Perverting democracy for politics
Hell, perverting the rule of law, perverting co-equal government. Freakin' pervert. :rar:
From here.
:doubleplusplusfrustrated:
Here is the
whole article. A must read for Americans who respect our Constitution.
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.
''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."
For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.
Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.
Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."
But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.
Military link
Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.
On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.
After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.
Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.
Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.
Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.
On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.
In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers.
Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ''security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements.
The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.
Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration.
Oversight questioned
Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees.
In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.
After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.
(continued below)
It continues...
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
...
Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.
It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports.
On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating ''whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing.
When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed.
When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections.
Bush's statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program, for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took office.
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.
''Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said.
Defying Supreme Court
Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade Commission from political interference.
Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say.
In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and publish reports ''without the approval" of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute's director would be ''subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Yet despite the court's rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ''in a manner consistent with" the Constitution's guarantee of ''equal protection" to all -- which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites.
Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens to ''overturn the existing structures of constitutional law."
A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."
Common practice in '80s
Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented.
Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it.
But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president.
When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a president's influence over future court rulings.
Under Meese's direction in 1986, a young Justice Department lawyer named Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about signing statements. It came to light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to the Supreme Court.
In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would resent the president's attempt to grab some of its power by seizing ''the last word on questions of interpretation." He suggested that Reagan's legal team should ''concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress."
Reagan's successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.
Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress.
Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role.
Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.
But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.
''What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House," said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements through history. ''That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration."
(continued below)
the third of three parts
Exaggerated fears?
Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush's signing statements are overblown. Bush's signing statements, they say, should be seen as little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers who are dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives.
Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the laws does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them.
Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws that Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to ''withhold information" in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law requiring the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US citizens in foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put the list on its website.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.
''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."
But Cooper, the Portland State University professor who has studied Bush's first-term signing statements, said the documents are being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new laws.
Lower-level officials will follow the president's instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said.
''Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn't look like the legislation," he said.
And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way to know whether the administration is violating laws -- or merely preserving the right to do so.
Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws.
In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president.
''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation."
Added Graham: ''I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified."
And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, several Democrats lodged complaints.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to ''cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow."
And Representatives Jane Harman of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan -- the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively -- sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding that Bush rescind his claim and abide by the law.
''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight," they wrote. ''The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight. . . . Once the president signs a bill, he and all of us are bound by it."
Lack of court review
Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush's claims, legal specialists said.
The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush's assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters.
''There can't be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ''And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked."
Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party.
''The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they're not taking action because they don't want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans," said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. ''Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party."
Said Golove, the New York University law professor: ''Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.' "
Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.
''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."
More analysis.
Very passive aggressive. He's basically saying,
"Because I'm the President, and you (Congress) have said we're at war, I can do this. It's not illegal, because I **say** it's not illegal." That's KING talk. KRAZY talk. The office holder is President Bush, not King George.
Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.
President Bush and the attorneys advising him may also anticipate that the signing statements will help him if and when the relevant laws are construed in court - for federal courts, depending on their views of executive power, may deem such statements relevant to their interpretation of a given law. After all, the law would not have passed had the President decided to veto it, so arguably, his view on what the law meant ought to (within reason) carry some weight for the court interpreting it. This is the argument, anyway.
For the textually impaired, a graphic to give a sense of scale.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
Oh, well
that's OK then. As long as he
might follow the law anyway.
Oh, well that's OK then. As long as he might follow the law anyway.
You're mocking me, aren't you? [/Buzz Lightyear voice]Only if you're a former administration official...
A shame Nixon is dead, but even dead, he'd still make a more honest President than Dubya.
A shame Nixon is dead, but even dead, he'd still make a more honest President than Dubya.
Make that, only because he's dead. :mad:
He still pisses me off.
How long d'you think it'll be before the US is effectively a dictatorship?
At this rate, not too long...
Ooow, oooow....me, pick me.......I wanna dictate.
It's good to be the king........until :behead:
Then it's good to be the piss-boy.
So THIS is why we never see any of the cabinet members on Texas "Hold-em"....you can't change the rules in poker. :3_eyes:
How long d'you think it'll be before the US is effectively a dictatorship?
At this rate, not too long...
When Dubya stole both elections... so already.
Look, the guy I vote for is unlikely to steal an election -- kindly credit me with having both eyes open from now on, if you can't accept it's been that way for about the last fifty years and a day (Happy Fiftieth to me, yesterday) -- and the guy I vote for twice is even less likely to steal an election, particularly when he's opened an even wider lead against his rival for his second term. You guys lost fair and square and twice. Read all of Ann Coulter to find out why, since you seem short on the exact clues she can provide you. You may dislike her, but she will give it to you straight, if hard.
Allegations by Democrats that W stole either election are just one more of a half bazillion reasons why reasonable people like me (Most of them resemble me in that, rather than you "stole it" ventriloquist's dummies. Know where somebody else's hand is?) figure the Dems are liars. I hate how the Dems lie to me. Why can't you hate it too, and abandon the Dem Party completely and for ever?
You have Bill Clinton as a recent example of one whose instincts were to establish a dictatorship. George Bush's instincts are to not do so. Clinton's political education was in what amounted to a one-party state. Not so GWB.
I voted against Clinton, both chances I had, and against his wooden Mini-Me Gore also.
It's not like you have to be a Republican, but you really should try harder to adopt adult thinking. For one instance, it's the adults that win the wars, not the babies, nor the babies-in-older-form.
I personally don't think he stole the election, because I have a realistically low opinion of my country.
I understand. I held that same opinion from Clinton's reelection through his second term.
At least we're both reasonable people and can agree to disagree, eh?
For every billybob or jordon, there's someone reasonable like UG.
Propz, yo.
Yeah, I like that.
It's always the hardest thing to do in speaking of politics or religion -- because both of these are about "how things ought to be," and differences, even honest ones, are too often seen as attacks upon one's own integrity. I don't think this is actually something that can be solved; it will always be present in discussions of either.
People just need to suck it up and not take every damn thing so personally, eh?
You have Bill Clinton as a recent example of one whose instincts were to establish a dictatorship. George Bush's instincts are to not do so. Clinton's political education was in what amounted to a one-party state. Not so GWB.
How many laws did Clinton declare his right to ignore? For Bush, it's over 700.
re: original post
Interesting read this am. Supporting original post. I liked it anyway.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29811
Slaves' Quarters
United Slaves Of America
By
Riggsveda |
bio
63% of Americans said they had no objection to being probed anally by government sniffer machines if it meant the security of the United States would be ensured, including 44% who said they would volunteer for surgical castration to prevent terrorists from watching American TV.
A slightly larger majority--66%--said that allowing National Security agents to slowly roast their first-born children in front of their eyes was an acceptable way to prevent terrorism, and 65% said it was more important to let George Bush burn the Declaration of Independence and shove the Constitution up John Conyers' butt "for just a little while" than to selfishly hang on to their pitiful last shreds of privacy and freedom, "even if it intrudes on privacy."
51% said that Bush was such a scary guy that they would gladly agree to live under the interstate overpass and let Alberto Gonzales have their homes to house shock troops in, as long as they were allowed to have a bathroom break once a day.
Only 28% said they would rather breathe in ricin fumes than to give George Bush one more undeserved day of occupation in the Oval Office, and
less than 17% could remember the definition of the word "democracy".
A total of 502 randomly selected brain-damaged adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey.
Slaves' Quarters |
login or
register to post comments
May 12, 2006 -- 08:18:27 PM EST
I personally don't think he stole the election, because I have a realistically low opinion of my country.
:lol2:
How people can just sit back and spectate apathetically at such a flagrant disregard for the legislative process amazes me. Do modern politicans really inspire that little confidence to make this kind of thing possible?
Regarding the 2000 election, while I don't think Bush stole it, I do think it remarkably suspicious the private vote counting company was run by five GOP vets.
Top Ten Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State
http://buffalobeast.com/99/policestate.htm
Hey America! Freedom is just around the corner…behind you
Allan Uthman
The Internet Clampdown
One saving grace of alternative media in this age of unfettered corporate conglomeration has been the internet. While the masses are spoon-fed predigested news on TV and in mainstream print publications, the truth-seeking individual still has access to a broad array of investigative reporting and political opinion via the world-wide web. Of course, it was only a matter of time before the government moved to patch up this crack in the sky. Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying lately, coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are gearing up to pass legislation transferring ownership and regulation of the internet to themselves), and the Pentagon (which issued an “Information Operations Roadmap” in 2003, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, which outlines tactics such as network attacks and acknowledges, without suggesting a remedy, that US propaganda planted in other countries has easily found its way to Americans via the internet). One obvious tactic clearing the way for stifling regulation of internet content is the growing media frenzy over child pornography and “internet predators,” which will surely lead to legislation that by far exceeds in its purview what is needed to fight such threats.
“The Long War”
This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on Drugs, it outlines a goal that can never be fully attained—as long as there are pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will eternally justify what are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of civil liberties, military expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit spending and the like. This short-lived moniker told us all, “get used to it. Things aren’t going to change any time soon.”
The USA PATRIOT Act
Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? Yes, this disgusting power grab gives the government the right to sneak into your house, look through all your stuff and not tell you about it for weeks on a rubber stamp warrant. Yes, they can look at your medical records and library selections. Yes, they can pass along any information they find without probable cause for purposes of prosecution. No, they’re not going to take it back, ever.
Prison camps
This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention centers in the United States, for the purpose of unspecified “new programs.” Of course, the obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve rounding up Muslims or political dissenters—I mean, obviously detention facilities are there to hold somebody. I wish I had more to tell you about this, but it’s, you know…secret.
Touchscreen Voting Machines
Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting landscape, thanks to Bush’s “Help America Vote Act,” the exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public’s enduring cluelessness.
In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them to be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead Diebold attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane to squelch the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw in their Diebold system at the end of last year. Rather than fix the flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill its contract. Both of the other two touchscreen voting machine vendors, Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do business with Sancho, who is required by HAVA to implement a touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if he doesn’t. Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho’s ouster before it will resume servicing the county.
Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have done less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is possibly the most important story of this century, but nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is ignored, real American democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm elections will be an interesting test of the public’s continuing gullibility about voting integrity, especially if the Democrats don’t win substantial gains, as they almost surely will if everything is kosher.
Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. We really need to fix this problem soon.
Signing Statements
Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply nullify laws he doesn’t like with “signing statements.” Bush has issued over 700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined. A few examples of recently passed laws and their corresponding dismissals, courtesy of the Boston Globe:
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and deciding for itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I don’t see the new Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with that, though. So no matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply choose to ignore the ones he doesn’t care for. It’s much quieter than a veto, and can’t be overridden by a two-thirds majority. It’s also totally absurd.
Warrantless Wiretapping:
Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? What are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the phone calls of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial oversight and you think that’s okay? Come on—if you know anything about history, you know that no government can be trusted to handle something like this responsibly. One day they’re listening for Osama, and the next they’re listening in on Howard Dean.
Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no judicial oversight, why on earth wouldn’t they eavesdrop on, say, Seymour Hersh, to figure out who’s spilling the beans? It’s a no-brainer. Speaking of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already knew we would try to spy on them. They don’t care if we have a warrant or not. But you should.
“Free Speech Zones”
I know it’s old news, but…come on, are they fucking serious?
High-ranking Whistleblowers:
Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House cabinet members. These are the kind of people that Republicans fantasize about being, and whose judgment they usually respect. But for some reason, when these people resign in protest and criticize the Bush administration en masse, they are cast as traitorous, anti-American publicity hounds. Ridiculous. The fact is, when people who kill, spy and deceive for a living tell you that the White House has gone too far, you had damn well better pay attention. We all know most of these people are staunch Republicans. If the entire military except for the two guys the Pentagon put in front of the press wants Rumsfeld out, why on earth wouldn’t you listen?
The CIA Shakeup
Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld or Negroponte? No. These appointments all come from the same guys, and they wouldn’t be nominated if they weren’t on board all the way. Goss was probably canned so abruptly due to a scandal involving a crooked defense contractor, his hand-picked third-in-command, the Watergate hotel and some (no doubt spectacular) hookers.
If Bush’s nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame the CIA for “intelligence errors” leading to the Iraq war, the picture has clearly emerged—through extensive CIA leaks—that the White House’s analysis of Saddam’s destructive capacity was not shared by the Agency. This has proved to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the gang.
Who’d have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it? Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and newly minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing—they want to move intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they can control, so the next time they lie about an “imminent threat” nobody’s going to tell. And the press is applauding the move as a “necessary reform.”
Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys?
If Bush’s nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control.
So, following that logic, when Ike Eisenhower was elected the entire country was under military control...right?
No, only the executive branch was under the control of the commander & chief of the military.:shotgun:
So, following that logic, when Ike Eisenhower was elected the entire country was under military control...right?
No, only the executive branch was under the control of the commander & chief of the military.:shotgun:
And also, I'm pretty sure Ike was no longer in the military when he was President.
You are in the military when you are President.
Well, no longer in the military until he was sworn in as president.
You are in the military when you are President.
No, you're in charge of the military. Part of our nation's strength is the civilian leadership of the military.
If Bush’s nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control.
If you have not been aware of this battle and a much larger war between CIA and Rumsfeld, then you don't have a clue how much infighting is now regular in Washington. At one point, DoD tried to take the functions in the National Security Agency (NSA) completely away from CIA (yes NSA is a DoD function whose #1 customer is CIA). The Supreme Court literally stepped in and ended that battle in favor of CIA.
The story of Potter Goss is still not told. Many players are now holding cards very close to their chest. Potter Goss was basically installed to disembowel the CIA - a least that was the White House agenda. I still don't know what Potter Goss was doing. But whatever it was, it was in opposition to what the White House wanted. I suspect Potter Goss tried to work more for the CIA than for the White House. It is pretty much known that Negroponte - Intelligence Czar - has made a bureaucratic mess of the nation's intelligence. But again, it is not clear his position in a DoD's political war on CIA.
Too many in this battle still are not talking (leaking). When one victim (Potter Goss) does talk (if he ever does), then we should have a much better idea where even General Hayden stands. Currently it is unknown if he will work to undermine CIA (which I doubt) for the benefit of DoD, or if he will stand up for CIA. But the bottom line - if you did not see it years ago - there is major infighting between CIA and DoD. Currently, CIA appears to be losing - as indicated by the number of people who actually think there was an intelligence failure before and after 11 September.
Porter Goss, if you please. :grates:
...wathced U.S. Police-State Double Feature this weekend:
John Carpenter's They Live, and Running Man
EDIT - (bonus feature: follow the TV theme to Network)
[youtube]VePqzIrR-ao[/youtube]
link
Lunchtime "team-building seminars" at the GAO on how to support Republican candidates in elections.
One seriously outdated thread.
Old, but unfortunately not outdated.
Really, I could have sworn Porter Goss and Rummy were gone... wait let me check on that.
There's more where they came from.
Yep, we need people to step up and do the good work that needs to be done.
First we need the bad ones to step down.
Slowly but surely they are being replaced.
I have no confidence that the replacements are better. Gonzales is certainly worse than Ashcroft.
Of course, confirmation won't be a rubber stamp anymore, so there's some good news there. A swift boat financier was just blocked as ambassador to Belgium. Not that that position is particularly important, but it might force Bush to be more reasonable in his picks.
Or maybe he'll just do more recess appointments.
A swift boat financier was just blocked as ambassador to Belgium. Not that that position is particularly important, but it might force Bush to be more reasonable in his picks.
Or maybe he'll just do more recess appointments.
I'm an oracle.
Swift Boat Vets did our country a great service in exposing the fantasy history of Kerry and his bizzillionaire wife. Somebody pass me the Ketchup...
I'm an oracle.
Respectfully, you're no oracle. You're a(t least) citizen of normal intelligence who's paying attention.
Well, you may be an oracle, but you'd have to have been dumber than a box of rocks to fail to see this behavior continued.
While we're on the subject, do you like my new signature?
Swift Boat Vets did our country a great service in exposing the fantasy history of Kerry and his bizzillionaire wife. Somebody pass me the Ketchup...
They certainly made a fantasy history.
Swift Boat Vets did our country a great service in exposing the fantasy history of Kerry and his bizzillionaire wife.
I thought that had been proven to be false?
Only in the reality based community.
Yeah DanaC, fer chriss sake, you know that don't fit his agenda.
I thought that had been proven to be false?
That propaganda was never known to be true. Swift boat propaganda only demonstrated again some Americans will continue to believe obvious lies such a bin Laden / Saddam alliance, and Saddam's intent to attack America. For the benefit of TheMercenary: those also were lies promoted by the same people with contempt for the American soldier.
Meanwhile how many are asking a real question: "When do we go after bin Laden?" Those who hate America promoted / believed swift boat lies AND also do not ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?"
When was the last time TheMercenary asked that question? Never.
That propaganda was never known to be true. Swift boat propaganda only demonstrated again some Americans will continue to believe obvious lies such a bin Laden / Saddam alliance, and Saddam's intent to attack America. For the benefit of TheMercenary: those also were lies promoted by the same people with contempt for the American soldier.
You've got nothin', eh?
You want a counter conspiracy theory? No I don't do them...
Nope you just have lots of pictures of tinfoil hats. One of these days on the TV debate shows I'd love to see a politician answer someone's assertions by just donning a tin hat. Now there's debating for ya.
I can TOTALLY see it - I'd totally vote for him, too, just for the wit.
Interviewer: I'm going to direct that question to the Honourable Member from Bolton North.....
:tinfoil:
The beginning of the warrantless wiretapping program:
[youtube]hxHjWYA50Ds[/youtube]
this has got some legs...I hope.
I'd hope so, but I'm pretty sure I heard this story years ago. But now it's testimony instead of just a story, so we'll see.
The Swift Boaters have never been refuted on any point of fact re Kerry. The credulous and slow of mind, of course, may believe otherwise.
It appears no one processed John Kerry's citations for any of his three Purple Hearts.
The Swift Boaters have never been refuted on any point of fact re Kerry.
Incorrect.
Swiftboaters? geeze. spin city. If you are any form of patriotic American, UG, the revelations by former DAG Comey should alarm you far far more than Kerry's old medals.
I'm not fan of Ashcroft, but this makes him look like one righteous dude (and that's saying something) This ruthless unconstitutional illegal powergrab apparently made by Bush, Card, Gonzales, Addington and Cheney. then covered up using the power of red tape and information control, now comes to light. Its not about the legality of the wiretap program per se, its about the acts of executive government claiming to be above the law and proceeding to act above the law. That is monarchy.The cronyism and dishonor that allows these illegal acts to go un-investigated, unchecked, until a new congress has the power to pursue it. Seriously how can you not see this as impeachable stuff? How can you justify this politicization as national security?
You know, I may rethink my position on gun ownership.
I think the letters of executive privilege exemption Bush wrote, for every bill passed, are pretty damning.
Come on now...you're just Bush bashing! ;)
I really don't know about the veracity of the "swift boaters" or the bloggers, but I personally witnessed inflated accounts of heroism to get medals for people during the Viet Nam conflict. A friend had been encouraged to embellish on an injury suffered in diving for cover by the company brass in order to get a medal for one of their own. This is not to diminish the majority of hard-won medals for real heros, but a lot of people manipulated facts in order to self-promote. I was always a bit skeptical of Sen. Kerry's awards.
Ya think? Lets look at those recent Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients...Tenet, Bremer, Franks....Rumsfeld...as they resign in disgrace, let's reward their incompetence. Heckuva job, now go write your book.
Warch, is you besmirching our national heros? The very leaders of the Bush administration's efforts to stamp out freedom? Uh.... for the bad guys, I meant freedom for the bad guys.
I love how Kerry is the bad guy for his multiple tours in Nam, but Bush's dodging service is a non-issue. He is a punk-ass, moron, bitch and should be treated as such.
Kerry served his country with distinction and the swift boat pussies are just envious, NOTHING more.
Ya think? Lets look at those recent Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients...Tenet, Bremer, Franks....Rumsfeld...as they resign in disgrace, let's reward their incompetence. Heckuva job, now go write your book.
They resigned in disgrace? Where the hell did you get that?
Disgrace? Their incompetence in prosecuting their respective jobs, weakening our national security, not comprehending the enemy or the complexity of the tasks at hand, not having the honor or strength to stand when it could have helped, and being forced out by political pressure and polls when the failures were too many, ("mistakes were made..." but by whom?) True, Bush was quite proud, apparently you are, too.
I suppose I have higher expectations and standards of competency from national leaders. To me they resigned not to have "more personal time with the family"...but because they failed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399374/site/newsweek/Disgrace? Their incompetence in prosecuting their respective jobs, weakening our national security, not comprehending the enemy or the complexity of the tasks at hand, not having the honor or strength to stand when it could have helped, and being forced out by political pressure and polls when the failures were too many, ("mistakes were made..." but by whom?) True, Bush was quite proud, apparently you are, too.
I suppose I have higher expectations and standards of competency from national leaders. To me they resigned not to have "more personal time with the family"...but because they failed.
I don't agree. But that's cool. Franks certainly did not leave in disgrace. Tenet, Rummy, and Bremer became ineffective leaders and it was time to go. It is the natural order of things. Many people rise to levels of upper leadership and not always due to their own control, become the fall guys for others failings or for system failings. That goes with the territory. I think most people who do this for a living understand that. I doubt any of them are hidding in some kind of disgrace you want to apply to them. In fact, I bet they are doing quite well. In a very short time I will bet we will see a turn about in similar circumstances. If anyone was ever disgraced in office I would say it was Clinton when he was impeached by Congress, that had to be a tough day for him and his family. His legacy will always include stories about a Blue Dress and a young girl named Monica. Too bad because I think he did more than that. But that is history. When and if the Dems take office in 08 we will see the same thing happen again, only this time with different names and different faces.
History indeed. It will be interesting to view the legacy of Bush and his crew. Funny you bring up Clinton! Lying about a blowjob seems like such small potatoes, now.
When I hear discussions of impeachment these days, its usually referenced closer to Nixon's abuses of power and politicization. Nixon's disgrace will always include stories of his direction of crooked activity, lies and unconstitutional power grabbing, overshadowing any other positives of his terms. And again, now they seem rather quaint.
If our medal of freedom honorees are just innocent the "fall guys", their failures just the natural order, is that really worthy of this highest civilian honor or yet another example of politicization, to the point where the thing loses all meaning in the cynicism?
History indeed. It will be interesting to view the legacy of Bush and his crew. Funny you bring up Clinton! Lying about a blowjob seems like such small potatoes, now.
When I hear discussions of impeachment these days, its usually referenced closer to Nixon's abuses of power and politicization. Nixon's disgrace will always include stories of his direction of crooked activity, lies and unconstitutional power grabbing, overshadowing any other positives of his terms. And again, now they seem rather quaint.
If our medal of freedom honorees are just innocent the "fall guys", their failures just the natural order, is that really worthy of this highest civilian honor or yet another example of politicization, to the point where the thing loses all meaning in the cynicism?
I believe that it (medal of freedom or what ever it is called) lost it's luster years ago. It is the best that the US can do short of knighthood, something we don't have. Pick a president, they all have had significant failings.
snip~ I doubt any of them are hidding in some kind of disgrace you want to apply to them. In fact, I bet they are doing quite well.
Right on the mark. Lobbying, speaking tours, book deals, corporate perks for their influence with their unindicted co-conspirators.
Quite well indeed. There may not be honor among thieves, but there are plenty of honorariums.
Heck, Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy became popular radio hosts, and their claims to fame were helping Republican Presidents commit crimes.
Heck, Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy became popular radio hosts, and their claims to fame were helping Republican Presidents commit crimes.
Ollie North ran for office in Virginia, which he was entitled to do since he was not a
convicted felon.
He can buy a gun, too.
Cool.
I have to admit...Liddy does crack me up. Its like he was called up from central casting. Kind of a Colonel Flagg....
HM, bleeding money from one set of totalitarians in order to overthrow another set of totalitarians hardly amounts to criminality. To call it so shows just what's wrong with your kind of thinking -- it's so morally confused it prefers to do favors for despots rather than work to their destruction and/or removal and their replacement by democracies, which are better behaved as history shows. Since when has "being nice to despots, that maybe they won't hurt us" ever brought success, peace, or indeed anything worth having? When you pay the Danegeld, do you get rid of the Dane? Republican Presidents, incidentally, are as far from despots as you're likely to get, at least in this day and age. Republican Presidents have this habit of crossing despots up, sometimes in the grand manner: Bush took down two despotisms in the same year, Reagan walked out of the Rejkjavik summit rather than accept Gorbachev's con-job, leaving Gorby to instead actually try and do something on his nation's own resources which were inadequate to keep the Soviet system and structure intact and effectual in foreign policy -- the Republican record in the past twenty-five years, if not the past fifty, is really rather reassuring. The Democrats -- well, they disappoint. They've not taken down a despotism since Truman. They've started wars, and haven't won a one of them, they prescribe socialist nostrums to fix things they say are broken, or they get kicked around by Soviets who assert themselves in foreign policy, leaving the likes of Jimmy Carter wondering what happened.
Some of this is no doubt due to this being the nuclear age: certain styles of warmaking have indeed fallen out of fashion. The Republican Presidents, however, seem better at succeeding at these constrained wars than the Democratic ones.
Reagan walked out of the Rejkjavik summit rather than accept Gorbachev's con-job, leaving Gorby to instead actually try and do something on his nation's own resources which were inadequate to keep the Soviet system and structure intact and effectual in foreign policy -- the Republican record in the past twenty-five years, if not the past fifty, is really rather reassuring. The Democrats -- well, they disappoint. They've not taken down a despotism since Truman.
Remember, a political agenda can easily rewrite history. Gorbechev's con job? He was offering to end the cold war. But then wacko extremists would do anything to restart that war. And so we have Putin's candid warnings.
Meanwhile, Urbane Guerrilla uses his political agenda to rewrite history. What happened to Hati's Baby Doc Duvalier and Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic? Amazing that they were not taken down because Clinton did it. We must rewrite history.
Amazing that a Democrat could accomplish same thing without physical invasions. Instead a Democrat talked both dictators out of power. Clearly Clinton must be evil because he did not kill people. Instead a Democrat talked both solutions.
If UG had a grasp of reality, then he would have done what he posted he would do on
9 Nov 2006 and again on
10 Feb 2007.
So far, I'm fascinated. I'll probably be talking about this book's ideas from time to time.
Then UG discovered Barnett's book was about military reality; not about a wacko extremist political agendas where big guns solve all problems.
Urbane Guerrilla is caught and exposed rewriting history for a political agenda. But perverting history is what extremists do. No wonder extremists love what Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson preach.
BTW, after Urbane Guerrilla was caught having blamed Saddam for 11 September, notice UG then went quiet. Extremists will do anything to avoid reality. Going quiet was his only option.
UG – when are you going to discuss that Thomas Barnett book that shows why “Mission Accomplished” is a military defeat thank’s to George Jr and his cast of wackos. Why do you remain so silent? Why does your political agenda repeatedly clash with reality?
HM, bleeding money from one set of totalitarians in order to overthrow another set of totalitarians hardly amounts to criminality.
If you're talking about
Iran-Contra, then you are justifying 'selling arms to an enemy' as 'bleeding money from one set of totalitarians'. Wow, is that the same thing as 'advancing to the rear'?
When you pay the Danegeld, do you get rid of the Dane?
Again, if your first comment is in support of Iran-Contra, which was the ultimate 'Danegeld (ransom)', then your second comment on the dangers of such is remarkably inconsistent.
I am genuinely confused here. Was your first comment really in support of Iran-Contra?
BTW, I hope the shelf life of a TOW missile is less than 20 years or that Iran expended all of them against Iraq, or if we do invade Iran our troops will be on the receiving end of US-made weapons.
From
Iran-Contra at Wikipedia
Arms transaction
The Iran-Contra report found that the sales of arms to Iran violated United States Government policy; it also violated the Arms Export Control Act.[2] Overall, if the releasing of hostages was the purpose of arms sales to Iran, the plan was a failure as only three of the 30 hostages were released.[9]
First arms sale
Michael Ledeen, a consultant of Robert McFarlane, asked Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran.[11] The general idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons to Iran, then the US would reimburse Israel with the same weapons. The Israeli government required that the sale of arms meet high level approval from the United States government, and when Robert McFarlane convinced them that the U.S. government approved the sale, Israel obliged by agreeing to sell the arms. [11] Reagan approved McFarlane's idea to reach out to Iran on July 18, 1985 while in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery.[12] [12] In July 1985, Israel sent American-made BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missiles to Iran through an arms dealer named Manucher Ghorbanifar, a friend of Iran's Prime Minister. One hostage, reverend Benjamin Weir was subsequently released; despite the fact that arms were being sold to Iran, only Weir was released. This resulted in the failure of Ledeen's plan [8] with only three shipments through Israel. [11]
Subsequent dealings
Robert McFarlane resigned in December 1985[13]. He was replaced by Admiral John Poindexter. On the day of McFarlane's resignation, Oliver North, a military aide to the United States National Security Council (NSC), proposed a new plan for selling arms to Iran. This time, there were two new ideas. Instead of selling arms through Israel, the sale was to be direct. Second, the proceeds from the sale would go to the Contras at a markup. Oliver North wanted a $15 million markup, while contracted Iranian arms broker Manucher Ghorbanifar added a 41% markup of his own. [14] Other members of the NSC were in favor of North's plan. John Poindexter authorized the plan, and it went into effect. [15]
At first, the Iranians refused to buy the arms at the inflated price because of the excessive markup imposed by North and Ghorbanifar. In February 1986, 1000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran.[15] From May to November 1986, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts.[15] Reagan claimed that the total of all arms sales was less than a planeload.[5]
Bah, not to worry... they used up all those tow missiles water skiing.
HM, bleeding money from one set of totalitarians in order to overthrow another set of totalitarians hardly amounts to criminality.
It does if the method you use is against the law. Which it was. Hence the shredded documents, the amnesiac testimony, the 5th-amendment-immunity testimony, the convictions, and the pardons.
And the chick with the document padded bra. What was her name, Hall?
Guys, the Contras still won -- and we helped. This made a better Nicaragua, and it's still a better Nicaragua twenty years later. Is breaking laws written to keep us helpless at foreign policy actually a bad thing? I suppose it depends on what set of laws you think might be the highest. And how willing you are to get in trouble by one set while adhering to another.
Recall there was blatant and chronic Marxist-supporting going on in Congress at the time, and they passed Marxist-nasty-regime-supporting legislation. Senator Kerry was a committed partisan of the Marxists then, as his voting record irrefutably shows.
It is a better place today. We can't play the "what if?" history game, but these interventions bite us on the ass as often as they work out. Interesting aside ex-Sandinista Daniel Ortega is the President these days. Did we help more than we hurt? Maybe, but we did lose credibility with the under-class. It is a beautiful place, maybe American tourist dollars will soften hearts.
Fascist scholar and Iran Contra playa Michael Ledeen's slippery slimey name has come up with speculation around the Niger forgeries out of Italy....
We can't play the "what if?" history game, but these interventions bite us on the ass as often as they work out.
So by you it's likely even odds. I think I'd take them, if it were up to me. After all, I'm the libertarian here who wants to see this kind of social philosphy spread around generally -- internationally -- to free up economies made stagnant.
Tw hasn't traced stagnant Communist economies to their top management, has he? :cool:
1)UG quote 2)Urbane Guerrilla 3) UG 4) UG 5)Urbane Guerrilla 6)Urbane Guerrilla 7)UG 8)UG
Pssstttt..... tw, this ain't about UG. :lol: :D :D :D :D
(Democracy bumpersticker)
Bruce, that is funny as hell. I need to get one of those.
From
Voice of America:
Cheney Fighting Efforts to Monitor Classified Activities
By VOA News
22 June 2007
Dick Cheney speaks at AIPAC 2007 Policy Conference in Washington, DC, 12 March 2007
Dick Cheney (file photo)
A Democratic Party lawmaker is criticizing U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney for refusing to cooperate with a government agency that safeguards secret national security information.
California Representative Henry Waxman released documents Thursday that revealed Cheney's office has not filed annual reports with a unit of the National Archives, the Information Security Oversight Office, since 2003. The unit is required to monitor how the executive branch of the government handles classified documents, under an order first signed in 1995 by then President Bill Clinton.
Cheney's advisors say his office is not covered under the order, arguing that the vice president's office is not strictly an executive agency.
Waxman calls Cheney's assertions "absurd."
The documents show Cheney's office blocked the unit from conducting an onsite inspection of his office in 2004. Agency officials filed a formal request with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January to resolve the matter.
But the vice president's office has proposed abolishing the office. [size=4]A spokeswoman for Cheney says the office is "confident" it is properly operating under the law.[/size]
Whew, that's a relief. For a second there, I felt my confidence waver. But I'm all better now!
From Voice of America:
Whew, that's a relief. For a second there, I felt my confidence waver. But I'm all better now!
Big deal. What else is new? I bet ole Dick has one big assed shreder in his office. They will stonewall til we have Regime Change in '09 and then there will be a new cabal in office. And the beat goes on....
Meanwhile, I kinda like that bumper sticker.
Also meanwhile, tw doesn't seem to be tracing stagnant Communist economies' problems to their top etcetera. (I believe this thread was the first time I mentioned that.) Less than impartial, this tw. No wonder I find so little in him to like.
Meanwhile, I kinda like that bumper sticker.
Me too. I'd like to know where to get one. I can make my own, but it wouldn't look as good.
Here's where you can get one.
Actually, it should be red, white, and blue.
This is better, but $4.50 ($5.25 w/ shipping) for a bumper sticker?:eek::mad:. I don't care if it's printed on real gold foil, it's too much.
icasulaties.org.
I found this while doing the bumper sticker search.
'Self-inflicted' means suicide or accident. Are these part of the 3578 listed KIA or are they kept separate?
icasulaties.org.
I found this while doing the bumper sticker search.
'Self-inflicted' means suicide or accident. Are these part of the 3578 listed KIA or are they kept separate?
It is my impression that they are included in all totals.
We can broaden this topic this to further (beyond the memory loss of Gonzales and co.) to perverting justice for politics.
Scooter scoots! Like you thought he would actually do some time...highest white house official convicted in 130 years, 2 1/2 year sentence by Bush appointed judge, far less than the 25 years he could have gotten. But jail would be too extreme for this delicate flower of the ruling class. (let's ask Judy Miller after her 85 days)
I'm waiting for the full pardon (you know its coming) for the "minor" offense of obstructing a federal investigation into just the leaking of classified national security info...looks like he was blocking not just for Dick, Karl but for George, too. And justice for all, eh? nah.
Yawn... BFD.
At least he did not Pardon him... DAMM! How about all those Cocaine felons? Did they supply all his blow? And what is up with the Medicare Fraud dudes? And what no explaination next to MARK RICH???? WTF? Susan McDougal? Did he like Pot dealers or what? Did he then protect the people who washed the money for the drug dealers? Sure are a bunch of Fraud charges on there... Watch out for those stone heading for your glass house... might break a window.
On the other hand, Cliton Pardoned:
ALLEN, Verla Jean Everton, Arkansas False statements to agency of United States
ALTIERE, Nicholas M. Las Vegas, Nevada Importation of cocaine
ALTSCHUL, Bernice Ruth Sherman Village, California Conspiracy to commit money laundering
ANDERSON, Joe, Jr. Grove Hill, Alabama Income tax evasion
ANDERSON, William Sterling Spartanburg, South Carolina Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution, false statements to a federally insured financial institution, wire fraud
AZIZKHANI, Mansour T. Huntsville, Alabama Conspiracy and making false statements in bank loan applications
BABIN, Cleveland Victor, Jr. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Conspiracy to commit offense against the United States by utilizing the U.S. mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud
BAGLEY, Chris Harmon Harrah, Oklahoma Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
BANE, Scott Lynn Mahomet, Illinois Unlawful distribution of marijuana
BARBER, Thomas Cleveland Hampton, Florida Issuing worthless checks
BARGON, Peggy Ann Monticello, Illinois Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act
BHATKA, Tansukhlal Income tax evasion
BLAMPIED, David Roscoe Ketchum, Idaho Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
BORDERS, William Arthur, Jr. Washington, D.C. Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery
BOREL, Arthur David Little Rock, Arkansas Odometer rollback
BOREL, Douglas Charles Conway, Arkansas Odometer rollback
BRABHAM, George Thomas Austin, Texas Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank
BRASWELL, Almon Glenn Doravilla, Georgia Conspiracy to defraud government with respect to claims; perjury
BROWDER, Leonard Aiken, South Carolina Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud
BROWN, David Steven New York, New York Securities fraud and mail fraud
BURLESON, Delores Caroylene, aka Delores Cox Burleson Hanna, Oklahoma Possession of marijuana
BUSTAMANTE, John H. Cleveland, Ohio Wire fraud
CAMPBELL, Mary Louise Ruleville, Mississippi Aiding and abetting the unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps
CANDELARIA, Eloida False information in registering to vote
CAPILI, Dennis Sobrevinas Glendale, California Filing false statements in alien registration
CHAMBERS, Donna Denise Memphis, Tennessee Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy
CHAPMAN, Douglas Eugene Scott, Arkansas Bank fraud
CHAPMAN, Ronald Keith Scott, Arkansas Bank fraud
CHAVEZ, Francisco Larios Santa Ana, California Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens
CISNEROS, Henry G.
CLINTON, Roger
COHN, Stuart Harris New Haven, Connecticut 1. Illegal sale of gold options
2. Illegal sale of silver options
COOPER, David Marc Wapakoneta, Ohio Conspiracy to defraud the government
COX, Ernest Harley, Jr. Pine Bluff, Arkansas Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured savings and loan, misapplication of bank funds, false statements
CROSS, John F., Jr. Little Rock, Arkansas Embezzlement by a bank employee
CUNNINGHAM, Rickey Lee Amarillo, Texas Possession with intent to distribute marijuana
DE LABIO, Richard Anthony Baltimore, Maryland Mail fraud, aiding and abetting
DEUTCH, John Described in January 19, 2001 information
DOUGLAS, Richard False statements
DOWNE, Edward Reynolds Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and tax evasion; securities fraud
DUDLEY, Marvin Dean Omaha, Nebraska False statements
DUNCAN, Larry Lee Branson, Missouri Altering an automobile odometer
FAIN, Robert Clinton Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate tax return
FERNANDEZ, Marcos Arcenio Miami, Florida Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
FERROUILLET, Alvarez Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering, false statements
FUGAZY, William Denis Harrison, New York Perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding
GEORGE, Lloyd Reid Mail fraud
GOLDSTEIN, Louis Las Vegas, Nevada Possession of goods stolen from interstate shipment
GORDON, Rubye Lee Tampa, Florida Forgery of U.S. Treasury checks
GREEN, Pincus Switzerland
HAMNER, Robert Ivey Searcy, Arkansas Conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
HANDLEY, Samuel Price Hodgenville, Kentucky Conspiracy to steal government property
HANDLEY, Woodie Randolph Hodgenville, Kentucky Conspiracy to steal government property
HARMON, Jay Houston Jonesboro, Arkansas 1. Conspiracy to import marijuana, conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, importation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
2. Conspiracy to import cocaine
HEMMINGSON, John Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering
HERDLINGER, David S. St. Simons Island, Georgia Mail fraud
HUCKLEBERRY, Debi Rae Ogden, Utah Distribution of methamphetamine
JAMES, Donald Ray Fairfield Bay, Arkansas Mail fraud, wire fraud, and false statement to a bank to influence credit approval
JOBE, Stanley Pruet El Paso, Texas Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and bank fraud
JOHNSON, Ruben H. Austin, Texas Theft and misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer or director
JONES, Linda Conspiracy to commit bank fraud and other offenses against the United States
LAKE, James Howard Illegal corporate campaign contributions, wire fraud
LEWIS, June Louise Lowellville, Ohio Embezzlement by a bank employee
LEWIS, Salim Bonnor Short Hills, New Jersey Securities fraud, record keeping violations, margin violations
LODWICK, John Leighton Excelsior Springs, Missouri Income tax evasion
LOPEZ, Hildebrando San Isidro, Texas Distribution of cocaine
LUACES, Jose Julio Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Possession of an unregistered firearm
MANESS, James Timothy Conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance
MANNING, James Lowell Little Rock, Arkansas Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate tax return
MARTIN, John Robert Gulf Breeze, Florida Income tax evasion
MARTINEZ, Frank Ayala Elgin, Texas Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
MARTINEZ, Silvia Leticia Beltran Elgin, Texas Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
McCORMICK, John Francis Dedham, Massachusetts Racketeering conspiracy, racketeering, and violation of the Hobbs act
McDOUGAL, Susan H.
MECHANIC, Howard Lawrence 1. Violating the Civil Disobedience Act of 1968
2. Failure to appear
3. Making false statement in acquiring a passport
MITCHELL, Brook K., Sr. Conspiracy to illegally obtain USDA subsidy payments, false statements to USDA, and false entries on USDA forms
MORGAN, Charles Wilfred, III Little Rock, Arkansas Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
MORISON, Samuel Loring Crofton, Maryland Willful transmission of defense information, unauthorized possession and retention of defense information, theft of government property
NAZZARO, Richard Anthony Winchester, Massachusetts Perjury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud
NOSENKO, Charlene Ann Phoenix, Arizona Conspiracy to defraud the United States, and influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally
OBERMEIER, Vernon Raymond Belleville, Illinois Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and using a communications facility to facilitate distribution of cocaine
OGALDE, Miguelina Glendale, California Conspiracy to import cocaine
OWEN, David C. Olathe, Kansas Filing a false tax return
PALMER, Robert W. Little Rock, Arkansas Conspiracy to make false statements
PERHOSKY, Kelli Anne Bridgeville, Pennsylvania Conspiracy to commit mail fraud
PEZZOPANE, Richard H. Palo Heights, Illinois Conspiracy to commit racketeering, and mail fraud
PHILLIPS, Orville Rex Waco, Texas Unlawful structure of a financial transaction
POLING, Vinson Stewart, Jr. Baldwin, Maryland Making a false bank entry, and aiding and abetting
PROUSE, Norman Lyle Conyers, Georgia Operating or directing the operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol
PRUITT, Willie H. H., Jr. Port Richey, Florida Absent without official leave
PURSLEY, Danny Martin, Sr. Goodlettsville, Tennessee Aiding and abetting the conduct of an illegal gambling business, and obstruction of state laws to facilitate illegal gambling
RAVENEL, Charles D. Charleston, South Carolina Conspiracy to defraud the United States
RAY, William Clyde Altus, Oklahoma Fraud using a telephone
REGALADO, Alfredo Luna Pharr, Texas Failure to report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States
RICAFORT, Ildefonso Reynes Houston, Texas Submission of false claims to Veterans Administration
RICH, Marc Switzerland
RIDDLE, Howard Winfield Mt. Crested Butte, Colorado Violation of the Lacey Act (receipt of illegally imported animal skins)
RILEY, Richard Wilson, Jr. Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute
ROBBINS, Samuel Lee Cedar Park, Texas Misprision of a felony
RODRIGUEZ, Joel Gonzales Houston, Texas Theft of mail by a postal employee
ROGERS, Michael James McAllen, Texas Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
ROSS, Anna Louise Lubbock, Texas Distribution of cocaine
RUST, Gerald Glen Avery, Texas False declarations before grand jury
RUST, Jerri Ann Avery, Texas False declarations before grand jury
RUTHERFORD, Bettye June Albuquerque, New Mexico Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
SANDS, Gregory Lee Sioux Falls, South Dakota Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
SCHWIMMER, Adolph Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, conspiracy to export arms and ammunition to a foreign country and related charges
SERETTI, Albert A., Jr. McKees Rocks, Pennyslvania Conspiracy and wire fraud
SHAW, Patricia Campbell Hearst Wilton, Connecticut Armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a felony
SMITH, Dennis Joseph Redby, Minnesota 1. Unauthorized absence
2. Failure to obey off-limits instructions
3. Unauthorized absence
SMITH, Gerald Owen Florence, Mississippi Armed bank robbery
SMITH, Stephen A.
SPEAKE, Jimmie Lee Breckenridge, Texas Conspiracy to possess and utter counterfeit $20 Federal Reserve notes
STEWART, Charles Bernard Sparta, Georgia Illegally destroying U.S. Mail
STEWART-ROLLINS, Marlena Francisca Euclid, Ohio Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
SYMINGTON, John Fife, III
TANNEHILL, Richard Lee Reno, Nevada Conspiracy and restraint of trade
TENAGLIA, Nicholas C. Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania Receipt of illegal payments under the Medicare program
THOMAS, Gary Allen Lancaster, Texas Theft of mail by postal employee
TODD, Larry Weldon Gardendale, Texas Conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. in violation of the Lacey Act and the Airborne Hunting Act
TREVINO, Olga C. Converse, Texas Misapplication by a bank employee
VAMVOUKLIS, Ignatious Exeter, New Hampshire Possession of cocaine
VAN DE WEERD, Patricia A. Tomahawk, Wisconsin Theft by a U.S. Postal employee
WADE, Christopher V.
WARMATH, Bill Wayne Walls, Mississippi Obstruction of correspondence
WATSON, Jack Kenneth Oakridge, Oregon Making false statements of material facts to the U.S. Forest Service
WEBB, Donna Lynn Panama City, Florida False entry in savings and loan record by employee
WELLS, Donald William Phenix City, Alabama Possession of an unregistered firearm
WENDT, Robert H. Kirkwood, Missouri Conspiracy to effectuate the escape of a federal prisoner
WILLIAMS, Jack L. Making false statements to federal agents
WILLIAMS, Kevin Arthur Omaha, Nebraska Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine
WILLIAMS, Robert Michael Davison, Michigan Conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce securities obtained by fraud
WILSON, Jimmie Lee Helena, Arkansas Converting property mortgaged or pledged to a farm credit agency, and converting public money to personal use
WINGATE, Thelma Louise Sale City, Georgia Mail fraud
WOOD, Mitchell Couey Sherwood, Arkansas Conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine
WOOD, Warren Stannard Las Vegas, Nevada Conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing a false document with the Securities and Exchange Commission
WORTHEY, Dewey Conway, Arkansas Medicaid fraud
YALE, Rick Allen Belleville, Illinois Bank fraud
YASAK, Joseph A. Chicago, Illinois Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a grand jury
YINGLING, William Stanley Interstate transportation of stolen vehicle
YOUNG, Phillip David Little Rock, Arkansas Interstate transportation and sale of fish and wildlife
Yes, Dorothy, Clinton pardoned his many cronies, too. What's new here is the governmental level of the federal crime.
I think Scooter deserved a little jail time for his convictions. I think its a travesty whenever justice is perverted. This time, the crime residing in the executive branch, during war time and related to the leaking of national intelligence is a bit more alarming, at least to me.
But that must not concern you. BFD.
(Oh, let's remember to roll Bush's list of pardons as he scoots out of office, shall we?! Goodie!)
Marc Rich's attorney: Scooter Libby
Yea, really, it is BFD to me. None of them are any different from the others. We traded one King for another. Do you realize that that if Ms. Cliton is elected we will have had two families completely control the US government for the last and next 24 years in total?
Marc Rich's attorney: Scooter Libby
Damm! I did not know that.:eek:
While the White House press corps were visibly after Libby's blood about this and evincing a somewhat petulant frustration at not getting any in the press meeting with John Snow today, a quarter million in fines is hardly the "small amount" one of them called it.
I'd say the ones who can use a phrase like that on money like that are the ones with at least four times that in their savings account. It's pretty silly coming from someone without.
Libby'll get his money back making a speech or two for the AEI.
Libby'll get his money back making a speech or two for the AEI.
Fund raisers were already in progress to easily raise that money. Later George Jr will pardon him completely so that he can practice as a lawyer - perform just like Ken Starr. George Jr would not answer the question. Libby's pardon is already planned. Too many even in The Cellar demonstrate their approval by so much silence.
Wacko extremists want laws enforced when it conforms to their political agenda. Laws endorsed for the purpose of those laws - that would only harm their political agenda. Libby need not have those fines pardoned since extremist will easily raise that money. Even Urban Guerrilla would cheerfully contribute.
When the Saudi ambassador arrived at the White House and accidentally left a brief case with $1 million, do you think anyone in this administration called to return that $million? More money to cover trivial fines.
Libby was openly working to pervert America's government in the tradition of Nixon. Since that is a good thing, then we will pardon him.
First Energy had a nuclear reactor with a potential Three Mile Island failure. Other two reactors with the same problem shutdown immediately. But First Energy ran a $450,000 campaign fund raiser for Bush Cheney. Suddenly only First Energy’s reactor is exempt from that emergency shutdown and repair for almost six months. And this is good – for extremists who believe laws should first serve the party – not the principles of America.
Of course extremists will scream “Lincoln Bedroom”. Screw the scumbags in Toledo. They are expendable for the glory of extremists in the Republican party. Libby’s fines have already been taken care of. Working for the party at the expense of America has benefits not available to honest people. Urbane Guerrilla especially approves of this double standard. Notice how people just like Urbane Guerrilla will not even admit that Libby was a crook.
Notice the same people - like Urbane Guerrilla - absolutely refuse to acknowledge (let alone ask) a question that only patriots would ask. When do we go after bin Laden?
Well, when we're approving of what tw disapproves of, we're supporting the Republic -- something tw has never to my understanding ever been caught doing.
And yeah: Libby obstructed justice, which is a crook's doings. (Tw never gets just how unlike him I am. Being tw, he cannot.)
P.S.: For "John Snow" read "Tony Snow." Sigh...
Silence? What is there to say TW? Bush is disgusting... this is just another to add to the list and not nearly a new low, just more of the same ol' shit.
When the Saudi ambassador arrived at the White House and accidentally left a brief case with $1 million, do you think anyone in this administration called to return that $million?
Oh really!? Got proof of that act?
When do we go after bin Laden?
HA!
I've heard that as well (Saudi Arabia briefcase thing), I forgot where I heard it from though (probably tw...).
I've heard that as well (Saudi Arabia briefcase thing), I forgot where I heard it from though (probably tw...).
Urban myth my friend. No one would have such proof. Think about it.
Oh really!? Got proof of that act?
TheMercenary obfuscates the point again because reality is so contrary to a political agenda. Would George Jr send that briefcase back? When did he get so honest? They even exempted a nuclear reactor with a potential Three Mile Island failure - that was later found to also have a hole in its containment dome - to operate for months in exchange for $450,000 of campaign bribes. When did the mental midget's administration get honest? About the same time he said we would get bin Laden?
Says so much the difference between what is posted and what TheMercenary see. Do we deal with reality - or believe the clearly mythical political agenda about an honest George Jr administration. Valerie Plame - a major intelligence operative in the CIA? Expendable when a political agenda is at risk. A briefcase with $1million. Not even a second thought what to do with that money.
Meanwhile Libby had no problem immediately writing a check for his quarter million dollar fine. Spare change? What happened to the $billion in cash that disappeared in Iraq ... without accounting. And that too is not impeachable?
But TheMercenary insists George Jr and Cheney are honest men if court transcripts are not provided. It's called a political agenda.
Monica Lewinsky is a major crime. What's a lost $billion in cash? Just an honest political agenda.
So when do we go after bin Laden? Says so much about the honesty of George Jr AND the patrioitism of George Jr's supporters who also fear that answer. Urban myth is that George Jr is honest. Urban myth that George Jr supporters can be patriotic and still be honest.
TheMercenary .... bla, bla, bla......a nuclear reactor........bla, bla, bla, bla.......bin Laden.....bla, bla, bla.........TheMercenary....... bla, bla, bla... bla, bla.........George Jr ..........CIA...............bla, bla, bla........ $1million...........bla, bla, bla.......Libby.........bla, bla, bla, bla........TheMercenary...........George Jr and Cheney..........bla, bla, bla... bla, bla, bla.........political agenda.....bin Laden................bla, bla, bla...........George Jr...... George Jr......bla, bla, bla......George Jr....... bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.............George Jr ..... bla, bla, bla..........
Let us know when you actually have something of substance to contribute other than that crap you just spewed forth. Still no proof of a briedcase with money in it. Nice try at the duck and weave, you failed in defending your position again.:D
Yep, no proof of the briefcase thing. Tw prostitutes (not prostrates, nor prostates) himself before his anti-American fane of lies... not again, but still. That the best you can do, tw?
There's a word for political extremists of tw's stripe, and that word is slut.
There must be a statistic on the number of briefcases left at the White House with $1,000,000 in them - no? Hey - lets take a poll that'll tell us for sure!
Still waiting for
PROOF of this briefcase tw????? Where's the beef?
Five days since last post, and tw can't put up, so he shuts up.
Five days since last post, and tw can't put up, so he shuts up.
That is not a bad thing.