Senator Reid - "Rush must Apologize" - Rush- "Say it to my Face, Senator"

Democrats go after Limbaugh

Democrats on Monday called on the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications to denounce remarks by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whom they say made a “hateful” and “unpatriotic” attack on U.S. troops opposed to the war in Iraq.

Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in his letter to Clear Channel Chief Executive Mark Mays.

“We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a ‘phony soldier.’ We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.”

Source

Rush’s Challenge to Senator Reid

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, in the last half hour, Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate and proceeded to spend five-to-seven minutes denouncing me, spreading the smear that started last week on this phony soldiers business. He has prepared a letter to be sent to the CEO of the company that syndicates this program, and that letter he asked as many senators as possible to sign, offering them the opportunity to demand of my syndicator that I be condemned for something that I did not say, which Harry Reid knows I did not say.

The House of Representatives, I have just learned, is going to introduce a resolution this afternoon along the lines of the MoveOn.org resolution that was introduced last week, tit-for-tat, they want a vote in the House to condemn me, a private citizen, for something I did not say.

These people have had three, four days now to learn the truth about this, and they no doubt know the truth, which doesn't matter. What they are trying to do is flood a false story into the Drive-By Media and have that survive and suffice as the evidence and as the story of what I said when it wasn't.

Source

It Takes a Village and About $5,000 to Educate a Child

It's a Woman's Right to Choose what to do with her own body. But should she foolishly choose to carry her pregnancy to term, then it's our responsibility as members of The Village to care for the child throughout its long and miserable life here in this human meat grinder known as "America" where no one can survive unless they are either born rich or nurtured from cradle to grave by a benevolent federal government.

That's why President Hillary Clinton, in her divine generosity, will be giving every child who manages to slip through the cracks of Roe v. Wade a $5,000 savings bond towards a college education. Where the money will come from to fund her bold incentive is unimportant, but I am sure none of us would object to a modest tax increase for a group of people that Hillary has demonized.

Let's spin the Wacky Wheel of Hate, shall we? Round and round she goes..where she stops, nobody knows! Who gets to foot the bill for Hillary's brilliant savings bond idea? Christian Conservatives? Nope. Big Oil? Nope. The Boy Scouts?

...and the winner is RICH PEOPLE!

For far too long, the wealthy elite have used their ill-gotten wealth to selfishly pay for the education of their own little snots, while their less fortunate neighbor kids are left out in the cold, where they ultimately freeze to death while George Bush laughs maniacally from the warm comfort of his palatial Crawford estate.

No more will they be allowed to skip out on their parental responsibilities to other peoples' children. And that goes the same for any of you deadbeat Moms and Dads out there who would rather have a few extra dollars in your paycheck than invest in someone else's kid's future.

It takes a Village to Raise a Child, you know. Once Hillary's education and Health Care plans come to fruition, financial independence will be a thing of the past. In fact, I envision an age when everyone will have to show proof that they are financially supporting a complete asshole stranger in order to get a job.

Waxman to probe Clinton files

What's this? Elmer Fudd investigating the Dems? Or is it just an act of appeasement?

In a concession to Republicans, House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has promised to ask the National Archives for documents relating to President Bill Clinton’s Office of Political Affairs.

As a result, a Democratic push to investigate the activities of former White House senior adviser Karl Rove and other aides to President Bush could mean fresh scrutiny and publicity for long-forgotten meetings and presentations during the Clinton administration.

In a letter this week, Waxman suggested Republicans satisfy their curiosity by reexamining what he estimates are more than 2 million pages of documents about the Clinton White House and the Democratic National Committee that House investigators amassed in the 1990s.

Ahhh...here's the rub:

The extraordinary search was prompted by revelations that Bush aides have conducted political briefings for GOP appointees at federal agencies before big elections. Democrats have complained that the sessions could violate the Hatch Act, which is designed to insulate federal employees from political pressure.

The broadening inquiry, which Republicans contend will take the committee down unpredictable avenues, could be a headache for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is trying to push a message of change amid unwanted reminders of her husband’s administration, including a scandal centered on one of her biggest financial supporters.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), the committee’s ranking member, has repeatedly prodded Waxman to see if the Clinton administration had done anything similar to the Bush White House’s political briefings.

In a five-page letter to Davis dated Monday that was provided to Politico, Waxman agreed to request the documents.

“You have asked that the committee make a number of document requests of the National Archives for records of the Clinton administration,” Waxman wrote. “The Clinton administration was subject to vastly more scrutiny by this committee than the Bush administration has been, and many of the records you seek may already be in the committee archives."

“However,” Waxman continued, “I do agree that the committee would benefit from requesting copies of any political briefings that the Office of Political Affairs in the Clinton administration may have given to federal agencies.”

- I bet he said this with his fingers crossed behind his back.

Rare Gorillas Helpless as Congo Rangers Flee Rebels

This has nothing to do with the Dem's witch hunt but it has to be addressed.

Comment: I rarely find anything in this world that angers me anymore. I've seen so much, I'm afraid I've become callous and apathetic toward the human race. But this....this saddens and angers me at the same time.

If I had the money, this is where I'd be...I'd be right there with an army to protect these creatures from the clutches of evil, heartless humans.

Whatever reason these rebels show to kill these protected animals, it's not justified, and it's just plain evil.

God, is there nothing we can do to stop this?

The UN is useless and those that are trying to protect them are outnumbered and outgunned.

I pray for the gorillas and my heart hurts knowing what they face.


Rangers protecting the rare mountain gorillas in the south of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Virunga National Park have been forced to evacuate their guard posts following several days of fierce clashes between the Congolese military and rebels in the area. Conservationists say they fear for the safety of the gorilla population, which is now completely unprotected.

Nine gorillas living in the troubled park have been killed this year. At least some of the deaths have been blamed on the same rebels who have now taken over large swaths of the reserve.

There are an estimated 700 wild mountain gorillas remaining worldwide. More than half live in Virunga.

"There are still no rangers whatsoever in the [gorilla] sector [of the park], so no monitoring or tracking of gorillas is going on," said Norbert Mushenzi, the park official in charge of the southern sector of Virunga—the park's only gorilla habitat. "This is very, very serious. We must be able to protect these animals, and at the moment we absolutely cannot." Overrun by Rebels Rebels loyal to renegade general Laurent Nkunda on Monday surrounded two ranger stations inside Virunga.

The men seized rifles and communications equipment and forced park workers and their families to evacuate. Fearing imminent attack, rangers fled a third post, Bukima—the gorilla-monitoring camp.

Since then rebels have overrun Bukima, according to officials of WildlifeDirect, a ranger-supporting conservation group based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Kenya. "The situation at Bukima looks like it may calm today, and as soon as it does I will send trackers in to assess the situation of the gorillas," Mushenzi told National Geographic News on Wednesday. Virunga National Park straddles the border of the DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda. The area has recently seen heavy clashes between the Congolese military and Nkunda's troops, who are estimated to number about 8,000.

Schumer claims scalp in latest Bush win

The resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has many of the familiar features of President Bush's high-profile second-term failures: the firm resistance, the partisan acrimony, the eventual surrender. And one hallmark of second-term executive train-wreck: the fingerprints of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. The Brooklyn Democrat has been a singular scourge of Bush's unhappy second term. He played a central role in an early, key Bush defeat, the collapse of the deal to sell a major port operator to Dubai Ports World (Remember that one?).

He was the first senator to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the exposure of former CIA agent Valerie Plame. And he was a leading face of the congressional push to investigate the firings of several United States attorneys, convening hearings that eventually produced Monday's resignation of Gonzales. "The 'Don't mess with Texas' crowd thinks they're tough. Meet Brooklyn hardball," said Ken Baer, a Democratic strategist.

The Gonzales affair was, for Schumer, a textbook case of his modus operandi. He was a loud, early voice raising the question of firings of U.S. attorneys, diving into the details of the story when the scandal was still bubbling up on liberal blogs. And he followed it relentlessly to the end, emerging Monday as the Democrats lead voice on Gonzales's resignation.

Schumer's hunger for press and his aggressive tone, Hill staffers say, sometimes rankle his colleagues, as they have throughout his career. But that same aggressiveness, speed and unabashed partisanship make him an effective foil for a White House known, until recently, for the same qualities. "A lot of senators are always so concerned about appearing senatorial," said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a group that has been involved in investigations of the Bush Justice Department. "He is less worried about always seeming so even-handed. He's much more willing to engage in partisanship than other senators."

His unembarrassed politics, his New York roots and his hectic, hard-charging persona have turned Schumer into a target for Republicans looking for a villain.

More at The Politico

Attorney for censured General: Waxman told 'blatant lie' on subpoena evasion

The attorney for the retired general who was censured by the Army for his role in the announcement of the death of Corporal Pat Tillman challenged the idea that his client had 'evaded' a subpoena from Congress to testify at a hearing last week.

Lieutenant General Philip Kensinger's attorney went as far as accusing Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of telling a 'blatant lie.'

"I am saying that is a blatant lie," Charles Gittins, the Virginia-based attorney for the retired Kensinger told RAW STORY in an e-mail.

Gittins was reacting to a statement made by Waxman in his opening remarks at a hearing one week ago in which several top Pentagon witnesses, including ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, denied any cover up had occurred on the cause of Tillman's death.

"General Kensinger refused to appear here today," the California Democrat said in his opening remarks. "His attorney informed the Committee that General Kensinger would not testify voluntarily and, if issued a subpoena, would seek to
evade service."

Ex-Special Forces General hard to find

Kensinger's attorney contested the summary of events offered by Rep. Waxman.

"I told the committee lawyers that my client declined to testify and would attend his meeting, as scheduled," Gittins added. "I told them I would not advise the Committee of his whereabouts and expected that without that information he would be difficult to locate. But my client did not evade and I never told anyone that he would evade service. I observed that it was unlikely that they would find him, which was true, since the meeting was not in his home."

RAW STORY contacted the Oversight Committee, but did not receive a response to Gittins' remarks at press time.

Gittins, a specialist in defending Armed Services members in courts martial and other legal proceedings, added that the US Marshals sent by the Committee to serve General Kensinger could have found him at his office.

"Upon completion of that meeting, he went to his office and worked there for the rest of the day," he told RAW STORY. "The office staff was aware of his whereabouts all day and would have told anyone who called where to locate the General....Fortunately, as I expected, the Marshals Service proved unequal to the task of finding my client in plain sight."

The retired Kensinger, who used to head up the US Special Operations Command, is Chief Operating Officer at Oakgrove Technologies. The company is a military contractor based in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Steve Blando, a spokesman for the US Marshals, confirmed that Raleigh-based Marshals only attempted to serve Kensinger with the subpoena, issued Monday, July 30, at his home.
"We're given an address, and we go to that address," he told RAW STORY. "The Marshals service received the subpoena on Monday, and made several attempts to deliver it to the residence in the Raleigh area as late as Tuesday evening."

But Gittins insisted that Kensinger's absence from his home on Monday the 30th and Tuesday the 31st was not evidence of his intent to 'evade' the subpoena.

"He traveled on Monday to a meeting out of town," the attorney explained. "The meeting was on Tuesday and after the meeting he went to his office and then to the place he was staying overnight for the business meeting."

Gittins also pointed to a letter he sent to the committee more than a week before the hearing stating that his client would not testify because he had a prior business commitment. He criticized the committee for waiting so long to issue a subpoena.

"Why did they wait until Monday to issue the subpoena when my letter was delivered by e-mail on 23 July?" Gittins asked. "Their dilatory conduct is not my problem nor my client's problem."
Gittins' letter to Waxman can be read at this link.

Attorney calls Committee members 'blow hards'

Secretary of the Army Pete Geren censured Kensinger on July 31 for 'subverting' the investigation into the misreporting of Tillman's friendly fire death in Afghanistan.
"Your failings compounded the grief suffered by the Tillman family, resulted in the dissemination of erroneous information and caused lasting damage to the reputation and credibility of the U.S. Army," Geren said in a letter to Kensinger.

Kensinger has also been threatened with a post-service demotion, although no such action has occurred. A court martial at this stage appears unlikely.
In spite of the cloud that Geren's censure put over his client, Gittins saw no benefit to the retired general testifying in front of the Oversight Committee.

"Nothing was going to be resolved in such a spectacle," he told RAW STORY. "What the hearing really amounted to was a chance for a bunch of blow hard politicians to rebuke a group of dedicated public servants who were doing the best they could under the circumstances."

In spite of Gittins' criticisms of the hearing, ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld decided to testify alongside retired Generals Richard Myers, John Abizaid, and Bryan Douglas Brown in the Aug. 1 session. The four denied any 'cover up' was behind the Pentagon's initial announcement that Tillman was killed by enemy fire rather than fratricide.

Still, Kensinger's counsel insisted that the harm to the former NFL star's family was caused by the Army leadership, and not his client.

"Since General Abizaid convened the investigation and would be the officer who approved its findings, as a matter of chain of command and military protocol, this demanded that my client not do anything until the investigation was completed and its findings were officially reported and approved by the commander," he insisted.

He added, "None of the commanders nor their lawyers were aware of the requirement to report to a family that friendly fire was suspected in the death of their family member. This is a failure of Army leadership to inform the commanders at all levels of the changes to the regulation."
Given Gittins' remarks, it seems possible that putting Abizaid and Kensinger next to one another in the hearing could have resulted in conflicting accounts of how Tillman's death was being investigated.

In contrast to the attorney's claim that Abizaid was responsible for the investigation, the former head of US Central Command stated that he was relying on the investigation within Kensinger's command to give a conclusive statement on whether or not fratricide occurred.

"I said [to Gen. Myers] that it's clear that there's a possibility of fratricide involving the Tillman case, that General McChrystal has appointed the necessary people to investigate to determine precisely what happened and that while it's likely that there's fratricide, we'll know for sure after the report is finalized, which will reach me when it gets done," he stated in the hearing.

Committee undecided on next steps for Kensinger

The Oversight Committee has yet to make an announcement on whether it would again seek to compel testimony from Gen. Kensinger.
"The subpoena was returned to the committee," a committee spokesperson told RAW STORY on Monday. "We are continuing to investigate Lt. Gen. Kensinger's role in the announcement of Corporal Tillman's death."

In the meanwhile, Gittins insisted that Kensinger could not be charged with 'contempt of Congress' because he was never successfully served with the subpoena.

"My client was never served with a subpoena; therefore, he could not as a matter of law be in contempt of Congress," the attorney reasoned. "Had he been served with a subpoena and then failed to attend the hearing, then he might be voted in contempt. But, that is all hypothetical because no subpoena was served on my client. And, since I was never provided a copy of the subpoena, I can't even say if it is a fact that a subpoena actually ever was issued."

Top 'Attorneygate' investigator: No 'blind faith' for the White House

The Witch Hunt continues....they smell the blood in the water...just can't...quite....get a bite.


On a 7-3 ruling, House Democrats moved rapidly Thursday afternoon to rule that the White House had asserted executive privilege in a manner that was 'not legally valid.'
During the proceedings, a top House Democratic investigator of the firing of nine US Attorneys said that the White House's latest moves were not consistent with the current system of government in the United States. Another top Democrat accused the White House of turning over 'inaccurate' information about Karl Rove's role in the attorney firings.

The chair of the subcommittee that has authorized subpoenas in the investigation said that the White House was not deserving of 'blind faith.'

"The White House is asking Congress and the American people to simply trust on blind faith that the documents are appropriately being kept secret," said Rep. Linda Sánchez, Chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, during an approximately 20 minute hearing.

She added, "Our system of government does not allow the White House to demand this kind of blind faith and secrecy."
Rep. Sánchez then issued a ruling declaring that the White House's assertion of executive privilege over documents sought in subpoenas issued to former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and the Republican National Committee was not legally valid. The grounds for the ruling largely echoed a similar ruling delivered last week after former White House Counsel Harriet Miers refused to appear before the committee.

Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-MI), in a prepared opening statement, outlined some of the wrongdoing he saw that required House investigators to continue to pursue subpoenas and other steps.

"We have learned, for example, that the White House was involved in the politicization of the Justice Department," Conyers stated. "New Mexico Republican officials complained repeatedly to Karl Rove and his aides about a voter fraud case that they wanted former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to pursue. Mr. Iglesias was fired soon after some of these complaints, and one of the complaining Republican officials was suggested as his replacement."

He went on to warn that "the White House participated in false statements to Congress."
"Chris Oprison in the Counsel's office signed off on an inaccurate letter that the Justice Department sent to Congress claiming that Karl Rove did not play a role in the appointment of Tim Griffin to replace Bud Cummins," he explained.

The committee's chairman also implied an effort was being taken to obstruct the investigation of the Attorneys' firings.
"We also have evidence of a concerted effort both by the Justice Department and the White House to hide or downplay the role of White House personnel in this process," he argued.
In a Tuesday letter sent to Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, Conyers warned that the party organization may face contempt proceedings if it fails to abide by Rep. Sánchez's ruling today.

"If the RNC...engages in 'unilateral action' by simply refusing to comply with a House subpoena absent a court order, the refusal to produce the documents called for could subject Mr. Duncan to contempt proceedings," Rep. Conyers wrote.

A similar warning was issued regarding Bolten.

The subcommittee's Democrats did not raise the specter of contempt in Thursday's hearing, but that didn't stop committee Republicans from speaking out against taking such a step in the future.

"These games may be strangely entertaining to lawyers, press hounds, and academics, but they are not parlor games, and they promise no productive ends," said Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the ranking Republican on the subcommittee. "On the contrary, they pointlessly threaten to land in jail people who are asserting understandable claims to executive privilege."

However, Cannon also suggested that any contempt threat would have no power because it would not be upheld by the courts, and would in fact damage Congress's ability to conduct future investigations.

"We anticipate a court battle which I very much fear we will lose," he said. "By we, I mean Congress...we will perpetually undermine Congress's prerogatives in overseeing future administrations."

Harriet Miers also suggested in a Tuesday letter to Rep. Conyers via her attorney that she had little to fear from the threat of being held in contempt of Congress. Her attorney argued that the contempt of Congress statute would not apply to her.

For you Surrender Monkeys, be you Congress Members or Moonbats

Read this:

The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

This is not a horror story.

This is real.

This is from Michael Yon, a writer embedded in Iraq. He's not military and he's not a reporter for a major news source. He's there through donations from his readers.

The excerpt is from his blog, "Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007."

Read it and the other dispatches from Michael. Then sit there in front of your computer, in that air conditioned room with a straight face, and badmouth or troops and our president for being over there.

White House raps Hill probes

Over 300 investigations in 100 days.

WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday pushed back against congressional
investigations of the Bush administration and said lawmakers should spend more
time passing bills to solve domestic problems.

In
a constitutional showdown with Congress, the administration claimed executive
privilege and rejected demands for White House documents about the firings of
eight U.S. attorneys.
The House and Senate Judiciary committees have set a
deadline of 10 a.m. next Monday for the White House to explain its basis for the
claim.

The administration has not said when or if it will respond. Spokesman
Scott Stanzel said Thursday the White House has received a many requests for
information since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has turned
over 200,000 pages of documents.
"They've launched over 300 investigations,
had over 350 requests for documents and interviews and they have had over 600
oversight hearings in just about 100 days," Stanzel said.
Democrats were
dubious of the figures but did not offer their own.

"His numbers are as faulty as the intelligence they used to make their
case for war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev.
"In the last six years, all they've had is a rubber-stamp
Congress. Since January, Democrats have demanded accountability, a change of
course and transparency," Manley said.

Stanzel said he arrived at the numbers by canvassing departments and
agencies about the number of inquires and investigations initiated by Congress
since the Democrats took control.
The assertion of executive privilege was
the latest turn in an increasingly hostile standoff over the Iraq war, executive
power, the war on terror and Vice President Dick Cheney's authority.

Subpoenas have been delivered to the offices of Bush, Cheney, the
national security adviser and the Justice Department about the administration's
warrantless wiretapping program.
In a letter to Congress last week, White
House counsel Fred Fielding said the administration had rejected subpoenas for
documents through the claim of executive privilege. That letter also made it
clear that neither former presidential counsel Harriet Miers nor former White
House political director Sara Taylor would testify on Capitol Hill next week, as
directed by the subpoenas.

Stanzel said Congress has "a lot to show in terms of activity and
requests and letter-writing, and that sort of thing, but not much to show in the
way of real legislation."

The Bush-haters have been busy. I'm embarassed to have voted democrat in the past. "Right and wrong" is not the basis for these witch hunts, it's merely a result of years of obstructionism and the "get Bush" mentality gone unchecked.

So much for what the people want.

White House, Cheney's Office, Subpoenaed

These people just don't give up. Their obstructionist mindset is in place so strong they just can't help it. That "get Bush" mentality is harmful and distracting. They should be concentrating OUR money on positive things...not this bullshit.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.

Leahy's committee authorized the subpoenas previously as part of its sweeping investigation into how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons.

But with senators of both parties already concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice and, in particular, his willingness to permit the wiretapping program.

Piquing the committee's interest was vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.

Read more unbelievable crap here.

Cheney

Democrats give No Confidence vote on Gonzalez

Oh, how awful! The dems will vote to say they don't like Gonzalez. These wastes of our tax dollars have nothing more important to do than pass these ridiculous, non-binding votes. It's just a chance to play politics.

This just shows that all that posturing and time-consuming dog and pony shows they called hearings were chasing a meaningless "crime." This is all they can do to try to save face.

I agree with Bush who replied that this vote won't have an affect at all on his decision to keep Gonzalez or not. Bush also said they should be working on something more meanful, like the immigration bill.
No shit. I agree.

Did Valerie Plume Wilson Tell the Truth?

A senator’s investigation suggests the answer is no.

When Valerie Plame Wilson swore that she did not recommend or suggest her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger in 2002, Sen. Christopher Bond took note.

Wilson’s words, given in testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, didn’t jibe with what Bond’s investigators had learned a few years earlier when they looked into the CIA leak matter. Now, we know why Bond was suspicious.

On page 205 of the newly released 226-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence, Bond has posted “additional views” that address the question of Plame’s testimony about her husband’s trip, the purpose of which was to check out reports Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. The evidence Bond provides in his additional views contradicts Mrs. Wilson’s version of events.

SWORN TESTIMONY

In her testimony before the House, Mrs. Wilson said flatly, “I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him.” She told the House committee that a 2004 Senate report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, Mrs. Wilson pointed to a February 12, 2002, memo she had written, which the Senate said showed that she had suggested her husband for the trip, and claimed that the Senate had taken the memo “out of context” to “make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.”

The 2004 Senate report to which Mrs. Wilson referred had quoted a brief excerpt from her memo. In the new report, Sen. Bond publishes the whole thing, and it seems to indicate clearly that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip. The memo was occasioned by a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium. The report had been circulating in the intelligence community for a week by February 12, and Mrs. Wilson headlined her memo, “Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash.”

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to
you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons.

The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can’t be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter].

After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.

To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

More at The National Review.

The Oversight Congress: Trouble for Bush

The new Democratic majority's zeal for congressional investigations goes well beyond Alberto Gonzales and the fired federal prosecutors.

Aided by a new investigative team including a former mob prosecutor and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, Democrats have launched more than three dozen probes of the administration ranging from the White House to obscure agency heads. The House Oversight Committee alone has conducted 20 investigations.

With few legislative accomplishments in hand -- and only a few prospects in the offing -- it seems plain the 110th is shaping up as "The Oversight Congress."

This is troubling news for the Bush White House and Republicans. No fewer than six administration officials have resigned already amid the congressional probes -- and many more are in Democratic sights.

They are targeting a sweep of people and issues. Some are high-profile, such as the leaking of Valerie Plame's CIA identity or the U.S. attorney firings, subjects that make for compelling cable news dramas.

But many more are mundane: inefficiency at the federal crop insurance program or conflicts of interest in FDA contracting. Some are pragmatic, such as an examination of food safety following outbreaks of illness caused by contaminated peanut butter and spinach. Others are tragic: the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman and the misleading information the military provided to his family.
"We're seeing results when we peel away some of the layers in every department," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee. "People felt they could do whatever they wanted for whatever reason."

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Democrats had a mountain of issues to investigate.

"We have a huge backlog, and we'll try to use what we can to get to everything," he said.
The outbreak of investigations represents a significant change in Washington. For the first six years of the Bush presidency, Republicans controlled Congress and largely avoided tough oversight hearings and hard-hitting investigations, especially of the Iraq war and environmental issues.

In the 2006 campaign, Democrats promised change on this front and have delivered in ways most Americans would probably not notice.
Everyone knows about the investigation of the attorney general and his role in the firings of U.S. attorneys. Gonzales, of course, has vowed to stay on despite calls by a few Republicans for him to resign.

But Democrats have three other scalps to claim from that probe and three from others rarely mentioned.

An Interior Department official resigned after an investigation by the House Natural Resources Committee suggested she had edited scientific reports to lessen endangered species protections. The head of the Education Department's student loan program stepped down after complaints from Democrats on the House Education and Labor Committee.

And the official heading up the Minerals Management Service quit her job shortly after congressional Democrats held a hearing critical of the agency.

Resignations are not the only measure of a successful investigation. Often the result will be a change in policy.

The administration appointed a "food safety czar" after several congressional committees raised questions about the FDA's ability to protect consumers from food contamination. The Army announced it would not pay $19.6 million to Halliburton subsidiary KBR Inc. after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee examined its arrangements with private security providers.

Read the rest here.

Conyers, Nadler seek more info on NSA eavesdropping program following Comey bombshell

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties on Judiciary, want more information from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales following the suprising revelations this week by former top DOJ official on infighting between the White House-Justice Department over the NSA's domestic eavesdropping program.
Specifically, Conyers and Nadler want to know if forrmer Deputy Attorney General James Comey's statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday - Comey described in full detail a March 2004 effort by Gonzales, then White House Counsel, and Andrew Card, former White House chief of staff, to get then Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize the program over Comey's objections, a meeting that took place while Ashcroft was hospitalized - were accurate or whether Comey was describing another classified program.

Iraq Qaeda Group Demands U.S. End Search for Soldiers

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."

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.

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:

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.''

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.

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.

Goodling Immunity Moves Forward

Huh. Just out from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):

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..."

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.