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.

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.

Leahy issues subpoena for Rove e-mails

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) issued a subpoena Wednesday for all e-mails from White House adviser Karl Rove that relate to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

Quote:

“Attached please find a subpoena compelling the Department by May 15 to produce any and all emails and attachments to emails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove
related to the Committee’s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial
independence and the Department of Justice’s politicization of the hiring and
firing and decision-making of United States Attorneys, from any (1) White House
account, (2) Republican National Committee account, or (3) other account, in the
possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice,”

Leahy said in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The senator had requested the information from Gonzales when the attorney general testified before the committee and in a follow-up letter. However, Leahy said that Gonzales did not respond.

“I continue to hope that the Department will cooperate with the Committee’s investigation, but it is troubling that significant documents highly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry have not been produced,” Leahy said in the letter.“Indeed, despite multiple requests for the Department to produce documents voluntarily related to the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department, the Department’s production of documents has been selective and incomplete,” Leahy added.

“Many documents have been withheld or redacted without any legal basis being set forth." Leahy said the Department of Justice has until May 15 to comply with the subpoena.

Obstruction tactic at its best.

The Democrat's Obsession with Karl Rove

Hollywood Girls Gone Wild

The showdown at the White House Correspondents' dinner was more emotional and lasted longer than was first reported. It started when Laurie David introduced herself to Karl Rove.

He knew who she was--Hollywood's leading Bush-hater and a producer of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's film on global warming. David quickly launched into a harangue. President Bush has done nothing on global warming, she said. Rove answered that Bush has funded more research on the subject than any president. That's worthless, David responded. All the scientific questions have been answered, she insisted.

Now's the time for action! Rove cited the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which projects a modest rise in sea level of 7 to 23 inches over the next century. David told Rove he was wrong. We've had the hottest summer and winter ever, she said, plus extreme weather events. The president needs to talk to real global warming experts. Rove said he already does. "Would you like me to give you a list?" he asked. She didn't.

You don't have anybody who understands the seriousness of the issue talking to the president, David said. Yes, we do, Rove said, mentioning the president's science adviser, Dr. John Marburger.

That's when the debate got more heated and more physical. Sheryl Crow, the singer, suddenly appeared. Without introducing herself, she demanded that Rove tell her how many corporations were financing Marburger's research. Rove responded that Marburger has a long and distinguished academic record.

David said Bush must lead on global warming and America must emulate China--China!--by signing the Kyoto Protocol. (China indeed signed, but didn't agree to curb greenhouse gases.)
Crow was more insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm. She said Rove worked for her. Rove said he worked for the American people. Crow said she and David were the American people. And at that point, Rove turned and sat back down at his table, where he was a guest of the New York Times.

The point of recounting this stunt by two of Hollywood's most prominent limousine liberals--who have accused Rove of rudeness--is to put him in the proper political context. He is the chief target of Democrats, liberals, and the left, and they burn with a desire to see him discredited, fired, and jailed. If all else fails, and it has so far, they'll settle for tainting him as impolite.

More at The Weekly Standard.

GOP Breaks Truce over Rice Threat

Republicans largely kept their mouths shut this year as Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) scheduled hearing after hearing and sent letter after letter from his post as chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

On Tuesday, they finally made some noise.

Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), the ranking Republican on Waxman's committee, drew the line during an press conference protesting a scheduled vote to issue a subpoena for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Politico.com is co-host of the Republican presidential debate on May 3rd, and candidates will be answering our readers’ favorite questions. Click here to submit yours.

"This isn't even a close call," Davis said of the threatened subpoena. "This is way over the line."
Waxman wants Rice to testify under oath about President Bush's now-infamous claims that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger. He has scheduled the vote for Wednesday.

But Davis and others said Tuesday the Rice subpoena would be a gross abuse of the committee's jurisdiction.
"This is not only an overreach; it's disruptive," Davis said. "This is nothing but a partisan witch hunt."

His remarks coincide with a coordinated assault by Republicans in the House, criticizing Waxman on a range of topics because of his determination to question Rice, one leadership aide said.

Davis, who worked closely with Waxman when he himself chaired the committee, argued that Waxman is threatening the subpoena solely in order forcing Rice to raise her right hand and take an oath before a bank of television cameras that would then broadcast the politically damaging image around the world.

Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Lamar Smith of Texas joined the Virginia Republican on Tuesday to protest this latest attempt to call the secretary of state before the committee.

Members of the minority deliberately kept their mouths shut during the first months of this year, so their protests would have more weight when they came, GOP leadership aides have said. This signals the end of that truce.

The secretary of state has a busy schedule, Smith argued, and she should not be compelled to appear before the oversight panel, which potentially includes days of preparation.
"I thought to myself, that's too much," Smith said.

Waxman is investigating President Bush 2003 State of the Union claim that agents for Saddam Hussein tried to buy materials for a nuclear weapon in Niger, a claim that is now widely held to be false.

The Republicans emphasized past investigations of this question by other national and international organizations and said the committee's current inquiry belabors the point.
"This is not about trying to protect the administration," said Shays, who was a consistent critic of the White House and his own leadership during the Republicans' tenure in the majority.

Davis conceded that his staff contacted the State Department after Waxman scheduled the session to vote on subpoenas and that officials at State are concerned about the impact Rice's testimony would have politically and practically on her schedule.

The four Republicans were less defiant of the other three subpoenas the House will vote on Wednesday in a series of separate, although somewhat related, investigations.

These include subpoenas for former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, for emails from the Republican National Committee and for a list of contacts from the White House between administration officials and a defense contractor in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal.

"I think it's a fishing expedition," Davis said of Waxman's possible subpoena of RNC emails, "but I think he has every right to do that."

Republicans are now circulating Waxman quotes from his tenure as the ranking Democrat under a former Government Reform chairman, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), to help frame the debate in their favor.

In 1997, for example, Waxman said, "It makes no sense to direct multiple Congressional committees to investigate the same abuses -- Multiple investigations are duplicative and wasteful." That, Davis argued, is exactly what the oversight chairman is doing.

"The very thing Henry Waxman complained about, he's becoming," Shays said.
The committee did not respond to an email asking for comment.

Waxman has full subpoena authority, and has used the tool a limited number of times so far.
He scheduled Wednesday's vote because the State Department, the RNC and the White House have not provided him and his committee with all the information they asked for, according to a collection of letters he sent top administration officials last week.

Davis said he and Waxman have had a productive working relationship in the past and expects that to continue moving forward, hinting, "I don't know what pressure he's under from his leadership."

But this marks a stark turn in their relationship and a departure for Republicans, who, to this point, have stood by as Waxman peels back layer-upon-layer of potential malfeasance and mismanagement in the current Republican administration.

White House Faces Sweeping Congressional Oversight

Thursday 26 April 2007

Congress took unprecedented action against the Bush administration Wednesday, using its sweeping powers to vigorously pursue testimony and documents from key White House officials and agencies on issues that have mired the administration in at least a half-dozen scandals.

Covering a broad range of topics including allegations of widespread corruption, two Congressional committees authorized subpoenas - one for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to compel her to testify about how a now-discredited 2003 claim that Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address. Subpoenas were also approved for the Republican National Committee to secure thousands of emails missing from an RNC server used by White House officials, and to require testimony by top officials of the RNC.

Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee granted immunity to former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, and approved a subpoena to force her to testify before Congress about her role and the role of White House officials in the firings of eight US attorneys last year. In an interview Tuesday on the program "Hardball," David Iglesias, the former US attorney from New Mexico, said Goodling "holds the keys to the kingdom" and could very well implicate key officials in the White House in the firings if she testifies. Iglesias was fired last year by the Department of Justice under questionable circumstances.

The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), also approved a subpoena for Sara Taylor, a deputy to White House political adviser Karl Rove. Rove is said to have played a major role in the US attorney firings, and his use of an RNC email account to conduct official White House business has come under fire. The RNC said it lost thousands of emails Rove had sent over the past few years. The emails may shed further light on the nature of Rove's involvement in the firings and a number of other issues Congress is looking into.

Rice Signals Rejection of House Subpoena

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person."I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

The comments were her first reaction to a subpoena issued on Wednesday by the committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.Rice said she respected the oversight function of the legislative branch, but maintained she had already testified in person and under oath about claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa during her confirmation hearing for the job of secretary of state."I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing," she said.

"This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered."Rice noted that she had been serving as President Bush's national security adviser during the period covered by the panel's questions and stressed the administration's position that presidential aides not confirmed by the Senate cannot be forced to testify before Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege.

"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," she said. "There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress."

"So, I think we have to observe and uphold the constitutional principle, but I also observe and uphold the obligation of Congress to conduct its oversight role, I respect that. But I think I have more than answered these questions, and answered them directly to Congressman Waxman."

Comment: In other words..."Piss up a rope." The only female in the bunch and she has more balls than any of them.

Source

House panel votes to subpoena Rice on Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic lawmakers voted on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify about administration justifications for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.On a party-line vote of 21-10, the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee directed Rice to appear before the panel next month.

Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms."There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice who was then President George W. Bush's national security adviser," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.

"The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why," Waxman said.

Comment: Good old "Bi-Partisanship" in action. Source

Waxman Takes Center Stage as Chief Investigator

The diminutive Henry A. Waxman is a towering figure on Capitol Hill these days.

As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the veteran Democratic congressman from California has broad jurisdiction and sweeping subpoena power over a wide spectrum of the federal government -- and corporate America, too.

He's a reformer, an advocate, a showman. And "he understands the investigative process," said Norm Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.S ince claiming the committee gavel in the new Democratic-controlled Congress, Waxman has opened investigations into potential Hatch Act violations by political appointees at the General Services Administration, requested all the e-mails on the Republican National Committee servers written by White House staff members and reviewed contracting in Iraq, among other hot spots.

Along the way, he has commanded an A-list of witnesses who not only help him ferret out information but also invariably guarantee a stream of headlines.

It was a full house, for instance, in his committee room when Valerie Plame, the former clandestine CIA operative-turned-public celebrity, made her congressional debut last month. Backed by subpoena power, though he has yet to use it, Waxman has sought to question Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top White House political adviser Karl Rove, among other administration officials. Republicans, now in the minority, are necessarily leery of Waxman.

And already, GOP aides have begun circulating opposition research on him, trying to paint him as an overzealous liberal whose investigations are little more than a partisan scheme. Waxman, who has been traveling over the congressional spring break, has been unavailable for an interview. Over the years, he worked closely with Rep. Tom Davis when the Virginia Republican was the committee's chairman. And Davis, now the committee's ranking member, has refrained from publicly criticizing Waxman since Democrats took power."At the end of the day, Chairman Waxman will be judged on whether he has made government better," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "The overriding question will be: Is this about making government more effective, or is this about embarrassing the administration?"

Nonetheless, in the evolving showdown between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a range of pressing issues, from the war in Iraq to the controversial sacking of eight U.S. attorneys, Waxman is a powerful weapon in the majority's arsenal, if only because of his committee's ability to force members of an administration, stoked in secrecy, to answer questions at a nationally televised hearing.

"There was a tremendous need for oversight," said Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who goes back with Waxman to their days as members of the Young Democrats at UCLA in the late 1950s and early 1960s. "He is just the guy to do it."Read the rest here.

Dems: More lawyers needed for Bush probes

House Democrats are set to bring in private sector lawyers -- at a cost of up to $225,000 over the next nine months -- to help committee staff investigate the Bush administration.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, has drawn up a contract with Washington law firm Arnold & Porter for help in his investigation of the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year, according to an unsigned copy of the contract obtained by The Washington Times.

The contract specifies that Arnold & Porter will subcontract with another firm, Deloitte & Touche, to "assist Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary with issues related to the termination of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration, possible misrepresentations to Congress, interfering with investigations and matter related thereto."

The House Judiciary Committee already has as many as 30 paid staff positions, not including staff of subcommittees, aides said.

The committee's contract is for a sum "not to exceed $25,000 per month, plus authorized traveling expenses," and is set to expire Dec. 31, 2007. The contract specifies that Irvin B. Nathan, a partner at Arnold & Porter, will be "principally responsible" for the contract.

The contract also specifies that two Deloitte & Touche employees -- Michael Zeldin, a former independent special prosecutor in the early 1990s, and David K. Gilles, a former Treasury Department official -- will become part of the House investigation.

Republicans denounced the move as "scandal-mongering." "It doesn't take a quarter-million dollars and an army of lawyers to conclude that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, unless you're a Democrat with a political dog-and-pony show to produce," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "If the goal is to distract from the fact that Democrats have no long-term agenda, they're going to need an outside PR firm, not lawyers," Mr. Kennedy said.

Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, Illinois Democrat, defended Mr. Conyers' decision. "He has said to the White House, 'We want the truth. Help us,'" said Mr. Emmanuel, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. "Our goal here is to get to the truth, and every day is a new day when it comes to the White House and their story." Read the rest at the source.

Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right

If you’re a center-left, centrist, center-right or conservative and you’ve uttered an opinion in public, chances are far far left loss leaders Media Matters and Air America have a dossier on you.

Radio talk show host and friend of Hot Air Tammy Bruce appeared on last night’s “O’Reilly Factor” to talk about far-left outlets (*cough* Media Matters *cough*) who have a hit list on conservatives and moderate/not-so-far to the left Democrats.

Tammy explained the elaborate ruse these far-left individuals use to get national news outlets to get their message out. How does Tammy know? She used to do it herself when she was president of the Los Angeles NOW chapter.

Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history. For icing on the cake, the Soros-funded group tried to convince everyone that Imus is a conservative. Imus is to Media Matters’ political right, but then again so is the entire country.

See video here.

I'm Proud to be an American...until I read Crap like this...

U.S. Corporations Lobby Against New Protections for Chinese Workers

Labor rights advocates say U.S. multinational corporations have aggressively lobbied to weaken key provisions in a new Chinese law that would expand rights and protections for Chinese workers.
"U.S. corporations have used their considerable power and influence there to weaken the labor laws that are being proposed," said Ellen David Friedman, a U.S. labor organizer who's worked with developing trade union groups in China. "They are in essence acknowledging that what they have liked about doing business in China is the very, very cheap labor and the low level of enforcement."
The Chinese government is drafting a new labor law, expected to be finalized in the next few weeks, in response to increasing worker unrest over low and unpaid wages and poor working conditions. Labor rights advocates say the new law will provide Chinese workers with minimal protections that are commonplace in developed countries, including enforceable contracts, the role of unions to negotiate on behalf of employees and severance payments.
When the Chinese government announced the new labor law last year, American corporate trade groups were quick to object to many of the law's provisions.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai known as AmCham said the law was "a step backwards" and laid out what it called "fundamental defects" in the law in a 42-page document submitted to the Chinese government. The group argued that current Chinese labor law was sufficient for protecting Chinese workers if the laws were properly enforced.

Read here for the rest.

When "Ho" Is Protected by the First Amendment According to Rev. Al

On his show tonight (April 11,2007), Bill O’Reilly asked Al Sharpton if he was going to go after the rap music “stars” who consistently denigrate women and glamorize violence. The Rev told Bill that after “getting rid of Mr. Imus”, his National Action Network will “start looking” at some of the corporations that backed Imus. Sharpton claimed that some of those corporations also own some of the record companies. Sharpton told O’Reilly that this was “just the beginning of a long war” to deal with this type of language and behavior.

But in March 2005 Sharpton defended the content of rap music while condemning the violence surrounding the industry. He made it quite clear that it was “not about the lyrics” but the violence committed by the rap artists. Sharpton even went so far as to invoke the rap artists’ First Amendment rights to rap and sing about violent acts. Here are some of Sharpton's comments during the March 9, 2005 interview on CNN...

I'm not talking about lyrics. I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about when an artist engages in violence that the FCC and advertising and radio stations have the right, as we do in sports, to say wait a minute, you cannot conduct yourself in that way, and say that you're going to use federally-regulated airwaves to promote your albums if you are, in fact, engaging in violence. Not singing about it, not rapping about it, but do a violent act.

And if they're going to rap about it and sing about it, they have the First Amendment right. But if they do it, they don't have the right then to expect the airwaves to say that it's conduct that we're going to promote.

They have the right to talk about the violence they come from. I come from that violence, but I do not have the right to go out and engage in violence, and then ask the federal airwaves to allow me to continue in my career like it's nothing. Are we saying these kids are nothing? We saw the FCC outrage over Janet Jackson's flashing at the Super Bowl. We're not going to be outraged about actual shootings in front of radio stations?

Again now, I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about actual acts of violence. Are we condoning them by not putting a standard in the business?

In an April 2005 interview on Hannity and Colmes, Sharpton again defended the lyrics using the First Amendment.

HANNITY: You know what bothers me? You know, I guess there's a lot of ways in life that you can make money, Reverend Al. There's a lot of ways you can make money, but when you do it on human misery this way, it's just like some of the more violent rap lyrics that degrade women, degrade, you know, humanity the way they do. Refer to women the way they do. It's amazing to me that — why do people patronize, you know...

SHARPTON: I think the issue is patronage. I mean, I've said that I'm against rewarding people for violent acts. But people have the right to say what they want or do what they want. We also have the right to boycott it. The First Amendment also means you can...

So degrading women by word is protected by the First Amendment if the words are part of Rap Music lyrics? It’s okay to use the “N-word” as long as it is in rap music format? If Imus had "rapped" his comments would there still be an uproar? Would Sharpton defend the statements using the First Amendment excuse? Would Sharpton still be calling for getting rid of Imus?

The hypocrisy underwhelms me…

Me too, Robin. And, those spineless weinees at MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves.

Do African Americans have the Patent on Racial Epithets?

The suspension by CBS and MSNBC of Don Imus’s morning show over some insensitive things Imus said is a blatant example of the double standard to which society appears to be placidly subscribing. In the land of the free and home of the brave, where the first amendment guarantees everyone the same degree of free speech, there are certain things that those of the Caucasian persuasion are not allowed to say. And if they do say certain things, then their punishment is swift, vicious and unforgiving, regardless of any apology that may be proffered, as the hapless Imus has just found out.

Imus was referring to players of a black women’s basketball team as “nappy haired hos” on his radio show when the wrath of God descended upon him. God’s wrath came to Imus in the form of the Rev. Al Sharpton, arguably the most racist person in America, who demanded that the talk show host be fired for his impolitic remarks. And in true form, everyone caved to Sharpton’s ridiculous demands.

So what is it with all the hip-hop rap stars raking in millions with “songs” about their “bitches and hos”, rhapsodizing over misogynous and racist behavior and freely using the “N” word, while people like Sharpton engage in a deafening silence. Is it okay for black men to say these things about black (or white) women, but it isn’t okay for white men to use these terms? Do black people have a patent on racial epithets that when used by people of other races constitutes a copyright infringement?

It would almost appear to be the case, given the degree of outrage aimed at Imus for his unfortunate commentary.

But let’s look at the other side of the coin, shall we? I recall a certain firebrand civil rights leader referring to New York City as “Hymietown” because of its large Jewish community and there wasn’t nearly the degree of shock and outrage as that displayed over Imus’s words. I would venture that this nameless civil rights leader’s remarks were much more “hateful” than Imus’s, as they were used to impugn an entire ethno-religious group that has long been persecuted. Yet today this civil rights leader is still out extorting money from corporations with threats of racially based boycotts unless certain donations are ponied up.

Then there is the case of the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, leader of America’s Black Muslim movement, who is constantly ranting about “the evil Jew” to his parishioners. Shouldn’t some sort of action be taken against the hateful invective emanating from him? Or is it because Farrakhan is black that he is exempt from the standards of deportment that apply to the rest of society.

More alarmingly, for Sharpton to insist that Imus be fired, is a pure case of the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended), as Sharpton himself has his own history of racist misadventures, not the least of which is the Tamara Brawley affair, which found Sharpton a willing collaborator in the attempted framing of a group of white men for the non-existent rape of a black woman.

People like Sharpton make their living keeping the fires of racial hatred burning and acting as an apologist for racist acts and words that emanate from their own community. In fact, there is a school of thought that maintains it is impossible for African Americans to be racist, as they have been victims. To them acts of racism can only be committed by whites.

So long as we all agree to this sham we are establishing a double standard that does a disservice to both blacks and whites. It’s time that the likes of Sharpton be exposed for what they really are: cynical race baiters who thrive on keeping hatred and mistrust between the races alive.

Imus apologized. Enough already.