Yup, that was good news about the Dems and the WMD Intel maneuver. Bad news (IMO) that DeLay got his way about changing judges. Win some. Lose some.
****************
But on the Pajama Game deal --David sez: "I developed yet another career path as a shouting head on TV, but I try not to be the first one to shout. I am a rarer breed in that I still am a reporter. I bring facts to bear when I write, punditize or blog."

David, if you can do as you stated above, with Ledeen and May involved, more power to ya!

Would you have joined this group if Judith Miller was on the *Editorial Board?*

Just asking...

First kudos to Kathleen in others... maybe your efforts are getting traction on getting the phase 2 investigation completed.

---

Happenstance of this one analyst in reading over the Starr report found that Starr may have given precedence to go after Cheney's lie despite not being under oath. Starr's report justified seeking impeachment for Clinton for lying to the american people on TV despite not being under oath.

Cheney meets the same test that Starr used for Clinton:

Is Cheney a constitutional officer? Yes. Did he lie to the country? Yes. On national television? Yes. About a subject that was under a federal investigation at the time? Yes.

Mr. David Corn,

"But they drew media attention for a crucial issue and placed the Repubs off-balance, at least for a little while. Now only if this report come out before the next presidential election"

And THAT is the truth. I bet they would prefer December 06 or to just forget about it. Lucky we have people like Kathleen to remind us that this is not an important issue it is THE important issue and now is the time to make some real noise.

If enough noise is made who knows, something might work. As the GOP has proven (again) they cannot lead and are a bunch of crooks it would be nice to see a sea change from the center and reasonable moderates. *sigh*

I can hope.

Thanks

Kirk

Yelnats,

WOW - I am agog!

Brilliant! In the comments section below the piece "thinker" at #7 asks:

"Now I may be wrong on this, but I think that the Oath of Office is supposed to be a binding Oath 24/7/365, etc. Meaning that officials that are sworn into office are bound to tell the truth by the Oath that they take, which is considered to be constantly in effect."

"Any lawyers want to check me on this one?"

"Comment by Thinker —†11/1/2005 @ 4:16 pm"

**************

I think they are on to something. How 'bout an impeachment for the lies, one for each liar.

Like I say, I can hope.

ROCKIN' link!

Thanks

capt

They got a committment for a plan by 11/14, whatever that means. A shot across the bow does a lot to sober the discussion though. The republicans understand one thing....power. Reid showed today that perhaps the Dems finally get that. This is a no lose for Dems who have struggled for years with a reputation as lap dogs. This is why they should also filibuster Scalito. Whether they win the battle is not the issue. The issue is gaining the respect of the American people. And the filibuster won't be any great loss in a few years. In fact, it'll be welcome.

Capt, once phase 2 exonerates the Bush administration, are you still going to call Bush a liar?

Secondly, this investigation will cover ALL members of congress with false statements about Iraq, not just the Bush administration. So that means John Kerry will have to answer for claiming Iraq had nuclear weapons, which the intelligence never indicated.

How much you guys want to bet when phase 2 does exonerate Bush, you leftists and Corn are going to come up with excuses such as the report being stonewalled or something like that.

Whee Hee David...that sure is great news, thanks for the report.

And now folks..come on if you have not called, wtitten or visited your representatives on PHASE II...DO IT NOW...APPLY THE PRESSURE AND LOTS OF it. Blogging is great although we have to do more.

#yelnats...thanks. When I heard last summer that the OSP (office of special plans) and the WHIG (white house Iraq group) were "off limits" to all of the previous pre-war investigations. I have been obsessed with getting this important topic mentioned on every media outlet I have had access to.

Now when I have brought this issue up on air on Diane Rehm, c-span, Talk of the Nation etc et.. The often repeated response is well the Republicans control the Senate. I have had Clarence Paige, Scott Ritter, Lawrence Wilkerson and some other COlonel and others, on one of the show say this. I have been able to bring this up directly to Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, Dr. Kelly, Zbigniew Bryzinski (who have all visited Ohio University in the last few years) I have said to these folks that the american people deserve to have all of the false documents investigated. This is the time to push harder than ever....... push them to do the right thing. If we do not do our part and demand that our Senators do theirs.

I repeat on of my mantras over and over ...

Whether an individual was for, against, or on the fence about the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. This should not have anything to do with investigating the false intelligence. This is the duty of our Senators. The american and the Iraqi people deserve to have ALL..ALL of the pre-war intelligence and all of those who created and dessiminated the false intelligence thoroughly investigated. THIS IS THE VERY LEAST WE CAN DO FOR THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEEDLESSLY DIED.

If you have not CALLED, WRITTEN, OR VISITED your representatives and Senator Patrick Roberts (chair of the committee) and Senator Rockerfeller,(co chair of the committee) about this important issue. DO IT NOW...demand that PHASE II BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY.

PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE

Frist on the shutdown: "This is an affront to me personally," he said. "It's an affront to our leadership. . . " Leadership? What leadership? The Dems say they might shut the place down every day until they get results on phase II. It's about freaking time. Seems it took the smell of Libby's blood to rouse them from their coma. Wanna bet Hillary Clinton will jump on the bandwagon by next week?

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".

*****end of clip*****

An interesting take. I am not sure of the source. Interesting just the same.

capt

When did the discussion about "character" in the WH stop?

Oh yeah, that was in 2000.

Curious lot those house managers. Talk about relative values.

See, a lie about cheating on your wife really is worse than starting a war on lies.

Sure, that is GOP consistency. Nothing their guy does can be wrong. Blind faith breeds ignorance and arrogance and it is very clear who is drowning in both.

IMHO

capt

"There is no question. I first learned about Valerie Plame working at the CIA from Karl Rove," Cooper said.

Libby has since claimed that he heard the Plame rumors from other reporters. Cooper disputed that version of events. "I don't remember it happening that way," he said. "I was taking notes at the time and I feel confident."

If a trial goes ahead, Cooper said he would name Rove as his source of the information.

"Before I spoke to Karl Rove I didn't know Mr. Wilson had a wife and that she had been involved in sending him to Africa."

I have to agree with Tim L on one thing: If recent history is any indication, any investigation by the Republican-dominated Congress of the Republican admin's manipulation of pre-war intelligence is likely to be a whitewash and merely provide more points for people like Tim to parrot.

I still think our only real hope of nailing the truth lies with the courts.

I LOVE HOW THE LEFT TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY!!!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

*****END OF CLIP*****

So these hypocrites think they're not going to be exposed!?!?

As War Began, Kerry Said Saddam Chose “To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism.” “Senator John F. Kerry … had lambasted Bush’s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ‘It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,’ Kerry said.” (Glen Johnson, “Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)

Kerry Said Saddam Hussein’s WMD “Are A Threat.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

Kerry Said, “If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry Described Threat Of Saddam Hussein With WMD As Real, But Not New. “[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

Kerry Questioned Saddam’s Actions With Respect To His WMD Capability. “Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Called It “Naive To The Point Of Grave Danger” To Leave Saddam “To His Own Devices.” “It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Said “Threat Of Saddam Hussein With Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Real.” “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry: “I Am Prepared To Hold Saddam Hussein Accountable And Destroy His Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Differ On War In Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 10/6/02)

Oh I forgot, well BUSH TOOK US TO WAR!

Drewp, it seems to me that you know Bush is going to be exonerated. so you're setting yourself up incase he is exonerated (which he will be). If it is proven that Bush lied, then he should be impeached. I would support his impeachment.

See, the difference between liberals and conservatives is, that conservatives hold their side accountable, liberals do not.

Drewp said:

"I still think our only real hope of nailing the truth lies with the courts."

Yeah, that seems to be the only venue in which you could implement your ideas since you can't win at the ballot box!

Using that simple non-logic if the dems win an election then they are right?

Talk about relative values.

It is my understanding that what the Dems did was appropriate. Repungnants whined like greased pigs they are. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!!!!!

THE LIE:

"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."..."

THE TRUTH

An IAEA report in 1998 (around the time that inspectors were "finally denied access") did say Iraq was six to 24 months away from developing a weapon before the Gulf War in 1991, but its efforts to produce weapons-grade uranium were largely crippled by the war and subsequent inspection regime. It appears Bush was referring to that estimate to underscore the point that Iraq has already come close to developing nuclear weapons and will try to do so again.

However, he should have been clearer about when that capacity was discovered. By tying the pre-Gulf War estimate to when inspectors were "finally denied access," Bush appears to imply that IAEA's conclusion that Iraq was "six months away from developing a weapon" dated from 1998, rather than 1991. The IAEA summary of the report he is referring to in fact stated that as of 1998 it "has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."

Rather than clarifying the point appropriately, Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan claimed the president was referring to an IAEA report published in 1991 (the organization says it did not issue such a report that year) and pointed a Washington Times reporter to two newspaper stories that do not corroborate Bush's claim.

capt

It took only NINE HUNDRED FIFTY Days for the Democrats (in the Senate ) to DO their
JOBS. Hardly a thing worth celebrating. However, if ya still want it, let's keep our country. Just a suggestion, Anderson
Petition

www.warisaracket.org My name's at # 102

Prewar Probes

The Dems are wrong on claiming victory. Whenever the Dems do what is right, the Dems should say they did what they did for the American people so that the people will receive the information in the Dems search for the truth. We must eliminate the Gotcha game in politics.

Scrolling along, I caught "Tim L." One question for you , Tim L. , do you want your loved ones serving in a military led by Pres. Dubya and Rumsfeld ???????? Please reply.

A. Petition

www.warisaracket.org

Rock on kathleen, i still hear post cards are the way to send pressure to wash DC. All of our home rep's plus those on the intel committee.

Senator Reid's move is only as good as the support behind him. When we as a people are threatened with the "nuclear option" by a possible(though not provable) 1% majority, i say draw the line and stand on principle.Why is the filibuster allowed if not for now? Is this what you call an "activist" majority party? Old rules don' work when we're in the majority.

In the Prewar Probes article you can see the faces of three rats.

Verbatim:

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, May 14.

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Vice President Cheney, March 16 (aides later said Cheney was referring to Saddam Hussein's nuclear programs, not weapons).

*****end of clip*****

From the bottom of the article linked.

capt

MTP Transcript for Sept. 14

Sunday, September 14, 2003
GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president
Tim Russert, moderator

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.

*****end of clip*****

No evidence and NEVER?

Sounds like somebody's pants are on fire.

HA!

capt

Iraq war's gonna last weeks rather than months,y'all

CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore

By Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page A30

CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.

That evidence was dismissed as a forgery early this month by United Nations officials investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Bush administration does not dispute this conclusion.

Asked how the administration came to back up one of its principal allegations against Iraq with information its own intelligence service considered faulty, officials said all such assertions were carefully tailored to stay within the bounds of certainty. As for the State of the Union address, a White House spokesman said, "all presidential speeches are fully vetted by the White House staff and relevant U.S. government agencies for factual correctness."

Questioned about the forgery during a recent congressional hearing, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, "We were aware of this piece of evidence, and it was provided in good faith to the [U.N.] inspectors."

But in the days preceding the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq, some intelligence officials had begun to acknowledge more openly their doubts about how this and other information was used to support charges that Iraq has a significant covert program to produce weapons of mass destruction.

*****end of clip*****

As warnings were made specifically and in the days preceding the invasion, nobody can say they did not know. That would be a lie.

capt

WHO LIED TO WHOM?

Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’≥ nuclear program?

by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2003-03-31
Posted 2003-03-24

Last September 24th, as Congress prepared to vote on the resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to wage war in Iraq, a group of senior intelligence officials, including George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq’≥ weapons capability.

Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. "The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic," ElBaradei said.

One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, "These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking."

The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency’≥ Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.

It took Baute’≥ team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co?peration, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that "they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet."

*****end of clip*****

The gang that cannot lie straight, used a forgery to make (as in fabricate) a reason to invade Iraq. Wilson was smeared, and they went too far. They exposed Plame.

It involves the leak but it is in the context of who and why they leaked what they leaked.

capt

Liar, liar pants on fire! That reminds me of a friend in college who spent time putting a match flame to his farts. There was one time that the flame singed the hairs on his ass.

For Bush, Facts Are Malleable

Presidential Tradition Of Embroidering Key Assertions Continues

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A01

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago.

Bush's statement about the Iraqi nuclear defector, implying such information was current in 1998, was a reference to Khidhir Hamza. But Hamza, though he spoke publicly about his information in 1998, retired from Iraq's nuclear program in 1991, fled to the Iraqi north in 1994 and left the country in 1995. Finally, Bush's statement that Iraq could attack "on any given day" with terrorist groups was at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA. The testimony, declassified after Bush's speech, rated the possibility as "low" that Hussein would initiate a chemical or biological weapons attack against the United States but might take the "extreme step" of assisting terrorists if provoked by a U.S. attack.

White House spokesmen said in response that it was "unrealistic" to assume Iraqi authorities did not know of Zarqawi's presence and that Iraq's unmanned aircraft could be launched from ships or trucks outside Iraq.

*****end of clip*****

A lie with a little push polling type thing. They knew they were lying and looking back it is all too obvious.

They conned us into giving him the benefit of doubt but we have been had by a web of lies, deceit and faked memos.

capt

I noticed none of you traitorous fucken Corn cunts responded to "Tim L." # 13. He is the only one on this site with a working brain,

Oil Firms Under Pressure From Consumers

By Andrea R. Mihailescu
UPI Energy Correspondent
Washington (UPI) Nov 01, 2005

Major oil firms together amassed a staggering $32.8 billion in net income during the third quarter, as gas prices top $3 a gallon. The figure includes earnings from ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips. The announcement of record profits was attacked by critics and even some conventional allies.

ExxonMobil, making corporate history as the first U.S. firm to surpass $100 billion in quarterly sales, dominated the revenue for the group, which totaled $378 billion.

Shareholders may be enjoying profits but consumers are fuming, which is felt from Wall Street to Washington.

"Big-oil behemoths are making out like bandits, while the average American family is getting killed by high gas prices, and soon-to-be record heating oil prices," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "We need to fix this."

*****end of clip*****

Why is it that the MSM are not all over this issue?

Simple math tells me that the excessive profits are spelled GOUGE because if they only up the price because of cost increases how would that make for the huge increase in profit?

If they are only passing along the higher cost to the consumer because that have to stay profitable why do the profits prove the costs are not that high? If the costs were that high the big oil firms would not be making such a killing.

capt

Anti-Bush protesters expected at a coming summit

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina President Bush's coming visit to Argentina is likely to touch off large-scale anti U-S demonstrations.

International soccer legend Diego Maradona is one of a number of South American celebrities who have organized a protest train that will travel to the Argentine resort town where Bush will be meeting with 33 other leaders in the Summit of the Americas.

In an interview on Maradona's Argentine television program, Cuban leader Fidel Castro praised the protests.

Castro is the only Latin American leader not invited to the meetings.

Summit issues are expected to include talks on free trade, job creation and bolstering democracy throughout the hemisphere.

*****end of clip*****

We should care enough to protest against Bush and his policies but in the land of the free and the home of the brave we only get to yell from a cage or from a mile away.

When a south American country has more respect for free speech than the USA, it is a sad day.

capt

Senate Emerges From Closed Session on Iraq

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of CIA officer Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson's publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid claimed that Republicans have repeatedly rebuffed Democratic pleas for a thorough investigation.

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., a former majority leader, said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons —†the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

*****end of clip*****

No wonder the bullies want to re-write the rules.

Politics they say? It is just so insincere. They are all politicians and everything they do is political.

capt

COME ON FOLKS..LET'S NOT GIVE UP..BEFORE YOU REALLY MAKE AN EFFORT...PUSH..PUSH...PRESSURE OUR SENATORS TO INVESTIGATE EVERY DETAIL EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATION AND DESSIMINATION OF THE FALSE INTELLIGENCE. LET THEM KNOW WE ARE WATCHING EVERY MOVE.

IF PHASE II IS IMPLEMENTED THIS INVESTIGATION COULD GO FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
CALL..WRITE...VISIT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES.. DEMAND PHASE II INVESTIGATE WHIG AND THE OSP........ENCOURAGE FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME. USE DEMOCRACY OR LOSE IT....

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN

With all the weapons sold/given to Saddam, many felt he had something. We couldn't be seen as negligent. All put too much faith in Powell at the UN, where we thought they could stop the runaway train.

The selling of this threat was years in the making, and I wish some of our purists could acknowledge how complete the sham with intelligence faked like never before. Certain reports always to be believed, enough to give more pause.

Knowing something of Tim L's quotes, he left out all the qualifiers that said under no circumstances do we rush to war, for regime change, and war is always the last resort. Kerry was furious that BushCo went back on their word to let the inspectors finish the mandated job. He spoke out all along the camapign, but if your hearts didn't go pitty-pat exactly how you'd like, or maybe you didn't hear it, don't assume he wasn't critical.

However I didn't like Kerry playing the margins, we did very well considering the strength of the popularity of the war and president. We wanted a win, when the public was afraid and uninformed.

Tim L's #13 commentary is problematic in that any quote from the late 90s is moot. Significant progress was made, between that period and the war in March of '03. Ask Scott Ritter who worked on inspections for 8 years.

Furthermore, you can quote all the Dems you want, the problem is that MANY of them--particularly with respect to international policy--are NOT liberals in that they are ofen rather hawkish--Clinton, Gore, Kerry to name a few.

Marjorie G, thank you for that reminder "he left out all the qualifiers that said under no circumstances do we rush to war, for regime change, and war is always the last resort."

Reichers such as Tim L are born to spin.

drewp,
How do you like Frist's line "They have no convictions." HAHAHAHA.
That's a good thing Senator Frist. Convictions are not something you admire.

This from Democracy Now headlines.
----
Bush's Church Calls for U.S. Troop Withdrawal

President Bush and Dick Cheney are facing more opposition about the war in Iraq - this time from their own church. Last week the United Methodist Church passed a resolution calling for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq. The resolution read in part "As people of faith, we raise our voice in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq. Thousands of lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in a war the United States initiated and should never have fought." The church board also called on Congress to create and independent, bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. treatment of detainees overseas.

How do you guys EXPLAIN this quote!?!?

I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

-- John Kerry, Democratic Primary Debate, 5/03/03

Actually, in August of 2004, Kerry said he still would have VOTED for the Iraq war, even KNOWING there were no WMDs!!

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Arizona (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

WATCH THIS VIDEO OF ALL THE KERRY QUOTES ABOUT IRAQ HAVING WMDS!

http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/

It doesn't matter, Kerry said he SUPPORTS THE WAR. You can't make excuses for Kerry. Kerry said Saddam had WMd

Capt, I sent a message to the daily show asking them to invite Mr. Corn onto the show. For my money, though, if they want to stay true to their mission, they should invite Timmiee! He is hilarious.

More quotes from people who were trying to keep a lid on sanctions on Iraq (in the 90's) and were lied to by Bolton's fixers at WINPAC (when Chimpy McMushroom hired Captain Kangaroo to feed him bullshit).

Timmiee sez:
"See, the difference between liberals and conservatives is, that conservatives hold their side accountable, liberals do not."

* Scotty (Jeffy Lube's boy-toy) lies to the press on a daily basis. He thought it was ridiculous that anyone in the White House would have anything to do with leaking Plame's name.
* Chimpy nominates a woman to the supreme court who has never been a judge (then has her run back to the ranch with her tail between her legs)
* Chimpy hires a horse's-ass goofball screw up FEMA
* Chimpy hires a bunch of chickenhawks to screw up the military
* Chimpy turns Iraq (AKA Western Iran) into a Muslim Theocracy
* Chimpy turns a growing Federal Surplus into a growing Federal Deficit
* Real wages shrink
* Inflation bites a hole in everyone's pocket
* Gas prices go through the roof, Petro-profits hit record highs and Chimpy gives them Billion dollar Corporate Welfare checks
* Cheneyburton gets no-bid contracts and screws American Taxpayers out of Billions
* The Schiavo debacle
* The Social Security debacle
* Traitorgate
* Oink-Oink Transportation Bill
* 200 Billion Dollars in Tax Breaks to the richest 20,000 families while 280 million hard working Americans get a few hundred dollars

Dang, where's Gare when you need him. That dude has an awesome list of upfucks by the Cheney Administration.

I repeat, Timmiee sez:
"See, the difference between liberals and conservatives is, that conservatives hold their side accountable, liberals do not."

According to Rasmussen Reports Polling (reactionary morons), Chimpy gets positive approval ratings from almost 80% of reactionaries (30% from Indies, 20% from Dems).

Yeah, all that clapping from you guys has to really worry Chimpy McMushroom. You have a future in stand-up, pendejo.

Tim L,
Oh brother. You are almost laughable. You take a quote from someone who said something before he knew how much the Bush administration lied and altered information to start an illegal war and you make it sound like it was his fault we went to war. Why would you do that?

Why would anybody care what a senator says, they all lie. It is the CIC (read: Coward in Crawford) that makes the decision, at least that is how is usually goes.

Kerry must be one strong fella to make Bunnypants start a war against his wishes.

Did Kerry write the orders? Maybe he just gave Bush a wedgie until he said uncle? You know those Skull & Bones guys, always with the frat pranks.

I am completely convinved Kerry was always the one. Glad that has been cleared up!

Thanks

capt

Oh, this is good.

MOUNTAIN VIEWS: FORCED INOCULATIONS BEGINNING OF BUSH’ì BAD BIRD FLU PLAN

The bill (S. 1873) -- a big congressional wet kiss to the drug industry -- is dressed up in a noble-sounding title: "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act."

In essence, however, it would force Americans to receive inoculations against a disease that has yet to kill one of them, while removing their constitutional right to seek redress in our courts in case of injury or death from the shots because of company negligence. The proposal, now moving its way through the Senate, would also ban citizens from using the Freedom of Information Act and other popular informational laws to discover whether the new vaccine (when it is finally produced) was effective and safe, and even whether anyone had suffered adverse reactions to it....

....One thing the bill-backer friends of Big Pharma are trying to slip through with this legislation is a market exclusivity provision that would extend patents on hugely profitable drugs that are about to evolve into the category of cheaper generic medicines.

Further, it would prohibit federal drug buyers from contracting with generic medicine makers to save taxpayers billions of dollars -- a current admirable practice.

Further, it would allow federal health officials to purchase medicines, vaccines and other palliatives by simple fiat without taking bids.

Further, and most onerously, the bill would vastly broaden the definition of products eligible to be characterized as "countermeasures" to terrorism -- in other words, potentially classifying commonly purchased substances like ibuprofen and aspirin as terrorist-fighting devices.

Powell's Case for Iraq War Falls Apart 6 Months Later

by Charles Hanley

The most detailed U.S. case for invading Iraq was laid out Feb. 5 in a U.N. address by Secretary of State Colin Powell. Six months later, months of war and revelation, the Powell case can be examined in a new light, analyzed here by an AP correspondent who was in Baghdad, Iraq, when Powell made his case for war.

For 80 minutes in a hushed U.N. Security Council chamber in New York, the U.S. secretary of state unleashed an avalanche of allegations: The Iraqis were hiding chemical and biological weapons, were secretly working to make more banned arms, were reviving their nuclear bomb project. He spoke of "the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

Still, in the United States, Powell's sober speech was galvanizing, swinging opinion toward war. "Compelling," "powerful," "irrefutable" were adjectives used by both pundits and opposition Democratic politicians. Editor & Publisher magazine found prowar sentiment among editorial writers doubled overnight, to three-quarters of large U.S. newspapers.

Powell's "thick intelligence file," as he called it, had won them over. Since 1998, he told fellow foreign ministers, "we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons."

But in Baghdad, when the satellite broadcast ended, presidential science adviser Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi appeared before the audience and dismissed the U.S. case as "stunts" aimed at swaying the uninformed.

Some outside observers also sounded unimpressed. "War can be avoided. Colin Powell came up with absolutely nothing," said Denmark's Ulla Sandbaek, a visiting European Parliament member.

Six months after that Feb. 5 appearance, the file does look thin.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told U.S. senators last month the Bush administration actually had no "dramatic new evidence" before ordering the Iraq invasion.

"We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11," Rumsfeld said.

Much happened between Powell's February presentation and Rumsfeld's statement of July.

Meanwhile, President Bush's credibility has come under attack because he cited, in his State of the Union address, a British report that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. That allegation, which Powell left out of his own speech, has been challenged by U.S. intelligence officials.

How does Powell's pivotal U.S. indictment look from the vantage point of today? Powell has said several times since February that he stands by it, the State Department said Wednesday. Here is an Associated Press review of the major counts, based on both what was known in February and what has been learned since:

*****end of clip*****

Lies, fabrications and a bunch of hooey.

Everybody knows who invaded Iraq and the reason he gave all turned out to be false.

No WMD’s, no trailers, no UAV’s, not even any crop dusters. Even worse, Saddam had Al Qaqaa secure, something Bunnypants thought was not necessary even though Al Qaqaa is the place where the weapons were destroyed in 1991.

Again, I am positive it was . . . Who did you say? Kerry? Bob or John? Oh nevermind, let’s just say both. They must have ganged up on the leader of the only super-power on the planet and made him stupid. Yeah, that’s the ticket! *wink*

Bush never lied AND never started a war that Kerry did not make him start.

Wait a minute, we forgot to blame Clinton. Just throw him in with Bob Kerry. For sure.

capt

Of course the White House led the country to war under thin and flimsy intelligence. We need hearings to prove this? Egad, it was so blatantly obvious at the time.

I think the Senate would do better to force Rumsfeld to appear every Monday morning, 7 AM, to account for the past week's loss of life...who died, and what their deaths accomplished. I think if they did that for a couple months...things might actually start to change.

Bob in North dakota

Bush Team Kept Airing Iraq Allegation

Officials Made Uranium Assertions Before and After President's Speech

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 8, 2003; Page A10

Since last month, presidential aides have said a questionable allegation, that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium for nuclear weapons, made it into President Bush's State of the Union address because of miscommunication between the CIA and Bush's staff.

But by the time the president gave the speech, on Jan. 28, that same allegation was already part of an administration campaign to win domestic and international support for invading Iraq. In January alone, it was included in two official documents sent out by the White House and in speeches and writings by the president's four most senior national security officials.

*****end of clip*****

Maybe Sen. Kerry (still either or both) made the top aides lie to Bunnypants and convince him of the lie.

Maybe it went down like that, eh?

capt

Tim L.,

RE: Kerry's Grand Canyon quote. I actually can't rationalize his quote. I e-mailed my Senator as the war talk was heating up, and told him I would not vote for him if he gave Bush ANY discretion; you don't give a maniac a loaded gun...

When he dropped the ball, I voted for David Cobb

Again, Kerry is not really a liberal in the full sense of the word. Many Dems allow themselves to be bullied into showing a sort of "toughness" by the right and it manifests itself with the Dems displaying hawkish rhetoric which, as I'm sure you agree, only gets them into hot water.

Uranium Claim Was Known for Months to Be Weak

Intelligence Officials Say 'Everyone Knew' Then What White House Knows Now About Niger Reference

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 20, 2003; Page A22

The White House repeated a familiar retort last week to defend itself against allegations that President Bush used discredited information in his State of the Union speech about Iraq shopping for uranium oxide in Africa: "If we knew [then] what we knew today, we wouldn't have done it," as a White House official, demanding anonymity, said to a roomful of reporters Friday.

But recent revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the United Nations, in Congress and elsewhere make clear that the weakness of the claim in the State of the Union speech was known and accepted by a wide circle of intelligence and diplomatic personnel scrutinizing information on Iraqi weapons programs months before the speech.

"Everyone knew" the letters purporting to prove Iraq's effort to acquire uranium in Niger "were not good," said one senior administration decision-maker who otherwise supported the president's decision to go to war in Iraq. "The White House response has been baffling. This is relatively inconsequential. Why don't they tell the truth?"

Inconsequential or not, even the Italian journalist who gave the documents to the U.S. Embassy in Rome nine months ago told reporters yesterday that when she returned from a trip to Niger to check them out, she told her editor that "the story seemed fake to me" and published nothing on it.

*****end of clip*****

I am sure Dana has published some kind of retraction or at minimum a correction that includes Kerry (still either or both) but I cannot seem to locate it.

Talk about the "everyone knew" defense? Works for Plame (it you will believe the lies) but convicts on Niger forgeries?

Another double standard, no surprise.

capt

White House Promises More Facts About Uranium Claim

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 18, 2003; Page A12

Administration officials acknowledged yesterday that their damage control efforts over President Bush's use of tainted intelligence have been inadequate, and said they plan to put out additional facts in coming days.

At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan began using a tactic that later was echoed by Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill: moving the argument away from the specifics of the use of intelligence and to the broader question of the war against terrorism.

Bush's aides were still trying that this week. McClellan, facing a firestorm during his first days on the job, has repeatedly dodged questions about the details of how the State of the Union address came to include sketchy allegations about Iraq shopping for uranium in Africa.

During McClellan's televised briefing yesterday, he said nine times that all the issues he was being asked about had been fully "addressed" by the White House. At his off-camera morning briefing, McClellan said the same thing eight times.

McClellan was asked three days in a row whether Bush knew that the CIA had talked the White House out of including a similar line in an October speech Bush gave about the Iraqi threat. He did not answer, and yesterday he finally said he did not know. "I'm telling you what I know," he said.

*****end of clip*****

Scotty McClueless’ first day and he starts off with "everything has already been fully addressed." If I remember correctly it was a little hard to make out the words with his lips firmly planted on monkey-boys arse.

And the song remains the same to this day. Any unanswered question is answered by "we have already addressed that, next" what a spokesperson.

capt

I posted this on the last thread but I want to repeat it...

David, I heard you on "On Point" tonight. It was a good show. However, I have to ask you a question about your Impeachment position. I want to know if you would want it pursued if the Dems took back the House and the Sendate? Or would it take both, or would you even consider it at all? Please address this and say why you take whatever position you have taken.

I think this is important because it goes to the heart of what you write about. The lies of George W. Bush. This administration lied us into an illegal war and there is enough out there to impeach both Bush and Cheney. I realize that right now Impeachment is impossible, but it should be shouted from the rooftops that if it were not for the Republican control of Congress these jokers would be in jail right now. If it weren't for the complacency and the downright collusion of the Main Stream Media, the truth would have been out there already and maybe Bush would not have gotten elected last year. But that is then and this is now.

It should be repeated and repeated and repeated. Just because they couldn't be convicted or even brought to that level doesn't mean the brave few, among which I count you David, should not put the facts out there as often as possible. Now, while the public is primed and when the press is beginning to find their voice and their collective spine again. Drip by drip by drip the call for justice just might get through.

We have to do something NOW to get these criminals out of office and we need people like you, David, to keep it out there as much as possible. So by saying that it's not worth it to pursue Impeachment proceedings is true but false. While we won't win the fight we might just win the war. It's worth talking about because it allows the facts about their crimes to be kept in the discussion. It's the only way there is a hope to take control of the House and/or the Senate away from the Republicans which would a major victory.

Please address these points David.

Anybody here (besides capt, of course) ever stuck a toothpick in their pee pee hole? I have previously stuck BOTH a small pickle fork and a rusty corkscrew in my pee pee hole AT THE SAME TIME, so I figured that a wooden toothpick wouldn't be a problem; however, when the toothpick was about 75% in the hole, but prior to climax, the toothpick broke in half. Now, I am stuck - literally. Anyone have any ideas how I can get out of this unfortunate situation? I am kind of in a hurry, because I am waiting to stick an entire tube of chocolate chip cookie dough up my butt. I'm guessing that capt has been in this situation before, so maybe you have an idea. For $20, I will provide pictures. Thanks in advance for your help.

American Soldiers

2,271 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush’≥ evil lies.

I have a suggestion. Give Tim L a much needed rest. He is like totally irrelevant.

Micki,
I agree. What a loser.

Lying -- a Bush Family Value

By Robert Parry
July 18, 2003

The Iraq Case

Even more dramatically, this say-whatever-is-needed strategy has carried over into issues of war and peace. Last year, as Bush decided to drive the American people to war, like so many cattle being herded to market, he and his administration engaged in wholesale misrepresentations of the dangers posed by Iraq.

While much attention has focused recently on Bush’≥ use of the apparently bogus claim that Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger or some other African country, that was only one element of Bush’≥ larger strategy of deception.

In pushing the emotional hot button of nuclear war, Bush and his aides also cited Iraq’≥ purchase of aluminum tubes as evidence of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear program. Scientific experts concluded that the tubes were unfit for that purpose. Still, the notion of a nuclear-armed Iraq succeeded in spooking the American people. "We don’¥ want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," declared White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002.

Bush and his team also hyped claims of an Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda, causing nearly half the American public to believe falsely that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Bush and his administration insisted, too, that Iraq had trigger-ready weapons of mass destruction consisting of tons of chemical and biological weapons. The administration also said the Iraqis had unmanned aerial vehicles that somehow could spray these lethal agents over the United States. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’≥ "Misleading the Nation to War."]

As crude as these lies and exaggerations may appear in retrospect, they worked. Bush got what he wanted. Congress granted him the authority to go to war, and by significant percentages, the American public supported Bush launching a pre-emptive invasion against a country that was not threatening hostilities against the United States.

*****end of clip*****

When liars are lying bastards and all in the family.

capt

Conservatives question Rove's future

By Adam Entous in Washington
02nov05

BREAKING with the White House and fellow conservatives, Republican Sen. Trent Lott and the head of the Cato Institute have questioned whether top White House adviser Karl Rove, who remains in legal jeopardy in a CIA-leak probe, should keep his policy-making job.

Mr Rove was not indicted on Friday along with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby.

But lawyers involved in the case said Mr Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser and deputy chief of staff, remains under investigation and may still be charged by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

The identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame was leaked to the media in July 2003 after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.

Despite initial White House denials, Mr Fitzgerald's investigation showed that both Mr Rove and Mr Libby spoke to reporters about Mrs Wilson's wife.

On Tuesday Mr Lott and William Niskanen of the libertarian Cato Institute both echoed Democratic calls for a White House shake-up.

"He (Rove) has been very successful, very effective in the political arena. The question is, should he be the deputy chief of staff for policy under the current circumstances?" Mr Lott told MSNBC's "Hardball."

"Most presidents in recent years have a political adviser in the White House. The question is, should they be, you know, making policy decisions. That's the question you've got to evaluate," the former Senate Republican leader added.

Mr Lott went further than he did on Sunday, when he urged President Bush to be on the lookout for "new blood, new energy, qualified staff."

*****end of clip*****

"Qualified staff?" No time like the present to start something good like hiring qualified staff members. The crony/sycophant thing just is not working.

capt

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh is no longer a lone voice in the wilderness

But according to Hersh, the Mehlis report is built on the same anemic foundations as Powell's UN presentation in February, 2003. "He is relying on intercepts of an unnamed source inside the Iranian air force, someone without inside stuff. It's not empirical." On the basis of this thin evidence, he says, the Bush administration is campaigning at the UN for sanctions on Syria.

-------------------
What stops this white house? Good God.

Finally after a painfully prolonged hibernation the Dems awaken from their slumber and come out of the cave. Funny how the scent of blood will stir the primal hunger. An early Thanksgiving this year!

Fear has paralyzed the 'opposition' party for far too long. One of the primary reasons for this is that many, in fact the majority, of them voted for the war and gave Bush his blank check.

This of course has been thrown in their faces ever since and it is oftentimes political suicide to admit mistakes.

However, as made succinctly and eloquently clear by the statements of Patrick Fitzgerald last week, there can be no sound judgements made on the basis of lies. It is impossible to come to the correct conclusion when the 'facts are fixed around the policy'.

How could members of Congress of either party choose the correct path when the compass needle was influenced by a hidden magnet pointing only the way the neocons wanted them to go?

The way of redemption for the Democrats and all principled goverment officials is to first admit and then prove that they were mislead, then hold the liars accountable and adjust the course based on the correct readings.

'Corn Cunts" i like it !!!!

hey buddy don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining !!!!

Rate Commission Approves 2-Cent Postage Rate Increase, Reduced Proposed Hike for Small Papers

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer

Published: November 01, 2005 4:25 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) A 2-cent boost in the price of a postage stamp was approved Tuesday by the independent Postal Rate Commission.

Under the recommendation, which now goes to the Postal Service's Board of Governors for final action, the cost of a first-class stamp will go from 37 cents to 39 cents and the postcard rate will rise a penny to 24 cents. The Postal Service requested the increase last April. It is expected to go into effect in January.

The increase is needed so the post office can make a $3.1 billion escrow payment required by Congress. A bill that would eliminate that payment and make other changes in postal operations was approved by the House but has not yet passed the Senate. The White House has expressed reservations about the bill.

The Postal Service had requested a 5.4% increase in all postage rates, but the rate commission altered some of the proposals. The matter now goes back to the Board of Governors, which can agree to the commission's changes or ask for reconsideration.

*****end of clip*****

Frankly, I could not care much about a small increase but this reminded me that "Congress last enacted legislation in 1996, increasing the minimum wage by 90 cents from 1996-1997."

How much did a stamp cost a decade ago? How about a pay-phone, loaf of bread, milk, eggs? How many times has congress voted a "cost of living" increase for themselves?

The real cost of high prices for gas and heating oil are just on the horizon. In a strong economy (which is not our current condition) the high gas and heating costs are likely to cause inflation as prices will out pace payrolls.

The minimum wage is an insult. An excuse for company CEO's to make millions off of the backs of the working poor.

capt

The White House Criminal Conspiracy

Elizabeth de la Vega

...So what do citizens do? First, they must insist that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence complete Phase II of its investigation, which was to be an analysis of whether the Administration manipulated or misrepresented prewar intelligence. The focus of Phase II was to determine whether the Administration misrepresented the information it received about Iraq from intelligence agencies. Second, we need to convince Congress to demand that the Justice Department appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Administration's deceptions about the war, using the same mechanism that led to the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame. (As it happens, Congressman Jerrold Nadler and others have recently written to Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. pointing out that the Plame leak is just the "tip of the iceberg" and asking that Fitzgerald's authority be expanded to include an investigation into whether the White House conspired to mislead the country into war. )

Third, we can no longer shrink from the prospect of impeachment. Impeachment would require, as John Bonifaz, constitutional attorney, author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush and co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, has explained, that the House pass a "resolution of inquiry or impeachment calling on the Judiciary Committee to launch an investigation into whether grounds exist for the House to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush." If the committee found such grounds, it would draft articles of impeachment and submit them to the full House for a vote. If those articles passed, the President would be tried by the Senate. Resolutions of inquiry, such as already have been introduced by Representatives Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich demanding that the Administration produce key information about its decision-making, could also lead to impeachment....
--------------
I found this article in the Nation Magazine.

Jeanne: "drewp,
How do you like Frist's line "They have no convictions." HAHAHAHA. That's a good thing Senator Frist. Convictions are not something you admire."

I like it. Freudian slip, maybe? I'm sure he's got a lot on his mind lately.

Another chuckle from Frist, once considered a prospective presidential candidate: "For the next year and a half, I can't trust Senator Reid."

Trust? Who does he think he's kidding?

-Delay delays critical House votes on the federal drug benefit and energy bill until the wee hours while he extracts votes with bribes and threats,

-Pat Roberts blows off the Dems and the phase II investigation for more than year,

-Sensenbrenner shuts down a politically awkward hearing in mid-meeting, has the microphones and lights turned off, and stalks out.

-The cons force the Dems to hold a mock Congressional hearing on the Downing Street Memo in the basement,

And Fritz whines that his trust was somehow violated?

Speaking of violated trust, isn't that Trent Lott standing right behind Frist in the Wash. Post photo? After what Fritz did to Lott during the Strom Thurmond uproar, Fritz should probably watch his back more carefully.

Higher Tax Rates for Most, Breaks for Some

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: November 2, 2005

The primary proposal by President Bush's tax advisory commission should please stock market investors, taxpayers in the very highest bracket and families with many children. But it may not be so popular with investors in bonds, entrepreneurs, farmers, owners of expensive homes, people in places with high local taxes and charitable donors.

All but the top 1 percent of Americans would have higher tax rates, but for some higher-income taxpayers this would be offset by eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

The proposals would also introduce the first tax breaks based on geographic location, basing the home mortgage tax break on the average home price in each market.

The commission says its proposals will make the tax system simpler and fairer, will raise the same amount as existing law, and will not appreciably shift the tax burden among various income groups in the first decade. But individual taxpayers could face huge cuts, or increases, depending on their circumstances.

The commission issued two proposals. The first would simplify the income tax; the second would go further toward encouraging savings and investment. Tax experts said that both proposals faced a lot of resistance but that only the first proposal had any chance of enactment.

The biggest new tax breaks in the main proposal would go to stock market investors. They would collect most dividends free of tax, as opposed to the 15 percent tax rate that now applies to most dividends.

In addition, 75 percent of profits from the sale of stocks held for more than a year would be tax-free. The effect would be to nearly halve the rate for the highest-income taxpayers, to 8.25 percent from 15 percent.

*****end of clip*****

Why not just come clean and say the tax breaks will be split up in the same percentage and to the same industries that make political donations. Fascists are in power to take the tax burden off of the backs of the rich.

They keep talking about the mortgage interest deduction as costing too much in tax revenue? That sound like another excuse to raise taxes on homeowners.

When will this stop? When is enough enough?

They could not pass an increase in the minimum wage.

I think they are showing how much they care about what we think. Cheney promotes two named in the indictment, we need another tax cut for the rich. To cover some of the cost they have to quit giving all those costly mortgage tax deductions to property owners.

capt

Higher Tax Rates for Most, Breaks for Some

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: November 2, 2005

The primary proposal by President Bush's tax advisory commission should please stock market investors, taxpayers in the very highest bracket and families with many children. But it may not be so popular with investors in bonds, entrepreneurs, farmers, owners of expensive homes, people in places with high local taxes and charitable donors.

All but the top 1 percent of Americans would have higher tax rates, but for some higher-income taxpayers this would be offset by eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

The proposals would also introduce the first tax breaks based on geographic location, basing the home mortgage tax break on the average home price in each market.

The commission says its proposals will make the tax system simpler and fairer, will raise the same amount as existing law, and will not appreciably shift the tax burden among various income groups in the first decade. But individual taxpayers could face huge cuts, or increases, depending on their circumstances.

The commission issued two proposals. The first would simplify the income tax; the second would go further toward encouraging savings and investment. Tax experts said that both proposals faced a lot of resistance but that only the first proposal had any chance of enactment.

The biggest new tax breaks in the main proposal would go to stock market investors. They would collect most dividends free of tax, as opposed to the 15 percent tax rate that now applies to most dividends.

In addition, 75 percent of profits from the sale of stocks held for more than a year would be tax-free. The effect would be to nearly halve the rate for the highest-income taxpayers, to 8.25 percent from 15 percent.

*****end of clip*****

Why not just come clean and say the tax breaks will be split up in the same percentage and to the same industries that make political donations. Fascists are in power to take the tax burden off of the backs of the rich.

They keep talking about the mortgage interest deduction as costing too much in tax revenue? That sound like another excuse to raise taxes on homeowners.

When will this stop? When is enough enough?

They could not pass an increase in the minimum wage.

I think they are showing how much they care about what we think. Cheney promotes two named in the indictment, we need another tax cut for the rich. To cover some of the cost they have to quit giving all those mortgage tax deductions to property owners.

capt

"they have no convictions"

Hopefully this administration will have plenty of
'convictions' soon. Starting with Scooter Libby.

# 67
Followed by Rove and then Cheney and his new aide. They got to go. And then Bush will stand there speechless because his little voice will be "unplugged".

Alito is all messed up on his right to privacy of abortion stance.

If a husband wants to abort the baby and the wife does not, in order to respect a husbands right to privacy, he should not have to ask the wife before he gives her sleeping pills, takes her to a legal abortion doctor, has the baby murdered, then takes the wife back home and puts her to bed where she can wake up never knowing what happened.

It is only fair, if the wife does not have to tell the husband about getting an abortion, then the husband should have to tell the wife. The right to privacy has to work both ways

Why is it that the friends of Bush seem to put down liberals and progressives by using sexist pejoratives? Using the "C" word for a woman's anatomy and connecting it with David's last name as a put down? What must these folks really feel about women? Until women and men are considered equal in rights and responsibilities, we will not move out of the dark ages of this patriarchal culture.
Peace,
St. John

Why is it that the friends of Bush seem to put down liberals and progressives by using sexist pejoratives? Using the "C" word for a woman's anatomy and connecting it with David's last name as a put down? What must these folks really feel about women? Until women and men are considered equal in rights and responsibilities, we will not move out of the dark ages of this patriarchal culture.
Peace,
St. John

U.S. fears prospect of Saudi coup, weighs invasion plans

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
WASHINGTON —†The United States has raised the prospect of a military invasion of Saudi Arabia.

The House Armed Services Committee considered the possibility of a Saudi coup and U.S. response during a hearing on Oct. 26.

Saudi Arabia, with 200,000 military and National Guard troops, is the largest oil producer and exporter, with an output of nine million barrels of oil per day, according to Middle East Newsline. The Arab kingdom is the third largest supplier of oil to the United States, with more than 1.55 million barrels per day.

The scenario was outlined by Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, who cited a Saudi coup as one of several threats to the United States.

"How should the United States respond if a coup, presumably fundamentalist in nature, overthrows the royal family in Saudi Arabia?" O'Hanlon asked. "Such a result would raise the specter of major disruption to the oil economy."

The response could include the deployment of three U.S. Army divisions backed by fighter-jets and airborne early-warning and alert aircraft. In all, the U.S.-led mission could include up to 300,000 troops.

*****end of clip*****

So, if I understand this "plan." We should impose ourselves in another internal conflict?

I thought we have been trying that for more than a few years and it is just a mess. Not enough chaos to cover for the power grabs?

capt

I'm still reading so I dunno if anybody has posted this already. I was really surprised watching mainstream TV earlier. On "Commander in Chief", the opening scene had two direct digs at Doofus. Air Force One had landed (same day/within hours) at an evacuation site for hurricane victims and the president was even in a buffet line handing out water bottles! Then minutes later she was reading to children when her chief of staff notified her of an immediate major emergency (oil super tanker off Florida's coast, damaged in the hurricane and threatening to bust open). She got up immediately to respond after (Mom's touch) challenging the kids with "who wants to finish the story". IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO A HURRICANE and then NO DUMBSTRUCK 8-MINUTE WAIT FOR AN AIDE TO SNAP HER OUT OF IT. hey
Then, surprise surprise, the wacky lawyer show "Boston Legal" had a case where this girl sued the Army over her brother's death in Iraq, that the recruiter lied to him, no armor, etc... it covered almost every issue, with a general looking guilty as hell and looking down. Good stuff, you'da been surprised too.
Wish our MSM would 'hint' at the truth also.

Alan, you are an idiot!!

"Alan, you are an idiot!!"

Thank you, and you're feet don't match.

*your

Capt,

Corky is talking about moving to Canada.............

Im deeply not o.k. with this.......but I need help.
It is and will forever be My Country. But my Country, et all, is apt to make mistakes...............

This
WAR was such a mistake.
The sooner we view this, the sooner we can move on.

Please help me keep this kid here. This kid.........can motivate people. We need kids like him.

If we loose Corky.................we have LOST.

And I dispair................

Please give Corky something to aspire to

titchaba,

When I was attacked and almost raped 28 years ago I fought the s.o.b. and he backed off. I went nuts on him and I guess he didn't want to mess with a crazy woman. If I stayed and fought and did not lay back and take it as someone on this blog would have us do, I can't remember the person who used rape as metaphor a while back. Anyway, if I fought back when I had a gun pointed to my head, maybe Corky can stick around and fight too.

We can't give up on this country. We can't lay back while our Constitution is getting raped up the ass, our resources are being pillaged and our children are being slaughtered in an illegal foreign war.

How's that for inspiration?

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~ Margaret Mead

"I was born an American; I will live an American; I shall die an American." ~ Daniel Webster (1782 - 1852)

"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." ~ Gore Vidal (1925 - )

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." ~ H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

__________________

Corky -

You are one of the brightest and the best we have. You are able to see through the lies and you care enough to care. We cannot lose your skills and talents. We need evey voice, every signature, every letter, phone call, and every other way you make your contribution for this country. We cannot afford to export you.

"God doesn't require us to succeed; he only requires that you try. "

"I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish that He didn't trust me so much.

"What we do is less than a drop in the ocean. But if it were missing, the ocean would lack something."

"If you try, you will find it impossible to do one great thing. You can only do many small things with great love. "

Mother Teresa (1910 - 1997)

Of course I support you as a friend no matter what you choose to do. Unconditional love.

capt

Spell checker update:

I typed "acre" when I meant "care". My spell checker did not flag it, but I heard a little giggle and caught the mistake.

I guess me spell checker has a sense of humor.

HA!

capt

good for you flan! your fighting spirit served you well in that circumstance -
cork ol' buddy... hmm... better make sure you have a good hat... most of the body's heat is lost thru the top of the head, and I bet it's damned cold up there -

GOP FURIOUS AT CLOSED SENATE SESSION

could there BE a bigger CRYBABY than FRIST? - I say it's about goddamn time the dems did something

As a mom, I'd let Corky go if he wants to. If he's old enough and wise enough to make that kind of decision, he should be free to go. He can put up a good fight even if he's in Canada.

Seems to me he has a lot to lose by staying here under the current circumstances.

Godspeed.

It is a hard call.

I am reminded that Albert Einstein got out of Germany before he was caught up in the crimes against humanity on a personal level.

Hard to say that was not the right move.

Nobody can say Albert was not smart.

Everyone has to do what is right for them. So the decision is a personal one. I support the choices of my friends unconditionally. It really is easy, I do not have to even think, just support and accept and endeavor to understand as that is what always want for myself.

capt

DRIP....DRIP....DRIP...IS THE CAMPAIGN BEGINNING FOR STAFF CHANGES IN THE WH? IS TRENT LOTT GEARING UP TO "GET EVEN"?

On "Hardball" last night, Trent Lott wondered whether bush is well served by Karl Rove serving in a top policy position. Lott asked: "The question is, should he be the deputy chief of staff for policy under the current circumstances?" "Most presidents in recent years have a political adviser in the White House. The question is, should they be, you know, making policy decisions. That's the question you've got to evaluate."

Democrats in Senate Act as An Opposition Party: Republicans Dumbstruck

After Karl Rove, a traitor to America, had engineered a series of PR moves to divert the media from the GOP TreasonGate indictment and ongoing federal investigation, BuzzFlash had printed an editorial noting that the White House was once again getting away with betraying America and distracting the nation from the unprecedented incompetence of the Busheviks.

But after BuzzFlash criticized the Democratic leadership for their enabling of Bush's credibility at a time when most Americans disapprove of him and have turned against the Iraq War, the Democrats in the Senate unexpectedly took a bold action that left the Republicans momentarily reeling. Indeed, Bill "Inside HCA Trading/Malpractice Diagnosis by Videotape/Cat Killer" Frist turned into a frothing fountain of incomprehensible babble.

Cherish the moment. It may not come again soon.

But it does at least offer some hope that Reid and the Democrats in the Senate realize that they cannot continue business as usual. They cannot let a cover-up of the betrayal of America and the outing of a CIA operative specializing in the tracking of the illicit sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction go unpunished. They cannot let the Bush administration continue to damage America's national security. They cannot let those who are destroying the United States from within remain unaccountable.

*****end of clip*****

"Cherish the moment. It may not come again soon."

And why will it not come again soon?

IF Bush escapes impeachment this should be hammered every day for the remaining 39 or so months.

The crimes have been committed, the damage done. What do the dems have to lose? (except their base?)

capt

MORE LIES COURTESY OF THE GOP? GIVE THE SURGEON SOME TRUTH SERUM

Was the good doctor LYING? Ohmigod! Say it isn't so! Rumor has it that Senator Bill Frist could have just plain out-and-out lied when he said that Senator Reid had not discussed the promised Phase II investigation with him. There's a paper-trail that documents repeated requests and face-to-face meetings.

American Soldiers

2,275 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush’≥ evil lies.