Informed Content

Daily Press Letter Today

2006-03-25T12:09:00.000-08:00

As anyone who submits letters to the Daily Press knows they are subject to editing by the paper. The letter on mine published today was edited and I thought a couple of valid points were omitted. I think the most serious omission was the connection of my opening paragraph to salient points made latter.

Here is the letter in it's entirety.

Editors:

There is no better example of black is white, up is down, irrational thinking of the right wing in this country than the screed proffered by Michael Cochrane (State and religion intersect at marriage) on March 21st.

Cochrane acknowledges the distinction between the act of a church service (religious act) and the act of the creating a legal union by the signing a marriage certificate (legal act). Millions get married outside of churches and without clergy yet all marriages are legal creations of the state whether a priest or magistrate signs the certificate. If you don’t believe me, try getting a divorce at your church.

Cochrane writes he desires to enshrine in the constitution a tenant of his religious belief. He chooses to deny consensual and loving adults the same rights and privileges granted other couples. Unbelievably, he postulates forcing his religious belief on people who disagree makes him the victim! Cochrane fails to enumerate the legal right(s) of which he is deprived because there are none. If one does not like something, you have the right to abstain from it. If you and your church don’t approve same-sex marriages; you have the right to not host the ceremony. Believe it or not, Mr. Cochrane, gay and ummarried couples are not looking to you and your church for endorsement of their choice. Just leave them free, with the same state provided legal protections, to choose their life’s partner without your religion imposed on them. Absent that, Mr. Cochrane, is precisely what losing legal rights looks like.

Charles F. Stanton
Newport News
877-2553

Are you a 34 Percenter?

2006-03-19T07:15:00.000-08:00

Here is a simple test.
If you answer yes to any of these questions you are likely in the 34% of the population that still supports Bush.

Do you think Iraq attacked us on 9/11?

Do you think Saddam Hussein worked with Osama Bin Laden and helped fund Al Qaeda?

Do you think Saddam was acquiring yellow cake uranium from Niger for the purpose of building a nuclear bomb?

Do you think Saddam had unmanned aerial vehicles laden biological and chemical weapons capable of striking the United States at any time?

Ok, now, this is a trick question. Ready? Bush recently said that Iran is supplying components used to make IEDs in Iraq. Do you believe him?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, CONGRATULATIONS! You are a member of the illustrious 34% that still thinks Bush is doing a heckuvajob. You probably also receive your "news" from talk radio and Faux News. You are an enabler for one of the worst administrations in our history. Thanks for nothing!

Miller vs. Webb

2006-03-12T06:26:00.000-08:00

Here is a good read from www.mydd.com

VA-Senate Primary: Miller versus Webb

by Matt Stoller, Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 07:28:27 PM EST

George Allen, a dull man who incessantly uses football metaphors, was considered unbeatable a few years ago. Now the mythical conventional wisdom makers have decided that it's a race. The primary on the Dem side is quite interesting, as it's showing that aside from the moderate-liberal fight in the party, there's also a populist-insider fight. James Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, is fighting with Harris Miller, a tech lobbyist, for the Democratic nomination. The Washington Post's Robert Barnes has a nice article about the race:

The 60-year-old former Marine has a complicated résumé for die-hard Democratic voters to sort through: Republican Capitol Hill staffer; Reagan administration official; supporter of Robb against Oliver L. North in the Senate campaign of 1994; supporter of Allen against Robb in the Senate campaign of 2000. He has had kind words for those who fought for the Confederacy; unkind words for the Clinton administration, which he called "corrupt"; and now says that Allen has no accomplishments and that George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan.

"I am like a huge percentage of people in this country, where I've had trouble with both political parties over the years," he said. "But when you look at the future . . . in my view, the answers to the problems in America come from the traditions of the Democratic Party."

Webb, who lives in Falls Church, took his time before deciding to join the race, egged on by a "Draft Webb" Web site on which followers post rhapsodic reviews of Webb's military expertise and leadership potential.

While Webb was making up his mind, Miller jumped in, and the result is an interesting (for political junkies) split among the consultant class that has helped produce Virginia's last two Democratic statewide victories.

Former governor Mark R. Warner took a break from his own potential presidential wanderings to attend a fundraiser for Miller on Tuesday night; aides say that Warner agreed to attend when Miller, of Fairfax County, was the only Democrat in the race and that his presence is not an endorsement. Miller's team is led by consultant Mo Elleithee, who has worked for both Warner and Kaine, and his pollster is Geoffrey Garin, who polled for Warner.

Webb has enlisted Steve Jarding and David "Mudcat" Saunders, who made their names as the architects of the rural-urban strategy that got Warner elected in 2001, and his pollster is Peter Brodnitz, whom Kaine counted on to take the public's pulse last year.

Miller's supporters describe him as being in the moderate mold of Warner; more than one Democrat has said Webb's candidacy is more intriguing but is "high-risk, high-reward." For his part, Kaine says he's glad that Democrats have enough candidates willing to take on the uphill battle against Allen to make a primary.

I met Mark Warner briefly once, and I really couldn't distinguish him from any other political candidate. It was at what he calls a 'Happy Hour with a Purpose', a townhall-style event that takes place in a bar and without as much speechifying as a normal political event. He gets credit for understanding that what is exciting about politics is not the speeches, but the social interactions and sense of comraderie that emerges from public discourse. That this race is taking place in Virginia, and that he is involved here, is quite interesting.

I don't know that much about Webb or Miller, so these are just impressions. Miller strikes me as a Kaine-type centrist - the guy was a lobbyist after all. He seems to be running on competence. Webb by contrast is kind of an old school Southern populist who is seeking to bring working class votes back into the Democratic Party with an attack on economic and political elites. I read his Born Fighting book a few years ago, and I enjoyed it.

The whole dynamic here is strange and interesting, and I'm curious to see where it goes.

Reach out to Republicans and Loose Your Hand

2006-03-07T19:33:00.000-08:00

In a crass political poke in the eye to Governor Kaine, the republicans in the house voted to block the appointment of Danny LeBlanc as the Governor's Secretary of Commonwealth. Rejection of the appointment to the Governors Cabinet is unprecedented for a qualified candidate.

We must re-dedicate ourselves to the mission to replace every one of these republican hacks. Here is a statement from the Governor's office.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR TIMOTHY M. KAINE
~ On House Rejection of Cabinet Nominee Danny LeBlanc ~

RICHMOND - Governor Timothy M. Kaine issued the following statement following today's vote by the Republican-led House of Delegates to reject the nomination of Secretary of the Commonwealth-designate Daniel LeBlanc, a former AFL-CIO leader:

"I am saddened that the House leadership has chosen the Washington style path of partisanship by rejecting a good and capable man. This action turns its back on Virginia tradition. Virginians deserve better.

"I have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated my willingness to appoint outstanding individuals on a bipartisan basis to serve in my administration. Never before has the Legislature - regardless of which party is in the majority, and regardless of which party controls the Governor's office - ever denied a Governor his prerogative to make Cabinet-level appointments.

"I have known and trusted Danny LeBlanc for 25 years, and I have admired his spirited efforts to improve health and retirement benefits for working people across this state. He is a decent, honorable man, well-qualified to assist me as Secretary of the Commonwealth - a role in which he would verify the background of potential appointees and advise me on appointments to various boards and commissions.

"The Secretary of the Commonwealth has no - I repeat, no - role in the enforcement of Virginia's right-to-work law, a law I strongly support. Likewise, while the Secretary of the Commonwealth compiles information on requests for restoration of voting rights, the actual analysis and decisions are made by the Governor. The House leadership is fully aware of these facts, but facts had no bearing on today's exercise in partisan excess.

"It is a sad day when the House Republican majority enforces a rigid, party-line vote to reject a qualified Cabinet-level appointee. I thank Danny for his willingness to serve and express my appreciation to those who supported his nomination, especially the Democrats in the House and Republicans and Democrats in the Virginia Senate who unanimously voted 40-0 to confirm Danny LeBlanc."

Deja Vu All Over Again

2006-03-07T16:14:00.000-08:00

From the same crowd that gave you the disaster in Iraq: All options are on the table...

When the polls start to really suck and an election is looming, the White House has a strategy: start a war. Bush/Cheney rolled out their "all options are on the table" talking points for Iraq in 2002. Look where that got us. They ran an incompetent war and showed their weakness. Now, they are adopting the same failed strategy...again. This time, it's Iran...and this time, it's clearly part for political gain. This crowd is dangerous. Very dangerous.

Bush on Iraq, March 13, 2002:
And so one of the -- what the Vice President is doing is he's reminding people about this danger, and that we need to work in concert to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the table, and -- but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.

Cheney on Iran, March 7, 2006:
"For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime," Cheney said in a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee."And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Just watch the Hill GOPers start to line up behind the drumbeat. It's an election year, after all.

Common Sense from Middle America???

2006-03-06T19:18:00.000-08:00

Here is the defense for not allowing a rape or incest exemption in the South Dakota abortion prohibition law just passed and signed. The video clip is five minutes. This republican senator's rant begins around the 4 minute mark. Senator Bill Napoli's raped and sodomized virgin defense was contained in this PBS show. It's always much more powerful listening and seeing the people who promote these draconian positions.

Video-WMP Video-QT (David Edwards)

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

When you hear Napoli's little monologue, he sounds like a man from one of those Satanic cult movies.

Why I Am a Democrat - Mark Warner

2006-02-20T09:01:00.000-08:00

I am not sure how many have ever read or heard the speech by Mark Warner on "Why He is a Democrat". Here it is.

Why I am a Democrat, by Gov Mark Warner

"...In Washington the last couple of years, we've seen lots of talk, but few results. And we're heading in the wrong direction.

The last time we had a Democratic President, America saw the first budget surpluses in a generation.

Just three years later, the Republicans' own numbers show a future filled with deficits as far as the eye can see.

The last time we had a Democratic President, unemployment fell to record lows. But today it climbs a little higher every month.

The last time we had a Democratic President, the stock market soared. Today, it just sputters.

In 2000, America was promised something called "compassionate conservatism." And you know - that sounded familiar to a lot of us in the South. We had been saying for a long time - balance the budget, but not on the backs of working people.

But they meant something else - and all we got was more of the same....

Virginia hasn't voted for a Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. When I ran for Governor, the Republicans controlled both houses in the legislature and every statewide office - and the White House picked our Governor to run the Republican National Committee.
And despite those odds, we won because we built a new coalition of Virginians.

We did that by laying out a message that focused on meeting the needs of an information age economy - a message that stressed economic opportunity, educational opportunities, and fiscal responsibility.

We started with the most loyal Democrats. We said to African Americans and to working people - We know that you have been taken for granted in the past. Those days are over. You will help lead this team.

We said, we're going to bring people together - just like Governor Winter showed us how to do here in Mississippi.

And then we reached out to Virginians in rural communities - to people who hadn't voted for a Democrat in a long, long time. And we asked them to give us a chance.

In a 21st century economy, you can be successful anywhere - if you have a good education and job skills.

We talked about giving young people the chance to get a good job in the place they grew up. Because you shouldn't have to leave your family or your hometown to get ahead.

We said, Virginia will never prosper if all the good jobs are in one area, and other places get left behind.

And then we said something that a lot of people had never thought of - you can like NASCAR - you can like hunting - you can like bluegrass music - and you can still vote for a Democrat.
We did all this because we recognized that if you're going to offer people economic hope, you can't spend all your time talking about the same old social issues that have divided us for too long.

You can't move forward if every discussion is about abortion and guns.

Those are all important issues, and we can't ignore them. But they create passion that often distracts us from more fundamental issues.

And let me say it again - if we can do it in Virginia, we can do it for America.

We have to do it for America. Because America deserves better than failed fiscal policy. America deserves better than an economy that leaves millions of people and whole communities behind.
And Democrats offer better. We offer optimism, and we offer hope for the future.

Now as you might guess, a lot of Republicans and Independents supported us. And since then, a lot of them have asked me, Mark - Why exactly are you a Democrat?

And I just smile. Because if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

I am a Democrat because since Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence - and since Jackson spoke for the common man - our party has never been the party of the status quo.
Instead, we have been the ones to see a challenge - and do something about it. Let's be honest - it hasn't always worked perfectly. Sometimes it has gotten us in trouble. Sometimes it has split us apart. But sometimes, those are the wages of progress.

And yet, I am a Democrat because the greatest and most noble political experiments of our time had their birth in our party.

I am a Democrat because the New Deal literally saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

I am a Democrat because a generation after a Democratic president started the Peace Corps, you can still find faded photographs of John F. Kennedy on the walls of homes from South Africa to South America.

I am a Democrat because fighting for working men and women is always the right fight.

I am a Democrat because our party led the struggle for civil rights and because we recognize that discrimination and bigotry are not dead - and that we must continue to seek equal opportunity for all.

I am a Democrat because despite our failures, our missteps, and our excesses - we know that waging a war on poverty does not mean fighting the individuals who are poor.

I am a Democrat because we know that today's battle is about the future versus the past - and it's time to put aside yesterday's battles of us versus them.

I am a Democrat because we know that criticizing success won't create a single job.

And most of all, I am a Democrat because when my three daughters go out into the world to make their lives, I want them to find a world where there's less hopelessness - less selfishness - and less violence.

I want them to find a world where there is more opportunity - more understanding - and more hope.

That is the mission of this party.
That is what we work for.
That is why we get up every morning.
That is why we're here tonight.
And our work is not done."

Bad News Day for Bush

2006-02-10T10:57:00.000-08:00

Am I biased against Resident bush? No, it is not that I am biased against bush. It is the facts that are biased against bush.

Check out, in just one day, articles in major newspapers today. Now, if we could only get people to read newspapers again!!! From the WAPO and NY Times.

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html

Libby Testified He Was Told To Leak Data About Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902117.html

White House Knew of Levee's Failure on Night of Storm

http://nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html?hp&ex=1139634000&amp;en=914abcf6c2b5fc5a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

U.S. Trade Deficit Hits All-Time High

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021000531.html

Just another day for the most dishonest, corrupt and incompetent administration in my lifetime!

FDR vs. bush

2006-02-09T13:11:00.000-08:00

America was attacked on December 7th, 1941. President Roosevelt calmed a nation as it prepared for war. "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". In less than 4 years, the war machine of Nazi Germany was defeated and the Empire of Japan surrendered.

Fast forward to a speech given today by bush. In the speech, the words "terror", "terrorist" or "terrorism" was said 94 times!!!! We have gone for the lofty and comforting words of FDR to a president who must use and spread fear to keep his approval rating from falling into the 20's or low 30's.

By the way, we are now 4 1/2 years removed from the attacks of September 11th. The head of a small, but deadly, terrorist organization is still at large. I read a provocative opinion piece recently that opined the bushtanistas allowed Bin Laden and Al Qaida leadership to escape from Tora Bora, because if killed or in prison, bush could not pull him/them out of the hat, politically speaking, when required.

Interesting. Whether you believe such a hypothesis or not, "The only thing we have is fear itself". Sad indeed.

Uh Oh... Watergate Replay in BushWorld?

2006-02-02T17:41:00.000-08:00

Whodathunkit.

Guess what little bombshell was dropped in a letter from Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald to Scooter Libby's lawyer. In answering a request to turn over some evidence, Fitzgerald writes...

"In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

Read the entire account in this LA Times link

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak2feb02,0,2525161.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Bush Speaks... Just Don't Believe Him

2006-02-02T17:36:00.000-08:00

Just another day in the bizarro world that is the Unites States under bush.

Yesterday, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman admitted that when President Bush said that he had a plan to cut America’s dependence on Middle East oil by 75 percent, he didn’t really mean it:

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn’t mean it literally.

Here are some other statements by Bush that are not to be taken literally –
Bush, 4/20/04:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.
Bush, 6/10/04:

Q Given — given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s up to —
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Bush, 9/15/05:
And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.

President Bush, 1/11/06:
[W]hen an American President says something, he better mean it….in order to be able to have credibility in this world, when we speak, we better mean what we say.
You’re on notice: don’t take Bush at his word. He may just be using words as a metaphor to represent something completely different.

What Real Reporting Looks Like

2006-02-01T13:51:00.000-08:00

You will never see this type of reporting by the multi-millon dollar talking heads on television. These people are so joined at the hip, they will allow lies and misrepresentation take root because they won't challange those in power. Oprah Winfrey tears into an author of a book she promoted because he changed some facts in it. When will the talking heads on television grow the balls of Oprah Winfrey and call these people on their lies.

Some newspaper people still have the good sense. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people read the papers. Take a look at this wonderful report in the LA Times exposing the bunk the bushtanistas threw out about the NSA domestic spying program and other bunk last night

NEWS ANALYSIS

Bush Stretches to Defend Surveillance

The president's justification for his spy program has disputable roots, as do some of the facts and figures he put forth in his speech.

By Peter Wallsten and Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — President Bush received a roaring ovation Tuesday for his prime-time defense of wiretapping phone calls without warrants. But Bush's explanation relied on assumptions that have been widely questioned by experts who say the president offers a debatable interpretation of history.Defending the surveillance program as crucial in a time of war, Bush said that "previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority" that he did. "And," he added, "federal courts have approved the use of that authority."

Bush did not name names, but was apparently reiterating the argument offered earlier this month by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, who invoked Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt for their use of executive authority.

However, warrantless surveillance within the United States for national security purposes was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 — long after Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt stopped issuing orders. That led to the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Bush essentially bypassed in authorizing the program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Since the surveillance law was enacted, establishing secret courts to approve surveillance, "the Supreme Court has not touched this issue in the area of national security," said William Banks, a national security expert at Syracuse Law School.

"He might be speaking in the broadest possible sense about the president exercising his authority as commander-in-chief to conduct a war, which of course federal courts have upheld since the beginning of the nation," Banks said. "If he was talking more particularly about the use of warrantless surveillance, then he is wrong."

Bush's historical reference on domestic spying marked one of several points in his speech in which he backed up assertions with selective uses of fact, or seemed to place a positive spin on his own interpretation.

The president echoed earlier administration assertions that the domestic surveillance program would have been useful before the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush said two Sept. 11 hijackers living in San Diego made telephone calls to Al Qaeda associates overseas, but that "we did not know about their plans until it was too late." However, The Times has previously reported that some U.S. counterterrorism officials knowledgeable about the case blame an interagency communications breakdown, not a surveillance failure or shortcomings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

On his headline-grabbing pledge to decrease U.S. reliance on Middle East oil by 75% over the next 20 years, Bush's words seemed to suggest a dramatic new program to reduce dependence on foreign oil.But experts point out that the U.S. gets only a fraction — about 10% — of its oil imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from Canada and Mexico — and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them.

Speaking about Iraq, Bush argued that "our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration." But he may have left the wrong impression about how far U.S.-led forces have gotten in closing off the huge border areas, especially the 375-mile-long one between Syria and Iraq.

Administration officials have often complained that the Syrian government does little to police the border and have said it may not be possible to close it, given its size.

Two weeks ago, Rep. H. James Saxton (R-N.J.), chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee, complained in a column in the Washington Times that the border is "extremely porous" and called for new steps to cut off the flow of enemy fighters.

Bush made a number of claims for his economic stewardship that were technically accurate but told only a part of the story."In the last 2 1/2 years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs," Bush said. Although the claim is essentially true, he did not say that the United States lost 2.6 million jobs in the first 2 1/2 years of his presidency.

"In the last five years," Bush continued, "the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses and families, and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth." But to many economists, the cause-and-effect relationship is not so stark; they credit tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 with helping to turn around a stagnant economy, but now they worry that the resulting deficits may retard it."

Every year of my presidency, we have reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending," Bush said. True again, but this represents less than 20% of all spending. Including defense and the giant benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare, spending has risen by about 30% in the five Bush years.

The president also seemed to ignore Supreme Court precedent when he called for Congress to give him the "line item veto." But Congress did that once, in 1996, and it was used once, by former President Clinton. But in 1998, a federal judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. That was affirmed by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court.

Bush praised his administration's efforts to help the Gulf Coast recover from Hurricane Katrina. "A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency, and stays at it until they are back on their feet," he said. But Bush omitted any mention of tensions between Gulf State officials and the administration over responsibility for the botched response to the storm. "There was nothing in terms of new money," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).

*Times staff writers Richard B. Schmitt, Josh Meyer, Janet Hook, Nicole Gaouette, Joel Havemann, Paul Richter and researcher Robin Cochran in Washington contributed to this report.

Another Democratic Pickup!

2006-01-31T17:24:00.000-08:00

In another special election, Democrat Mark Herring won a republican seat in a blowout win in the 33rd senate seat.

With all but 2 precinct reporting, Herring has over 61% of the vote. Good win.

When Does a Lie Become Perjury?

2006-01-31T15:08:00.000-08:00

I am not a lawyer. I don't even play one on television. What I can say about my topic is that it must be 1) under oath and 2) material to the case. I suppose that is in a court room setting.

What about lying to Congress? Is that a perjury charge?

What we now know is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, that torture approving Geneva Convention is quaint, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez lied to congress in his confirmation testimony. Heck, the story even made it our of bloggerville and into the MSM at The Washington Post. Here is the story......

Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps

Feingold Says Attorney General Misled Senators in Hearings

By Carol D. LeonnigWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, January 31, 2006; Page A07

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort. Gonzales is scheduled to testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program's legal rationale.

"It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do," Feingold said in a statement yesterday.

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday the department had not yet reviewed the Feingold letter and could not comment.

I wonder how the right wing would be treating this story if it was about Janet Reno and Bill Clinton? I suspect the House and Senate would already be holding hearings!!

The only way oversite will ever occur is if Democrats take control of one, or both, chqambers of Congress!

LTE sent today

2006-01-25T13:26:00.000-08:00

Sent this to the Daily Press this morning.

Editors:

I am sick of the lies, venom and bile which spew forth from the contemptible Bush administration. These incompetents, who did not heed the warnings and PDB’s predicting the imminent attack of September 11th, use that legacy of carnage wrought by their neglect like a club to beat political opponents with fear and smear.

In 4 years, the masterminds of those attacks have not been captured. Free to broadcast additional threats against us (at politically convenient times for Bush), the right wing noise machine of Rove turns these messages into political attacks on democrats and opponents of Bush’s failed and deadly policies.

This tactic worked in 2002 and 2004 and Rove confidently announces they will return to that playbook in 2006. Hiding the actual extent of their domestic spying program, Bush proclaims “if al-Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why”. Rove adds “some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Liars! Name that important Democrat. Opponents only ask for adherence to the fourth amendment constitutional protection and get a warrant. Honor separation of powers and execute the laws passed by Congress through FISA or request improvements to it. We who oppose the “unitary powers” of this power grabbing administration are the patriots. It surely is not traitor Rove who acknowledged leaking the identity of a NOC agent of the CIA for political retribution. Truth and honor are the least bloody casualties in the 5 year Bush reign of error.

Charles F. Stanton
Newport News, VA

Shannon Valentine Wins!!!!

2006-01-10T17:11:00.000-08:00

In the race to fill the open seat for the House of Delegates, Shannon Valentine has won a convincing victory. Gov. Mark Warner called for the election after Del. Preston Bryant announced he would be joining Gov.-elect Tim Kaine’s cabinet as secretary of natural resources.

Viginia is a bit more blue tonight!!!

Listening to Smart People - Not by Bush

2006-01-08T09:42:00.000-08:00

We all know that ideologues run the bush administration. People who do not tow the ideological line are forced out or demoted. This is especially true as it relates to the Neo-Conservatives push for the Iraq War. This is how we ended up unprepared for the death and destruction since the fall of the Sadaam regime. Iraq was a western democratic flower just waiting to be watered. The party line was quoted by Cheney; "We will be greeted as liberators" and Wolfowitz; "We will be greeted with sweets and flowers".

Part of my daily reading is the Blog (www.JuanCole.com) of Professor Juan Cole, a history professor from the University on Michigan (GO BLUE!!). Professor Cole has extensive ties to the middle east and provides a daily insight about Iraq. He is as smart as it comes and voices like his were drowned out by the rush to war. How prescient is this article, publish in January of 2003, 2 months before the start of the war. He recently republished it in response the the quote from Paul Bremmer that "Nobody saw the insurgency coming". Liar! Nobody inside the neo-con cult, that is.

Costs of War

The regional costs of a US war on Iraq are potentially great: The war will inevitably be seen in the Arab world as a neo-colonial war. It will be depicted as a repeat of the French occupation of Algeria or the British in Egypt-or indeed, the British in Iraq. These were highly unpopular and humiliating episodes. The US, even if it has a quick military victory, is unlikely to win the war diplomatically in the Arab world. Pan-Arabism has been more aspiration than reality in the past century, but this US war against Iraq might well promote the formation of a stronger regional political bloc.As a result of resentment against this neocolonialism, the likelihood is that al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations will find it easier to recruit angry young men in the region and in Europe for terrorist operations against the US and its interests. The final defeat of the Baath Party will be seen as a defeat of its ideals, which include secularism, improved rights for women and high modernism. Arabs in despair of these projects are likely to turn to radical Islam as an alternative outlet for their frustrations. The Sunnis of Iraq could well turn to groups like al-Qaida, having lost the ideals of the Baath. Iraqi Shi'ites might become easier to recruit into Khomeinism of the Iranian sort, and become a bulwark for the shaky regime in Shi'ite Iran.A post-war Iraq may well be riven with factionalism that impedes the development of a well-ensconced new government. We have seen this sort of outcome in Afghanistan. Commentators often note the possibility for Sunni-Shi'ite divisions or Arab Kurdish ones. These are very real. If Islamic law is the basis of the new state, that begs the question of whether its Sunni or Shi'ite version will be implemented. It is seldom realized that the Kurds themselves fought a mini-civil war in 1994-1997 between two major political and tribal factions. Likewise the Shi'ites are deeply divided, by tribe, region and political ideology. Many lower-level Baath Party members are Shi'ite, but tens of thousands of Iraqi Shi'ites are in exile in Iran and want to come back under the banner of ayatollahs.Internal factionalism is unlikely to reach the level of Yugoslavia after the fall of the communists, since US air power can be invoked to stop mass slaughter. But there could be a good deal of trouble in the country, and as the case of Afghanistan shows, the US cannot always stop faction fighting.

I bet bush still would not listen to him in 2006.

Bush - "Stickey, You're Doing a Heck of a Job"

2006-01-04T15:00:00.000-08:00

I know, I know, This quote was about the now infamous bush Crony and incompetent FEMA head Michael Brown. The quote was "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" as it related to the FEMA response to Katrina.

So, who is this Stickey and is he really doing a heck of a job? You might know the answer to the former and I bet you can correctly guess the answer to the latter. Everything bush touches turns to junk, the bush reverse "Midas Touch". Stickey (I must admit to not knowing if this is the bush nickname for him) is Mr. Richard Stickler, head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the federal agency responsible for regulating the mining industry in the United States. Since MSHA came into being, industry fatalities have fallen dramatically. Mining is a dangerous occupation and you would think that everyone would bend over backwards to make it the safest it can be. Not in the bush world of corporate control and corruption. As we know, government policy matters in peoples lives. Good governance matters. Treating is as just another insider deal and a way to profit kills.

Since this band of corporate prostitutes stole their way into power in 2000, the number of inspectors in MSHA has declined by 170. Even with fewer inspectors, the mine where 12 died was cited 21 times for buildup of combustible gases. There was an explosion in the mine. May we assume it was from a build up of combustible material? Where was the enforcement for these citations?

This leads us back to "Stickey". Who is he? Last September, Bush rewarded the coal industry by placing coal industry veteran Richard Stickler in charge of MSHA. Stickler spent about 30 years as a coal company manager with Beth Energy. Mines managed by Stickler were marked by worker injury rates that were double the national average, according to government data cited by the United Mine Workers union. How many new safety regulations have been proposed by the bush administration? MSHA has not proposed a single new mine-safety standard or rule during its tenure.

And there's a reason for that. The Washington Post reported that West Virginia coal firms raised $275,000 for Bush.

I have one basic overarching reason as to why I am a Democrat. There are certainly exceptions to this rule. Democrats want to Govern and Republicans want to Rule.

If you can grasp the difference between governing and ruling, you will understand why I am a Democrat. Unfortunately, 12 miners and their families in West Virginia have learned the hard way by paying the maximum price.

Happy New Year

2005-12-31T05:10:00.000-08:00

As 2005 comes to a close, I want to wish everyone a New Year filled with peace and prosperity.

2006 will be a year of work and challenge for the Committee specifically and Democrats around the country. It is vital that the Democrats take control of one or both of the halls of congress. This is the only hope to hold this administration to account for their rampant cronyism and utter incompetence.. The one party rule of the republican party has left this country facing a combination of more corruption, death, deficits and destruction to our freedoms since our Founding Fathers gave birth of this great land.

Here Paul Krugman's peice in the NY Times. Enjoy the read and GET TO WORK TO ELECT DEMOCRATS!!!

A year ago, everyone expected Bu$h to get his way on Social Security. Pundits warned Democrats that they were making a big political mistake by opposing plans to divert payroll taxes into private accounts.

A year ago, everyone thought Congress would make Bu$h's tax cuts permanent, in spite of projections showing that doing so would lead to budget deficits as far as the eye can see.
But Congress hasn't acted, and most of the cuts are still scheduled to expire by the end of 2010.

A year ago, Bush made many Americans feel safe, because they believed that he would be decisive & effective in an emergency. But Bush was apparently oblivious to the first
major domestic emergency since 9/11. According to Newsweek, aides to Bush finally decided, days after Hurricane Katrina struck, that they had to show him a DVD of TV newscasts
to get him to 'appreciate the seriousness' of the situation.

A year ago, before "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" became a national punch line,
the rising tide of cronyism in government agencies and the rapid replacement
of competent professionals with UN-qualified political appointees attracted hardly
any national attention.

A year ago, hardly anyone outside Washington had heard of Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay's position as House majority leader seemed unassailable.

A year ago, DICK Cheney, who repeatedly cited discredited evidence linking Saddam to 9/11,
and promised that invading Americans would be welcomed as liberators - although he hadn't yet declared that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes" - was widely admired for his "gravitas."

A year ago, Howard Dean - who was among the very few prominent figures to question
Colin Powell's pre-war presentation to the United Nations, and who warned, while hawks
were still celebrating the fall of Baghdad, that the occupation of Iraq would be much more difficult than the initial invasion - was considered flaky and unsound.

A year ago, it was clear that before the Iraq war, the Bush Administration suppressed information suggesting that Iraq was not, in fact, trying to build nuclear weapons. Yet, few people in Washington or in the news media were willing to say that the nation was deliberately misled into war until polls showed that most Americans already believed it.

A year ago, the Washington establishment treated Ayad Allawi as if he were Nelson Mandela. Allawi's triumphant tour of Washington, back in September 2004, provided a crucial boost to the Bush-Cheney campaign. So did his claim that the insurgents were "desperate." But Allawi turned out to be another Ahmad Chalabi, a hero of Washington conference rooms and cocktail parties who had few supporters where it mattered, in Iraq.

A year ago, when everyone respectable agreed that we must "stay the course," only a handful of war critics suggested that the U.S. presence in Iraq might be making the violence worse, not better. It would have been hard to imagine the top U.S. commander in Iraq saying, as Gen. George Casey recently did, that a smaller foreign force is better "because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation."

A year ago, Bush hadn't yet openly reneged on Scott McClellan's 2003 pledge that "if anyone
in this administration was involved" in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, that person
"would no longer be in this Administration." Of course, some suspect that Bush
has always known who was involved.

A year ago, we didn't know that Bush was lying or at least being deceptive, when he said
at an April 2004 event promoting the Patriot Act that "a wiretap requires a court order.
...When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary
to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

A year ago, most Americans thought Bush was [sic] honest. [ No, we didn't!! ]

A year ago, we didn't know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn't 'above the law' have changed
their minds.

Bush is a Lying SOB

2005-12-20T12:08:00.000-08:00

I apologize if the title of this post is offensive. The bush apologists will argue that the bushtanistas did not lie about WMD, the intelligence was wrong. On and on, issue after issue, they lie with just enough "wiggle room", maybe a modicum of truth, to allow for debate and argument. The best case scenario for the entire bush cabal is they mislead, obfuscate and say something that is technically true but the intent is to mislead. Yes, I call that a lie. We teach our children that very point almost daily.

I would love for any bush supporter to offer a defense of the following quotes by gw bush as it relates to the violation of law and the Constitution vis a vis his domestic spying. The fact they are bypassing the FISA court and failing to get a warrant as DIRECTLY REQUIRED (what's up with that, strick constructionist?) by the fourth amendment. READ THESE QUOTES WITH THE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT bush HAS ACKNOWLEDGED SINCE SATURDAY.

President Bush -- April 19, 2004:
For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.

President Bush -- April 20, 2004:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

President Bush -- June 9, 2005:
One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses.

White House fact sheet - June 9, 2005:
The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps, terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone.

President Bush -- July 20, 2005:
The Patriot Act helps us defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of the tools we're talking about. And they are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

White House fact sheet -- July 20, 2005:
The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single verified abuse.

President Bush -- December 10, 2005:
The Patriot Act is helping America defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all our people. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Under the act, law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone or search his property. Congress also oversees our use of the Patriot Act. Attorney General Gonzales delivers regular reports on the Patriot Act to the House and the Senate.

I submit that when gw bush made these statements, HE WAS A LYING SOB!

My Letter to the Daily Press

2005-12-17T10:57:00.000-08:00

I sent the following Letter to the Editor to the Daily Press a couple of days ago.

Editors:

There you have it. Bush proclaims that 30,000 dead Iraqis (Johns Hopkins and other independent organizations place the actual total in excess of 100,000), 2140 dead soldiers and Marines and tens of thousands maimed, dismembered and severely wounded, on both sides, is a justified price for installing a democratic form of government in Iraq.

Would he be so cavalier if it was one of his twins dead for his war of choice? If your son or daughter was the price paid for this trumped up war sold with deceptions, would you consider it an acceptable price? What if the price was your brother, sister, father or mother. Now is the price alright? This “acceptable price” is not a number, Mr. Bush, but real human beings dying for your lies (whoops, we mean “wrong intelligence”). Real blood is being shed and real families are suffering an unimaginable loss.

Let me offer the Bush apologist some different numbers to ponder. Zero - the number of promised WMD’s found. One - the number of inappropriate jokes this contemptible man told in the very next sentence after acknowledging his death and carnage. Two - the number of Shiite theocracies, along with an ecstatic Iran, that will be in the Middle East very shortly. Three - the number of years before this country and world are freed from this incompetent and Bush is retired to the “Lazy W” ranch in Crawford.100 - the percentage increase in the price of a barrel of oil since the start of the war. Lastly, $300 billion (and growing) will be spent on this boondoggle. For that price, we could have bought a democracy, giving $125,000 to every man woman and child still alive in Iraq. I guess that would have bypassed his oil buddies, political donors and contractor friends profiting off this war. That is one price this president is unwilling to pay.

Charles F. Stanton
Newport News, Va.

Is buying good press in Iraq a "Big Deal"

2005-12-04T10:37:00.000-08:00

Here is the best analysis I have read on why the press story in Iraq is a "Big Deal".

The payola scheme has immensely corrosive longer-term implications for media institutions, for American credibility, for building the institutions of pluralism and democracy. Most immediately it has devastaging implications for the credibility of pro-American voices in the region (hence Alhomayed's dismay). Every pro-American voice in Iraq and in the region now comes under greater suspicion of having been on the take. Those voices already Ã— often unfairly Ã— risked being tarred as American puppets. Now their burden has become that much heavier.

These incompetents screw up everything the touch with deadly consequences.

Makes one proud to be an American

2005-12-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

Today, the Washington Post revisits the story of Khaled Masri, a German citizen who was arrested, beaten, and imprisoned by the CIA for five months because his name was similar to that of an actual terrorist. Turns out he's just an ordinary schmoe.

Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us that security at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan is so bad that genuinely dangerous al-Qaeda members held there can pick the locks on their cells and sneak out through the fence.

Finally, the Los Angeles Times confirms last week's Telegraph story that private contractors are shooting "scores" of Iraqis just for the hell of it and pretty much doing it with impunity.
And of course the black sites in Eastern Europe are still operational, Dick Cheney still opposes the torture bill, the insurgency still appears to be quite a long way from being its last throes, and the pope has decided that gays are officially pariahs in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Have a nice

More Disgusting Republican Hypocrisy

2005-10-23T13:43:00.000-07:00

Have you been reading the latest GOP talking points leading up to the possible indictments of Bushco cabal members?

They are spinning they hope indictments be about the possible crimes in the scope on the special prosecutor and not some charge of "technical perjury" or "technical obstruction of justice". My oh my have they changed their tune in the last few years. My bias, of course, is nothing technical at all. Frogmarch them all out of the White House. How about the term "unindicted co-conspirators" for Bush and Cheney themselves! We now have 3 consecutive "second term" legal issues for Reagan, Clinton and Bush II.

Reagan was double dealing with the Ayatollahs in Iran from the White House to fund his bloodbath in Central America in violation of law.

Clinton had a girlfriend in the White House while leading this country to unprecedented Peace and Prosperity.

Bush has traitors in the White House outing CIA agents as retribution for someone exposing his lies and false pretense for an elective war.

Damn that Bill Clinton!

Americans Do Eventually "get it"

2005-08-24T09:21:00.000-07:00

I know it is difficult for many of us to understand why so many people could have been fooled into voting for the current (p)resident of the White House. I thought I would post the lastest survey from the polling company American Research Group. It does not take away the sting of the Bush incompetents reign of error on this country and the world, but the latest results do bring just a bit of summer releif.

Bush Job Approval Ratings 8/22/05

Approve Disapprove Undecided
Overall 36% 58% 6%

Economy 33% 62% 8%

For complete survey results, please click HERE