal when he knew that DOJ wouldn’t sign off on it, or (2) Gonzales didn’t lie to Bush, but Bush lied about being advised that it was ok.

Now, #2 would seem to be extremely difficult to prove, except for one thing: Comey’s testimony that he “had some recollection that the call” [to Ashcroft’s hospital room to Mrs. Ashcroft] “was from the president himself”. This of course begs the question - Did Bush make that call to Mrs. Ashcroft, and if so, what was the purpose?

If Bush made the call, then plausible deniability goes “bye-bye” and we have absolute proof that Bush himself intervened to make an incapacitated Attorney General (who gave up his post temporarily to Comey anyway) sign off on a program that he and his Deputy both deemed to be illegal – and then went ahead with the illegal program anyway. If he didn’t make that call, then there is still “plausible deniability” – as scummy as that is. But if he did make that call, then I don’t see how he escapes the proof that he broke at least a few laws willingly.

Move forward to Kagro X’s other front page post. In this post, there is the point that the investigation into whether Gonzales or others broke the law in recertifying the illegal program was being thwarted and blocked, all while an investigation into how the New York Times found out about this program was being pushed forward. In the comments section, I asked whether Bush himself stepped in here or someone else would have been responsible for granting or denying security clearances related to the investigations. And as Kagro X replied:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today that President Bush personally halted an internal Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales and other senior department officials acted within the law in approving and overseeing the administration's domestic surveillance program. (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0718nj1.htm)

I highly recommend reading the Waas post that is linked. But essentially, what this means is not only did Bush (presumably) personally intervene by calling Ashcroft’s hospital room but he personally thwarted the investigation into the events surrounding the recertification process (also presumably by denying security clearances in what was called an “unprecedented manner”) all while pushing for an investigation into those who “spilled the beans” on this illegality. Additionally, as Kagro X points out as well – who was the one who had Bush nix this investigation, and did he (or did Gonzales) know at the time that Gonzales would be under investigation. But I’ll leave that to those who are more well versed in that aspect.

To me, I learned a few huge things today:

• If Bush made the call to Ashcroft’s hospital room (as Comey suggested), that puts him square in the middle of this and removes any plausible deniability;


• The hospital confrontation would have been a major part of the investigation that Bush himself thwarted – all while allowing an investigation into those who reported the truth about the recertification; and


• Either Gonzales lied to Bush or BOTH Bush and Gonzales lied about obstructing the investigation.

All of the loose ends that have been reported over the past year or so by Murray Waas, by Kagro X and by all of the others who have been following this are starting to tie together. And they look like they are tying together into a noose for this administration.

It can’t get any more blatant or simple than this.

• Bush, his Chief of Staff and White House Counsel intervened to make something deemed illegal by his own DOJ certified as legal;


• When it was not declared legal, they did it anyway;


• Bush personally blocked the investigation into (i.e., obstructing justice) something that he, his Chief of Staff and his Counsel did which was illegal.

Now, Congress MUST do something with this noose. And I don’t mean hang themselves.

Disbar Gonzales

Front paged at Booman Tribune and ePluribus Media

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but I am married to one. And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night as well (ok, that part isn’t true...)

Unless there is a special exemption that would allow this nation’s top ranking prosecutor the right to, well, break laws and run afoul of any of the ethical and other conduct codes by the American Bar Association (which all other attorneys must follow), how does Alberto Gonzales still have a license to practice law?

This past week, members of his own Harvard Law School class came pretty close to asking him to step down. But, if impeachment isn’t going to happen (and it certainly is warranted for him), and if he isn’t going to step down (mind you, my prediction from almost exactly two months ago is still holding up), and he isn’t going to be fired, then why can’t he be disbarred for his actions?

And wouldn’t that be a fine mess – our own nation’s top lawyer being disbarred and not allowed to practice law? Actually, it would be fitting, and probably make him even more qualified in Bush’s mind to hold the position he holds….But, I digress.

It is clear that, at a minimum, even if we lower the bar to “egregiously illegal” with respect to Gonzales’ actions, as opposed to what you can “get away with” - clearly there were violations that would result in many MANY other attorneys receiving punishment, whether it be sanctions, suspension, warnings, reprimand, probation or even disbarment.

From the American Bar Association’s own standards for sanctions (warning: .pdf), here are the four general factors that are considered when deciding on sanctions for an attorney:

• The duty violated;


• The Lawyer’s mental state;


• The potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct;


• The existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

Now, there are also a number of different violations which are laid out in the ABA’s standards, coupled with the types of violations that would warrant disbarment, suspension, reprimand, etc. I’ll post some pertinent ones below:

Lack of Candor: Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases where the lawyer engages in fraud, deceit or misrepresentation directed toward a client:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious injury or potential injury to a client.

Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client, and causes serious injury or potential injury to a client.

Now, this is tough to prove but I wanted to point this out here. The question with the Attorney General is really who his client is – is it “We the People”? Is ANYONE really his client? However, there was clearly an attempt to deceive when Gonzales lied to reporters or most likely lied to Congress.

Failure to maintain the public trust: Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving public officials who engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position knowingly misuses the position with the intent to obtain a significant benefit or advantage for himself or another, or with the intent to cause serious or potentially serious injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.

Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position knowingly fails to follow proper procedures or rules, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.

Bingo!!! At a minimum, suspension should be considered here. illegally re-certifying the wiretapping program certainly seems to fit this bill. As does the firing of US Attorneys who weren’t “loyal enough Bushies” and just so happened to be investigating prominent republicans or not chasing after bogus cases against Democrats. Obstructing justice? That remains to be seen at this point, at least from a legal perspective. But certainly this caused potential injury to the integrity of the legal process

False statements, fraud and misrepresentation: Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation to a court:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

Again, this one may only apply to “legal proceedings” or issues that are before a court. I am not sure whether Congress would fall under this. However, Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the Plame outing seems like it would qualify. And we do remember the 12 hour window that Gonzales and Card were involved with when it came to document preservation over the issues surrounding the outing of Plame’s identity. While there may not have been any actual injury as a result of this, there certainly appears to be a “potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding”.

Now, these are three of the roughly dozen or so that are in the ABA’s standards publication. I am not sure if there are others. However, he has ignored subpoenas. Additionally, if he wasn’t outright lying to protect himself and others in the Administration (which I think would be grounds for disciplinary action), then he CERTAINLY isn’t fit for duty as he doesn’t even know what is going on in his own Justice Department when it comes to acts that are virtually unprecedented and documented to cause a political uproar. That seems to fall under the “unfit for duty” category (ok, a bit of an exaggeration but still….)

There were many many injured parties as a result of Gonzales’ actions – not just the generic “We the People” or the Constitution. People were tortured. People had habeas corpus taken away from them. US citizens were illegally spied on. US Attorneys were fired for political and certainly questionable if not outright nefarious reasons. Documents were hidden, lost, purged, “misplaced”; emails were deleted (I know, “mistakes were made”…).

Even if these actions don’t rise to the level of disbarment, they certainly seem to appear to rise to the level of suspension. At an absolute minimum, there should be some sort of warning or reprimand from the American Bar Association.

Which would not send a political message as those on the right would cry if impeachment charges were to be brought. It would be a strong message from the nation’s ethical and professional standard setter for attorneys – a message that this nation’s top attorney is engaging in conduct that, to many, give a clear appearance that he is unfit to continue being an attorney.

Note to CBS: It's Katie, not "a woman" who we dislike

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

In an attempt to dig CBS out of the gawd knows how many millions of dollars mistake it made by hiring Katie Couric to anchor its Evening News, CBS seems to have hit a new low – a low that is even lower than Couric’s ratings. Blaming it on the assumption that “people don’t want to get their news from women”.

I kid you not. Sean McManus, the president of CBS News, had this to say in an absolutely disgraceful article that gives CBS a pass but attempts to shift the blame towards a “bias against women”:

“It was almost a watershed event to have a woman in that chair.” He added, “There is a percentage of people out there that probably prefers not to get their news from a woman.”

No, jackhole, there is a percentage of people who want to get their news from news shows. Not who want to get fluff from news shows. Don’t blame “women” or set up strawmen (clearly not “straw women”) to cover for hiring someone with little to no serious journalistic experience – someone who was known as a “personality” as opposed to someone who could deliver news in an adult manner – someone whose interview skills weren’t completely lacking and someone who is a complete lightweight compared to serious women journalists.

There is a reason why the CBS Evening News ratings are at a 20 year low - that is the person who is delivering the news. The news which is being “delivered” isn’t much different than the news being “delivered” by Brian Williams or by Charles Gibson. It isn’t different from the other networks. It is the PERSON not the sex of the person that people don’t like. Plain and simple.

It was just about a month ago when I wrote a diary called Save Face, CBS. Dump Katie. Since then, the ratings for CBS Evening News have fallen further behind NBC and ABC. It wasn’t anyone else’s fault when CBS decided to go for “flair” just when everyone in America was starting to wake up from their slumber and (GASP) wanted to get REAL news. It wasn’t anyone else’s fault when the ratings for “talking meatsick punditry” was dropping faster than Mark Foley’s pants when a Congressional page logged onto AIM, yet it was CBS’ decision to throw close to $15 million per year at someone controversial AND unproven.

No, it is the fault of CBS for hiring someone that was in over her head way before she even started. It is Couric’s fault for not taking the job of Evening News anchor seriously. For her double standards towards Democrats, for being unsympathetic bordering on rude in her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards, for having Rush Limbaugh on one of her initial shows without challenging him.

As for the whole “maybe people don’t like watching women” thing, well I have news for you – people don’t like their intelligence insulted. People don’t like when “credible journalists” plagiarize. People don’t like lazy journalism and allegations of “some people say”.

People watched Connie Chung and Barbara Walters. People watched Elizabeth Vargas and Jessica Savitch. People would watch Lara Logan, Christiane Amanpour, Amy Goodman, Campbell Brown, Judy Woodruff, even Rachel Maddow – just for starters. It isn’t about wanting to watch a woman read or deliver the news - it is about someone credible and unbiased reading or delivering the news. Period.

Sadly, in my diary from last month, I predicted (as did others) that the mistake by CBS to hire a clearly unqualified hack (whether it was male or female) would be used as an excuse to bash “women anchors”. So not only did Katie Couric completely ruin CBS’ Evening News – one of the most venerable Evening News shows in history, but also now has led to a doubting of women’s capability to anchor the Evening News.

Nothing could be further from the truth – but in under a year, Couric has destroyed CBS Evening News even worse than anyone could have imagined. Her complete lack of focus, attention to delivering real and not sensationalized news and seriousness in her approach to the job now has network executives publicly wondering whether it is a “women in general” problem.

Nice work, Katie – you may very well have destroyed the chance for many highly qualified women to advance in the field of journalism. And the sexist bosses at CBS News now have a convenient scapegoat for their colossal lack of foresight and planning. Knowing that there would be a spotlight on this “first woman solo anchor ever” situation, there was more than a responsibility to viewers and to journalistic integrity. There was a responsibility to serious women journalists that you wouldn’t screw this up so bad that it would threaten the opportunity for others after you.

And that responsibility was shirked in a massive way. By CBS and by Couric. That is nobody’s fault but CBSs’ and Couric’s.

Big F***ing problems in Pakistan

Front paged at Booman Tribune. Recommended at Daily Kos

Back in December, I posted a diary called ”The bubbling disaster that is Pakistan”. And while I wasn’t as concerned about the lack of exposure my diary got at the time, I was a bit concerned about the lack of exposure that the issue was receiving in general. And just like LithiumCola points out in his diary about Afghanistan getting little exposure in the US media, we have a real problem on our hands with respect to Pakistan.

You remember Pakistan – our “bestest friends in the WarOnTerror™”. The same Pakistan that has recently been called the new “haven” for al Qaeda. The same Pakistan that not only already has nuclear weapons, but has sold their secrets to Iran, North Korea, Libya and other countries (and whose mastermind got off real easy, all things considered). The same Pakistan that John Negroponte himself accused of helping (or turning a blind eye to) bin Laden and his followers in their country.

Well, as I have said in the past, it is “shit meet fan time” in Pakistan.

President Musharraf is fighting for his political (and actual) life lately, as there have been numerous protests and a “healthy” amount of violence over the past few months. However, this past week has been particularly bad. Over the past 2 days alone, violence and protests have killed nearly 40 and wounded around 130. Reports called this the “worst political violence in Pakistan in years.

Musharraf has already survived two or three assassination attempts and just a couple of weeks ago, a suicide bomber killed 28 in an attempted assassination of a senior government Minster. Oh, have I mentioned that Pakistan ALREADY has nuclear weapons and has sold its secrets to not one but TWO “Axis of Evil” members?

In trying to keep his tenuous hold on his position, Musharraf recently dismissed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry for “misconduct and nepotism”. In turn, Musharraf has been accused of manipulating the election process and setting the stage for him to retain power in the upcoming elections (well, maybe there is a reason why he is so close to the Bush administration).

The dismissal back in March obviously led to outrage by the Judiciary as well as opposition parties, and most of the people killed or wounded over the past couple of days were rallying in favor of the dismissed Chief Justice, or were members of opposition parties who were rallying against Musharraf.

What makes this worse is the following quote from The Moderate Voice:

“New York-based Human Rights Watch said the government and its allies had apparently ‘deliberately sought to foment violence in Karachi’, and police stood by as ’silent spectators’.”

One of the greatest problems with the US administration is that it seemingly loves to put all its eggs in the basket provided by tin pot dictators (military and civil), while in the same breath keeps a running commentary about the virtues of democracy.

Recent polls have Musharraf at a low approval rating, and only 30% support him holding both positions of President and Army Chief. Add this to the fact that he is in a very precarious position with respect to pleasing his US masters in quelling the violence and cracking down on the Taliban or al Qaeda and not running afoul of his citizens who are not really big fans of his (to say the least).

But he is being blamed by many for allowing this violence and for instigating it with the dismissal of the Chief Justice. Couple this with the fact that there have already been numerous attempts on his life, and a recent attempt on the life of another top government official, and we could be closer than we thing to staring at a situation that is worse than what we are being led to believe about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan AND North Korea COMBINED.

That being a country with nuclear weapons, a track record of selling those secrets, a haven for BOTH the Taliban and al Qaeda – allowing them to plan or launch attacks on NATO troops in Afghanistan, right in the backyard of our troops, a reason to actually hate the US, and the means, desire and ability to overthrow its leader.

Does anyone think that the Bush administration has thought of how to deal with this very likely scenario, let alone have the ability to deal with it?

That is the 800 pound gorilla in the Middle East.

It's not a tax increase if you don't vote to increase taxes

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and Swords Crossed

Ugh.

In a conversation with my (conservative but Bush hating) dad today, I got this line thrown at me:

”Well, this Democratic Congress is responsible for the single biggest tax increase in history”

Of course, this relates to the spin put forth by republicans who are counting the lack of renewal of the obscene Bush tax cuts from 2001 AND 2003 which were purposely made to sunset in 2010 so that rosy “balanced” budget estimates could have been made by the administration and the republican controlled Congress during 2001 and 2003.

Couple this with the fact that the same republican Congress didn’t extend these “temporary” tax cuts at the end of 2004 or 2005 (or 2006) either, but nobody was calling it a tax increase back then. But hey, IOKIYAR, right?

Unfortunately, the truth of not extending temporary tax cuts that were only made “temporary” was to falsely reduce the budget deficit projections at the time really didn’t matter in my conversation. Nor does it seem to matter, now that the new fiscal year budget talks are starting again.

Yet, as reported recently by the most excellent McClatchy Washington Bureau, this lie is starting to seep out now about those “crazy tax and spend Democrats”:

"Regrettably, the Democrats' budget plan amounts to the largest tax hike in American history," said Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee.

"When you take everything away, this bill is a classic Democratic tax-and-spend bill," said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Senate budget panel's top Republican.

This should be a no brainer. Yet, Bush is going virtually unchallenged on this, despite the very republican Congresses not extending these tax cuts or making the “sacred” tax cuts permanent when they had the chance in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 AND 2006.

And here is the most basic of premises turned right on its’ head - how can something be a tax increase if nobody voted to increase taxes? Nothing stopped the same republican majority from passing anything they (or Bush) wanted, even if it meant excluding Democrats from every step and bit of the process. And Democrats are saying that they are repealing the tax cuts before they are set to expire either – at least not yet.

And it certainly isn’t like there haven’t been massive tax cuts (mind you, the first time there was a “war” and taxes were cut:

Since 2001, Bush has been able to practically dictate tax policy to Congress. Tax cuts have passed each of the past five years, totaling $1.8 trillion over 10 years.

And it isn’t like republican Senators haven’t ALREADY balked at extending these cuts when they were in the majority. From December 2005:

But even a more modest White House request to extend them until 2010 is in trouble. The Senate balked last month at extending the dividend and capital gains tax cuts even a single year.

Jeez, those tax and spend republican majorities from 2005. And what did they do right before voting as to whether to continue the capital gains tax cuts?

House leaders will try again for a vote Thursday, but moderate Republicans in the House have expressed deep misgivings about approving a measure so beneficial to affluent investors so soon after they approved a budget-cutting bill that would cut people off food stamps, squeeze student lenders, impose new fees on Medicaid recipients and slash federal aid for child-support enforcement.

Food stamp, student lender, Medicaid recipients, child support enforcement for cuts in the capital gains tax for the wealthy who can afford to invest in the market. Now THAT sounds like a good trade off. Fortunately, the republican Congress DIDN’T extend these cuts, although all of those people who are on food stamps AND have capital gains must have been REALLY pissed....

Now that the budget discussions are coming up again, there is no doubt that those on the “right” will start with this “largest tax increase ever” nonsense. But the fact remains that (1) the republican majority took EXACTLY the same actions to not extend these cuts and (2) nobody, I repeat nobody is proposing to vote for a capital gains tax increase or any “largest tax increase in the history of forever”.

Anyone who actually believes and repeats this is either insane, uninformed or woefully hypocritical. And we should be prepared to call them on it.

Messing with elections cuts to the heart of a democracy

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

Yes, there has been much discussion over the past few years about the suddenly "way off base" exit polls (2004) and shady "recounts" (Ohio 2004), last minute massive shifts in polls (Georgia 2002), "irregularities" (2000, 2002 and 2004), general voter disenfranchisement, jamming of phone banks (New Hampshire) or destruction of voter registrations. But most of the country explains that away as something that happens every election (frequently citing Chicago, 1960 as one example) and something that, while pretty crappy, happens.

But what if the American public is presented with not just these statistics, general allegations, anecdotal stories of vote flipping or easily hackable voting machines and other first or second hand accounts of experiences by voters on election day, but also specific examples of a massive effort conducted by the highest levels of the Bush administration with tacit approval by the republican Congressional majority that the entire election system was being gamed from the inside?

Because, folks, this is the big enchilada - this is the most basic premise of a democracy - the ability of We the People to vote for our leaders (however flawed the nominating process is), to know that our votes will be counted and to not have the government working ACTIVELY against that premise. However, this is what we have here - the Bush administration, the Justice Department, its' Voting Rights Section and the Republican National Committee (among others) using its power to subvert the electoral process.

No, this isn't news to us. In fact, there have been a number of posts here about this over the past few years. Georgia10 had an excellent series of posts about Ohio and the 2004 election. Jesselyn Radack has had a number of posts on the US Attorney scandal which focused on election fraud, this one on Missouri. In fact, if you do a quick search, you will find over 25 diaries in the past 2 weeks alone with the tag "election fraud".

The coordinated effort is massive. It is actually way more than massive. And if the whole sordid story ever makes it into the public consciousness, then it could doom the republican party for a generation. Back in February, I did a story with ePluribus Media regarding Bud Cummins and his replacement, Tim Griffin. In it, we noted Griffin's ties to Rove and his role in "caging" during the 2004 elections:

Another of the most important reasons why Griffin's appointment deserves a harder look is from his involvement in "caging," which "appeared to be" a Republican Party effort to challenge the ballots of thousands of voters in largely African American communities through mailings targeting those who were serving in Iraq. Since they were stationed out of country, they were not at the address to which the mailings were sent, and the letters were returned as "not deliverable," establishing "cause" to strike the intended recipients from the voter roles. Who sent the originating email with respect to this caging "program"? Tim Griffin.

This is someone who was appointed as US Attorney under the "new" Patriot Act clause (and even admitted that he wouldn't make it through Senate Confirmation), and right on cue, is being investigated FOR VOTER FRAUD for his role in the caging scheme. We also found out from Murray Waas this week that the White House was concealing emails that linked Rove to Griffin's hiring:

The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove's, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin's appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove's role in supporting Griffin.

Yesterday, the phenomenal McClatchy Washington Bureau reported that the White House was urging the Justice Department to pursue voting fraud cases against Democrats in three states BEFORE THE 2006 ELECTIONS:

Only weeks before last year's pivotal midterm elections, the White House urged the Justice Department to pursue voter-fraud allegations against Democrats in three battleground states, a high-ranking Justice official has told congressional investigators.

In two instances in October 2006, President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, or his deputies passed the allegations on to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.

Sampson tapped Gonzales aide Matthew Friedrich, who'd just left his post as chief of staff of the criminal division. In the first case, Friedrich agreed to find out whether Justice officials knew of "rampant" voter fraud or "lax" enforcement in parts of New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and report back.

There were wide reports and more than speculation that fired Washington US Attorney John McKay didn't please his bosses by not pursuing the electoral fraud that didn't exist in the 2004 Gubernatorial race - a very close race that was won by the Democratic Party candidate.

But a very interesting and large piece to this puzzle that has gotten way too little exposure is the Justice Department's own Voting Rights Section. ePluribus Media has a great background story on this and I am working on them with one on Robert Popper - the Voting Rights Section's Special Counsel which you can look for over the next week or so.

But, consider that the Voting Rights Section is supposed to enforce the Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act, protect minority rights in redistricting, make sure that voters are not disenfranchised and are able to have their votes counted. Makes sense, yes? Now consider the following:

• Popper has vast experience with redistricting cases - but in a way that challenges old district lines in order to redraw them "more fairly" - focusing almost exclusively on redrawing largely minority districts;



• Other cases being pursued by the Voting Rights Section target districts for "not properly eliminating ineligible voters from the voting rolls". As opposed to making sure that voters CAN vote - they are focusing on cleansing (my word) the voting rolls - again, in districts that have had a large increase in Democratic registrations or are largely minority districts;



• Over 50% of the career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have been forced out in one way or another over the past two years;



• These attorneys were replaced largely with people affiliated with the Federalist Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association; and



• Less than half of these "new attorneys" have little to no experience in civil rights cases at all.

There are more examples in the ePluribus Media story, including the following quote from one of the career attorneys who was forced out:

"Political appointees made it quite clear that they did not wish to draw on the expertise and institutional knowledge of career attorneys. Instead, there appeared to be a conscious effort to remake the Division's career staff."

There was also this editorial in the LA Times which, in addition to mentioning the Missouri story linked above (by Jesselyn Radack) has this stunning observation of the Justice Department under the Bush administration:

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

The rot and stench is deep and strong. But this story isn't picking up much steam.....yet. The right to elect your leaders or representatives is the most basic tenet of a democracy. The "purple finger" is frequently cited as an example of "freedom on the march in Iraq". Yet, here at home, many have been quick to explain away each and every instance of potential fraud, each case of intimidation or disenfranchisement, each irregularity or exit polls that defy all logic and reason.

Now we are staring straight at a growing mound of evidence that there was a clear and concerted effort to undermine that most basic premise of a democracy by those who wrested control of our government in 2000. The party's national committee was actively involved. The Justice Department was actively involved - both from the prosecution side and the defending of rights side. The Executive Branch was involved in making the decisions of who to appoint, what cases should be prosecuted and how.

It is rotten to the core. And it begs the question of whether a democracy is still a democracy when one party is looking to take away the very right to a fair and free election.

Please, George - veto your party into irrelevancy.

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

The American public voted for a real change of direction in Iraq, not more of the same but with half the effort. You gave us an effort that was barely acceptable to the architects of the escalation plan. You irresponsibly failed to include the cost of the occupation in the regular budget process – thereby falsely providing “optimistic” projections of a balanced budget.

The American public overwhelmingly is in favor of timetables for withdrawal, yet you already vetoed a bill that included timetables. The Democrats came back with a proposed bill that would provide funding without timetables, yet you have promised to veto that if the bill is passed in the Senate. Of course, we will see a similar vote on this bill as the prior one:

House members will vote Thursday on a new Iraq bill hotly contested by the White House, opposed by nearly all Republicans and unlikely to survive in the Senate.

Miraculously, that other bill which was unlikely to survive in the Senate somehow survived in the Senate.

So, now the Democrats have made major concessions in bringing not one but TWO bills to a vote that would provide funding for the continuation of an occupation that (1) was illegal and immoral in the first place and (2) getting worse by the day as violence against our troops, between Iraqis and against Iraqi forces has been escalating faster than the half baked escalation plan that you put forth. While these concessions are more that the American public is looking for, Americans are just as overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats in the debate over Iraq.

As Devilstower points out the republicans are starting to fear for their political lives. And with the promises by republicans in Congress back in January that we would know how successful the escalation would be within 60 to 90 days on top of the daily reports of dozens of deaths, scores in injuries, multiple bombings and bullet riddled bodies being found, there is even less patience for a continuation of the complete failure of a “new direction”.

Which brings me to the latest threat by Bush to veto another Iraq spending bill. Democrats are gaining more support. Republicans are reading the writing on the wall. We the People don’t want to wait until September to hear “officially” what we are already seeing. We see the raging civil war. We read about the increase in death and violence. We know that the Iraqi Parliament has already checked out for the summer, if not physically, then mentally.

The dreams of a “permanent republican majority” are long LONG gone. Even if (as some have mentioned around here) the republicans are purposely punting on 2008 in hopes of coming back in 2010 or 2012, I don’t see any reason why Waxman, Conyers, Boxer and their colleagues will stop looking to clean out the foul stench of the past 6 years. Coupled with the collective awakening of the American public to the horrors that were kept from them and enabled by the republicans, we are on the precipice of what could, in a few years, be a veto proof majority for the Democrats.

We’ve had enough. Even some of the hardcore supporters have had enough. Hell, no president in a generation has been hated as much as you are now, and even the offspring of past republican presidents are considering voting Democratic.

So, please, veto this bill. And the next one too. After all, it will ensure that the republicans are the ones who did not want the troops to get the equipment they need, in addition to the track record of not equipping, arming or providing them the proper training, rest or healthcare. If a bill doesn’t get passed and signed, then there are no more funds.

Plus, if the republicans keep voting against the will of the American people and with your ever sinking ship, there will be no more republican majority for a helluva long time.

Eight bucks an hour to babysit a civil war

Front Paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

Even regular babysitters make more than that. But that is a (generous) estimate of what the average private serving in Iraq makes per hour. I say generous estimate because that article from last year pegs the average annual salary at $25,000 for an Army private, and I added another $10,000 to that just in case (based on the increased bonuses to re-enlist). Even that is way more than the $7.50 per DAY that was reported back in 2005, but that sounded ridiculously low.

We can also use the monthly numbers for “basic pay” or the annual numbers for “regular military compensation” as a reference, but the numbers will come out to be pretty much the same. And while a nice cushy salary is generally not why people enlist in the military, it is worth pointing out that our current troops, many of whom are younger than 22 years old put in close to 12 hour days/7 day weeks (hence the eight dollar per hour wage).

So, for that whopping sum of eight dollars per hour, what are our troops doing? Well, judging by recent events, see if you can find the common thread (hat tip to Juan Cole for the links).

Major Ibrahim A.Al-Nabi an officer of interior ministry was assassinated by gunmen on the high motor way near the ministry as he was going to his work. According to Cole:

So the Ministry of the Interior in Iraq is the body concerned with internal security, and its special police commandoes are drawn from the Badr Corps, the Shiite militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The police commandoes have been known to track down and kill Sunni guerrillas.

Sounds like a potential revenge killing of a Shiite government official for tacit approval of killing of Sunnis.

The following all within the past day (per Reuters):

• At least 16 people were killed and 70 wounded when a suicide car bomb exploded at a crowded market in the Shi'ite city of Kufa;


• The bodies of three personal guards of Iraq's minister of Higher Education were found shot dead in Baghdad;


• Police said they recovered 30 bodies in Baghdad, including 17 in the religiously mixed southern neighbourhood of Amil in the past 24 hours;


• A suicide bomber killed two policemen and wounded 23, including 10 civilians, when he targeted a police station in the town of Khanaqin, north of Baghdad.

Regarding the suicide bomb in Kufa, this is a Shiite city right near Najaf (major Shiite stronghold) and was suspected to have been carried out by Sunni “insurgents”.

A truck bomb in Arbil in the Kurdish region killed 12 and injured 40 – went off near the Kurdish government’s interior ministry. Per Cole:

This strike was likely the work of Sunni Arab guerrillas along with maybe some Kurdish Salafi Jihadis. They were probably replying to the deployment of several thousand Kurdish Peshmerga troops in Baghdad as part of the surge. The Peshmerga have been fighting Sunni Arab guerrillas on behalf of the Americans and the Shiite government of Nuri al-Maliki. The bombing may also be related to competition for the oil city of Kirkuk, which the Kurds intend to claim for their provincial confederacy.

A fight over oil. Or maybe a fight over the Kurds going their own separate way. Or maybe because the Kurds were part of Bush’s escalation plan. But this was not targeting US troops, that is for sure.

Of course there was this bit of news from January right before the “crackdown”:

An explosion outside a Baghdad university as students were heading home for the day killed at least 65 people on Tuesday, in the deadliest of several attacks on predominantly Shiite areas. The attacks — and the announcement of four U.S. military deaths — came on a day the United Nations said more than 34,000 Iraqi civilians died last year in sectarian violence.

On Tuesday alone, at least 109 people were killed or found dead across Iraq — the bloodiest day for such attacks in weeks.

There was also the WaPo article from last December indicating that the US was undercounting the incidents of violence to suit the Administration’s goals and needs. Let’s not forget the 68 people found dead on Monday including 30 bullet riddled bodies from “apparent death squad” killings. Or the 17 bodies in the Amil neighborhood where Sunni politicians have complained of renewed attacks by Shiite militiamen, prompting the Sunni vice president to threaten to leave the Shiite-dominated government.

And let’s also not forget the burgeoning fight between the Sunni al Qaeda and the “other” Sunnis:

Suicide bombers killed 13 people in a pair of attacks Monday around the Sunni Arab city of Ramadi in what local officials said was part of a power struggle between al-Qaida and tribes that have broken with the terror network.

Maybe Bush and the administration was right – there is is a war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is a civil war – one which our troops have no business being caught in the middle of. What can our troops do here? Who are they helping? The Sunni insurgents? Or al Qaeda? Or the Shiite militia and who may still be associated with al Sadr? What about the death squads who have infiltrated the Iraqi police force? All of these factions are killing each other. And all of them want to kill our troops as well. Maybe they should be protecting the Iraqi citizens? Good question – but isn’t that what an occupying force would be doing, not a military in the midst of a war?

This is NOT a job for US troops. This is not what the military is supposed to be used for. They are not babysitters. Especially if they are getting paid less than I was back in the 1980s. And I only had to deal with flying toys, not RPGs.

It’s time to talk about how we are going to leave.

Since the Iraqi Parliament doesn't care, we need to leave

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

Kicking the can three more months down the road is as cowardly as it is stupid, frankly. Even though the American people overwhelmingly voted for and wanted a real change of direction in Iraq, we ended up with a half assed increase in troops with no real thought process behind it. At the time, we were told that it would be 60 to 90 days before we knew if it would work. Then, we were told that we had to wait until September to get a full assessment of the “progress” of this new plan, which so far has only served to increase deaths and other disaster.

Now we are told that, once again, September is the magic month that will “force republicans” to reassess just how much they still want to stand by their 28%-approval rating leader. And the bills that are being drafted to replace the already vetoed bill to fund this occupation are focusing on benchmarks, holding back funds unless certain criteria are met or whatever other strings may or may not be attached.

But all of this completely ignores the not-at-all-hidden fact that the Iraqi Parliament, the very institution that is supposed to be cracking down on the increased killings as well as passing laws – the very institution that rarely has enough members showing up on any given day to have a quorum – has already said they will take July and August off. Now, even if they cut their vacation short (my bet is they don’t, or if they “say they will”, they won’t have a quorum for most of the days they are “in session” anyway), there is no way that they can meet any of their obligations or be measured for any of the benchmarks that will be set out for them.

And if they don’t even care enough about benchmarks or stopping the raging civil war to stay in session, then we most certainly shouldn’t be policing this civil war – ESPECIALLY without Iraqi government assistance or involvement. Therefore, we should not only be talking about WHEN we leave, but we should be talking about HOW we leave.

This is the most logical next step in the movement out of Iraq. The proposed vacation (which Eason Jordan’s Iraq Slogger indicates that the US is being told to “butt out” of the decision as to how long a vacation the Iraqi Parliament should take) provides the perfect opportunity to force the debate and discussion towards a comprehensive withdrawal plan.

Just six months ago, there was very little (if any) discussion of a timetable for withdrawal. Now, it is not just accepted in general discourse but it is favored by more and more Americans as each week passes. Just six months ago, there was little (if any) talk about engaging with Iran and Syria. Now, not only did 75% of Americans approve of this after the Iraq Study Group report was issued, but Condoleezza Rice has had the first high level talks with Syria in years.

It is time to take the next step.

Yes, a precipitous withdrawal would be disastrous. Of course, a precipitous invasion was disastrous, but we won’t get into that now. And the report that the US and Saudi Arabia (among other countries) are sponsoring covert actions against Iran make it more imperative that we withdraw (1) smartly and (2) without provoking Iran to, at a minimum, make the withdrawal more difficult. In taking a page out of the republican playbook, if you want something to happen (or make the inevitability of it happening part of general discourse), then it should be discussed as if it is a foregone conclusion. And that is precisely what we should be doing with respect to a withdrawal from Iraq. Not just WHEN, but HOW.

By saying this, I am going to disregard the implication that the administration WANTS to stay in Iraq or WILL provoke Iran into a military conflict, or that it is never their plan to leave. We need to look at this from the other side. We need to make it so that there is enough talk – enough pressure on Democrats in Congress so that they will put pressure on the republicans and the administration to not only have the “when” part of a withdrawal talked about, but also the nuts and bolts behind it.

Obviously, there are a lot of moving parts to a withdrawal plan, including but not limited to the following:

• Engage further with Iran and Syria so that we can get out, set parameters/metrics and they won’t interfere with withdrawal;




• Have peacekeeping troops or some presence (NATO/UN?) to help with humanitarian issues (NATO will be tough though with Turkey);




• Negotiate with Iraqis (al Sadr, etc.) to make sure that our troops can withdraw without being targeted (as much as possible);




• Logistics of getting the equipment out;




• Involve Saudis, Pakistan, Turkey, and Europe to figure out how to rebuild and make everyone have some benefit and skin in the game; and




• Restart all Iraqi state run businesses. This will cost around $150 million and will get hundreds of thousands back to work immediately.

I am sure there are many more, but these are at least the first ones that need to get out there. Of course, all of these will be attacked as “siding with the enemy” or “part of a surrender plan”, but the reality of it is that this was said about talking to Iran and Syria (which the administration is now doing), setting a timetable (which is accepted by an overwhelming number of Americans), and makes sense, in light of the fact that these countries are situation where they are.

Of course, one easy rebuttal would be that if we don’t consider these, then it would be tantamount to a hasty withdrawal with soldiers being airlifted from rooftops just like Vietnam (and there is the Vietnam/Iraq comparison once again that republicans have desperately tried to avoid). In fact, since Americans already support a withdrawal from Iraq, NOT supporting a withdrawal plan that is comprehensive and presents the best chance for our troops to withdraw safely is the ultimate in NOT supporting our troops

It is time to talk about how we leave Iraq. The Iraqi government, which doesn’t care enough on most days to even show up is taking the very time off that they are supposed to be “measured” by the US on the progress it makes towards stopping the out of control violence. And since they don’t care, then we need to figure out how to get out.

Tell me again what will happen if we withdraw?

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing.

Frankly, I’m past outraged and more tired of the old platitudes that come out of the usual robotic mouths of Bush, McCain, Cheney, Guiliani, Hannity, O’Reilly and any of the other talking meatsticks about all of the horrific things that will happen if the evil lib’ruls and Democrats get their way and a timetable is set for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Notwithstanding the whole “All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength” line of crap, being ludicrous for many reasons, this is just another round in the permanent vacation from reality that most of the republican party has been on for the better part of the last decade.

President Bush, May 5, 2007: If we were to leave Iraq before the government can defend itself, there would be a security vacuum in the country. Extremists from all factions could compete to fill that vacuum, causing sectarian killing to multiply on a horrific scale.

Just don’t pay any attention to the over 50 who were killed today alone or that a torture chamber was found this past weekend (in Iraq, not in America or Gitmo) or that a dozen US troops were killed today alone.

President Bush, May 5, 2007: The goal of the new strategy he is implementing is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists alongside the United States in the war on terror.

Except for the little fact that the BBC is reporting that “bombs continue to rock Iraq’s capital despite an 11 week security clampdown”. Or that the architects of the escalation, Fred Kagan and Jack Keane doubted that their plan could be successful with anything less than 30,000 additional troops.

President Bush, May 1, 2007: That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

But what about current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who isn’t so keen on the escalation? Doesn’t that cause some confusion when the head of the Pentagon is saying that the Democratic call for withdrawal timetables will put pressure on the Iraqis? And what about the 2nd in command in Iraq saying that this military escalation is not enough to save Iraq? Does that demoraliza our troops?

President Bush, May 1, 2007: Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Of course, much of that drop in violence is because car bombings (one of the top causes of violence) is now being excluded from the murder count. A great way to report a decrease in violence, murder and deaths – just stop counting the top causes of violence, murder and death. And please pay no mind to the fact that US troop deaths are higher over the past six months than in any six month period since the invasion.

John McCain, Republican debate: We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos; there will be genocide; and they will follow us home.

One person who is using the term “genocide massacres” about Iraq is Greg Stanton, vice president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars and the Washington-based Genocide Watch. As for there being chaos, well, newspapers in Utah and Virginia (this paper supported the invasion), Minnesota, as well as other countries’ papers. So I think we are a little late there.

Rudy Giuliani, May 1, 2007: "In the history of war, I have never heard of a situation in which one nation is required to not only retreat, but give a schedule of its retreat to the enemy," Giuliani said. "I mean, when has an army that has to retreat ever had to give a printed-out list of how it's going to retreat to its enemy? That's not the most prudent thing to do."

Never mind it being perfectly ok to call for withdrawal timetables when it wasn’t your disaster, um occupation, I mean “war” or when the other party is in charge of the White House.

Dick Cheney, April 22, 2007: First of all, they're wrong; we're making significant progress. We've had major success on the political front in terms of three national elections last year by the Iraqis.

Too bad that government rarely gets a quorum and is taking ALL of July AND August off. And too bad there is so much infighting among the Shiite ruling party that the government is in danger of collapse. All this amid whispers of the (still remote for now) possibility of a “no confidence” vote Maliki.

Dick Cheney, April 22, 2007: We do have a plan. It's there for anybody who wants to take a look at it. The Democrats have repeatedly made this charge. It's simply not the case. There's a good plan in place. We are making significant progress.

Just one hitch: the “Plan” is a secret and the republicans won’t tell what it is. Unfortunately, McCain isn’t in on the secret as he has no “Plan B”. Even General Petraeus said that “things may get worse before they get better”. Things getting worse is, by definition, not making progress.

So can we please stop with this nonsense? There is no conceivable way for anyone to measure any success. There is no logic behind the statements of those who want us out of their own country so they can try and put together their shattered lives “following us home”. Al Qaeda wanted to hit us “here at home” and did. If they want to again, they will, regardless of whether we stay in Iraq. Besides, 94 percent of Iraqis have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view, and 93 percent have an unfavorable view of bin Laden, with 77 percent very unfavorable. So if/when there continues to be fighting in Iraq the only common enemy will be al Qaeda. Now, there is a 2nd common enemy (our troops), and we are Public Enemy Number One (hat tip to Chuck D).

No more lies. No more procrastination or finger pointing. Not even our own generals who are executing this latest failure of a strategy think it will be a success. It is time to bring this occupation to an end.

Scott Garrett loves hate crimes but hates education and the Jersey delegation

Front paged at Blue Jersey and also posted at Retire Garrett

Once again, Scott Garrett had a week in Congress that is as impressively arrogant and out of touch with reality as it is baffling in its draconian nature.

There were a number of bills this week that Garrett was (once again) on the wrong side of, but there are three pieces of legislation that stand out to the point that they could not be ignored.

For starters, there was the much-discussed Federal Hate Crimes Bill that expanded the original hate crimes law to include offenses based on sexual orientation, gender or disability in addition to the previously covered offenses of national origin, religion and race. The bill passed by a vote of 237-180 but Scott Garrett thinks that it is ok for hate crimes if they target sexual orientation, gender or disability. Only one other NJ republican Congressman voted against this bill. What a nice understanding compassionate conservative.

The second bill, one whose goal was to renew and improve the Federal Head Start Program, as well as raise teaching standards was approved by an oerwhelming vote of 365-48. Garrett was the ONLY MEMBER of the New Jersey congressional delegation to vote against this bill

Once again, Garrett stood completely alone amongst the New Jersey Congressional delegation with an amendment he proposed that would reduce the proposed growth in funding for the National Science Foundation from 7 percent to 6.5 percent. There were no cosponsors to the amendment, and it was defeated 126-292. I'll reiterate that NOBODY ELSE FROM NJ voted with Garrett on this amendment

It is one thing to be out of step with the mainstream. It is another to be out of step with reality. It is even yet another to be out of step with your own party. And it is EVEN ANOTHER thing to be out of step with the entire delegation from your own state

Sadly, this is one thing that Scott Garrett qualifies as "all of the above"

Political Nexus spends "10 Minutes With..." Brian Keeler (NYBri)

As some of you may know, a few of us (including yours truly and thereisnospoon) have started Political Nexus, which we hope will serve as "netroots multimedia center" focusing on progressive political issues. 

We have already recorded four segments of two shows, FrameWork which focuses on the framing behind various political issues, and Don't Hijack My Thread! which is an interactive discussion on five or six of the week's hottest political issues.

We are very excited to announce the start of our third regular show, "10 Minutes With...", where we spend 10 minutes getting to know a bit more about some of the biggest and brightest voices in the progressive political blogosphere.

Our initial show features The Albany Project's co-founder Brian Keeler (NYBri), who is a blog hero to many of us of the left.

As some of you may be aware, Brian helped start not one, not two but three community blogs, including Political Nexus co-founder ePluribus Media, as well as The Albany Project.

Many of you also know that Brian also ran for state Senate in 2006 - making him the first true member of the blogosphere to run for major political office.

In this first installment of "10 Minutes With...", clammyc and Brian talk about his 2006 run for New York State Senate, the work he is doing at The Albany Project as well as our experiences with the most excellent folks at ePluribus Media.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN to NYBri and clammyc.

For podcasting or download:

CLICK HERE TO PODCAST OR DOWNLOAD

And Please check out Political Nexus for this and other interesting and in depth (but not too dry...) discussions on hot political issues, featuring clammyc, thereisnospoon and many others

Iraqi government wants us out. US media sleeps.

Front paged at My Left Wing and ePluribus Media

If we are to believe that the United States is involved in a “war” and not an open ended occupation of Iraq, then we are supposed to give credence to the Iraqi government and its wishes. We shouldn’t be exerting undue influence in their affairs or votes. We should be respecting their wishes, even if Bush wants to ignore Congress, his own generals (past and current) as well as the will of the American people.

Yet, over the past few years, there have been a number of occasions where the Iraqi Parliament has had numerous members (most recently in January, when approximately 130 of 190 members) who signed off on a petition for the US to withdraw troops from Iraq. Wouldn’t this little tidbit be important? Wouldn’t the three or four other times this has been raised by the very government Bush is attempting to say is legitimate be something that the American people should know? Would another 5%, 10%, 15% of Americans be in favor of withdrawal if they knew this?

Yet all we get are “Republicans say Democrats are weak and defeatists” and other mindless horseshit. So much for the “fourth estate” finally waking up and doing their job.

I got an email forwarded to me yesterday by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream from “Voters for Peace”, which contained the following paragraph:

This week, VotersForPeace met with an Iraqi parliamentarian in Washington, DC and learned that in January, 2007, 130 of 190 Iraqi Parliamentarians voted for withdrawal of US troops. This overwhelming majority vote in favor of U.S. withdrawal by the Iraqi Parliament was not reported in the U.S. media and continues to be ignored by the Bush Administration. We cannot allow the US government to continue to bully its way through Iraq. We need to get the message out to Bush, to Congress, and to the American people that Congress needs to react to the president's veto by passing an even stronger bill than the current one - a bill without loopholes - a bill that really brings the troops home and that will work toward the political solution needed to bring peace to the people of Iraq.

Not being the kind of guy who takes things that are asserted by activist groups at face value, I wanted to do some digging here. Of course, they were right – this hasn’t received a peep in the media. Maybe Keith Olbermann would be interested in this information.

But I didn’t just find an isolated source. There was this commentary by Tom Hayden from February 2007:

All recent surveys indicate that majorities of both Sunni and Shi’a support the right of armed resistance against American forces. All surveys show that the vast majority of Iraqis want the US to set a deadline for withdrawal. At least 131 members of the Iraqi parliament have petitioned for a withdrawal deadline. Instead of accepting the will of the people and the parliament, the US continues to recognize, fund and militarily support a tiny sectarian clique in power. The White House national security adviser, in a leaked memorandum, has suggested reshaping the Baghdad regime by offering money to compliant Iraqi political factions.

Earlier today, a post in Iraq Slogger (haven’t heard of it before, but it links to and refers to similar sources as Juan Cole) noted the following:

The Sadrist Current repeated its criticisms against al-Maliki for his refusal to push for the departure of occupation forces from Iraq, and announced that 133 Iraqi deputies (out of 275) have signed a petition calling for a scheduled withdrawal.

The post in Iraq Slogger refers to the current summit in Egypt and also refers to Maliki’s government refusing to put language into a “final declaration” of the summit (interestingly, it is reported to already have been 99% written, even though the summit isn’t over for another 2 days) which calls for a timetable for US troop withdrawal fro Iraq.

What this shows, to me, is that there is further weakening of support in Iraq for Maliki. Over the past few weeks, a further splintering of the Shiite factions in Iraq’s government has continued, in addition to the precarious position that Maliki is in.

Back in March, 2007, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) and a few other members of Congress held a videoconference with various Iraqi officials. Of course, this also got little notice here, but there were some very telling quotes here as well.

M.P. Saleh al-Mutlak:

I will like to emphasize a point when you are talking about the Parliament and when you are talking about the people. I think the question, or part of it, says if the Parliament would vote tomorrow would they vote for the American presence in Iraq or to leave Iraq. As a parliamentary person as the head of a block in the Parliament I would like to tell you now that the Parliament is not representing the Iraqi people anymore.

People who elected us at some point they would not elect us now if the government will continue as it is. Because we failed. We failed to bring to a government that can bring peace and security and services to the people. Unless this government will be changed then do not expect to see us again in the parliament. There were some forces before when we talked about democracy in Iraq everyone in Iraq know that this election was not the decent and the right election in Iraq. The cheating in this election was huge.

So much for the “purple fingers”.

M.P. Mohammed al-Dynee:
And my heart is bleeding for our youngsters and yours that are being killed every single day. All nationalists want a scheduling of American forces withdrawing from Iraq. However, this withdrawal has to be scheduled and studied by both, the American side and the Nationalist Iraqi movement without any influence of the Iranians who have interests in Iraq.

I want to tell you about an incident that has happened members of the Parliament a group of the Iraqi parliament that have visited the Iranians in Tehran in the past period. The first request for harmony was the immediate withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq. After the return of this group more than 109 members of the Parliament have signed a petition in approval for this move. This is something that whoever that is viewing us right now and the American people have to know about.

The war that has been waged against Iraq has resulted in nothing but destruction and death. There is more than one million Iraqis that have been killed. Nine million people, the Iraq people have become refugees which is about 33 percent of the Iraqi population until today. There is more than 300,000 Iraqis that are unaccounted for. 90,000 Iraqis in prison that are run by the American forces, the Iraqi government that is related to the Death Squads and the militia, the Iranian militia, or the militias that are in Iraq. And this is something that we want the American public to know about because the American people have associations and organizations that are concerned with the rights of animals.

So much for “not doing body counts”.

M.P. Osama al-Nujaifi:

I thank you. I assure you no Parliament member dares to say that he wants the American forces to stay in Iraq. This is the truthful wish and desire of seventy percent of the honest Parliamentary members, and this excludes the ones that are loyal to Iran and the Kurdistan coalition that has interests in the American forces staying in Iraq. There is a clear desire for American forces to exit Iraq. However, right now we are talking about the method American forces chooses to leave Iraq. We have to set a timetable, a schedule for this withdrawal.

---snip---

M.P. Nadim al-Jaberi (on the phone):

This issue is a very complicated and complex issue, and cannot be solved easily. Problems would have been avoided if the withdrawal happened from the first year of the invasion. But postponing the withdrawal all this time has complicated the Iraqi situation furthermore. The U.S. presence in Iraq has caused the creation of a many military groups in Iraq. They were formed as a reaction for the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Some of these groups are fighting against the U.S. presence in Iraq and some of the other groups are fighting against the Iraqis and the political process in Iraq.

I believe that putting a timetable for withdrawing the U.S. troops would be a very important step in giving all Iraqis confidence that this occupation is going to end.

Could this be ANY clearer? 70% of Iraqi parliament members are for a withdrawal. Usually, there are around 80 or so of the 250 members who are not present at any given time. That makes the percentage of Iraqi parliament members in favor of withdrawal even higher. In September 2006 (link right above), 104 members voted for withdrawal. In July 2005, over 100 parliament members voted for a withdrawal.

Where is the press? Where is the coverage? Where is the outrage? What about the will of the Iraqi people? Or their government, regardless of the level of legitimacy?

And why aren’t the Democrats citing these votes every chance they get? Wouldn’t this bolster their position? Wouldn’t this completely undercut the republicans’ and Bush’s position? Wouldn’t this help in the debate over the current funding bill?

Don’tcha think this is a wee bit important?

Rudy Giuliani's colossal failure to protect NYC after 1993 attack

Front paged at ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

With all of the (rightful) outrage at the patently ridiculous comments made by George Bush wannabe Rudy Giuliani last week about how “the United States would be facing another terrorist attack if a Democrat was elected”, there has been some focus on the fact that he was Mayor of New York City on 9/11, so his statement is at least partially (if not more) hypocritical.

However, the full depth of his hypocrisy should be laid bare for all to see. In fact, it could easily be called gross negligence, or arrogant incompetence, or a lack of foresight, or a complete disregard for recommendations and warnings that were made to him after he took office. Now, despite what some think, he did not become Mayor until after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and there were prosecutions for the attack, so he should “get a pass”. To that, I say he has done the bare minimum at best, and at worst, has proved that he is in no way qualified to make any statement regarding protecting Americans, let alone lead this country. And while this isn't exactly new, it merits pointing out again and again.

I lived in New York City from 1993 through last year, with the exception of a few years in the late 90s, when I was only working in NYC every day. I was here on 9/11, but was in midtown, not downtown. I know what Rudy’s two terms were all about. Some good, lots of bad, much embarrassment.

The Democratic Party has a fairly comprehensive write up regarding Giuliani and all of the reasons why he is “too arrogant” for America. What I want to focus on here is destroying the myth of Giuliani as being strong on defending Americans. Yes, he was good as a prosecutor. Yes, he did some good law enforcement with respect to “quality of life” issues, even if he was heavy handed. But the heavy handedness (see: William Bratton or NYC public schools) is another indicator of how Rudy “doesn’t play well in the sandbox”.

An excellent diary by davefromqueens a couple of months ago had some good information. Additionally, Cooperative Research has a detailed “9/11 timeline” that includes a number of events and issues in the 1994 – 2001 time period as it relates to New York City. While some point to other governmental failures (such as the admission by the CIA that it was partially responsible for the 1993 attacks since it trained and supported some of those very bombers years earlier), I want to focus on Rudy’s major failures.

A few significant excerpts are below:

After February 1993, threat assessments conclude a 2nd attack against the WTC is “probable”: Following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (see February 26, 1993), the New York Port Authority asks investigative and security consulting firm Kroll Associates to help design new security measures for the WTC. Kroll’s Deputy Chairman Brian Michael Jenkins leads the analysis of future terrorist threats and how they might be addressed. Assessments conclude that a second terrorist attack against the WTC is probable. Although it is considered unlikely, the possibility of terrorists deliberately flying a plane into the WTC towers is included in the range of possible threats. [Jenkins and Edwards-Winslow, 9/2003, pp. 11]

After February 1993, Security chief predicts planes will be used to hit WTC towers Rick Rescorla, a Vietnam veteran who also previously worked for British intelligence, is vice president for security at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and has an office in the south WTC tower. Following the 1993 bombing, he believes terrorists will attack the WTC again, this time by flying a cargo plane, maybe loaded with biological or chemical weapons, into it. Fred McBee, a close friend of his, will later say, “He assumed that it would be the terrorists’ mission to bring the Trade Center down.”

Interestingly, Rescorla also reportedly made a similar prediction in 1990 about the WTC being targeted with a bomb. Ironically, he died in the 9/11 attacks.

We also have heard that Germany, Italy, France and an Iranian who was in custody in New York City all warned of a plot to attack the World Trade Center (bonus since this is a FoxNews link).

And to recap just how much “America’s Mayor” ignored all recommendations, I’ll give some more snippets. He failed to upgrade the radio system that was used by firefighters:

His administration's failure to provide the World Trade Center's first responders with adequate radios, a long-standing complaint from relatives of the firefighters killed when the twin towers collapsed. The Sept. 11 Commission noted the firefighters at the World Trade Center were using the same ineffective radios employed by the first responders to the 1993 terrorist attack on the trade center.

He was hated by many of the FDNY:

"We want America to know what this guy meant to New York City firefighters," said Peter Gorman, head of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association. "In our experiences with this man, he disrespected us in the most horrific way."

The 9/11 Commission ripped the city’s emergency phone system:

More details from a preliminary 9/11 panel report came out Wednesday, concluding that people inside the World Trade Center may have been deprived of life-saving information because of basic flaws in the city's emergency phone system.

The report says there was no way to relay information to 911 operators and dispatchers that fire chiefs had made decisions to evacuate the burning and fatally weakened twin towers.

Workers inside the buildings called 911 for help but were not told to evacuate.

An unknown number of victims in the south tower might have had a better chance of survival if emergency operators had told them not to flee upward, where some encountered locked roof doors and no hope of escape.

And of course, there was the mind boggling decision to put the city’s Emergency Command Center at 7 World Trade Center, a building that reportedly contained thousands of gallons of diesel fuel when it collapsed:

''When you are talking about emergency management, I don't think you want to be in an office building in the middle of Wall Street, where you have to worry about your lease and the tenants above and below you,'' said Edward Shaughnessy, a professor of sociology and law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert in emergency management.

''While it may provide you with the opportunity to survey the city,'' he said, putting the center on the 23d floor not only makes it hard to reach should the power in the rest of the building be cut, but also ''leaves you open to a missile attack.''

Professor Shaughnessy praised the work of Jerome M. Hauer, director of the city's Office of Emergency Management, but he added, ''I just think the place they are choosing has the potential for too many problems and they might need to re-examine it.''

While I am sure there is more, these major points should be shouted from the rooftops, and should continue to be used at every possible opportunity. Hell, there should be at least 4 more of these diaries over the next year – just to make sure that everyone gets to know just what New York City residents have known for years.

There will be lies. There will be whitewashing. There will be finger pointing. There will be excuses. But there will always be the truth. And the truth is that Rudy Giuliani had eight years to do something – ANYTHING substantive to help prevent or mitigate the disaster that occurred on 9/11, and he failed to take measures that were necessary and recommended. The only thing he did was to build an ill-advised command center in an ill-advised building that ultimately was destroyed by an attack.

Diplomacy hypocrisy

Front paged at Booman Tribune and ePluribus Media

Now, I will start by saying that it is actually a good thing that this administration has finally (yet secretively) woken up to the overwhelming number of Americans that realize that Iran and Syria are situated next to Iraq and aren’t going anywhere, so we have little choice but to talk to them in the hopes of ending this ongoing disaster of all disasters that the Bush administration lied us into in Iraq.

Over the past few weeks, outgoing U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad had discussions with delegates from both Iran and Syria, as we all know about the republican Congressmen who met with Syrian diplomats before, during and after “the eeeevul traitor Nancy Pelosi” met with them as well.

And, as a follow up to a diary I wrote the other night about the "strong on national security" meme (and something that thereisnospoon and I discussed last night at Political Nexus, I want to relate two conversations I recently had that show how, even in ultimately doing the right thing, the "Democrats are weak" meme gets ingrained into people's minds - even when facts are laid out right there for people to see and hear. Defeating the republicans and shedding light on their hypocrisy requires a very strong rebuttal every chance we get - and even this isn't always enough.

First story was a conversation with my mother regarding her high level of disapproval that Nancy Pelosi not only met with "our enemy, Syria, who wants us all dead", but had the nerve to wear a headscarf. Additionally, the fact that she did this "against the administration's wishes" indicated that this was a very bad move and choice to my mother. She knows what she watches on CNN or FoxNews, and from what I tell her (or my diaries). Without my "balance", she wouldn't know half, or most of what she knows about what is really going on.

In any event, it was ingrained in her head that Pelosi (1) did something that was very weak from a national security standpoint, (2) did something very disrespectful to America by wearing the headscarf and (3) went against the administration for meeting with people that "just want us all dead".

Of course, I was all ready to point out that (1) republican Congressmen went with her, met with Syria both before and after she did, as did the US Ambassador to Iraq, (2) both Laura Bush and Condoleezza Rice wore headscarves when they were in similar positions and (3) not only did Pelosi tell Bush that she was going (and Bush didn't object), she conveyed the same message as the administration was sending - a BIG difference from when BOTH Newt Gingrich AND Dennis Hastert told foreign countries to bypass President Clinton and talk to Congress directly.

The other conversation was later that day and was with my dad, who has softened his stance recently from being self described as "just to the right of Genghis Khan". He now thinks the administration is horrible and corrupt, but still thinks that progressives and Democrats "have no plan" and are weak on national security. Hopefully his listening to us over at Political Nexus will give him some more insight....

Our conversation focused on what I think should be done to fight terrorism on a global basis, and after he didn't want me to tell him all of the things that the administration has done that I would NOT have done (which I understand, but in order to do what needs to be done, a certain level of "undoing" needs to be done as well), I started to give him my ideas (also something that thereisnospoon and I discussed last night at Political Nexus).

Intelligence sharing, law enforcement, "can't fight terrorism militarily", goodwill with other countries to make them "want" to help, and talking to Iran, Syria and other Middle Eastern countries in order to extricate ourselves from Iraq in a way that won't be reminiscent of Vietnam and also leave a raging case of genocide. As soon as I got to "talk to Iran and Syria", that was it. Despite the fact that 75% of Americans (as of December 2006) were in favor of direct talks with them, that was the end of the discussion.

"You can't negotiate with terrorists. They only want to kill us. Why would they want to talk to us." And so on. The conversation continued, and we actually had similar views on some other points, but that was that.

This all brings me back to these next few days, where Rice urged Iran to attend this week's meeting in Egypt, and Iran will be there. Now, there may not be substantive talks, but even though the summit begins today, you can bet that it won't get much coverage (hint: it isn't on the main page of CNN or MSNBC or Yahoo news, but the already debunked story about the dead not dead al Qaeda leader is still on all three pages).

It is long overdue for this administration to negotiate, or at least hold direct talks with Syria and Iran. Yes, they don't have the same goals and motives as the United States does. But that isn't really the point. Like I said above, they are situated next to Iraq, and they aren't up and leaving. And we are (despite what Bush says, we will be leaving Iraq before his term is up).

But the way that this has unfolded leaves an impression on millions of Americans (even ones that are fed up with this administration, and are embarrassed by what the republican party has become) that the Democrats just want to "negotiate with terrorists" and aren't serious about defeating "an enemy that wants to kill us all". We all know that the opposite is true. Blatantly obvious, if you will. But none of that is the point. The fact remains that the republicans and the Bush administration are horrific when it comes to foreign policy, the "war on terror", on national security, and on diplomacy.

This horrific failure has cost the United States untold amounts of goodwill, money and ability to keep it safe and secure, in addition to working with other nations to cut off funding and support for terrorist extremist groups. Plain and simple. However, my parents are just two people who try to stay informed that believe full on the lies that are being told, and the hypocrisy that the administration and republican party exhibits with respect to diplomacy.

In fact, I am willing to bet that, until they read this, they probably have no idea that there is a summit in Egypt that Condoleezza Rice has asked Iran to attend and plans on talking directly to not only them, but Syria.

And while the actions are noble and far past "about time", the belief that if a Democrat does it then it is tantamount to treason has to be continuously fought.