Comment: WTF is up with these pieces of human shit that they can demand the U.S. do ANYTHING? They have our soldiers! They will pay a high price.
DUBAI (Reuters) - The self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, an al Qaeda-led group, demanded on Monday that the U.S. military stop searching for three soldiers it says it is holding, saying this was the only way to secure their safety.
"Your soldiers are in our grip. If you want the safety of your soldiers then do not search for them," the group said in a statement on a Web site used by insurgents.
U.S. troops backed by helicopters have been searching for three American soldiers who went missing in an al Qaeda stronghold near Baghdad on Saturday after an ambush that killed four other U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army interpreter.
The posting did not carry pictures of the soldiers, make demands for their release or say what their fate would be. The group usually posts pictures of people it abducts as proof.
"You have suffered a setback today because you have described the U.S. soldier through your propaganda as invincible ... with grace from God the Almighty the U.S. soldier has been humiliated at the hands of faithful (Muslims)," it said.
"By searching for your soldiers you are only tiring yourself," it said, adding that the aggressive search showed that the U.S. military would rather "the whole army dead rather than having one crusader detained."
Monday, May 14, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Push to oust Gonzales loses momentum
Republican members of Congress on Thursday leapt to the defence of Alberto Gonzales, the embattled US attorney-general, as Democratic efforts to oust him appeared to lose momentum.
Mr Gonzales faced a fresh barrage of question from Democrats over the controversial firing of several US attorneys when he appeared before the House judiciary committee.
But Republican committee members largely supported Mr Gonzales and called for an end to the investigation, easing pressure on one of President George W. Bush’s closest political allies.
Democrats have sought to prove that the firings of at least eight US attorneys last year were politically motivated, citing an e-mail by a Gonzales aide that judged federal prosecutors according to whether they were “loyal Bushies”.
“The list of accusations has mushroomed, but the evidence has not,” said Lamar Smith, the senior Republican committee member. “If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing issues.”
Mr Gonzales looked more confident and relaxed than during his testimony to the Senate judiciary committee last month, when only one Republican senator rallied to his defence.
Repeating the arguments he made to the Senate committee, Mr Gonzales acknowledged that the firings had been mishandled but insisted they were made on performance, not political, grounds.
“I have publicly apologised to [the fired attorneys] and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle,” he said. “I never sought to mislead or deceive.”
Democrats probed Mr Gonzales on revelations this week that a ninth attorney was forced from his job last year, in addition to the eight already known about.
And they pressed him on who originated the list of attorneys to be fired, seeking evidence of White House involvement in the decisions.
Mr Gonzales conceded that Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s political adviser, had raised concerns at the failure of some attorneys to pursue prosecutions against voter fraud.
But he said the list of under-performing attorneys was based on “the consensus of the senior leadership of the [Justice] Department”. He added: “I don't want the American people to believe that politicisation is running rampant in the department, because that's just not true.”
John Conyers, Democratic committee chairman, said the investigation would go on. “The department’s most precious asset, its reputation for integrity and independence, has been called into question,” he said. “Until we get to the bottom of how this list was created and why, those doubts will persist.”
The White House has repeatedly voiced support for Mr Gonzales, who served as general-counsel to Mr Bush when he was governor of Texas. Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond, said the Democrats would continue seeking evidence of wrongdoing.
Mr Gonzales faced a fresh barrage of question from Democrats over the controversial firing of several US attorneys when he appeared before the House judiciary committee.
But Republican committee members largely supported Mr Gonzales and called for an end to the investigation, easing pressure on one of President George W. Bush’s closest political allies.
Democrats have sought to prove that the firings of at least eight US attorneys last year were politically motivated, citing an e-mail by a Gonzales aide that judged federal prosecutors according to whether they were “loyal Bushies”.
“The list of accusations has mushroomed, but the evidence has not,” said Lamar Smith, the senior Republican committee member. “If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing issues.”
Mr Gonzales looked more confident and relaxed than during his testimony to the Senate judiciary committee last month, when only one Republican senator rallied to his defence.
Repeating the arguments he made to the Senate committee, Mr Gonzales acknowledged that the firings had been mishandled but insisted they were made on performance, not political, grounds.
“I have publicly apologised to [the fired attorneys] and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle,” he said. “I never sought to mislead or deceive.”
Democrats probed Mr Gonzales on revelations this week that a ninth attorney was forced from his job last year, in addition to the eight already known about.
And they pressed him on who originated the list of attorneys to be fired, seeking evidence of White House involvement in the decisions.
Mr Gonzales conceded that Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s political adviser, had raised concerns at the failure of some attorneys to pursue prosecutions against voter fraud.
But he said the list of under-performing attorneys was based on “the consensus of the senior leadership of the [Justice] Department”. He added: “I don't want the American people to believe that politicisation is running rampant in the department, because that's just not true.”
John Conyers, Democratic committee chairman, said the investigation would go on. “The department’s most precious asset, its reputation for integrity and independence, has been called into question,” he said. “Until we get to the bottom of how this list was created and why, those doubts will persist.”
The White House has repeatedly voiced support for Mr Gonzales, who served as general-counsel to Mr Bush when he was governor of Texas. Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond, said the Democrats would continue seeking evidence of wrongdoing.
Iraq Liberation Act
Possibly the most frightening aspect of the irresponsible moonbats who have taken over George Soros' Democrat Party is their willingness to rewrite history on the fly to suit their short-term convenience, with the eager assistance of their toadies in the media. Currently, their strategy of deliberately causing the USA to lose "Bush's war" in Iraq so they can hang it around Republicans' necks calls for erasing the fact that the war was undertaken with support from both parties.
The problem with their approach is, they haven't been able to shove all evidence of the past down the Memory Hole. For example, the Clinton era Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 makes it clear that regime change in Iraq was US policy even before Bush came to Washington.
The Act states plainly a historical fact that the media has done its best to obliterate — that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, and that he used them against Iran and against his own civilian population. It confirms that Saddam committed genocide, killing Kurds by the tens of thousands. It also brings up the all-but-forgotten fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush, an intolerable act of aggression.
Here's a highlight from the Act:
Regardless of how the Dems and their MSM accomplices may distort or ignore the recent past, the war belongs to the whole government, not just those who are trying to win it.
The problem with their approach is, they haven't been able to shove all evidence of the past down the Memory Hole. For example, the Clinton era Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 makes it clear that regime change in Iraq was US policy even before Bush came to Washington.
The Act states plainly a historical fact that the media has done its best to obliterate — that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, and that he used them against Iran and against his own civilian population. It confirms that Saddam committed genocide, killing Kurds by the tens of thousands. It also brings up the all-but-forgotten fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush, an intolerable act of aggression.
Here's a highlight from the Act:
The Act calls for "indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law." It was cited as a basis of support in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which Congress passed in 2002 with support from both parties.On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105–235, which
declared that "the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of
its international obligations'' and urged the President "to take appropriate
action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United
States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international
obligations.''
Regardless of how the Dems and their MSM accomplices may distort or ignore the recent past, the war belongs to the whole government, not just those who are trying to win it.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Goodling Immunity Moves Forward
Huh. Just out from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):
So despite the Justice Department's Inspector General's investigation into whether Goodling may have broken the law by considering the political affiliation of entry-level U.S. attorneys, the immunity will move forward. All that excitement for nothing.
Update: Here is the letter from the Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility informing Congress that they will not object. A quote:
Today the Department of Justice gave notice that it would not object to the
House Judiciary Committee's grant of use immunity for Monica Goodling. I believe
obtaining her testimony will be a critical step in our efforts to get to the
truth about the circumstances surrounding the US Attorney firings and possible
politicization in the Department's prosecutorial function. The Committee will be
moving expeditiously to apply for the court order so that we can schedule a
hearing promptly.
So despite the Justice Department's Inspector General's investigation into whether Goodling may have broken the law by considering the political affiliation of entry-level U.S. attorneys, the immunity will move forward. All that excitement for nothing.
Update: Here is the letter from the Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility informing Congress that they will not object. A quote:
"...after balancing the significant congressional and public interest against
the impact of the Committee's actions on our ongoing investigation, we will not
raise an objection or seek a deferral..."
Thursday, May 03, 2007
The Hunt for Karl Rove
WASHINGTON-- Now six plus years into the presidency of George W. Bush, I think we can discern a theme in his administration, one that the historians will pass on to future generations. I write as a historian myself here, in fact as a "presidential historian," if I may appropriate a title used in modern historiography.
Some will scoff at my claim, but in recent years I have written about as many books on presidential high jinks as Michael Beschloss, who is frequently called a "presidential historian" though he is not as amused by the presidency as I am.
Perhaps this is because I have mostly written about President Bill Clinton, the modern presidency's closest approximation to the late and laughable President Warren G. Harding. At this point in Clinton's administration several themes were discernible. There was the administration's effort to avoid the prosecutors -- as many as seven different officers of the court were out to get the President, his wife, and various cabinet officials. There was the President's effort to avoid impeachment and, worse, conviction. Less celebrated, but surely a long-standing theme of President Clinton's presidency (and for that matter of his whole adult life), was his effort to avoid various ghastly sexually transmitted diseases. It is increasingly likely that in the years to come the Clinton administration will figure as prominently in high school history classes as in high school sex education classes, and the lessons to be derived from the latter will probably be more beneficial to the commonweal.
Now in the spring of 2007 I think a perceptible theme has emerged in the Bush administration. Dramatists might entitle it "The Hunt for Karl Rove." Since the 2001 inauguration, multitudes of journalists have set out to snare him. Entire congressional staffs have pursued him. Wily fellow that he is, Rove has evaded every trap. Called five times before the grand jury in the Valerie Plame burlesque, he never lapsed into a serious misstatement and certainly not into the perjury that cooked President Clinton's goose. Back he went to the White House every time with a smile on his face and doubtless a head full of stratagems with which to flummox the Democrats further. I would not be surprised to read in Rove's memoir that he actually enjoyed the grand jury appearances. They filled the liberal Democrats with such hope. They left them in such despair.
At this very minute there are at least two congressional investigations hot on his trail. One is investigating whether the Republican National Committee set up separate e-mail accounts for Rove and his henchpersons in the White House to use. Another is investigating whether these desperados arranged political briefings for political appointees in the government. Both investigations will probably find that Rove and his cronies did precisely what they are suspected of doing. Yet once again Rove will go scot-free. The problem the investigators have is that there is nothing wrong with Rove's actions. They are perfectly legal and, at least in the case of the e-mail accounts, required by law.
What we have here is the criminalization of politics. Nothing Rove has done is criminal, but by dragging him before congressional hearings and even better grand juries his political opponents hope that they will catch him in a misstatement that can be prosecuted as perjury.
Some will scoff at my claim, but in recent years I have written about as many books on presidential high jinks as Michael Beschloss, who is frequently called a "presidential historian" though he is not as amused by the presidency as I am.
Perhaps this is because I have mostly written about President Bill Clinton, the modern presidency's closest approximation to the late and laughable President Warren G. Harding. At this point in Clinton's administration several themes were discernible. There was the administration's effort to avoid the prosecutors -- as many as seven different officers of the court were out to get the President, his wife, and various cabinet officials. There was the President's effort to avoid impeachment and, worse, conviction. Less celebrated, but surely a long-standing theme of President Clinton's presidency (and for that matter of his whole adult life), was his effort to avoid various ghastly sexually transmitted diseases. It is increasingly likely that in the years to come the Clinton administration will figure as prominently in high school history classes as in high school sex education classes, and the lessons to be derived from the latter will probably be more beneficial to the commonweal.
Now in the spring of 2007 I think a perceptible theme has emerged in the Bush administration. Dramatists might entitle it "The Hunt for Karl Rove." Since the 2001 inauguration, multitudes of journalists have set out to snare him. Entire congressional staffs have pursued him. Wily fellow that he is, Rove has evaded every trap. Called five times before the grand jury in the Valerie Plame burlesque, he never lapsed into a serious misstatement and certainly not into the perjury that cooked President Clinton's goose. Back he went to the White House every time with a smile on his face and doubtless a head full of stratagems with which to flummox the Democrats further. I would not be surprised to read in Rove's memoir that he actually enjoyed the grand jury appearances. They filled the liberal Democrats with such hope. They left them in such despair.
At this very minute there are at least two congressional investigations hot on his trail. One is investigating whether the Republican National Committee set up separate e-mail accounts for Rove and his henchpersons in the White House to use. Another is investigating whether these desperados arranged political briefings for political appointees in the government. Both investigations will probably find that Rove and his cronies did precisely what they are suspected of doing. Yet once again Rove will go scot-free. The problem the investigators have is that there is nothing wrong with Rove's actions. They are perfectly legal and, at least in the case of the e-mail accounts, required by law.
What we have here is the criminalization of politics. Nothing Rove has done is criminal, but by dragging him before congressional hearings and even better grand juries his political opponents hope that they will catch him in a misstatement that can be prosecuted as perjury.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Leahy issues subpoena for Rove e-mails
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) issued a subpoena Wednesday for all e-mails from White House adviser Karl Rove that relate to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
Quote:
Leahy said in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The senator had requested the information from Gonzales when the attorney general testified before the committee and in a follow-up letter. However, Leahy said that Gonzales did not respond.
“I continue to hope that the Department will cooperate with the Committee’s investigation, but it is troubling that significant documents highly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry have not been produced,” Leahy said in the letter.“Indeed, despite multiple requests for the Department to produce documents voluntarily related to the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department, the Department’s production of documents has been selective and incomplete,” Leahy added.
“Many documents have been withheld or redacted without any legal basis being set forth." Leahy said the Department of Justice has until May 15 to comply with the subpoena.
Obstruction tactic at its best.
Quote:
“Attached please find a subpoena compelling the Department by May 15 to produce any and all emails and attachments to emails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove
related to the Committee’s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial
independence and the Department of Justice’s politicization of the hiring and
firing and decision-making of United States Attorneys, from any (1) White House
account, (2) Republican National Committee account, or (3) other account, in the
possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice,”
Leahy said in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The senator had requested the information from Gonzales when the attorney general testified before the committee and in a follow-up letter. However, Leahy said that Gonzales did not respond.
“I continue to hope that the Department will cooperate with the Committee’s investigation, but it is troubling that significant documents highly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry have not been produced,” Leahy said in the letter.“Indeed, despite multiple requests for the Department to produce documents voluntarily related to the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department, the Department’s production of documents has been selective and incomplete,” Leahy added.
“Many documents have been withheld or redacted without any legal basis being set forth." Leahy said the Department of Justice has until May 15 to comply with the subpoena.
Obstruction tactic at its best.
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Democrat's Obsession with Karl Rove
Hollywood Girls Gone Wild
The showdown at the White House Correspondents' dinner was more emotional and lasted longer than was first reported. It started when Laurie David introduced herself to Karl Rove.
He knew who she was--Hollywood's leading Bush-hater and a producer of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's film on global warming. David quickly launched into a harangue. President Bush has done nothing on global warming, she said. Rove answered that Bush has funded more research on the subject than any president. That's worthless, David responded. All the scientific questions have been answered, she insisted.
Now's the time for action! Rove cited the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which projects a modest rise in sea level of 7 to 23 inches over the next century. David told Rove he was wrong. We've had the hottest summer and winter ever, she said, plus extreme weather events. The president needs to talk to real global warming experts. Rove said he already does. "Would you like me to give you a list?" he asked. She didn't.
You don't have anybody who understands the seriousness of the issue talking to the president, David said. Yes, we do, Rove said, mentioning the president's science adviser, Dr. John Marburger.
That's when the debate got more heated and more physical. Sheryl Crow, the singer, suddenly appeared. Without introducing herself, she demanded that Rove tell her how many corporations were financing Marburger's research. Rove responded that Marburger has a long and distinguished academic record.
David said Bush must lead on global warming and America must emulate China--China!--by signing the Kyoto Protocol. (China indeed signed, but didn't agree to curb greenhouse gases.)
Crow was more insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm. She said Rove worked for her. Rove said he worked for the American people. Crow said she and David were the American people. And at that point, Rove turned and sat back down at his table, where he was a guest of the New York Times.
Crow was more insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm. She said Rove worked for her. Rove said he worked for the American people. Crow said she and David were the American people. And at that point, Rove turned and sat back down at his table, where he was a guest of the New York Times.
The point of recounting this stunt by two of Hollywood's most prominent limousine liberals--who have accused Rove of rudeness--is to put him in the proper political context. He is the chief target of Democrats, liberals, and the left, and they burn with a desire to see him discredited, fired, and jailed. If all else fails, and it has so far, they'll settle for tainting him as impolite.
More at The Weekly Standard.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
GOP Breaks Truce over Rice Threat
Republicans largely kept their mouths shut this year as Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) scheduled hearing after hearing and sent letter after letter from his post as chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
On Tuesday, they finally made some noise.
Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), the ranking Republican on Waxman's committee, drew the line during an press conference protesting a scheduled vote to issue a subpoena for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Politico.com is co-host of the Republican presidential debate on May 3rd, and candidates will be answering our readers’ favorite questions. Click here to submit yours.
"This isn't even a close call," Davis said of the threatened subpoena. "This is way over the line."
Waxman wants Rice to testify under oath about President Bush's now-infamous claims that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger. He has scheduled the vote for Wednesday.
But Davis and others said Tuesday the Rice subpoena would be a gross abuse of the committee's jurisdiction.
"This is not only an overreach; it's disruptive," Davis said. "This is nothing but a partisan witch hunt."
His remarks coincide with a coordinated assault by Republicans in the House, criticizing Waxman on a range of topics because of his determination to question Rice, one leadership aide said.
Davis, who worked closely with Waxman when he himself chaired the committee, argued that Waxman is threatening the subpoena solely in order forcing Rice to raise her right hand and take an oath before a bank of television cameras that would then broadcast the politically damaging image around the world.
Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Lamar Smith of Texas joined the Virginia Republican on Tuesday to protest this latest attempt to call the secretary of state before the committee.
Members of the minority deliberately kept their mouths shut during the first months of this year, so their protests would have more weight when they came, GOP leadership aides have said. This signals the end of that truce.
The secretary of state has a busy schedule, Smith argued, and she should not be compelled to appear before the oversight panel, which potentially includes days of preparation.
"I thought to myself, that's too much," Smith said.
Waxman is investigating President Bush 2003 State of the Union claim that agents for Saddam Hussein tried to buy materials for a nuclear weapon in Niger, a claim that is now widely held to be false.
The Republicans emphasized past investigations of this question by other national and international organizations and said the committee's current inquiry belabors the point.
"This is not about trying to protect the administration," said Shays, who was a consistent critic of the White House and his own leadership during the Republicans' tenure in the majority.
Davis conceded that his staff contacted the State Department after Waxman scheduled the session to vote on subpoenas and that officials at State are concerned about the impact Rice's testimony would have politically and practically on her schedule.
The four Republicans were less defiant of the other three subpoenas the House will vote on Wednesday in a series of separate, although somewhat related, investigations.
These include subpoenas for former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, for emails from the Republican National Committee and for a list of contacts from the White House between administration officials and a defense contractor in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal.
"I think it's a fishing expedition," Davis said of Waxman's possible subpoena of RNC emails, "but I think he has every right to do that."
Republicans are now circulating Waxman quotes from his tenure as the ranking Democrat under a former Government Reform chairman, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), to help frame the debate in their favor.
In 1997, for example, Waxman said, "It makes no sense to direct multiple Congressional committees to investigate the same abuses -- Multiple investigations are duplicative and wasteful." That, Davis argued, is exactly what the oversight chairman is doing.
"The very thing Henry Waxman complained about, he's becoming," Shays said.
The committee did not respond to an email asking for comment.
Waxman has full subpoena authority, and has used the tool a limited number of times so far.
He scheduled Wednesday's vote because the State Department, the RNC and the White House have not provided him and his committee with all the information they asked for, according to a collection of letters he sent top administration officials last week.
Davis said he and Waxman have had a productive working relationship in the past and expects that to continue moving forward, hinting, "I don't know what pressure he's under from his leadership."
But this marks a stark turn in their relationship and a departure for Republicans, who, to this point, have stood by as Waxman peels back layer-upon-layer of potential malfeasance and mismanagement in the current Republican administration.
On Tuesday, they finally made some noise.
Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), the ranking Republican on Waxman's committee, drew the line during an press conference protesting a scheduled vote to issue a subpoena for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Politico.com is co-host of the Republican presidential debate on May 3rd, and candidates will be answering our readers’ favorite questions. Click here to submit yours.
"This isn't even a close call," Davis said of the threatened subpoena. "This is way over the line."
Waxman wants Rice to testify under oath about President Bush's now-infamous claims that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger. He has scheduled the vote for Wednesday.
But Davis and others said Tuesday the Rice subpoena would be a gross abuse of the committee's jurisdiction.
"This is not only an overreach; it's disruptive," Davis said. "This is nothing but a partisan witch hunt."
His remarks coincide with a coordinated assault by Republicans in the House, criticizing Waxman on a range of topics because of his determination to question Rice, one leadership aide said.
Davis, who worked closely with Waxman when he himself chaired the committee, argued that Waxman is threatening the subpoena solely in order forcing Rice to raise her right hand and take an oath before a bank of television cameras that would then broadcast the politically damaging image around the world.
Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Lamar Smith of Texas joined the Virginia Republican on Tuesday to protest this latest attempt to call the secretary of state before the committee.
Members of the minority deliberately kept their mouths shut during the first months of this year, so their protests would have more weight when they came, GOP leadership aides have said. This signals the end of that truce.
The secretary of state has a busy schedule, Smith argued, and she should not be compelled to appear before the oversight panel, which potentially includes days of preparation.
"I thought to myself, that's too much," Smith said.
Waxman is investigating President Bush 2003 State of the Union claim that agents for Saddam Hussein tried to buy materials for a nuclear weapon in Niger, a claim that is now widely held to be false.
The Republicans emphasized past investigations of this question by other national and international organizations and said the committee's current inquiry belabors the point.
"This is not about trying to protect the administration," said Shays, who was a consistent critic of the White House and his own leadership during the Republicans' tenure in the majority.
Davis conceded that his staff contacted the State Department after Waxman scheduled the session to vote on subpoenas and that officials at State are concerned about the impact Rice's testimony would have politically and practically on her schedule.
The four Republicans were less defiant of the other three subpoenas the House will vote on Wednesday in a series of separate, although somewhat related, investigations.
These include subpoenas for former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, for emails from the Republican National Committee and for a list of contacts from the White House between administration officials and a defense contractor in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal.
"I think it's a fishing expedition," Davis said of Waxman's possible subpoena of RNC emails, "but I think he has every right to do that."
Republicans are now circulating Waxman quotes from his tenure as the ranking Democrat under a former Government Reform chairman, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), to help frame the debate in their favor.
In 1997, for example, Waxman said, "It makes no sense to direct multiple Congressional committees to investigate the same abuses -- Multiple investigations are duplicative and wasteful." That, Davis argued, is exactly what the oversight chairman is doing.
"The very thing Henry Waxman complained about, he's becoming," Shays said.
The committee did not respond to an email asking for comment.
Waxman has full subpoena authority, and has used the tool a limited number of times so far.
He scheduled Wednesday's vote because the State Department, the RNC and the White House have not provided him and his committee with all the information they asked for, according to a collection of letters he sent top administration officials last week.
Davis said he and Waxman have had a productive working relationship in the past and expects that to continue moving forward, hinting, "I don't know what pressure he's under from his leadership."
But this marks a stark turn in their relationship and a departure for Republicans, who, to this point, have stood by as Waxman peels back layer-upon-layer of potential malfeasance and mismanagement in the current Republican administration.
White House Faces Sweeping Congressional Oversight
Thursday 26 April 2007
Congress took unprecedented action against the Bush administration Wednesday, using its sweeping powers to vigorously pursue testimony and documents from key White House officials and agencies on issues that have mired the administration in at least a half-dozen scandals.
Covering a broad range of topics including allegations of widespread corruption, two Congressional committees authorized subpoenas - one for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to compel her to testify about how a now-discredited 2003 claim that Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address. Subpoenas were also approved for the Republican National Committee to secure thousands of emails missing from an RNC server used by White House officials, and to require testimony by top officials of the RNC.
Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee granted immunity to former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, and approved a subpoena to force her to testify before Congress about her role and the role of White House officials in the firings of eight US attorneys last year. In an interview Tuesday on the program "Hardball," David Iglesias, the former US attorney from New Mexico, said Goodling "holds the keys to the kingdom" and could very well implicate key officials in the White House in the firings if she testifies. Iglesias was fired last year by the Department of Justice under questionable circumstances.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), also approved a subpoena for Sara Taylor, a deputy to White House political adviser Karl Rove. Rove is said to have played a major role in the US attorney firings, and his use of an RNC email account to conduct official White House business has come under fire. The RNC said it lost thousands of emails Rove had sent over the past few years. The emails may shed further light on the nature of Rove's involvement in the firings and a number of other issues Congress is looking into.
Congress took unprecedented action against the Bush administration Wednesday, using its sweeping powers to vigorously pursue testimony and documents from key White House officials and agencies on issues that have mired the administration in at least a half-dozen scandals.
Covering a broad range of topics including allegations of widespread corruption, two Congressional committees authorized subpoenas - one for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to compel her to testify about how a now-discredited 2003 claim that Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address. Subpoenas were also approved for the Republican National Committee to secure thousands of emails missing from an RNC server used by White House officials, and to require testimony by top officials of the RNC.
Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee granted immunity to former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, and approved a subpoena to force her to testify before Congress about her role and the role of White House officials in the firings of eight US attorneys last year. In an interview Tuesday on the program "Hardball," David Iglesias, the former US attorney from New Mexico, said Goodling "holds the keys to the kingdom" and could very well implicate key officials in the White House in the firings if she testifies. Iglesias was fired last year by the Department of Justice under questionable circumstances.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), also approved a subpoena for Sara Taylor, a deputy to White House political adviser Karl Rove. Rove is said to have played a major role in the US attorney firings, and his use of an RNC email account to conduct official White House business has come under fire. The RNC said it lost thousands of emails Rove had sent over the past few years. The emails may shed further light on the nature of Rove's involvement in the firings and a number of other issues Congress is looking into.
Rice Signals Rejection of House Subpoena
OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.
Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person."I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.
The comments were her first reaction to a subpoena issued on Wednesday by the committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.Rice said she respected the oversight function of the legislative branch, but maintained she had already testified in person and under oath about claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa during her confirmation hearing for the job of secretary of state."I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing," she said.
"This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered."Rice noted that she had been serving as President Bush's national security adviser during the period covered by the panel's questions and stressed the administration's position that presidential aides not confirmed by the Senate cannot be forced to testify before Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege.
"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," she said. "There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress."
"So, I think we have to observe and uphold the constitutional principle, but I also observe and uphold the obligation of Congress to conduct its oversight role, I respect that. But I think I have more than answered these questions, and answered them directly to Congressman Waxman."
Comment: In other words..."Piss up a rope." The only female in the bunch and she has more balls than any of them.
Source
Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person."I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.
The comments were her first reaction to a subpoena issued on Wednesday by the committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.Rice said she respected the oversight function of the legislative branch, but maintained she had already testified in person and under oath about claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa during her confirmation hearing for the job of secretary of state."I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing," she said.
"This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered."Rice noted that she had been serving as President Bush's national security adviser during the period covered by the panel's questions and stressed the administration's position that presidential aides not confirmed by the Senate cannot be forced to testify before Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege.
"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," she said. "There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress."
"So, I think we have to observe and uphold the constitutional principle, but I also observe and uphold the obligation of Congress to conduct its oversight role, I respect that. But I think I have more than answered these questions, and answered them directly to Congressman Waxman."
Comment: In other words..."Piss up a rope." The only female in the bunch and she has more balls than any of them.
Source
House panel votes to subpoena Rice on Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic lawmakers voted on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify about administration justifications for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.On a party-line vote of 21-10, the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee directed Rice to appear before the panel next month.
Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms."There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice who was then President George W. Bush's national security adviser," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.
"The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why," Waxman said.
Comment: Good old "Bi-Partisanship" in action. Source
Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms."There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice who was then President George W. Bush's national security adviser," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.
"The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why," Waxman said.
Comment: Good old "Bi-Partisanship" in action. Source
Waxman Takes Center Stage as Chief Investigator
The diminutive Henry A. Waxman is a towering figure on Capitol Hill these days.
As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the veteran Democratic congressman from California has broad jurisdiction and sweeping subpoena power over a wide spectrum of the federal government -- and corporate America, too.
He's a reformer, an advocate, a showman. And "he understands the investigative process," said Norm Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.S ince claiming the committee gavel in the new Democratic-controlled Congress, Waxman has opened investigations into potential Hatch Act violations by political appointees at the General Services Administration, requested all the e-mails on the Republican National Committee servers written by White House staff members and reviewed contracting in Iraq, among other hot spots.
Along the way, he has commanded an A-list of witnesses who not only help him ferret out information but also invariably guarantee a stream of headlines.
It was a full house, for instance, in his committee room when Valerie Plame, the former clandestine CIA operative-turned-public celebrity, made her congressional debut last month. Backed by subpoena power, though he has yet to use it, Waxman has sought to question Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top White House political adviser Karl Rove, among other administration officials. Republicans, now in the minority, are necessarily leery of Waxman.
And already, GOP aides have begun circulating opposition research on him, trying to paint him as an overzealous liberal whose investigations are little more than a partisan scheme. Waxman, who has been traveling over the congressional spring break, has been unavailable for an interview. Over the years, he worked closely with Rep. Tom Davis when the Virginia Republican was the committee's chairman. And Davis, now the committee's ranking member, has refrained from publicly criticizing Waxman since Democrats took power."At the end of the day, Chairman Waxman will be judged on whether he has made government better," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "The overriding question will be: Is this about making government more effective, or is this about embarrassing the administration?"
Nonetheless, in the evolving showdown between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a range of pressing issues, from the war in Iraq to the controversial sacking of eight U.S. attorneys, Waxman is a powerful weapon in the majority's arsenal, if only because of his committee's ability to force members of an administration, stoked in secrecy, to answer questions at a nationally televised hearing.
"There was a tremendous need for oversight," said Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who goes back with Waxman to their days as members of the Young Democrats at UCLA in the late 1950s and early 1960s. "He is just the guy to do it."Read the rest here.
As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the veteran Democratic congressman from California has broad jurisdiction and sweeping subpoena power over a wide spectrum of the federal government -- and corporate America, too.
He's a reformer, an advocate, a showman. And "he understands the investigative process," said Norm Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.S ince claiming the committee gavel in the new Democratic-controlled Congress, Waxman has opened investigations into potential Hatch Act violations by political appointees at the General Services Administration, requested all the e-mails on the Republican National Committee servers written by White House staff members and reviewed contracting in Iraq, among other hot spots.
Along the way, he has commanded an A-list of witnesses who not only help him ferret out information but also invariably guarantee a stream of headlines.
It was a full house, for instance, in his committee room when Valerie Plame, the former clandestine CIA operative-turned-public celebrity, made her congressional debut last month. Backed by subpoena power, though he has yet to use it, Waxman has sought to question Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top White House political adviser Karl Rove, among other administration officials. Republicans, now in the minority, are necessarily leery of Waxman.
And already, GOP aides have begun circulating opposition research on him, trying to paint him as an overzealous liberal whose investigations are little more than a partisan scheme. Waxman, who has been traveling over the congressional spring break, has been unavailable for an interview. Over the years, he worked closely with Rep. Tom Davis when the Virginia Republican was the committee's chairman. And Davis, now the committee's ranking member, has refrained from publicly criticizing Waxman since Democrats took power."At the end of the day, Chairman Waxman will be judged on whether he has made government better," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "The overriding question will be: Is this about making government more effective, or is this about embarrassing the administration?"
Nonetheless, in the evolving showdown between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a range of pressing issues, from the war in Iraq to the controversial sacking of eight U.S. attorneys, Waxman is a powerful weapon in the majority's arsenal, if only because of his committee's ability to force members of an administration, stoked in secrecy, to answer questions at a nationally televised hearing.
"There was a tremendous need for oversight," said Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who goes back with Waxman to their days as members of the Young Democrats at UCLA in the late 1950s and early 1960s. "He is just the guy to do it."Read the rest here.
Dems: More lawyers needed for Bush probes
House Democrats are set to bring in private sector lawyers -- at a cost of up to $225,000 over the next nine months -- to help committee staff investigate the Bush administration.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, has drawn up a contract with Washington law firm Arnold & Porter for help in his investigation of the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year, according to an unsigned copy of the contract obtained by The Washington Times.
The contract specifies that Arnold & Porter will subcontract with another firm, Deloitte & Touche, to "assist Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary with issues related to the termination of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration, possible misrepresentations to Congress, interfering with investigations and matter related thereto."
The House Judiciary Committee already has as many as 30 paid staff positions, not including staff of subcommittees, aides said.
The committee's contract is for a sum "not to exceed $25,000 per month, plus authorized traveling expenses," and is set to expire Dec. 31, 2007. The contract specifies that Irvin B. Nathan, a partner at Arnold & Porter, will be "principally responsible" for the contract.
The contract also specifies that two Deloitte & Touche employees -- Michael Zeldin, a former independent special prosecutor in the early 1990s, and David K. Gilles, a former Treasury Department official -- will become part of the House investigation.
Republicans denounced the move as "scandal-mongering." "It doesn't take a quarter-million dollars and an army of lawyers to conclude that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, unless you're a Democrat with a political dog-and-pony show to produce," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "If the goal is to distract from the fact that Democrats have no long-term agenda, they're going to need an outside PR firm, not lawyers," Mr. Kennedy said.
Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, Illinois Democrat, defended Mr. Conyers' decision. "He has said to the White House, 'We want the truth. Help us,'" said Mr. Emmanuel, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. "Our goal here is to get to the truth, and every day is a new day when it comes to the White House and their story." Read the rest at the source.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, has drawn up a contract with Washington law firm Arnold & Porter for help in his investigation of the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year, according to an unsigned copy of the contract obtained by The Washington Times.
The contract specifies that Arnold & Porter will subcontract with another firm, Deloitte & Touche, to "assist Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary with issues related to the termination of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration, possible misrepresentations to Congress, interfering with investigations and matter related thereto."
The House Judiciary Committee already has as many as 30 paid staff positions, not including staff of subcommittees, aides said.
The committee's contract is for a sum "not to exceed $25,000 per month, plus authorized traveling expenses," and is set to expire Dec. 31, 2007. The contract specifies that Irvin B. Nathan, a partner at Arnold & Porter, will be "principally responsible" for the contract.
The contract also specifies that two Deloitte & Touche employees -- Michael Zeldin, a former independent special prosecutor in the early 1990s, and David K. Gilles, a former Treasury Department official -- will become part of the House investigation.
Republicans denounced the move as "scandal-mongering." "It doesn't take a quarter-million dollars and an army of lawyers to conclude that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, unless you're a Democrat with a political dog-and-pony show to produce," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "If the goal is to distract from the fact that Democrats have no long-term agenda, they're going to need an outside PR firm, not lawyers," Mr. Kennedy said.
Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, Illinois Democrat, defended Mr. Conyers' decision. "He has said to the White House, 'We want the truth. Help us,'" said Mr. Emmanuel, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. "Our goal here is to get to the truth, and every day is a new day when it comes to the White House and their story." Read the rest at the source.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right
If you’re a center-left, centrist, center-right or conservative and you’ve uttered an opinion in public, chances are far far left loss leaders Media Matters and Air America have a dossier on you.
Radio talk show host and friend of Hot Air Tammy Bruce appeared on last night’s “O’Reilly Factor” to talk about far-left outlets (*cough* Media Matters *cough*) who have a hit list on conservatives and moderate/not-so-far to the left Democrats.
Tammy explained the elaborate ruse these far-left individuals use to get national news outlets to get their message out. How does Tammy know? She used to do it herself when she was president of the Los Angeles NOW chapter.
Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history. For icing on the cake, the Soros-funded group tried to convince everyone that Imus is a conservative. Imus is to Media Matters’ political right, but then again so is the entire country.
See video here.
Radio talk show host and friend of Hot Air Tammy Bruce appeared on last night’s “O’Reilly Factor” to talk about far-left outlets (*cough* Media Matters *cough*) who have a hit list on conservatives and moderate/not-so-far to the left Democrats.
Tammy explained the elaborate ruse these far-left individuals use to get national news outlets to get their message out. How does Tammy know? She used to do it herself when she was president of the Los Angeles NOW chapter.
Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history. For icing on the cake, the Soros-funded group tried to convince everyone that Imus is a conservative. Imus is to Media Matters’ political right, but then again so is the entire country.
See video here.
Friday, April 13, 2007
I'm Proud to be an American...until I read Crap like this...
U.S. Corporations Lobby Against New Protections for Chinese Workers
Labor rights advocates say U.S. multinational corporations have aggressively lobbied to weaken key provisions in a new Chinese law that would expand rights and protections for Chinese workers.
"U.S. corporations have used their considerable power and influence there to weaken the labor laws that are being proposed," said Ellen David Friedman, a U.S. labor organizer who's worked with developing trade union groups in China. "They are in essence acknowledging that what they have liked about doing business in China is the very, very cheap labor and the low level of enforcement."
The Chinese government is drafting a new labor law, expected to be finalized in the next few weeks, in response to increasing worker unrest over low and unpaid wages and poor working conditions. Labor rights advocates say the new law will provide Chinese workers with minimal protections that are commonplace in developed countries, including enforceable contracts, the role of unions to negotiate on behalf of employees and severance payments.
When the Chinese government announced the new labor law last year, American corporate trade groups were quick to object to many of the law's provisions.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai known as AmCham said the law was "a step backwards" and laid out what it called "fundamental defects" in the law in a 42-page document submitted to the Chinese government. The group argued that current Chinese labor law was sufficient for protecting Chinese workers if the laws were properly enforced.
Read here for the rest.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
When "Ho" Is Protected by the First Amendment According to Rev. Al
On his show tonight (April 11,2007), Bill O’Reilly asked Al Sharpton if he was going to go after the rap music “stars” who consistently denigrate women and glamorize violence. The Rev told Bill that after “getting rid of Mr. Imus”, his National Action Network will “start looking” at some of the corporations that backed Imus. Sharpton claimed that some of those corporations also own some of the record companies. Sharpton told O’Reilly that this was “just the beginning of a long war” to deal with this type of language and behavior.
But in March 2005 Sharpton defended the content of rap music while condemning the violence surrounding the industry. He made it quite clear that it was “not about the lyrics” but the violence committed by the rap artists. Sharpton even went so far as to invoke the rap artists’ First Amendment rights to rap and sing about violent acts. Here are some of Sharpton's comments during the March 9, 2005 interview on CNN...
I'm not talking about lyrics. I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about when an artist engages in violence that the FCC and advertising and radio stations have the right, as we do in sports, to say wait a minute, you cannot conduct yourself in that way, and say that you're going to use federally-regulated airwaves to promote your albums if you are, in fact, engaging in violence. Not singing about it, not rapping about it, but do a violent act.
And if they're going to rap about it and sing about it, they have the First Amendment right. But if they do it, they don't have the right then to expect the airwaves to say that it's conduct that we're going to promote.
They have the right to talk about the violence they come from. I come from that violence, but I do not have the right to go out and engage in violence, and then ask the federal airwaves to allow me to continue in my career like it's nothing. Are we saying these kids are nothing? We saw the FCC outrage over Janet Jackson's flashing at the Super Bowl. We're not going to be outraged about actual shootings in front of radio stations?
Again now, I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about actual acts of violence. Are we condoning them by not putting a standard in the business?
In an April 2005 interview on Hannity and Colmes, Sharpton again defended the lyrics using the First Amendment.
HANNITY: You know what bothers me? You know, I guess there's a lot of ways in life that you can make money, Reverend Al. There's a lot of ways you can make money, but when you do it on human misery this way, it's just like some of the more violent rap lyrics that degrade women, degrade, you know, humanity the way they do. Refer to women the way they do. It's amazing to me that — why do people patronize, you know...
SHARPTON: I think the issue is patronage. I mean, I've said that I'm against rewarding people for violent acts. But people have the right to say what they want or do what they want. We also have the right to boycott it. The First Amendment also means you can...
So degrading women by word is protected by the First Amendment if the words are part of Rap Music lyrics? It’s okay to use the “N-word” as long as it is in rap music format? If Imus had "rapped" his comments would there still be an uproar? Would Sharpton defend the statements using the First Amendment excuse? Would Sharpton still be calling for getting rid of Imus?
The hypocrisy underwhelms me…
Me too, Robin. And, those spineless weinees at MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves.
But in March 2005 Sharpton defended the content of rap music while condemning the violence surrounding the industry. He made it quite clear that it was “not about the lyrics” but the violence committed by the rap artists. Sharpton even went so far as to invoke the rap artists’ First Amendment rights to rap and sing about violent acts. Here are some of Sharpton's comments during the March 9, 2005 interview on CNN...
I'm not talking about lyrics. I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about when an artist engages in violence that the FCC and advertising and radio stations have the right, as we do in sports, to say wait a minute, you cannot conduct yourself in that way, and say that you're going to use federally-regulated airwaves to promote your albums if you are, in fact, engaging in violence. Not singing about it, not rapping about it, but do a violent act.
And if they're going to rap about it and sing about it, they have the First Amendment right. But if they do it, they don't have the right then to expect the airwaves to say that it's conduct that we're going to promote.
They have the right to talk about the violence they come from. I come from that violence, but I do not have the right to go out and engage in violence, and then ask the federal airwaves to allow me to continue in my career like it's nothing. Are we saying these kids are nothing? We saw the FCC outrage over Janet Jackson's flashing at the Super Bowl. We're not going to be outraged about actual shootings in front of radio stations?
Again now, I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about actual acts of violence. Are we condoning them by not putting a standard in the business?
In an April 2005 interview on Hannity and Colmes, Sharpton again defended the lyrics using the First Amendment.
HANNITY: You know what bothers me? You know, I guess there's a lot of ways in life that you can make money, Reverend Al. There's a lot of ways you can make money, but when you do it on human misery this way, it's just like some of the more violent rap lyrics that degrade women, degrade, you know, humanity the way they do. Refer to women the way they do. It's amazing to me that — why do people patronize, you know...
SHARPTON: I think the issue is patronage. I mean, I've said that I'm against rewarding people for violent acts. But people have the right to say what they want or do what they want. We also have the right to boycott it. The First Amendment also means you can...
So degrading women by word is protected by the First Amendment if the words are part of Rap Music lyrics? It’s okay to use the “N-word” as long as it is in rap music format? If Imus had "rapped" his comments would there still be an uproar? Would Sharpton defend the statements using the First Amendment excuse? Would Sharpton still be calling for getting rid of Imus?
The hypocrisy underwhelms me…
Me too, Robin. And, those spineless weinees at MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Do African Americans have the Patent on Racial Epithets?
The suspension by CBS and MSNBC of Don Imus’s morning show over some insensitive things Imus said is a blatant example of the double standard to which society appears to be placidly subscribing. In the land of the free and home of the brave, where the first amendment guarantees everyone the same degree of free speech, there are certain things that those of the Caucasian persuasion are not allowed to say. And if they do say certain things, then their punishment is swift, vicious and unforgiving, regardless of any apology that may be proffered, as the hapless Imus has just found out.
Imus was referring to players of a black women’s basketball team as “nappy haired hos” on his radio show when the wrath of God descended upon him. God’s wrath came to Imus in the form of the Rev. Al Sharpton, arguably the most racist person in America, who demanded that the talk show host be fired for his impolitic remarks. And in true form, everyone caved to Sharpton’s ridiculous demands.
So what is it with all the hip-hop rap stars raking in millions with “songs” about their “bitches and hos”, rhapsodizing over misogynous and racist behavior and freely using the “N” word, while people like Sharpton engage in a deafening silence. Is it okay for black men to say these things about black (or white) women, but it isn’t okay for white men to use these terms? Do black people have a patent on racial epithets that when used by people of other races constitutes a copyright infringement?
It would almost appear to be the case, given the degree of outrage aimed at Imus for his unfortunate commentary.
But let’s look at the other side of the coin, shall we? I recall a certain firebrand civil rights leader referring to New York City as “Hymietown” because of its large Jewish community and there wasn’t nearly the degree of shock and outrage as that displayed over Imus’s words. I would venture that this nameless civil rights leader’s remarks were much more “hateful” than Imus’s, as they were used to impugn an entire ethno-religious group that has long been persecuted. Yet today this civil rights leader is still out extorting money from corporations with threats of racially based boycotts unless certain donations are ponied up.
Then there is the case of the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, leader of America’s Black Muslim movement, who is constantly ranting about “the evil Jew” to his parishioners. Shouldn’t some sort of action be taken against the hateful invective emanating from him? Or is it because Farrakhan is black that he is exempt from the standards of deportment that apply to the rest of society.
More alarmingly, for Sharpton to insist that Imus be fired, is a pure case of the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended), as Sharpton himself has his own history of racist misadventures, not the least of which is the Tamara Brawley affair, which found Sharpton a willing collaborator in the attempted framing of a group of white men for the non-existent rape of a black woman.
People like Sharpton make their living keeping the fires of racial hatred burning and acting as an apologist for racist acts and words that emanate from their own community. In fact, there is a school of thought that maintains it is impossible for African Americans to be racist, as they have been victims. To them acts of racism can only be committed by whites.
So long as we all agree to this sham we are establishing a double standard that does a disservice to both blacks and whites. It’s time that the likes of Sharpton be exposed for what they really are: cynical race baiters who thrive on keeping hatred and mistrust between the races alive.
Imus apologized. Enough already.
Imus was referring to players of a black women’s basketball team as “nappy haired hos” on his radio show when the wrath of God descended upon him. God’s wrath came to Imus in the form of the Rev. Al Sharpton, arguably the most racist person in America, who demanded that the talk show host be fired for his impolitic remarks. And in true form, everyone caved to Sharpton’s ridiculous demands.
So what is it with all the hip-hop rap stars raking in millions with “songs” about their “bitches and hos”, rhapsodizing over misogynous and racist behavior and freely using the “N” word, while people like Sharpton engage in a deafening silence. Is it okay for black men to say these things about black (or white) women, but it isn’t okay for white men to use these terms? Do black people have a patent on racial epithets that when used by people of other races constitutes a copyright infringement?
It would almost appear to be the case, given the degree of outrage aimed at Imus for his unfortunate commentary.
But let’s look at the other side of the coin, shall we? I recall a certain firebrand civil rights leader referring to New York City as “Hymietown” because of its large Jewish community and there wasn’t nearly the degree of shock and outrage as that displayed over Imus’s words. I would venture that this nameless civil rights leader’s remarks were much more “hateful” than Imus’s, as they were used to impugn an entire ethno-religious group that has long been persecuted. Yet today this civil rights leader is still out extorting money from corporations with threats of racially based boycotts unless certain donations are ponied up.
Then there is the case of the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, leader of America’s Black Muslim movement, who is constantly ranting about “the evil Jew” to his parishioners. Shouldn’t some sort of action be taken against the hateful invective emanating from him? Or is it because Farrakhan is black that he is exempt from the standards of deportment that apply to the rest of society.
More alarmingly, for Sharpton to insist that Imus be fired, is a pure case of the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended), as Sharpton himself has his own history of racist misadventures, not the least of which is the Tamara Brawley affair, which found Sharpton a willing collaborator in the attempted framing of a group of white men for the non-existent rape of a black woman.
People like Sharpton make their living keeping the fires of racial hatred burning and acting as an apologist for racist acts and words that emanate from their own community. In fact, there is a school of thought that maintains it is impossible for African Americans to be racist, as they have been victims. To them acts of racism can only be committed by whites.
So long as we all agree to this sham we are establishing a double standard that does a disservice to both blacks and whites. It’s time that the likes of Sharpton be exposed for what they really are: cynical race baiters who thrive on keeping hatred and mistrust between the races alive.
Imus apologized. Enough already.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Terror at Sixteen Feet
There was a time, back before Bush's Reign of Terror, when groups of sweaty, Middle Eastern males could chant “Allahu Ackbar” in a crowded airport without attracting so much as a second glance from fellow travellers. It appears those days are long gone. That’s the lesson six Muslim holy men learned last fall when they were forcibly removed from United Airways Flight 300 flight for attempting to turn a typically boring experience into a fun-filled and educational adventure for everyone.
No one knows for sure why the passengers of Flight 300 were so nervous about flying with Muslims. It's truly a mystery. But the whole thing stinks worse than human flesh being consumed by burning jet fuel to me. As an American, I’m embarassed and ashamed for the way the Imams were treated. I imagine they must’ve felt a little like the Muslim passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, whose private moment of quiet prayer was rudely interrupted by intolerant Americans pounding on the cockpit door.
Todd Beamer and his Merry Band of Bigots may have escaped justice, but the nameless John and Jane Does of Flight 300 won’t get off so easy. Lawsuits are currently being filed against those who reported the befuddled Imams to the airport gestapo. It’s not about the money, though. It’s not even about teaching people to think twice before inconveniencing any Muslim travellers who just happen to be gleefully slashing a flight attendant’s throat open with a box cutter in accordance with the Holy Quran. It’s about insuring that all fliers, Muslim and and non-Muslim alike, are treated fairly and equally by everyone, right up until the moment the plane hits the ground.
Thanks to BlameBush. Very well written.
No one knows for sure why the passengers of Flight 300 were so nervous about flying with Muslims. It's truly a mystery. But the whole thing stinks worse than human flesh being consumed by burning jet fuel to me. As an American, I’m embarassed and ashamed for the way the Imams were treated. I imagine they must’ve felt a little like the Muslim passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, whose private moment of quiet prayer was rudely interrupted by intolerant Americans pounding on the cockpit door.
Todd Beamer and his Merry Band of Bigots may have escaped justice, but the nameless John and Jane Does of Flight 300 won’t get off so easy. Lawsuits are currently being filed against those who reported the befuddled Imams to the airport gestapo. It’s not about the money, though. It’s not even about teaching people to think twice before inconveniencing any Muslim travellers who just happen to be gleefully slashing a flight attendant’s throat open with a box cutter in accordance with the Holy Quran. It’s about insuring that all fliers, Muslim and and non-Muslim alike, are treated fairly and equally by everyone, right up until the moment the plane hits the ground.
Thanks to BlameBush. Very well written.
Friday, March 30, 2007
New Missile can Fully Protect Israel from Iran
Recent modifications made to the Arrow enable Israel's ballistic missile defense system to successfully intercept and destroy any ballistic missile in the Middle East, including nuclear-capable missiles under development by Iran, Arieh Herzog, the head of the Defense Ministry's Homa Missile Defense Agency, has told The Jerusalem Post.
In a rare interview that will appear in full in Monday's Post, Herzog provides an inside look at the decision-making process behind Israel's missile defense systems, led by the Israeli- and American-developed Arrow missile, one of the only operational ballistic missile defense systems in the world.
On Monday, the IAF successfully tested a newly modified Arrow interceptor.
Iran and Syria, Herzog said, were investing unprecedented amounts of money in long-range ballistic missile capabilities - with the help of North Korea - and had all but given up building modern air forces.
"The Iranians are continually increasing the range of their missiles," he said. "They are buying technology and in some cases even complete systems from North Korea and other countries."
Herzog also said that while there might be missile systems in Iranian hands that the Arrow could not intercept, all of the ballistic missiles "currently operational" in the Islamic Republic could be destroyed by the Israeli defense system.
"Our Arrow operational system can without a doubt deal with all of the operational threats in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Syria," he declared.
A branch of the Defense Ministry's Research and Development Directorate, Homa - Hebrew for "Fortress Wall" - was established in 1991 and given a mandate to oversee the development, procurement and integration of missile defense systems, once needed against crude Iraqi Scud missiles and now to face advanced long-range Iranian Shihabs.
Herzog said he favored selling the Arrow to Israel's allies. Countries that have expressed interest include Turkey and South Korea. At the moment, however, the sale of the system is not on the table and this would only change following a joint decision by Israel and the US.
"If it would be possible to sell the system, I would be in favor," he said. "But this is a government decision that needs to be made by Israel together with the United States."
Discussing the Second Lebanon War, Herzog said a missile defense system that was effective against the short-range Katyusha - close to 4,000 struck northern Israel - could have changed the outcome in Israel's favor.
"Active protection can dramatically reduce the number of casualties," he said, adding that this would also provide the government with improved "diplomatic maneuverability."
Such a system also serves as a deterrent. "If someone thinks that a large percentage of his missiles will be intercepted, he will think twice before attacking," Herzog said.
In a rare interview that will appear in full in Monday's Post, Herzog provides an inside look at the decision-making process behind Israel's missile defense systems, led by the Israeli- and American-developed Arrow missile, one of the only operational ballistic missile defense systems in the world.
On Monday, the IAF successfully tested a newly modified Arrow interceptor.
Iran and Syria, Herzog said, were investing unprecedented amounts of money in long-range ballistic missile capabilities - with the help of North Korea - and had all but given up building modern air forces.
"The Iranians are continually increasing the range of their missiles," he said. "They are buying technology and in some cases even complete systems from North Korea and other countries."
Herzog also said that while there might be missile systems in Iranian hands that the Arrow could not intercept, all of the ballistic missiles "currently operational" in the Islamic Republic could be destroyed by the Israeli defense system.
"Our Arrow operational system can without a doubt deal with all of the operational threats in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Syria," he declared.
A branch of the Defense Ministry's Research and Development Directorate, Homa - Hebrew for "Fortress Wall" - was established in 1991 and given a mandate to oversee the development, procurement and integration of missile defense systems, once needed against crude Iraqi Scud missiles and now to face advanced long-range Iranian Shihabs.
Herzog said he favored selling the Arrow to Israel's allies. Countries that have expressed interest include Turkey and South Korea. At the moment, however, the sale of the system is not on the table and this would only change following a joint decision by Israel and the US.
"If it would be possible to sell the system, I would be in favor," he said. "But this is a government decision that needs to be made by Israel together with the United States."
Discussing the Second Lebanon War, Herzog said a missile defense system that was effective against the short-range Katyusha - close to 4,000 struck northern Israel - could have changed the outcome in Israel's favor.
"Active protection can dramatically reduce the number of casualties," he said, adding that this would also provide the government with improved "diplomatic maneuverability."
Such a system also serves as a deterrent. "If someone thinks that a large percentage of his missiles will be intercepted, he will think twice before attacking," Herzog said.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)