Perhaps this is why Murtha's being Swiftboated

A follow-up to this post.

A few days before the most recent wave of Swiftboating by the Conservative press, Congressman Murtha wrote this at the Huffingtonpost. Here's the text:

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, the definition of a civil war is a "war between political factions or regions within the same country." That is exactly what is going on in Iraq, not a global war on terrorism, as the President continues to portray it.

93 percent of those fighting in Iraq are Iraqis. A very small percentage of the fighting is being done by foreign fighters. Our troops are caught in between the fighting. 80 percent of Iraqis want us out of there and 45 percent think it is justified to kill American troops.

Iraqis went to the polls in droves on December 15th and rejected the secular, pro-democracy candidates and those who the Administration in Washington propped up. Preliminary vote results indicate that Iyad Allawi, the pro-American Prime Minister, received about 8 percent of the vote and Ahmad Chalabi, Iraq's current Oil Minister and close associate of the U.S. Iraq war planners, received less than 1 percent. According to General Vines, the top operational commander in Iraq, "the vote is reported to be primarily along sectarian lines, which is not particularly heartening." The new government he said "must be a government by and for Iraqis, not sects."

The ethnic and religious strife in Iraq has been going on, not for decades or centuries, but for millennia. These particular explosive hatreds and tensions will be there if our troops leave in six months, six years or six decades. It is time to re-deploy our troops and to re-focus our attention on the real threats posed by global terrorism.

Then there's this letter he sent out to his colleagues in December. I won't repost it all, but here are some telling quotations. After having reading them it should be no surprise to any of is in the "Reality-Based Community" that Murtha would be smeared. I am surprised that it took this long. Murtha writes:

It is next to impossible to say America’s war goals for Iraq are achievable because they shift and change so often. I believe this is one of the main reasons why the American people are turning against this war. They have not been given a clear and convincing set of reasons as to why the continued sacrifice of brave young Americans is vital to our national security interest.

The administration is currently on its sixth different explanation as to why this war is necessary. The rationale for conducting the war began with emphatic and unequivocal claims that Saddam Hussein and his regime constituted an imminent threat to America. Over time the rationale morphed to the assertion that the war was necessary to remove a vile dictator and free the Iraqi people. It changed again to “if we don’t fight them in the streets and back alleys of Baghdad and Tikrit, they’ll be here in America wreaking havoc and destruction.” It then shifted to the need to spread democracy in the Middle East, followed by the need to prevent a civil war. We are now told that Iraq is the central front of the war on terror and we can’t depart until Iraqi forces are fully and completely trained to take over our mission and not until “complete victory” is achieved.

At the time of our invasion, it was portrayed that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger and an “imminent threat” to America and must be removed before a “mushroom cloud” appeared over American soil. It was also implied that Hussein was somehow linked to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Of course, as we now know, Saddam had no nuclear weapons and there was no proven link to al-Qaeda.

And so on. After briefly discussing the December 15 elections, Murtha writes:

However this unfolding milestone must be kept in perspective. Holding a free election is not equivalent to having a functioning democracy. Without the robust institutions of a free press, an effective police force, a fair judicial system, and an impartial system of laws and regulations that guarantee equal rights and privileges for all, a nation can’t truly function as a vibrant democracy.

Unfortunately, this administration has been seen as inconsistent when it comes to setting a good example for the establishment of these democratic institutions, which has set back our objective immensely. We are widely seen around the world as hypocritical, pursuing a policy in Iraq of “do as I say, not as I do.” The disaster at Abu Ghraib, sending incoherent messages from the very top of the American Government regarding the use of torture, paying for favorable Iraqi news stories, running secret prisons, instituting inconsistent practices on giving prisoners due process rights, and running what many people are beginning to see as a circus trial of Saddam Hussein all hurt US credibility around the world, making it more difficult to achieve this worthy goal. [emphasis in original]

So it is hardly surprising that Murtha would find himself a target of the rightwing media's attack dogs. He's laying it all out for everyone to see - the failure and outright duplicity of this administration's foreign policy. For all the strength of the above attack, I would say that there's one sentence that settled his fate with the criminals in the White House. When he wrote that:

It is time for a vigorous and engaged debate on the administration’s Iraq policy based on substance and facts, not political hyperbole.

It pretty much settled things with the Mayberry Machiavellis currently occupying the White House. The last thing these guys want is a "vigorous and engaged debate." Unless of course the outcome of the debate is already decided.

Murtha gets Swiftboated

I heard about this on C-Span this morning. That bastion of objective reporting, the Cybercast News Service (formerly the Conservative News Cast), posted this yesterday.

Are we at all surprised about this? Someone publicly disagrees with our glorious leader and by a complete and total coincidence the conservative press smears in response. Marc Morano and Randy Hall begin this way:

Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

We've seen this before, haven't we?

It's interesting to note the close placement of "Abscam" articles to this drek on the CNS website. It's also interesting to note that Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has already written about this:

Soon the Swift Boaters will be afloat, suggesting that Mr. Murtha's Vietnam service was a charade (he won a Bronze Star), and that his Purple Hearts were undeserved. The Purple Heart gambit has been played before, first in 1982, then just last year. The answer to this nonsense will be the one that gave Mr. Murtha such cache as both a candidate and a member of Congress: big wound or small, he got it in Vietnam. He was there. They were not.

The second brick destined to crash through the Murtha family parlor window is Abscam. Mr. Murtha was one of eight members of Congress lured to a Washington townhouse by a team of FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheik. They handed out briefcases filled with $50,000 in return for helping the sheik gain residency in the United States.

Mr. Murtha is on videotape telling the agents, "Not interested," but inviting the sheik to invest a few million in his struggling hometown, where unemployment reached 25 percent.

The fun part is to see how the CNS "News" service selectively quotes Dennis Roddy in their Abscam story. They write:

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Murtha was one of eight members of Congress lured to a Washington, D.C., townhouse by a team of FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheik. They handed out briefcases filled with $50,000 in return for helping the sheik gain residency in the United States."

Take a look at what they do next. Instead of going with Roddy's next paragraph, they travel all the way to Brattleboro, Vermont for a remarkably similar, though now with an added hygienic insult, follow-up. Here's Roddy next paragraph:

Mr. Murtha is on videotape telling the agents, "Not interested," but inviting the sheik to invest a few million in his struggling hometown, where unemployment reached 25 percent.

And here's how CNS news followed Roddy's quotation. Not the similarities and the differences. Says alot about the objectivity of the CNS "News" service, don't it?

Noting that Murtha "is not squeaky clean," the Brattleboro, Vt., Reformer reported that the congressman "did not take the cash" offered by the agents. Instead, "he asked the fake sheik to consider investing some money in his struggling home town, Johnstown."

It's like they feel they just had to get in the "he's not squeaky clean" line before pointing out that Murtha did not take the cash. Here's Roddy again:

Mr. Murtha's probity might have been in doubt at that moment. Certainly he played the political coquette, suggesting they might do business later.

But where his companions were stuffing their pockets, he was trying to figure out how to get a fake prince to open a factory in Johnstown. Among agents of the government operating a fantasy, Mr. Murtha was attempting to get something real accomplished. That is what he is like.

I have to admit that I have not been able to find the quotation in question at the Brattleboro Reformer website. I've tried "Murtha +Abscam" and "Murtha +skeik" got no hits in response. I am not outright accusing the CNSNews service of making up the quote, but I'd also like to be able to see it in context. If anyone can find a copy of the article, please send it along.

In the meantime, here's something at the Brattleboro Reformer that does mention Congressman Murtha. It's from late December of last year:

The Downing Street Memos showed the Bush administration was determined to attack Iraq even though there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of links to foreign terrorists and no evidence that Iraq posed a direct or indirect threat to the United States.

That no investigation took place shows the impossibility of integrity in a one-party Congress. The news that the United States operated secret prisons and employed torture on detained "suspects," most of whom were never charged with any crime, was a deep embarrassment. Equally embarrassing was the clumsy attempts to smear one of the most hawkish member of Congress, Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, for suggesting a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The spectacle of Republicans who never served in the military attacking a decorated combat veteran was a sorry one. [emphasis added]

Back to the Swiftboating. Here's Congressman Murtha's response:

This afternoon, CNSNEWS.com published an article entitled "Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question" on its website. The article questions the validity of my purple hearts. This is my response:

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves."

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear."

The story was reported this morning by the Washington Post:

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the former Marine who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, has become the latest Democrat to have his Vietnam War decorations questioned.

In a tactic reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative Web site yesterday quoted Murtha opponents as questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of his two Purple Hearts.

And how much of the Swiftboat attacks were actually true? That's right - none. But let's try to take a look at this logically. As with the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry's record, if these attacks against Murtha's record are true, then the whole record keeping system of the Marines has to be called into question.

Why does the CNSNews service hate the Marine Corps??

IMPEACH

Kraus calls for "Grant Street politicians to keep hands off of the District Three Council Race"

I just saw this press release which was forwarded to a list that I'm on and I've found out that it has also appeared in the Press Releases section of PoliticsPA:

District Three City Council Candidate Bruce A. Kraus today called for "Grant Street politicians to keep hands off of the District Three Council Race." - 1/12/2006

District Three City Council Candidate Bruce A. Kraus today called for "Grant Street politicians to keep hands off of the District Three Council Race." At a press conference this morning called by Council President Luke Ravenstahl to address the student voter dissatisfaction with the March 7th date set for the special election to replace the seat formerly held by Gene Ricciardi, Ravehstahl was asked by a reporter it there was truth to the speculation that the date had been set to preference a particular candidate, namely Jeff Koch. Mr. Ravenstahl, denied having endorsed any candidate in the race.

"It is no secret," Bruce A. Kraus said, "that Kevin Quigley, Chief Of Staff to Mayor Bob O'Connor, is working closely with Mr. Koch in an advisory capacity." Mr. Kraus also added that "Terry Matusak, a close personal friend and confidant to Mayor O'Connor is actively assisting Mr. Koch in his campaign."

Mr. Kraus also questioned why Mr. Koch, a public works foreman for over 20 years now, recently had his work schedule changed from a three till eleven shift, to eleven till seven. "This graveyard shift is usually reserved for new employees with little or no seniority," Mr. Kraus said.

"And now the controversy surrounding the selection of the date to hold the special election has me asking very serious questions about the influence of Grant Street in this District Three Council Race. If the date was intentionally set to keep students who are especially strong in the South Side flats area and Oakland, from voting in this race, in turn benefiting turnout for Mr. Koch, we the residents of District Three deserve to know."

It is widely thought that Jeff Koch, a long time Arlington resident would not have a strong voter base in the South Side flats and Oakland area where large pockets of students reside.

Those of you who read Fester's Place already saw something like this alluded to in the comments section of a post there on Wednesday:

At 1:12 PM, January 11, 2006, PtBreeze said...

Is there some kind of conspiracy to have a of city council and council staff made up entirely of former public works employees.

On that same day, Koch was quoted in the Post-Gazette saying the following about the date of the special election:

Another candidate, Democrat Jeffrey Koch, said it "doesn't matter" to him when the election is held.

"The more [voters], the merrier," Mr. Koch said.

I have to say that google doesn't turn up a heck of a lot on Koch. And, I'm unable to find a website for him.

However, the Progress Pittsburgh website gives anyone the opportunity to post about candidates. This was posted anonymously about Koch (FYI: many of the entries there are posted anonymously):

jeff is an excellent candidate for dist 3 he sits on the citys pension board and has been a city employee for many years. jeff works in dist 3 lived here his entire life ,his parents were alsoborn and have livrd in dist 3 their entire lives.i have knowen jeff 40yrs he is HONEST,fair ,hardworking and one of the most upstanding members of our community.he has my full support and should be reconized by progresspittsburgh.

Bruce Kraus' website is: http://bruce4council.com

************************************************
NOTE:

Hey, Kraus, Koch, or any other candidates for Pittsburgh City Council District Three:

Feel free to directly send me any press releases or on-the-record comments that you have on this race (lupinaccim@aol.com).

(AND, I'll be voting in this election!)

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

Freep this poll

Check out the funny pics in the Republican Photoshop Contest at Blog Against the Right.

I love that one of Rove! (And, yes, this is self-serving as you can vote for mine if you're so inclined.)

The Crying Game

From Wolcott:

If Alito is confirmed, Mrs. Alito and Judge Clarence Thomas's wife can commisserate by exchanging monogrammed crying towels as their men folk roll back women's rights and civil liberties and go duck hunting weekends with Scalia.

WOO-HOO! Special council election set for March 14

From the Post-Gazette:

Special council election set for March 14

Thursday, January 12, 2006

By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A special election to replace former Pittsburgh City Councilman Gene Ricciardi will be scheduled for March 14, Council President Luke Ravenstahl said today.

He had originally contemplated a March 7 date but said he scratched that when he realized it fell during most local universities' spring break week. Many of the district's residents are college students.

How it's shaking out so far...

From The Pitt News:

Spring break elections alienate student voters

By JESSICA LEAR
Editor in Chief
January 12, 2006

Well, Pittsburgh, you just never learn, do you?

Here’s a hint: If you want young people to stay in the city, you need to make them feel like they matter, at least a little bit.

In true hometown fashion, City Council has decided to hold the special election to fill the District 3 seat on March 7. District 3 includes central and south Oakland.

Yep, March 7, right in the middle of Pitt’s spring break. That means most students won’t be around to vote for their representative.

I know, I know, most students don’t vote, anyway. And Pitt students have a tendency to leave the city right after graduation.

Something tells me, though, that the way to get them to vote and to hang around after college — which this aging city desperately needs — isn’t excluding them from the election.

(more here)

From the Post-Gazette (1-11-05):

Pittsburgh City Council President Luke Ravenstahl said today that he may reconsider the scheduling of a special election in response to concerns from college students.

He had tentatively scheduled the election to replace former Councilman Gene Ricciardi, now a district judge, for March 7. Most local college students are on spring break that week, and the district, which includes South Side and parts of Oakland, is heavy with collegiate voters. Under the city's charter, the election could be held as late as March 14, which falls after spring break.

"Obviously there's been some concern that's been raised, and we'll look into it," Mr. Ravenstahl said. He has until Friday to specify a date for the election.

Found at Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates ponder current events:

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release

January 11, 2006

Contact: Luke Ravenstahl

412-255-2135

PRESS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS SPECIAL ELECTION FOR COUNCIL DISTRICT # 3

Council President Luke Ravenstahl will hold a press conference in City Council’s conference room tomorrow, January 12, 2006 at 10:00 AM to discuss the Special Election for City Council District #3. The final date for the special election will be announced at that time.

From the Post-Gazette (1-12-05):

Mr. Ravenstahl said March 7 was originally chosen because it coincides with the deadline for candidates to file petitions to be on the ballot in the May 16 primary. The Allegheny County Elections Division will have extra staff on hand to receive petitions, and they can help with the special election, potentially reducing the usual $50,000 bill to the city.

County Elections Director Mark Wolosik said the savings from having it on the earlier date would "probably be less than $1,000."

A Rally will be held today at Pitt no matter what Ravenstahl announces at 10:00 AM today.

If Ravenstahl decides to hold the election on 3/17, the focus will be on getting out the vote. If he elects to hold it during Spring Break, the focus of the rally will be on getting students to register for absentee ballots.

RALLY INFO:

Thursday 1/12/06
12:30
At the corner of Forbes and Bigelow (in front of Hilman Library).
The League of Young Voters, The Stonewall Dems, The College Dems, Democracy for Pittsburgh, and other concerned groups have signed on in support of the rally.

Yeah! What he said!

From Atrios:

Tears

Oh jeebus.

...I appreciate that Alito's wife may geuinely find this stressful and bummer for her, but I just can't stand the fact that our media which can't seem to understand that people who support groups which try to reduce women and minorities on campus, who rule in favor of warrantless searches of 10 year old girls, who will likely declare the uterus state property, who shoot down almost any racial discrimination claim, and who support the practice of striking jurors based on their race might cause a few tears as well.

The media keeps declaring these hearings to be just political theater, and then they focus on the soap opera.

This. Shit. Matters. Pretend you care, or get new goddamn jobs.

Jim Quinn Update

Hey take a look at what I found at the Wikipedia! Looks like our terrorist friend is more of a kook than we thought. The whole entry is a must read, but here are some highlights from the wing-nut brain of Jim Quinn:

On his morning show, Quinn discussed various conspiracy theories during the Clinton administration, including statements alleging Clinton to be a murderer, rapist and traitor. He claimed Bill Clinton had murdered or arranged to be murdered many people throughout his life, was a serial rapist and had sold secret intelligence information to the Chinese government, typically referred to as Chinagate. In the lead up to the 2000 U.S. presidential election, he claimed that Clinton would enact martial law and remain as president indefinitely.

Wow, did Jim Quinn really say all that? Is there anything in there that's even close to being correct? Did I miss the Clinton martial law thing? And with all the money spent investigating Oval Office blowjobs, you'd think that there would've been some mention of the all that presidential murdering and serial raping.

Wikipedia bills itself as a "free encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. So if there are errors in the above, please let the wikipedia know. In the meantime, shouldn't someone sit Quinn down and remind him that in order for them to be of any help, he has to take his meds every day.

One last thing from the Wikipedia:

Before beginning his political morning show, Quinn spent a number of years as a morning disc jockey, most notably "The Quinn and Banana Show" on B-94 FM, which ran in Pittsburgh, PA, from the early until the late 1980's. While performing a skit for that show, he and his on-air partner "Bananna Don" were sued for Sexual harassment for their antics, which were somewhat comparable to those of Howard Stern. Shortly thereafter, his FM Morning Show was cancelled. Quinn largely credits his experiences regarding this lawsuit as "opening his eyes" in his conversion to Conservatism.

Ah. Well, that explains alot doesn't it.

So if what they say at the Wikipedia is true, not only is Jim Quinn a well-armed terrorist nut-job, he's an frighteningly unbalanced misogynistic well-armed terrorist nut-job.

IMPEACH

Will Pitt Students Be Denied Their Right to Vote?

ACTION: Ravenstahl to prevent Pitt students from voting in special election?

HELP PROTECT STUDENT VOTING RIGHTS

As you probably know, Gene Riccardi resigned his seat on City Council (District 3) as he was sworn in as District Judge. This cleared the way for a Special Election to be held.

** Council District 3 includes Pitt Towers, where 12% of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS in the district reside **

The date of the special election will be set by actions taken by Council President--and 25-yr-old--Luke Ravenstahl. As things stand now, the special election will be scheduled for March 7--RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF PITT'S SPRING BREAK. Ravenstahl can, however, take action to have the election scheduled for March 14, after Pitt students have returned.

This special election is the first time in quite a long time that Pitt students can have a real say in their representation on Council, and it is a slap in the face to all of us who have worked to mobilize voters locally.

Young voters here ARE engaged.. A couple of notes:
* While citywide, turnout was down 13% in the mayoral election, turnout was UP by 40% in Pitt Towers
* Citywise, turnout was up 14% in the presidential election; turnout was up 62% in Pitt Towers

Here is what you can do:

1---Call your Councilperson & Council President Ravenstahl BEFORE 10am on 1/11 (TODAY). Ask them to ask Mr. Ravenstahl to recommend March 14 as the date for the special election.

District 1 - Luke Ravenstahl - 412-255-2135
District 2 - Dan Deasy - 412-255-8963
District 4 - Jim Motznik - 412-255-2131
District 5 - Doug Shields - 412-255-8965
District 6 - Tonya Payne - 412-255-2134
District 7 - Len Bodack - 412-255-2140
District 8 - Bill Peduto - 412-255-2133
District 9 - Twanda Carlisle - 412-255-2137

2---Come today to the public hearing period before the City Council's Standing Committees Meeting at 10:00 a.m., and use your 3 minutes to make your opinion heard. Come to the City Council chambers on the 5th floor of the City County Building at 10:00 a.m., and during the public comment period everyone who wishes to speak gets 3 minutes at the mike.

3---Write a letter to the Post-Gazette. Send your letter to the editor by email to letters@postgazette.com or by fax to 412-263-2014. Don't forget to include your full name, address and telephone number for verification. Be concise and to the point.

4---On Thursday 1/12/06 @ 3pm, Place: TBA on Pitt's campus
City Councilman Bill Peduto, the League of Young Voters, The Stonewall Dems, The College Dems and other concerned groups will be holding a press conference and rally to compel the board of elections to hold the election on March 14 so UPitt students will be able to participate in choosing their next council rep.

On Thursday 1/12/06 @ 12:30, at the corner of Forbes and Bigelow (in front of Hilman Library). The League of Young Voters, The Stonewall Dems, The College Dems, and other concerned groups will be holding a and rally to compel the board of elections to hold the election on March 14 so University of Pittsburgh students will be able to participate in choosing their next council rep.

Council Member Bill Peduto has given his support to the efforts to change the election date and he will be attending the rally.

For more info contact the Pittsburgh League at pittsburgh@indyvoter.org

From the Post-Gazette (1-10-06):

Councilman William Peduto said that if the request to the county is made today, Wednesday or Thursday, the election would likely be held March 7, when University of Pittsburgh students are on spring break. Most of the district is south of the Monongahela River, but it includes parts of South Oakland and Central Oakland.

Mr. Peduto urged that the request be made Friday, which would allow for a March 14 election.

"I think [Ms. Johnson-Wasler] is probably planning on having it ready on Friday," said Mr. Ravenstahl.

From the Post-Gazette (1-11-06):

A special election to replace former city Councilman Gene Ricciardi will be held March 7, council President Luke Ravenstahl said yesterday.

That date drew fire from Councilman William Peduto, because it falls during the University of Pittsburgh's spring break, and many of the affected district's registered voters are Pitt students. He said thousands of young people "would be denied the opportunity to vote on the 7th" and urged that it be held March 14.

Announced Candidates:

Democrats:
Eileen Conroy of Oakland
Ed Jacob of the South Side Slopes
Jeffrey S. Koch of Arlington
Bruce Krane of the South Side Flats
Bruce Kraus of the South Side Flats
Pat Sweeney of the South Side Flats

Green Party:
Jason Phillips of the South Side Flats

Libertarian:
Mark Rauterkus of the South Side Flats

The winner will serve out Mr. Ricciardi's term, which runs through 2007.

The Third Council District is comprised of:
Carrick, the South Side and South Oakland: Mt. Washington, Allentown, Beltzhoover, Knoxville, Southside Flats & Southside Slopes, Carrick, Mt. Oliver, St. Clair, Arlington, Arlington Heights, South Oakland and Central Oakland

THIS IS MY DISTRICT, PEOPLE. AND, I DON'T APPRECIATE A DEMOCRAT TRYING TO DENY STUDENTS THE VOTE -- WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THAT WITH THE REPUBLICANS.

Lowry at the National Review: It's a REPUBLICAN scandal

I found this via the dailykos. Here's the important stuff:

Republicans are looking for "their" John McCain. The popular Arizona maverick is already a Republican, of course. But the GOP needs a McCain in the "Keating Five" sense. Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats.

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection. [emphasis added]

Can someone please tell Fred Honsberger? He's been trumpeting (for days) the Republican party line about the "contributions he [Ambramoff] or his clients made to Democrats." [emphasis added]

If someone at the National frickin' Review says that it's misdirection to portray the Abramoff scandal as anything other than a Republican scandal, we can be pretty sure that that's exactly what Freddo's doing.

IMPEACH

Melissa Hart in the News!

Our Missy Hart's made it onto talkingpointmemo.com. Good for her.

Looks like her vote for the "Delay Rule" is coming back to bite her on the ass. Here's Josh Marshall:

Wednesday's Post quotes Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA) saying: "We will want people who are clean running the House." She's supporting John Boehner (R-OH), who is being held out as the clean candidate in comparison to acting-Majority Leader and one-time DeLay protege Roy Blunt (R-MO). And it's certainly an admirable sentiment.

But a year ago she was a vocal supporter of the DeLay Rule which was designed to let DeLay, then the Majority Leader, remain in his post even after he was indicted. Members of her staff told TPM Readers who contacted her office that she voted in favor of the Rule. In other words, she wanted to change the rules so that someone who was dirty could keep running the House.

In fact, DeLay had so much confidence in Hart that after he purged the Ethics Committee in early 2005 (see 'night of the long gavels') she was one of the loyalists he put on the committee. Indeed, while DeLay was still in the driver's seat enough to be calling the shots, Hart was tapped to lead the Majority-approved investigation of DeLay.

The important line in Marshall's entry is this:

In other words, she wanted to change the rules so that someone who was dirty could keep running the House.

So is it safe to say that she supported Tom Delay before she didn't support him?

IMPEACH

Reported: Fiztgerald to charge Rove -- Rove will refuse plea

A friend called me saying that she heard on Lynn Cullen's WPTT 1360 radio show that Fitzgerald will charge Rove.

And, a Daily KOS diary links to this TruthOut.org story (Raw Story links to it as well):

Fitzgerald Maintains Focus on Rove
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Investigative Report

Tuesday 10 January 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have
spent the past month preparing evidence he will present to a grand jury alleging that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove knowingly made false statements to FBI and Justice Department investigators and lied under oath while he was being questioned about his role in the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity more than two years ago, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe.

Although there have not been rumblings regarding Fitzgerald's probe into the Plame
leak since he met with the grand jury hearing evidence in the case more than a month ago, the sources said that Fitzgerald has been quietly building his case against Rove and has been interviewing witnesses, in some cases for the second and third time, who have provided him with information related to Rove's role in the leak. It is unclear when Fitzgerald is expected to meet with the grand jury again.

[snip]

According to sources, Fitzgerald had planned to meet with the grand jury several times last month, hoping to wrap up the case specifically as it relates to Rove's involvement. But the prosecutor, who empanelled a second grand jury in November and whose term expires in 18 months, had his hands full dealing with another high-profile criminal case he is prosecuting involving Lord Conrad Black, owner of several major metropolitan newspapers, who was indicted on charges including racketeering.

[snip]

But sources knowledgeable about the case against Rove say that he was offered a plea deal in December and that Luskin had twice met with Fitzgerald during that time to discuss Rove's legal status. Rove turned down the plea deal, which would likely have required him to provide Fitzgerald with information against other officials who were involved in Plame's outing as well as testifying against those people, the sources said.

So, if we are to believe this:

- Rove will be charged

- He will not accept a plea

- (Inevitable pardon to follow)

That's Our Bush!

Only took him five years to get us back to where we were when he took office!

Altmire Campaign Slims Payroll

Funds drying up?

Politics PA reported last week that Mark Salvas has left the Jason Altmire for Congress Campaign. He had been serving as the campaign's Communications Director. A little birdie told us last Tuesday evening that he wasn't the only one dropping their support in that campaign.

Maybe folks are realizing that now is not the time to run a lobbyist for Congress...

Maybe it just doesn't help that there's a better, stronger candidate (Georgia Berner, Georgia Berner, Georgia Berner) running now....

Maybe some folks just don't find his principles all that principled...

(Maybe if I hadn't had such a hellish week, I could have posted this days ago...)

Pittsburgh Impeach Bush!

Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo (38th state Senatorial District) has initiated a local impeachment campaign here in the city of Pittsburgh.

He has a petition calling for impeachment and a censure of the President and Vice President which will appear as a full-page ad in the Pittsburgh City Paper news weekly prior to the State of the Union Address. You can sign it online here (deadline for signing is January 21).

You can view the ad at pittsburghimpeachbush.org.

This action is unprecedented, and Pittsburgh may be the first US city to organize a campaign of this nature.

Senator Ferlo's action supports Congressman John Conyers resolutions 635 (H.Res.635 would create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.), 636, and 637 (H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and – in the case of President Bush – for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.).

Ask your Congress Member to support these efforts here (enter zip code at the top of the linked page)

This effort is being done in conjunction with CensureBush.org

SPREAD THE WORD!

________________________________
tags: impeach impeach bush Impeachment censure Politics ferlo

Stop Alito this Wednesday in Pittsburgh!

Join the voices speaking out against Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito.

Now is the Time!!!

Individuals and organizations are coming together in Pittsburgh to lend their voices to the fight.

WHEN: Wednesday, January 11, 2006, 6:30 PM
WHERE: The United Steel Workers Building, 5 Gateway Center (The Corner of Stanwix St and Blvd of the Allies, 1st Floor Lobby Conference room
WHY: To show our opposition to Samuel Alito's Nomination.

All those opposed to the nomination are invited and encouraged to attend.

Bring signs and banners from your organizations so we can show the diverse groups in opposition.

This event is being facilitated by the Alliance for Justice and the National Council of Jewish Women, Pittsburgh Section and is supported by the Western Coalition For an Independent Court.

CONTACT: Reed Millar from the Alliance for Justice for more information:
reedmillar@yahoo.com 484-769-3564

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

What You Can Do Today:

Call Senator Specter TODAY!

Let him know that you oppose Alito's nomination. Let him no that you consider Alito to be outside the mainstream.

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter
Washington D.C. office: 202-224-4252
Pittsburgh office: 412-644-3400

Senate Judiciary Committee Experiences Burning, Itching Sensation

(We've often thought that the Senate was full of asses, we just didn't know that they were holy.)

This story is right up our alley. According to the Wall St. Journal:

WASHINGTON -- Insisting that God "certainly needs to be involved" in the Supreme Court confirmation process, three Christian ministers today blessed the doors of the hearing room where Senate Judiciary Committee members will begin considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito on Monday.

Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.

"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.

[snip]

The three ministers insisted they weren't taking sides in the Alito debate. "This is not a pro-Alito prayer," insisted the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. With abortion, public prayer, gay marriage and right-to-life issues among those topping public debate, however, "God…is interested in what goes on" in the nomination hearing, Rev. Schenck said.

When asked, God had no comment.

More Treason from the Mainstream Media

Take a look.

A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Why do all those people want to make it harder for our dear and glorious leader to fulfill his pledge to protect us from the evil doers who want to kills us?

I think they secretly want our great leader to fail. Because the 2000 election didn't go the way they planned, they're filled with so much hate that they'll do anything, say anything, to sabotage his divinely approved administration.

I think it's totally and completely correct for our glorious leader to ignore the will of the people and both the spirit and letter of the law whenever he needs to in order to protect us from the evil suiciders and terrorists.

Personally I believe it in my heart that the liberal media is to blame. If they would only publish the truth (like they do at newsmax.com and the Fox News Channel) every American would see that Bush is a great president, that right after Saddam Hussein planned the 9/11 attacks, he shuttled his Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Bekaa valley in Syria in order to keep them safe, that Tom Delay is a good Christian, and finally that whatever our glorious leader is accused of doing, it doesn't matter because that scumbag Clinton did much worse.

(The preceeding message was brought to you by the Right-wing blogosphere. The Right-wing blogosphere: No need to worry about facts, just remember that God is on ourside - not on the side of the treasonous atheist liberals.)

IMPEACH

Congresswoman Melissa Hart

Was interviewed on Fred Honsbergers radio show on KDKA a few days ago. Fortunately, I was taking notes. It was a "report in" of sorts for the Congresswoman as she'd just returned from a fact-finding tour of Iraq.

She related one story that I found curious - if only when I peeked under the surface a bit. She said she'd visited the place where the Humvees are being "up armored" or fitted with new armor that would go all the way around the vehicle. She was told that they'd all be finished by the end of this March. And when the general in charge was asked what the congressional delegation could do (if anything) to get the newly armored Humvees out into the field sooner, he responded with a "any help we can get is welcome" type answer.

A few questions. The invation was in March of 2003 - and they're just finishing the process of armoring the Humvees now?

And I realise that I am responding to my notes that were based on what Missy Hart said that a general said (so how many layers of heresay is that????), but it looks like the general in charge of putting the new armor on the old Humvees is still looking for help. Again - three years after the invasion????

How does this fit in with the recent news of a certain Pentagon report about body armor (or the lack thereof)? Take a look:

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

Fred didn't ask. Of course not.

Missy Hart also said that when she was in Iraq, she tried to call Fred's show with her satellite phone. But unfortunately the phone didn't work. I guess that's a good thing, though. Imagine if it did work. Isn't the NSA tracing all the incoming e-mails and phone calls (including satellite calls) from Iraq? Wouldn't a call placed on a satellite phone from Iraq to the US end up among the calls traced? Imagine, again, if the satellite phone worked. What would Missy Hart say if she knew that the NSA was listening in on all of her phone conversations? Public AND private?

Fred didn't ask her about that, either.

On the NSA spying (which Fred Honsberger labelled as "Supposed NSA Spying") - she did her rightwing duty and attempted to extend the lie that "prior presidents did pretty much the same thing." Which "prior presidents?" Nixon? Well, that's true I guess.

But among the wing-nut crowd these "prior presidents" could only mean Carter and Clinton. But this we know to be a lie. Here's the Washington Post:

As members of Congress from both parties continued to criticize the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping yesterday, the Republican National Committee issued a news release portraying the critics as Democrats seeking to "play politics again with national security."

The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."

The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."[emphasis added]

If Missy Hart was talking about Nixon, I guess she was right. But then again Nixon was indicted for his abuses of power.

If Missy Hart was talking about Carter and Clinton, she was lying.

She did, however, loyally add that she wasn't sure whether the president violated the law and that we're winning the war in Iraq. History will tell whether she's bullshitting us on those two points as well.

IMPEACH

Rick Santorum DOESN'T TRUST BUSH??

In his latest attempt to distance himself from himself, Rick Santorum did this.

Sen. Rick Santorum yesterday wrote a letter to President Bush asking him to create an independent, non-partisan commission to objectively evaluate progress in Iraq.

Whah?? You mean that Rick Santorum, #3 guy in the Senate, doesn't trust Our Glorious Leader to be speaking the truth when talking about Iraq?

Mr. Santorum told the president that he was joining other members of Congress in their call for a panel that could "objectively and critically report" progress in Iraq to build Americans' confidence and trust in the mission.

But hasn't Our Glorious and Infallible War-President already said that there's been progress in Iraq? Isn't that enough for the little ingrate? What, is he some sort of Bush-hating anti-American hypocrite?

Though the Senate passed legislation in November requiring more frequent and detailed reports on Iraq's reconstruction and military efforts, Mr. Santorum indicated yesterday that he did not think those reports, which will come from the administration, would provide what he views as the need for "an objective assessment."

"I believe that the American people have not received an accurate picture of America's successes and challenges in helping Iraq establish their democracy," Mr. Santorum wrote.

Santorum thinks that what the administration reports won't be accurate or objective. He also wants them to create an independent commission to tell us all what he already knows to be true. What's up with that? Oh, that's right:

The letter is a significant shift by the Pennsylvania Republican, whose stalwart support for nearly all aspects of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq could be a significant handicap in his race against state Treasurer Robert P. Casey this year if Pennsylvanians' support for the war continues to decline.

Now I understand.

IMPEACH

"It's not my fault that you're crazy"

Rick Santorum (R-Va) was on the Imus in the Morning show on MSNBC this morning (he's a frequent guest there). I don't know shorthand and didn'trecord it, but this is close until there's a transcript:

On the Abramoff Scandal:

Santorum said that he received no money from Abramoff, but that he did receive money from two Indian tribes and that one of the tribes was being directed from Abramoff and that they were giving the money back to the tribe. They were still investigating the other tribe and would give back that money if it turned out that Abramoff was "directing" them.

Imus: "So there's no chance that we'll see you with a raincoat over your head in handcuffs?"

Lil Ricky: "I know you guys were sort of hoping for that. This is what you guys are all about."

On the Recent Mining Disaster:

Lil Ricky: "These are really good people...They have their faith. They have their families. They have their community."

Imus: "Getting right with Jesus."

While I have no idea what Imus was trying to say, I will tell Little Ricky that there's one thing that the 12 miners who died didn't have: A UNION.

"If it'd been a union mine this never would have happened," said Earl Casto, a former miner whose cousin, Junior Hamner, died in the accident. "This should make all coal miners working open their eyes." Mr. Casto said that his cousin complained frequently about the safety violations that occurred.

They also didn't have the support they needed from their President:

Now, after another bad accident, we find out that since the last accident in 2002, not only did the President ignore calls by Democrats to address the situation seriously, but he actually enacted more cuts to mine safety programs and weakened mine safety regulations.

The 2002 fact sheet and the Chicago Tribune article shows that Bush knew full well that mine safety was suffering - and now we know he didn't do anything about it, to tragic consequences. They can put out GOP hacks and administration spokespeople to deny this reality - but the facts are there. Here's hoping Democrats are able to force an investigation, as requested by Reps. George Miller (CA) and Major Owens (NY) - it's high time the White House answer for its negligence.

On The President Breaking the Law:

Imus: "So what about the President breaking the law?"

Lil Ricky: "I'm sorry, what story are you reporting on?"

Imus: "The wiretaps."

Lil Ricky: "But you said 'breaking the law.'" ..."The president in limited circumstances should be able to...This is not something your average American has a lot of concern about or should have...Who says that some judge who has been appointed -- maybe by this President or other Presidents -- has any better knowledge of or any better concern than the President?"

Note to Lil Ricky: The law he would be breaking is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And it's not "who" says a judge is better able to handle this, it's "what." And, the "what" is the US Constitution.

On Being Crazy:

Lil Ricky starts saying something or other about the President "staying above the fray."

Imus: "I love you but you're a crazy person...It's not my fault that you're crazy."

Lil Ricky: "But you're still behind me?"

Imus: "Yes, I am."

Because crazy people make for good TV!

Bush on McCain's Torture Ban

I found this at the Huffington Post. It pointed me to an article in the Boston Globe. It shows our glorious leader's true colors. And the level of respect he holds the rule of law. Here's how it starts:

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Basically, he signed the law and intends to follow it - untill he intends not to.

Are we still in a Constitutional Republic?

IMPEACH

AirAmerica Radio on WPTT???

This is odd. Take a look at this page. As of Wednesday evening 1/4/05 this is the list of radio stations that have air america programming:

Eastern

Akron, OH - WARF-AM 1350 AM

Ann Arbor, MI - WLBY-AM 1290 AM

Asheville, NC - WPEK-AM 880 AM

Atlanta, GA - WWAA-AM 1690 AM

Bennington, VT - WBTN-AM 1370

Binghamton, NY - WYOS-AM 1360 AM

Boston, MA - WXKS-AM 1430 AM

Boston, MA - WKOX-AM 1200 AM

Brattleboro, VT - WKVT-AM 1490 AM

Burlington, VT - WVAA-AM 1390 AM

Chapel Hill, NC - WCHL-AM 1360 AM

Chattanooga, TN - WDOD-AM 1310 AM

Cincinnati, OH - WCKY-AM 1530 AM

Cleveland, OH - WTAM-AM 1100 AM

Columbia, SC - WOIC-AM 1230 AM

Columbus, OH - WTPG-AM 1230 AM

Detroit, MI - WDTW-AM 1310 AM

Grand Rapids, MI - WTKG-AM 1230

Huntington, WV - WRVC-AM 930 AM

Ithaca, NY - WNYY-AM 1470-AM

Key West, FL - WKIZ-AM 1500 AM

Miami, FL - WINZ-AM 940 AM

Montpelier/Barre/St Johnsbury, VT - WDEV-AM 550

New Haven, CT - WAVZ-AM 1300 AM

New York, NY - WLIB 1190 AM

Petoskey, MI - WWKK-AM 750 AM

Pittsburgh, PA - WPTT-AM 1360

Portland, ME - WLVP-AM 870 AM

Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket, RI - WHJJ-AM 920

Rochester, NY - WROC-AM 950 AM

Rocky Mount, NC - WEED-AM 1390

Sarasota-Bradenton, FL - WSRQ-AM 1450 AM

Springfield, MA - WHMP-AM 1400 AM

Washington, DC - WWRC-AM 1260 AM

West Palm Beach, FL - WJNO-AM 1290 AM

Notice anything?

Does anyone have any idea what's going on with this?

=====

(1-8-06) WAY OVERDUE UPDATE: I e-mailed WPTT and John Poister, the program director over there responded with this:

David:
We are listed as an Air America Affiliate because we carry The Thom
Hartmann Show which is distributed by Air America. We have a fairly
heavy schedule of locally produced programming and, at this time, we
have no plans to expand our (good) relationship with Air America.

So I guess that, as they say, settles that.

IMPEACH

Dan Simpson is (more or less) correct

Take a look at Dan Simpson's column today. From the first paragraph, he doesn't pull very many punches, does he?

President Bush's action in turning the National Security Agency loose to record American citizens' telephone calls and e-mails without following the law governing such matters is now being made subject by Mr. Bush to the usual administration smokescreen of lies and investigations that the public has come to expect when something bad the White House has done meets the light of day.

Not only does he come right out and proclaim "the usual administration smokescreen of lies" but he then immediately follows it with "that the public has come to expect." He's right of course. They lie and we're no longer surprised to see that they lie.

He then does some of our job for us (thanks, Dan - we really appreciate it!) with the next couple of paragraphs:

It is thus probably time to take a close look at what is occurring, to try to keep our eyes on the ball as Mr. Bush and his spinners kick dust at us.

First of all, no one is arguing that NSA shouldn't bug potential terrorists, nor that the CIA and the FBI shouldn't keep files on these people. In light of the blunders by the CIA and the FBI in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attacks, it would be clear folly not to.

But that isn't what this is about. What it is about is that there has been in effect since Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed in 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which dictates the circumstances under which such bugging becomes legal -- as opposed to an arbitrary abuse of executive branch power. [emphasis added]

He clarifies a few paragraphs later:

How Mr. Bush decided that it was acceptable for him simply to ignore the 27-year-old law and just order the surveillance to begin -- and, presumably, to continue, since we haven't heard yet that he has ordered non-court-sanctioned NSA monitoring to end -- remains to come out.

He claims that the nebulous post-9/11 congressional resolution that he says authorized him to make war on America's enemies superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as law that he as president is required to observe and respect.

We will pass over in silence the question of whether the "war" on terrorism is a war and if "terrorism" is an identifiable enemy against which the United States can wage war and stay within the bounds of logic. We will also leave aside the question of whether the undeclared war in Iraq is one that justifies the bypassing of a law that is essential to the protection of Americans' civil rights.[emphasis added]

If the question were not left aside, I'd have to answer it with a hearty "Hell, no!"

My only disagreement with the eminently agreeable Dan Simpson comes next:

I am not building up to an argument for impeaching Mr. Bush because of his violation of an important U.S. law. I think there is no chance whatsoever that a Congress, both houses of which are controlled by Mr. Bush's party, would even look at such an action. In my view, the effort to impeach President Clinton was a major waste of time, even though his actions that led to it were certainly deplorable. There is also the truly frightful prospect that, if, by hook or by crook Mr. Bush were successfully impeached, Vice President Dick Cheney, in shaky health, would become president.

I am quite happy that he clearly asserts that Bush violated the law. Dan Simpson is a careful writer (and former diplomat) and if he writes the phrase "...because of his violation of an important U.S. law" without without adding the word "possible" (or some such synonym) before the word "violation" you can be pretty sure that he believes that the president violated the law.

I would part company on the impeachment, however. But then I am sure all the readers of this blog already know this. Impeach 'em all! If they violated their oath of office (which is clear) then they do not deserve to sit in the seats of power. Our constitutional system (what's left of it) needs to be protected. If that means that Dennis Hastert is president until the next election (or at least until the Abramoff scandal brings him down), then so be it.

Our system has to be protected from the Bush corruption.

He gains back my happy approval with the slam-dunk ending:

Mr. Bush cites war as the basis for breaking the law. The question is, war on whom? Could it not equally well be argued that the most credible threat to Americans' liberties comes from its leaders who break its laws?

Bravo, Dan Simpson.

IMPEACH

The OTHER Swearing In Ceremony

The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat attended Bob O'Connor's coronation and reports on it here. While I was in the area too then, I was inside the City County Building watching the swearing in ceremony for Daniel Deasy, James Motznik, Tonya Payne and Bill Peduto.

While ADB noted that:

Prior to getting downstairs, I heard the choir warming up, but because of the echo downtown, it sounded like the "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" sequence from 2001. Very, very strange and eerie.

I have to say that it sounded even stranger in City Council Chambers when one was trying to listen to the members speeches. And speaking of those speeches:

Dan Deasy's speech was (ZZZZZZzzzzz). Sorry, I nodded off just thinking about it.

Jim Moztnik hit all the right notes and also got the biggest laugh line of the morning by recounting his kid's prayer to Santa for better parents.

Tonya Payne thanked everyone by name who she's ever met in her life (including me so I'm really not complaining). She also managed to clock the most laughs per minute while still having the most touching moment of the morning when she got a little teary-eyed thanking her parents. (Some of her speech is quoted here in the Post-Gazette.)

Bill Peduto had the shortest speech, but also the most inclusive and hopeful. In addition to favorably quoting a Republican -- Teddy Roosevelt -- he also quoted "The Paradoxical Commandments" (which he also had printed on the back of his Christmas cards).

The loudest cheers went to Payne and Peduto (I heard someone behind me mutter something about a "lack of decorum" during one point when a large portion of the room erupted in applause for Payne), but all the members who were sworn in were well represented and well applauded.

Oh, and someone or other was elected President of City Council.

I did happen to see a second or two of O'Connor's ceremony when I was leaving to go back to work and I must say that there were a lot of empty chairs for an event that had 10,000 invitees and was open to the public.

That said, sincere wishes for GOOD LUCK to everyone who was sworn in yesterday -- they're going to need it.

The man who drives Rethugs and the MSM insane

From Media Matters:

During a discussion of potential 2008 presidential candidates on the January 1 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham referred to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) as "a sane Howard Dean, basically." Dean ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination and currently serves as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Meanwhile, despite all the SPIN on Dean's competency/worth to the Party, Hotline on Call reports:

The Democratic National Committee raised more than $51M in 2005, a record for an off-year and twenty percent higher than the comparable period in 2003.

So that's CRAZY LIKE A FOX, MOTHERFUCKERS!

Oh, and KOS reports:

I forgot to mention -- when Dean goes on fundraising trips to the states he lets the locals keep the money. He's raising money for the state parties, which isn't reflected in these numbers. The state parties love him for it. In the past, people like McAuliffe would come in and vaccum up money from the locals and send it to DC. This makes these numbers all that much more remarkable.

It also helps explain why Dean is so scary to the MSM and big money donors.

Some thoughts on Santorum from the other side of the state

Larry Kane in The Philadelphia Inquirer:

The year 2006 harbors such volatility that both left- and right-wing partisans are walking on eggshells, with the real fear that extremism will eventually catch up with them at the ballot box.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) comes to mind. He has been backtracking on many issues. Notable among these is intelligent design, the quasireligious theory that Santorum has often heartily endorsed. But when the pro-ID side lost the Dover trial, Santorum distanced himself from the whole affair. (He still backs ID, but does not believe it should be taught in public schools.)

I think Mr Kane is being to kind to Lil Ricky. In repub-speak, "backtracking = flip-flop" and should be pointed out continuously.

I'll say it again, Rick Santorum has flip-flopped on Intelligent Design. And he continues to do so, a point which Mr Kane raises (I know old pun, but I haven't had any breakfast yet and I'm still little woozy) when he writes that Santorum "still backs ID, but does not believe it should be taught in public schools."

So let me see if I got this straight (and CAN I use that word when discussing our homophobic Senator??). He backs the concept, and he's written that he feels it's a valid scientific concept, but he doesn't want to see it taught in the public schools.

Why not? If he thinks it's valid, shouldn't he be fighting tooth and nail for the best possible education for the state's students?

Oh, that's right - it's not POLITICALLY viable these days. And Rick has an election to win, an opponent to smear, and his own record to distort.

Rick Santorum - a man of strict principles, until he needs to win an election.

IMPEACH

Democracy for Pittsburgh Meetup is Tonight!

Candidates speaking at tonight's meetup include:

CHUCK PENNACCHIO - candiate for US Senate!
http://www.chuck2006.com/

VALERIE MCDONALD ROBERTS - candidate for Lt. Governor!
www.valerieforpa.com

WILLIAM ANDERSON - candidate for State House District 24!

PAT SWEENEY - candidate for PGH City Council!

Also, our special guest is DAN FRANKEL to discuss efforts to get some good Democrats to run against currently unopposed incumbent Republicans!

Event Title: Monthly Meetup
Event Type: DFA-Link Meeting
Organized by: Democracy for Pittsburgh
Event Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Event Time: 7:00 PM
Venue Name: Mario’s South Side Saloon (upstairs)
Address: 1514 E Carson St
City: Pittsburgh
State: PA
Zip Code: 15203
Google Maps
Phone Number: 412-381-5610

You can R.S.V.P here.

And remember, if you haven't attended a meeting in either November or December, you NEED to attend tonight's meeting in order to qualify to vote for endorsments in February!

From Atrios

Looks like I've been in a quoting mood these past few days. Here's something I found at atrios:

2005 was the year that the president of the United States declared proudly that he had broken the law repeatedly and with full intention, that he had the power to do so whenever he wanted to, and that he would continue to do so whenever he determined it to be desirable. This declaration was met with basic approval from much of the beltway chattering classes, prominent libertarian bloggers, and just about every small government conservative.

The issue is simple: Bush has declared that one man has the right to make the law whenever, in his determination, national security warrants it. While even I can understand the necessity of broad executive powers in emergency situations, we aren't anywhere close to being in one of those. If Bush decides that personally shooting dissident bloggers or pesky journalists in the head is in fact necessary for national security, then no one can object. The fact that he has not, as far as we know, done any such thing does not matter in the slightest. By conferring dictatorial authority on himself Bush has declared that this is, in fact, a dictatorship even if he hasn't (yet) bothered using such authorities to the fullest of his claimed ability.

It's a mystery why Russert and the gang can giggle over their little roundtables, essentially ignoring what amounts to a military coup by our own president. He's asserted the authority of commander in chief over the entire country, and not just the military to which the constitution grants him such authority. Yes, we hope and generally assume that this temper tantrum by our boy king will pass in 3 years, that the his overreach will not have long lasting effects, that the crisis will pass.

2005 was the year the president declared he was the law, and few of our elite opinion makers and shapers bothered to notice, or care.

IMPEACH

Some Interesting KDKA News

I found this little two-paragrapher this morning:

Former PCNC "NightTalk" host John McIntire began "filling in for no one" last night, 9 to midnight, on KDKA-AM (1020).

It's believed McIntire will eventually take over that spot, held by Mike Romigh until a rash of firings at the radio station last week, but McIntire said no final decisions have been made, and for now he's just doing fill-in work.

Here, again, is the link to the KDKA contact page. If you feel so inclined, drop them a note to encourage them to make this permanent. I used the contact page to contact "programming" but I would guess that "management" would work OK, too.

IMPEACH

Happy New Year!

From a writer far far more talented than I could ever be:

I case you haven't noticed, as the result of a shamelessly rigged election in Florida, in which thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily disenfranchised, we now present ourselves to the rest of the world as proud, grinning, jut-jawed pitiless war-lovers with appallingly powerful weaponry--who stand unopposed.

In case you haven't noticed, we are now as feared and hated all over the world as the Nazis once were.

And with good reason.

In case you haven't noticed, our unelected leaders have dehumanized millions and millions of human beings simply because of their religion and race. We wound 'em and kill 'em and torture 'em and imprison 'em all we want.

Piece of cake.

In case you haven't noticed, we also dehumanised our own soldiers, not because of their religion or race, but because of their low social class.

Send 'em anywhere. Make 'em do anything.

Piece of cake.

The O'Reilly Factor.

So I am a man without a country, except for the librarians and a Chicago paper called In These Times.

Before we attacked Iraq, the majestic New York Times guaranteed that there were weapons of mass destruction there.

Albert Einstein and Mark Twain gave up on the human reace at the end of their lives, even though Twain hadn't even seen the First World War. War is now a form of TV entertainment, and what made the First World War so particularly entertaining were two American inventions, barbed wire and the machine gun.

Shrapnel was invented by an Englishman of the same name. Don't you wish you could have something named after you?

Like my distinct betters Einstein and Twain, I now give up on people, too. I am a veteran of the Second World War and I have to say this is not the first time I have surrendered to a pitiless war machine.

My last words? "Life is no way to treat an animal, not even a mouse."

Napalm came from Harvard. Veritas!

Our president is a Christian? So was Adolf Hitler.

What can be said to our young people, now that psychopathic personalities, which is to say persons without consciences, without pity or shame, have taken all the money in the treasuries of our government and corporations, and made it all their own?

You can buy the book here (it's page 86-89).

IMPEACH

My New Year's Resolution:

I promise not to subvert the Constitution.

(Someone has to.)

IMPEACH

It's Sunday, So Jack Kelly's At It Again

Ok, here's what you do. First read Jack Kelly's column (and then come back here, or course).

Go ahead - I'll wait.

Ok, now that that's done, let's take a look at the article he's complaining about. It's here. First off, it's obvious that our friend Jack is over-reacting juuuust a lil'bit here. The article is 30 paragraphs long and there are only about 11 paragraphs on his friend Bill Roggio. Jack Kelly calls it slime and a "drive-by shooting." You can decide for yourself whether it is. Here's the text:

BAGHDAD -- Retired soldier Bill Roggio was a computer technician living in New Jersey less than two months ago when a Marine officer half a world away made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Frustrated by the coverage they were receiving from the news media, the Marines invited Roggio, 35, who writes a popular Web log about the military called "The Fourth Rail" (http://www.billroggio.com), to come cover the war from the front lines.

He raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor. A few weeks later, he was posting dispatches from a remote outpost in western Anbar province, a hotbed of Iraq's insurgency.

"I was disenchanted with the reporting on the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror and felt there was much to the conflict that was missed," Roggio, who is currently stationed with Marines along the Syrian border, wrote in an e-mail response to written questions. "What is often seen as an attempt at balanced reporting results in underreporting of the military's success and strategy and an overemphasis on the strategically minor success of the jihadists or insurgents."

Roggio's arrival in Iraq comes amid what military commanders and analysts say is an increasingly aggressive battle for control over information about the conflict. Scrutiny of what the Pentagon calls information operations heightened late last month, when news reports revealed that the U.S. military was paying Iraqi journalists and news organizations to publish favorable stories written by soldiers, sometimes without disclosing the military's role in producing them.

There's more towards the end of the piece. In a section describing how Capt. Jeffrey S. Pool, public affairs officer for the 2nd Marine Division, is utilizing his media resources:

Pool said he spends a growing portion of his time working to dispel what he calls erroneous tips from insurgents to reporters, including regular reports of Marines taken captive or helicopters downed.

"We now take all of these rumors seriously," he said. "We also use different [media] to get our messages out."

He said he recently began distributing his news releases to military bloggers and organizations such as veterans associations. The Marines also took a more direct approach by inviting Roggio to cover their operations.

"A thorough review of his work was taken into account before authorizing the embed," said Pool. "Overall, it has worked out really well."

And then finally:

After military officials in Baghdad said Roggio could not be issued media credentials unless he was affiliated with an organization, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization in Washington, offered him an affiliation, according to an entry on Roggio's blog. He and two other bloggers launched a new Web site a month ago (http://threatswatch.com), where he has posted many stories about his time with the Marines. Most provide detailed accounts of patrols or other outings on which he accompanied U.S. forces.

When news organizations began reporting about the insurgent activity in Ramadi on Dec. 1, Roggio posted "The Ramadi Debacle: The Media Bites on Al Qaeda Propaganda."

"The reported 'mini-Tet offensive' in Ramadi has turned out to be less than accurate," he wrote, citing information provided by Pool. "In fact, it has been anything but."

On Dec. 15, when Iraqis voted in nationwide elections, Roggio reported from Barwana, a Western town where turnout was far heavier than in Iraq's constitutional referendum held Oct. 15.

"Barwana, once part of Zarqawi self declared 'Islamic Republic of Iraq,' " he wrote, "is now the scene of al-Qaeda's greatest nightmare: Muslims exercising their constitutional right to chose their destiny."

And that's it. Where is the slime? Jack says of the piece that that there were "so many errors it should be an embarrassment" to the Post and then goes onto discuss what the Post got wrong. He fleshes out how the Marines became aware of Roggio (hmm, that's more like an ommission on the Post's part - but there's nothing in the piece that contradicts it) and so on. The Post gets wrong Roggio's present whereabouts but according to Roggio's blogs, he returned to the US on the 20th of December. The piece was published on the 26th. My guess is that whent he piece was written Roggio was in Iraq. How big of an error is that?

Jack also says the Post "misidentified from whom he (Roggio) had obtained press credentials," but it looks like we have a he said/he said situation here.

Here's what Roggio himself wrote on October 31 at billroggio.com:

In the three days since I announced my plans to travel to Iraq and embed with RCT-2 in Anbar province, the response has been phenomenal. I have received media credentials, thanks to Dr. Michael Ledeen and the American Enterprise Institute.

But by December 27 at threatswatch.org, he wrote:

I was not credentialed by the American Enterprise Institute. This would be impossible as the needed press credentials must be provided by a media organization. A friend suggested I approach the American Enterprise Magazine, which is a periodical published by the American Enterprise Institute. We were unable to work out an agreement, so I searched for an alternative.

Another friend suggested I contact The Weekly Standard. Richard Starr was happy to help and provided the necessary credentials to embed. Also, Rod Breakenridge of the Canadian talk radio show The World Tonight kindly provided documentation for credentials as well. The two letters allowed me to successfully embed, and there were no questions about my credentials in Baghdad or elsewhere.

It looks, to me, like an error based on some sloppy writing of Mr Roggio. Perhaps the Post should have checked deeper into the press credentials, but once they happened onto his own blog saying that he's received the credentials thanks to the American Enterprise Institute, why should they have thought they'd need to dig further? In any case Kelly doesn't tell us what Roggio said in October - only that the Post misrepresented. Nice fact-checking, Jack.

In any case admits that:

The errors about Mr. Roggio's whereabouts and his media affiliation are minor.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. The next thing Jack Kelly complains about is the Washington Post's use of the term "retired" to describe Roggio. Jack writes (as does Roggio before him) that in order for Roggio to be "retired" from the military, he would have had to have spent 20 years there. As he was only in the service for about six (four in the Army Signal Corps and two in the National Guard) he can't be described as "retired." Whew, talk about hair-splitting!

Here's the thing. In this section (remember this is what Jack says the Post got wrong) he writes:

Col. Davis suggested to my friend Bill that he should come out to see the situation for himself. So Bill took a leave of absence from his job; raised $30,000 from readers of his blog (I contributed a small amount) for travel expenses, hazard insurance and to buy body armor; and obtained press credentials from The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine.

But wait, didn't the Post mention the $30,000 raised by Roggio's readers for the trip and body armor? How can that be something the Post got wrong? Of course Jack doesn't tell us that the Post mentioned it. So perhaps we are left to imply that they didn't? I'm just asking.

And I have no idea where Jack came up with this:

Mr. Finer and Mr. Struck implied through selective quotation that the embed process for Bill Roggio was different from that for "mainstream" journalists, and was contingent upon Bill writing favorable things. This was not so, says Mr. Roggio, who says he made this clear to Mr. Finer in their e-mail interview.

Where can this "implication" be found? Can someone show me? I'd love to see it.

Oh, the irony of Jack Kelly's limpid prose. He actually starts a paragraph with this:

Journalists don't like bloggers because they fact-check journalists.

While I am not sure I can call Jack Kelly a "journalist," I can make a safe guess that he can't like me very much.

Jack's "reporting" relies heavily on Roggio's own on-line complaint about the Washington Post article. Check it out here.

I gotta wonder: How much actual work did Jack Kelly actually put into writing this actual piece? Couldn't have spent much time actual fact-checking.

Meet the new Jack.
Same as the old Jack.

Happy New Year, Everybody!

IMPEACH

Not EVERYONE agreed with Bush on Iraq/WMD

I heard this on TV a short time ago and I wanted to make sure it made it here onto this blog.

Not EVERYONE believed that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Distruction. Take a look at this. It's an interview between Wolf Blitzer and the Prince of Darkness himself, Robert Novak. About half way down the page we see this interchange:

BLITZER: We're going to get to the CIA leak and other issues in a few moments. Let's talk about some of the issues right now on the agenda, the president of the United States, George W. Bush, he's been in office now for five years, approaching his sixth year. You've been a good conservative all these years. Are you satisfied with the way he's conducted himself? Has he been a good conservative, from your perspective?

NOVAK: I think it's a mixed bag, Wolf. I think his tax policy has been terrific. I think we would be in the depths of the economy if it weren't for the fact that he took a tough stand, a courageous stand in cutting the capital gains cuts, tax, the dividend tax, other income taxes.

I think, like most -- all Republican presidents, he hasn't done enough to reduce the size of the government. Nobody wants to bite that bullet.

The thing that I took issue with him, I didn't think we should have gone into Iraq. It was a few of us conservatives that thought it was a bad idea. Once we get there, you can't bug out. You can't...

BLITZER: What was so bad about going in and getting rid of Saddam Hussein?

NOVAK: It was wonderful getting rid of him. I'd like to get rid of a lot of dictators, but we can't send the U.S. military around the world to get rid of every dictator.

The question was, was it necessary in the national interest?

BLITZER: Was it?

NOVAK: I didn't think it was. I didn't think it at the time. Because I said several times on this network that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

BLITZER: How did you know that and the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States were convinced that there were apparently?

NOVAK: Because my sources -- I don't run my own CIA. My sources didn't think there were, in the military, people I trusted.

And the indication by the inspectors indicated there was no weapons. But the point...

BLITZER: Do you -- let me...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Sure.

BLITZER: Was the president sold a bill of goods on Iraq?

NOVAK: I think they got in a mindset where they really wanted change of government, and then it was a need to find reasons for a change of government.[emphasis added]

So what have we learned?

1. Bob Novak didn't think that going into Iraq was in the national interest,
2. Bob Novak said there were no WMD in Iraq, and
3. Bob Novak said that the idea for regime change came first and then the administration went about finding reasons (which Novak knows to be untrue) to justify that regime change.

Hey, didn't the Downing Street Memo say something about how the "intelligence was being fixed around the policy" or something?

Just checking.

So the next time anyone disagrees with me or the Other Political Junkie about Iraq/WMD, remember they're not just disagreeing with us, they're also disagreeing with The Prince of Darkness. They should do so at their own peril, I heard he can be a sonovabich.

IMPEACH