The 'Surge' Is 'Working'? Fine. Then Bush Should Be Impeached.

This column, from David Michael Green at the Smirking Chimp is a real eye catcher because if we could get enough liberals to buy into this thinking feeling, we might be able to get more of them to pull a Murtha and acknowledge that the surge is working,

But let's forget all that, and, just for the sake of discussion, assume
Little Bush has achieved something worthwhile in Iraq during 2007. Shouldn't he
be recognized for his achievement?

No. He should be impeached.

Some may claim that he has committed no crime related to Iraq (that's
actually an endless list, but don't get me started). For those folks, it is well
to remember that an impeachable offense is, as Gerry Ford once aptly reminded
us, anything that a majority of the House of Representatives believes it to be
on any given day. I'm not one who believes that this nuclear warhead of
constitutional government should be used lightly, but surely we can all agree
that gross incompetence and negligence are well within the range of what
constitutes an impeachable offense. Imagine if the country had a president who
had gone barking mad in his first year of office, and was making reckless
decisions that were grievously harming us. Would anyone argue that these
behaviors didn't rise to the level of impeachable offense, and that the country
should endure another three years of serious damage because insanity wasn't a
high crime or misdemeanor? Heck, would anyone argue that gross incompetence and
negligence aren't impeachable offenses when lying about oral sex is? (Okay - I
mean anyone besides those people?)

If the surge is working, Bush should be impeached precisely for the reason
that it is working. This is a president who was told by at least two top
generals in the military that he would need additional forces in Iraq in order
to succeed in his objectives. Notice that they were not saying that the war was
immoral or even a bad policy choice. They were simply arguing that to
effectively achieve the political objectives Bush was pursuing, he would, in
their professional opinion, need a much greater level of force presence. Notice
that the same president who today incessantly hides behind the supposed force
requirements of his generals, falsely claiming to defer to their military
judgement, not only disastrously failed to adhere to this advice in 2003, but
went so far as to cashier these career officials out of the military and destroy
their careers instead in order to send a warning to anyone else stupid enough to
be so candid.

Okay, so he's a liar and a hypocrite. That ain't exactly headline news. But
here's the larger point: If the surge is working, it would have worked a lot
better had Bush listened to Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki and others back at
the beginning. The fact that he did not demonstrates gross misjudgement which
quite likely has meant the difference between a stupid and ill-advised war that
might have ended quickly and relatively painlessly, on the one hand, versus a
stupid and ill-advised war that will probably never end and has taken over a
million lives so far, on the other. However ironic it certainly is, it is
nevertheless indisputable that the very 'success' of the 'surge', such as it is,
is therefore actually an indictment of Bush. It proves how dangerously wrong he
was when he rejected precisely this advice even before the war was launched. The
results of that failure of judgement have been astronomically huge and
catastrophically disastrous. Anyone guilty of such egregious errors has no
business being commander-in-chief, his slimy fingers gripping the nuclear
trigger. If the surge is a success, Bush should be impeached for gross
incompetence.

Wow, the liberal mind at work is a real wonder to behold, isn't it?

We changed strategies, the change worked, and therefore Bush should be impeached. Of course, by that standard, the President in charge of every major war we've ever fought could be impeached because we changed strategy in some form or fashion in every one of them at some point.

PS: Should I even have written that last paragraph? Is it even necessary to refute something like this? Given that the most ridiculous ideas and conspiracy theories are taken seriously on the Left and even on certain parts of the Right (See the North American Union and the amero that Bush is supposedly going to implement next year), it's hard to tell sometimes.

Top Democrats balk on contempt resolutions

House Democrats have postponed a vote until December on contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, delaying for now any constitutional showdown with the White House over the president’s power to resist congressional subpoenas.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has been pushing for the contempt vote, arguing that the White House must be held accountable for ignoring subpoenas issued by his panel as part of the U.S. attorney firing scandal. Other top Democrats, including Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have argued that the House should put off that fight while debates over Iraq funding and electronic eavesdropping dominate the floor. The contempt vote had been tentatively scheduled for Friday before Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) informed his colleagues that it was being delayed.

“[Emanuel] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it
will step on our message on Iraq and FISA,” said a top House Democratic
leadership aide.

Emanuel could not be reached for comment by press time on Tuesday. The Illinois Democrat was overseeing an “issues conference” for House Democrats, urging rank-and-file lawmakers to hold more town-hall-style meetings with constituents in order to explain to them what Democrats have achieved since taking control of Congress.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is backing Conyers and wants a floor vote on the contempt resolution, but she has agreed to wait another few weeks before forcing a showdown with President Bush on the matter.

“I think it’s going to happen before we leave for the year, but not necessarily this week,” Hoyer said Tuesday.

Off Topic Subject: Pharmaceutical Companies

It never ceases to amaze me how the drug companies can invent new diseases and conditions just to market their new drugs. They are the masters of the drug trade.

Here's an example. In a commercial last night, a drug company pushed its new drug for the treatment of...."Bipolar Mania."

WTF is that? I've never heard of "Bipolar Mania." Did someone just think this up or what? Who "discovers" these new ailments?

OK, they've convinced us that when we have too many bad days in a row, we're bipolar. That's treated with several fine chemicals they just happen to have in stock.

Now, these existing drugs are supposed to treat the symptoms of bipolar disorder, and I hear they work well. Apparently, they don't work well enough when it comes to the freaked out feeling you get when you're in a bipolar episode, so, you also need to get this new miracle drug to combat the bipolar mania.

So, you can be taking these existing drugs for the bipolar disorder, then you can take this new drug to treat the onset before it turns into the actual bipolar....WTF?

That's just an example. Another favorite example of the marketing and re-marketing of drugs can be seen on the shelf in Wal-Mart.

Go tothe pain reliever section and find Excedrin Extra Strength, Excedrin Migraine, and Excedrin Tension Headache. Read the contents and their amounts. You might be surprised to see all three have the same ingredients and the same amounts, (aspirin 500mg and caffeine 550mg). So, what's the difference between the three?

Marketing...that's the ONLY difference.

The last example of how these companies milk all they can from you and the insurance companies is what they do when they lose their patents.

As I understand it, a drug company has the patent on their new drug for only about two years. Then that drug becomes something like public domain. Companies can now create generics and the drug will eventually be forced to over the counter (OTA).

Take Prilosec and Nexium. Nexium is sold by prescription only and Prilosec is sold OTA.
Surprise...Nexium was Prilosec when it was prescription only. Same ingredients...no difference.

They lost the patent and had to create something else to keep charging the big bucks so...they reformulated Prilosec and turned it into Nexium. Then, they marketed it to be an aid in healing the esophageal damage from stomach acid...you know the "little purple pill?"

Here's a flash: ALL of these acid inhibitors...Prevacid, Nexium, and Prilosec, heal damage done by acid reflux...if you take them regularly. But this little purple pill is marketed as if it's the ONLY cure.

Give me a break.

Anyway, my two-cents.

Calls to Henry Waxman's Office

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Roseanne in Reidsville, North Carolina. Hi, Roseanne. It's nice to have you on the program.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I want to tell you what Senator [sic] Waxman's representative told me, and then I would like to tell you what I told him when he said something about the tone of the Internet. He told me that the senator's position was not being represented correctly, that what the senator actually believed and what was being reported weren't the same thing, which puts him in the same position you are in, doesn't it?

RUSH: You mean Congressman Waxman?
CALLER: Yeah, congressman. Sorry.
RUSH: You called his office after you heard the report that he has assigned investigators to monitor me and Hannity and Levin and our shows for irregularities?

CALLER: Yes. I called him this morning and I asked him how he could make an attack on the conservative talk show hosts who aren't telling me what to think, but instead they're simply representing what I already think, and before I could say anything more, he interrupted me and told me that the congressman's position was being misrepresented.

RUSH: The congressman's position is being misrepresented?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Uh, well. So your point is, well, they misrepresented my position, so the congressman and I are pretty much on the same page?

CALLER: Yes, but there was an oddity about the call. I was told to stick to the point, but I think this is kind of the point. There was an oddity to the call. I wanted to further explain. I wanted to hear an explanation. I wanted more, but... The man was very pleasant, and he was very kind, but he kept cutting me off. He didn't explain anything, and when he said something about the tone of the Internet, it was odd because I felt like the call was being led.

RUSH: The tone of the Internet?
CALLER: Yes, sir -- and then I hung up and then I called back after I reflected on it, and I said to him, I said, "Do you realize when you say 'tone of the Internet,' do you realize you can't or shouldn't regulate 'tone'?" And I said, "Do you realize that Hillary has always, as long as I can remember, attacked everything that I love and I believe in. If she had her own way, she'd wipe me and my kind off the face of the earth -- and, sir, tone, passion, is one and the same," and I asked him to explain that to Mr. Waxman, that tone and passion, and that if somebody's trying to bring you to extinction, you're going to have passion.

RUSH: Well, you know, I don't know how many people call Waxman's office.

CALLER: Yesterday I couldn't get through.


RUSH: Yeah, I'm sure, and I'm sure these guys had to devise a response, and they are probably tired, by the way, of taking all these calls, and that might have been why the representative working for Congressman Waxman was a little testy.

CALLER: No, he wasn't. He was very nice.

RUSH: Yes, but you said he kept cutting you off --
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: -- and trying to make his points and so forth, because I'm sure he wanted to get on to the next call. But it's interesting. The interesting thing that you point out that they say Congressman Waxman's remarks were "misrepresented." He didn't deny it, huh? Did the guy deny it, Roseanne? Or he just --

CALLER: He didn't explain, Rush. He just left it at that. He just left it that the --
RUSH: Misrepresented.
CALLER: -- congressman was being misrepresented, and the point that I asked him, if he would please make to the congressman was -- I didn't say it this way, but I'll say it this way to you. Rush, I'm an ornery woman. You can't put a thought in my head if I don't already have it, and I know you know that about women, because you've made that very clear. You don't put thoughts in my head. I have my thoughts. You voice my thoughts and you make me feel --

RUSH: Exactly!

CALLER: -- like there's a tomorrow.

RUSH: That's one of the secrets of this program is, that I validate what people already think. You are not the mind-numbed robots in this society. It's the Democrats who are mind-numbed robots and the kook-fringe base. They're the ones that don't want to think. They're the ones that don't think. They're the ones that don't want to be challenged on their preconceived little worldview for their own security. You're exactly right.

CALLER: Last week, when Harry Reid took you out of context, my nine-year-old screamed from his 360, "That's not what Rush said." My nine-year-old knew how to put you in context.

Read the rest at the link.

Rapper TI Arrested just before an Awards Show

Who cares?

Muslims: Make Peace with Us or Die

A letter signed by over a hundred Muslim scholars sent to Christian leaders around the world declares that the survival of the world is at stake if they don’t make peace with Muslims.

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the “survival of the world” is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.

We non-Muslims sincerely apologize if our women and children have been getting in the way of your exploding backpack bombs in cafes and discos in a less-than-peaceful manner.

Texas Rainmaker

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.