"I had absolutely nothing to do -- never met, never talked, never coordinated, never did anything -- with Grover Norquist and the -- quote -- K Street Project," Mr. Santorum said.Oh, Rick. How much more foolish can you look right now?
A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff’s tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate.Here's the main point:
The analysis, which was commissioned by The American Prospect and completed on Jan. 25, was done by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a for-profit firm specializing in campaign finance that has done research for many media outlets.
Although Abramoff hasn’t personally given to any Democrats, Republicans, including officials with the GOP campaign to hold on to the Senate, have seized on the donations of his tribal clients as proof that the saga is a bipartisan scandal. And the controversy recently spread to the media when the ombudsman for The Washington Post, Deborah Howell, ignited a firestorm by wrongly asserting that Abramoff had given to both. She eventually amended her assessment, writing that Abramoff “directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.”Get a gander at this:
But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it’s highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.
The big picture is also compelling. Taken together, Abramoff’s tribal clients gave $868,890 to Dems before hiring him; afterwards, they gave $794,483 -- a decrease of nine percent. By contrast, the tribes’ donations to Republicans went from $786,560 pre-Abramoff to $1,845,975 after he became their lobbyist -- an increase of 135 percent.In other words, when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled.I'll type that out again in case you missed it:
when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled.Got that?
With Democrats comparing his ties to lobbyists with "organized crime," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., yesterday swung back, saying the Democratic criticism amounted to libel and unequivocally denying that he helped shape the GOP's controversial "K Street Project."Helped shape? I wonder if that was the question asked. At least from this snippet, it looks like when challenenged about his connection to the K Street Project, Lil Ricky "swings back" by saying he didn'thelp shape the project. Those are two different issues, if you ask me. It looks like our lil Ricky avoided one question by changing the subject to another.
Since he became the Senate's third-ranking Republican in 2001, Mr. Santorum has held weekly meetings with top Republican lobbyists at which he discusses, among other matters, job openings at Washington lobbying firms.Wait a minute. Santorum referred to them as "K Street meetings" and now he's trying to distance himself by saying they're not? No wait - look closely. He didn't say they weren't "K Street meetings," he said they weren't "an integral part" of the K Street Project. Ok, fine. They weren't "integral." So how important were they, Senator?
But, in interviews with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, he has said those discussions -- which he previously referred to as "the K Street meetings" -- are merely to ensure Republicans are putting forward good candidates for the jobs.
Mr. Santorum flatly denied yesterday that the meetings were an integral part of the "K Street Project."
When presidents pick someone to fill a job in the government, it's typically a very public affair. The White House circulates press releases and background materials. Congress holds a hearing, where some members will pepper the nominee with questions and others will shower him or her with praise. If the person in question is controversial or up for an important position, they'll rate a profile or two in the papers. But there's one confirmation hearing you won't hear much about. It's convened every Tuesday morning by Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, in the privacy of a Capitol Hill conference room, for a handpicked group of two dozen or so Republican lobbyists. Occasionally, one or two other senators or a representative from the White House will attend. Democrats are not invited, and neither is the press.Then later:
The chief purpose of these gatherings is to discuss jobs--specifically, the top one or two positions at the biggest and most important industry trade associations and corporate offices centered around Washington's K Street, a canyon of nondescript office buildings a few blocks north of the White House that is to influence-peddling what Wall Street is to finance. In the past, those people were about as likely to be Democrats as Republicans, a practice that ensured K Street firms would have clout no matter which party was in power. But beginning with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and accelerating in 2001, when George W. Bush became president, the GOP has made a determined effort to undermine the bipartisan complexion of K Street. And Santorum's Tuesday meetings are a crucial part of that effort. Every week, the lobbyists present pass around a list of the jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum's responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal Republican--a senator's chief of staff, for instance, or a top White House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been demonstrated. After Santorum settles on a candidate, the lobbyists present make sure it is known whom the Republican leadership favors. "The underlying theme was [to] place Republicans in key positions on K Street. Everybody taking part was a Republican and understood that that was the purpose of what we were doing," says Rod Chandler, a retired congressman and lobbyist who has participated in the Santorum meetings. "It's been a very successful effort."
It took the 2000 elections, which gave Republicans the White House and Congress, to completely change the climate. In the months after, Santorum became the Senate's point man on K Street and launched his Tuesday meetings.And so the question, if this information has been out there for 2 and a half years or so, why is Lil Ricky only distancing himself from it now? Could it be because of the upcoming election?
Though publications such as The Washington Post, Roll Call and Washington Monthly have all reported that Mr. Santorum's meetings were a central part of Mr. Norquist's "K Street Project" strategy, Mr. Santorum said yesterday that his meetings were a separate initiative.Of course they were separate. Santorum himself called them "K Street meetings." They've been characterized as central to the K Street Project for more than two years and they did the same thing that the K Street Project was looking to do (find lobbying jobs for Republicans). So of course Rick Santorum is being absolutely truthful when he asserts that the two are "separate initiatives."
"I had absolutely nothing to do -- never met, never talked, never coordinated, never did anything -- with Grover Norquist and the -- quote -- K Street Project," Mr. Santorum said.
"[Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid made a statement that I meet with Grover Norquist every Wednesday," Mr. Santorum added. "I don't meet with him every Wednesday. I have nothing to do with this project and for [Mr. Reid] to make that statement is libelous. It's absolutely false."
SEN. HARRY REID: Having Sen. Santorum talk about reform is like having John Gotti talk about doing something about organized crime. He’s one of the problems. So –And Senator Man-on-Dog said:
JIM LEHRER: Why is he one of the problems?
SEN. HARRY REID: Because he was the liaison to K Street, he has gone down to the meetings, they meet every Wednesday in Grover Norquist’s office
Harry Reid made a statement that I meet with Grover Norquist every Wednesday," Mr. Santorum added. "I don't meet with him every Wednesday."It's possible that Senator Reid was referring to the meetings as occurring on Wednesdays, and that Santorum's been to at least one. But that seems like splitting hairs. So let's let it go.
"The thing I love best about this is that Markos, a guy with a huge readership and at least a little pull, is taking a shit on the only two Democrats in Pennsylvania who have the spine to run against Casey in the Democratic primary. This is after Rendell and the DNSC wiped the table clean and anointed Bob Casey as the next Democrat to have his ass handed to him by Santorum."
Q Back to the NSA. The White House last night put out paper backing up its claims that this was a terrorist surveillance program, saying the charges of domestic spying -- you defined what "domestic" meant. Isn't one end of that phone call on domestic soil? Why is the charge of it being domestic spying so far off?
MR. McCLELLAN: For the same reasons that a phone call from someone inside the United States to someone outside the United States is not a domestic call. If you look at how that is billed on your phone records, it's billed as an international call, it is charged the international rate. And so that's the best way to sum that up. Because one communication within this surveillance has to be outside of the United States. That means it's an international communication, for the very reason I just said.
Q Right. But one of the people being eavesdropped on is on domestic soil.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think it leaves an inaccurate impression with the American people to say that this is domestic spying.
Q Why is that inaccurate?
MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons that General Hayden has said, for the reasons that others have said within the administration, and for the example I just provided to you. You don't call a flight from New York to somewhere in Afghanistan, a domestic flight. It's called an international flight.
Q Right, but --
MR. McCLELLAN: This is international communications that are being monitored --
Q But whatever -- it's David's point, too -- I mean, whatever you call it in your trying to call it -- someone domestically --
MR. McCLELLAN: It's what it is.
Q -- is being spied on. Someone's communications --
MR. McCLELLAN: It is what it is.
Q -- on domestic soil are being tracked.
MR. McCLELLAN: If there is an al Qaeda person operating inside the United States and talking to someone outside the United States, you bet we want to know what they're saying.
Q An al Qaeda person inside the United States --
MR. McCLELLAN: Could be outside the United States talking to someone inside the United States, too.
Q But the person inside the United States, there has to be a reasonable basis that they are connected --
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, if some want to try to defend it and say that it is domestic spying, they're leaving the American people with an inaccurate impression, just like they would be if they called an international call a domestic call.
Q But, Scott, you're arguing that --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're arguing.
Q -- somebody on domestic soil is not being spied on?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say --
Q That's part of it.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that at all. In fact, we have been very clear and precise in what we have said, to try to make sure it is accurately reflected to the American people. And I would hope that everybody would do their best to make sure that it is accurately reflected to the American people. I don't think it is when someone puts up on the screen "domestic spying." I think that leaves an inaccurate impression that this is spying on people that are talking about an upcoming PTA meeting within their hometown. And that's --
Q That raises a whole -- an issue, because it involves people on domestic soil.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what it is.
Q That's not why it's become an issue?
DEFINITION: Domestic Vs. International.And, here is my handy-dandy definition for the day:Domestic Calls are calls inside the United States. International Calls are calls either to or from the United States. Domestic Flights are flights from one American city to another. International Flights are flights to or from the United States. Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the United States. International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United States. Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States. International Commerce involves business between the United States and other countries.
Domestic Idiot is someone who can not catch an International Terrorist after four and a half years.
Casey announces endorsement of AlitoEveryone who claims that Casey is so friggin' good for labor might want to reflect again how he will vote on an issue or person if it's in any way tied to some pro-fetal activity:
KIMBERLY HEFLING
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Sen. Rick Santorum's leading Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey, announced Tuesday that he endorses Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.
For weeks, Republicans have called Casey "Silent Bob" and pressed him to say whether he supports Alito's confirmation. Casey and Alito have a family connection because Alito, who serves on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Philadelphia, sided with Casey's father, the late Gov. Bob Casey, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The case challenged a state law requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.
I do not agree with everything that Judge Samuel Alito has done or said - particularly many of his rulings which too often result in corporate power prevailing over the interests of consumers and workers," Casey said in a statement. "However, I agree with The Philadelphia Inquirer and Washington Post editorial boards that the arguments against Judge Alito do not rise to the level that would require a vote denying him a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court."
OTTAWA (AP) -- Stephen Harper says Canadians have "voted for change" and he says his Conservative Party will "take the lead in delivering that change."
Harper made the promise in front of some two-thousand cheering supporters at his campaign headquarters in Calgary after Conservatives ended 13 years of Liberal rule.
The Conservatives won't win enough seats to rule outright and will probably be forced into a coalition. That would make it harder to get legislation through Canada's House of Commons.
The results are expected to improve Canada's ties with the U-S since Harper's ideology is more in tune with that of President Bush.
Harper has promised to tighten security along the border with the U-S in an effort to prevent terrorists and guns from crossing.
In an audiotape broadcast Thursday on al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden said al-Qaida is preparing to strike the United States again.First off, there are so many subtle insinuations to that last sentence that I barely know where to begin. The calls for impeachment are to stop Bush from stopping terrorism? Am I going too far a field to wonder whether in Commando Kelly's mind, he thinks that anyone who protests the administration's assault on the rule of law is helping out the terrorists? This is just too silly to contemplate. How long until the subtle covert accusations become loud and overt? Here, I'll start:
Last month Italian authorities arrested three Algerians with al-Qaida connections. They were plotting attacks on ships, railway stations and stadiums in the United States, said Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu.
Some Democrats think President Bush should be impeached for trying to keep them from succeeding.
Anyone criticizing Bush and/or the war on terror is doing nothing but helping the terrorists and anyone who helps the terrorists should be locked up as a traitor.But what of those three Algerians? Turns out that they are members of a group called GSPC. It's a terrorist which aims to overthrow the Algerian government. Recently it's expanded its terrorism to Europe. So no doubt these are nasty guys. But Kelly, by placing one sentence after the other, implies that the plans that bin laden describes are the plans that the three Algerians were arrested for. Is this true or is it another post hoc fallacy? Kelly is hoping you see the connection that he doesn't offer any real evidence for. Is Osama bin laden no longer using al-qaeda to attack the United States? Is he now directing the GSPC to do his dirty work? Kelly doesn't say.
In a speech Monday remarkable (even for him) for its bombast and hypocrisy, former Vice President Al Gore accused the president of having violated the law when he authorized the National Security Agency to listen in, without warrants, on conversations between al-Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States.Notice Kelly's description of the NSA program. It is to "listen in, without warrants, on conversations between al-Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States."
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," Mr. Gore declared.And after the oblique reference to Clinton's perjury (where he was impeached for breaking the law), we get to the heart of Kelly's column: Echelon.
I don't recall him uttering such sentiments when President Clinton committed perjury.
Those were just "lies about sex." But I also don't recall Mr. Gore complaining about Echelon, a much broader electronic intercept program begun in the Clinton administration, when we were not at war.
There have been recent allegations that the Intelligence Community through NSA has improperly directed our SIGINT capabilities against the private conversations of US persons. That is not the case.Did you catch that? He said they were adhering to the FISA statues. The Other Political Junkie mentioned this in a comment about a month ago. Too bad, if Jack Kelly actually read this blog more consistently, he would have saved himself the humiliation of looking like a right-wing idiot.
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we—the CIA, the NSA and the FBI—scrupulously adhere to whenever the conversations of US persons are involved—directly or indirectly.
We do not collect against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power, as that term is defined in law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department. And we do not target their conversations for collection overseas unless Executive Order 12333 has been followed and the Attorney General has personally approved collection.
The National Security Agency (NSA) performs electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information for the military and policymakers. As the Director of Central Intelligence noted, NSA provides valuable intelligence to U.S. government consumers on a wide range of issues of concern to all Americans, such as international terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. NSA’s electronic surveillance activities are subject to strict regulation by statute1 and Executive Order2 due to the potential intrusiveness and the implications for the privacy of U.S. persons3 of these activities. NSA’s electronic surveillance activities are also subject to oversight from multiple bodies within all three branches of the government. These safeguards have ensured that NSA is operating within its legal authority.The "strict regulation by statute" that Hayden mentions? The FISA statute.
There are certain restrictions imposed by E.O. 12333 upon all intelligence collection activities engaged in by the Executive Branch agencies. Intelligence collection must be conducted in a manner “consistent with the Constitution and applicable law and respectful of the principles upon which the United States was founded.” (Sec. 2.1). These include the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Intelligence collection must not be undertaken to acquire information concerning the domestic activities of U.S. persons. (Sec. 2.3(b)). The least intrusive collection techniques feasible must be used in the United States or against U.S. persons located abroad. (Sec. 2.4). Finally, agencies in the Intelligence Community are prohibited from having other parties engage in activities forbidden by the Executive Order on their behalf. (Sec. 2.12) This means that NSA can not ask another country to illegally spy on U.S. persons on our behalf, and we do not.Hmm. So, unless Michael Hayden and George Tenet were lying to Congress about what their respective intelligence agencies were doing with Echelon, just about everything that Jack Kelly and other conservatives said about it is false.
o Elections* Volunteer to do voter registration at the Univ. of Pittsburgh for the District 3 Special Election!
o Lobbying
o Civic Education
o Coalition Building
o Non- Traditional Grassroots Organizing
o Media
o and more!!!
Which in turn leads me to wonder further, whether any of these things of which you complain bitterly, when done by Bush et al., would bother you at all, if only Hillary were in office doing these selfsame things to Republicans.What the emailer seemingly fails to remember is that Hillary and Bill Clinton were investigated over "Filegate" (and everything else they ever did or said in office or supposedly did or said in office or supposedly did or said before they took office -- I'm quite certain Ken Star must have a video of a colonoscopy from one or both of them that he views nightly with some fava beans and a nice Chianti) and were cleared of all charges:
Here's a hint: she already has, and I don't think you guys so much as whispered a word, when her hireling bozos Livingstone and Marceca were pawing through people's raw FBI files. You guys bull your necks over a NY Times article -- like *they* had any credibility left -- about the NSA, and you complain that you don't like the NSA dumping "raw" intelligence about honest people on the FBI (they allege), but you never complained when Hillary's goons pulled "raw" intelligence from the FBI files to cull for her amusement, information, and ultimate use. Go on, prove me wrong, document that you complained about Hillary's calling for the FBI files her guys had. You can do it -- just show me the articles, show me the quotes, scan in an old letter. Show me her justification. Anything. Anything at all.
Independent Counsel: No 'substantial and credible' evidence of Clinton involvement in 'Filegate'So, let's see now:
March 16, 2000
Web posted at: 6:08 p.m. EST (2308 GMT)WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There is "no substantial and credible evidence" that President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton sought confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background checks of former GOP White House personnel, according to a report filed Thursday by Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray's office.
In a statement, Ray's office said that no substantial and credible exists to implicate any other senior White House official in the FBI background files controversy that came to be known as "Filegate," and that no prosecutions would be pursued. It also said prosecution was not warranted after an investigation into whether former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum testified falsely to Congress on the matter in 1996.
[snip]
The Government Reform and Oversight Committee's report, released in the autumn of 1996, reached similar conclusions, though it blasted the Clinton White House for its "cavalier approach" to security. Livingstone resigned his post soon after the scandal broke.
BIG FAT HYPOCRITES
Setting aside the promises of Gingrich's introduction, no reasonable person could expect scholarly inquiry from a man with a history of indulging in bombastic intellectual pretension and outrageous historical analogies: Gingrich once compiled a "required reading list" for fellow members of Congress; and on the eve of his great electoral victory ten years ago, the speaker-to-be told a reporter he was leading a "slave rebellion" against the Democrats who "run the plantation." One might have expected Gingrich to grow up a bit in the years since his fall from grace. But Winning the Future suggests that he's just waiting to launch another rebellion.And then there's this:
Indeed, while many conservatives cringe at the prospect of losing the homosexual vote, the fact of the matter is black America has never embraced that demographic, helping, perhaps, to explain why, while most blacks remained faithful to the Democratic Plantation, er, Party in the 2004 presidential election, the black vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket increased. Look at Ohio, where black support for Mr. Bush rose from 9 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2004, handing the Bush-Cheney team an outright victory over Kerry-Edwards — a feat that the we-shall-overcome crowd has yet to accept.And:
NOVAK: This afternoon, President George W. Bush met with 24 prominent African-Americans, 14 members of the clergy and 10 leaders in business and nonprofit agencies. Tomorrow, the president meets with the Congressional Black Caucus, 43 members, Democrats all.And this:
It's good for the Republican president to sit down with the black lawmakers, though I'll doubt he'll make much progress with them. But today's meeting with black nonpoliticians may be another matter. The black reverend clergy are particularly attracted to the Bush faith- based aid programs. That terrifies Democratic politicians.
Where would the Democrats be if they're not picking up around 90 percent of the black vote? What if black voters started moving off the Democratic plantation?
Hispanics for JorgeAnd this:
Another immigrant group wanders off the Democratic plantation.
The Democrat Party touts itself as the party of inclusion. Yet it practices the worst kind of racism. The Democrats believe that minorities are not smart enough to think for themselves. If minorities are not on the plantation – if they dare to express any thoughts that are not straight Democrat party line – they are savagely attacked by the Democrats. Quite simply, the Democrat Party in this country thinks it owns the minorities.Etcetera, etcetera and so on...
In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.Hmm. Information collected about innocent Americans - what happened ot this information? Is it still in a government database somewhere?
But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.I wonder if these "legal opinions" were written by the same political appointees who Ok'd the use of torture?
As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.Hmm.
At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
[snip]
Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.
[snip]
In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"
[snip]
I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.
But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.
We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.
Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."
The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."
[snip]
One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol?
Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.
A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.
Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President.
Second, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing -- especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security.
Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.
Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."
It would be amusing to watch Sen. Rick Santorum lash around to the left and right as he tries to redefine himself for the voters as the November elections approach, except that sometimes he comes up with something truly ridiculous.Can't say I disagree with this all that much.
In a speech Thursday to students at Valley Forge Military Academy and College outside Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Republican really went off the deep end, attacking the media -- we assume modestly that he included us -- for drawing the public's attention to the deaths of American servicemen and -women in Iraq. To focus attention on the "tragic consequences" of the war, he said, was "helping Islamic fascism win the battle."
We would answer Sen. Santorum in two ways. First of all, the Post-Gazette's coverage of the Iraq war seeks to be as broad and as comprehensive as space permits. We write factually about the progress of the war, including full coverage of the elections there; efforts to form a democratic, inclusive government of the different Iraqi political and religious factions; and American cooperation with Iraqi police and military units that is meant to establish the level of security that will permit U.S. troops to be withdrawn.
We write about the speeches of President Bush and other members of his administration that seek to provide a positive interpretation of what is occurring in Iraq, alongside interpretative evaluation of developments there.
For Sen. Santorum to suggest that we and other American media should not report about the tragic loss of American lives -- a death toll that now stands above 2,200 -- is to sell our readers short and to suggest that they do not need to know, nor do they want to know, how many brave Americans are dying there.
It is to say that they are either immature -- fragile souls who need to be protected from such information -- or that they don't care, which everyone knows is not the case. For Sen. Santorum to cite national security and the claim that knowledge of U.S. losses might encourage America's enemies, as reasons for not telling the public the truth, is insulting to the American people.
Mr. Santorum's other campaign-season gyrations -- his participation in the Justice Sunday III rally with the far right's culture warriors, his ending of affiliation with a key defender of intelligent design after staunchly supporting the concept and his call for a nonpartisan panel to assess the Iraq situation while echoing the administration's fierce defense of the war -- are bad enough.
Telling Americans that they shouldn't be told how many are dying in Iraq is way too much, even for Mr. Santorum.
STEPHANOPOULOS: There was a lot of talk about that at the Alito hearings, and listening closely to you I certainly seem to take away that you believe the president does not have the right, does not have the inherent power under the Constitution to circumvent a constitutional law,and as far as you are concerned, the FISA law is constitutional, isn’t it?
SPECTER: Well, I started off by saying that he didn’t have the authority under the
resolution authorizing the use of force. The president has to follow the Constitution. Where you have a law which is constitutional, like Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there still may be collateral different powers in the president under wartime circumstances.
That’s a very knotty question that I’m not prepared to answer on a Sunday
soundbite. But I do believe that it ought to be thoroughly examined. And when we were on the Patriot Act and found the disclosure of the surveillance, I immediately said the Judiciary Committee would hold hearings, and I talked to the attorney general, and we’re going to explore it in depth, George.You can count on that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent
the law, what’s the remedy?
SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president —and I’m
not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price.
New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.
The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.
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.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:
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.
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.And so on. After briefly discussing the December 15 elections, Murtha writes:
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.
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.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:
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]
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.
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.We've seen this before, haven't we?
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.
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 fun part is to see how the CNS "News" service selectively quotes Dennis Roddy in their Abscam story. They write:
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.
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.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.
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.
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.Back to the Swiftboating. Here's Congressman Murtha's response:
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]
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:The story was reported this morning by the Washington Post:
"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."
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.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.
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.
District Three City Council Candidate Bruce A. Kraus today called for "Grant Street politicians to keep hands off of the District Three Council Race." - 1/12/2006Those of you who read Fester's Place already saw something like this alluded to in the comments section of a post there on Wednesday:
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.
At 1:12 PM, January 11, 2006, PtBreeze said...On that same day, Koch was quoted in the Post-Gazette saying the following about the date of the special election:
Is there some kind of conspiracy to have a of city council and council staff made up entirely of former public works employees.
Another candidate, Democrat Jeffrey Koch, said it "doesn't matter" to him when the election is held.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.
"The more [voters], the merrier," Mr. Koch said.
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!)
************************************************
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
