Classic Jon Stewart

I stand applauding -- absolutely classic.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Seymour Hersh: Cheney's 'Executive Assassin Ring'

Pulitzer prize winner Seymour Hersh is one of the last and perhaps best investigative journalists of our time.

When I was growing up during the Watergate Era, I idolized Woodward and Bernstein: I hoped to one day become an investigative journalist myself -- one of the journalists that serve our democratic process by shedding much needed light into the dark places in our government.

A free and independent media was always considered by our forefathers to be one of the safeguards of our democracy - the unofficial 'forth branch of government' that kept the populace informed so that they could exercise citizen oversight and keep our nation free from the ruling corruption that devoured democracies in the past.

Today, independent media is hard to find. Most of it is now corporate media, pushing a corporate, elitist agenda. To say that our canned media is slanted towards the interests of the corporate power-brokers would be a laughable understatement. It is completely owned by the corporate power-brokers, and serves their purposes quite nicely. Our own voices are seldom heard in this big market, monopolized media; thus government oversight by the media is a dying art, practiced by only a few rare, brave journalists (and working for dedicated papers and magazines.)

My hat is off to the New Yorker for their continued support of Mr. Hersh and his much-needed service to our democracy. And kudos to Amy Goodman for her 'take no prisoners' independent journalism. Her success, and the success of Democracy Now! demonstrates our citizen determination to get the news - the real news - and to keep an eye on Washington. As recent economic (not to mention two wars) have shown... our oversight is necessary.

Government-sponsored hit-squads are so banana republic... they debase our nation, our standing in the world, and our very morality as Americans. They are also unconstitutional and illegal.

Well no wonder...

It's so clear now.

It took a combination of the wheelchair, the cane across the lap - along with the trademark sneer - for me to finally see the fierce resemblance Cheney bears to Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life."

Well no wonder our banks are in trouble, and homes are being foreclosed on all across the country. Pottersville anyone?

Astonishing breach of law

I was almost speechless when I read this post from Think Progress, concerning Washington Post coverage of "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency."

Did you know that after top Justice Department lawyers refused to re-certify the legality of President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2004 - the Bush administration re-authorized the program anyway, and without the Justice Department’s approval?

Great catch from Matt @ Think Progress:

Addington wrote in Gonzales’ signature line while re-authorizing Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program

In 2004, after top Justice Department lawyers refused to re-certify the legality of President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, the Bush administration re-authorized the program anyway without the Justice Department’s approval. Previous accounts of the program’s re-authorization reported that the “line for the attorney general’s signature remained blank.”

But in the Washington Post today, Barton Gellman reports that Vice President Cheney’s lawyer, David Addington, actually signed then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales’s name to the document’s signature line:

Addington opened the code-word-classified file on his computer. He had a presidential directive to rewrite.

It has been widely reported that Bush executed the March 11 order with a blank space over the attorney general’s signature line. That is not correct [15]. For reasons both symbolic and practical, the vice president’s lawyer could not tolerate an empty spot where a mutinous subordinate should have signed. Addington typed a substitute signature line: “Alberto R. Gonzales.”

Gellman writes that “Only Richard M. Nixon, in an interview after leaving the White House in disgrace, claimed authority so nearly unlimited” as the authority Addington claimed for the president in the document he signed with Gonzales’ name.

Astonishing.

Bruce Fein: Rethinking U.S. Role

Constitutional Lawyer and former member of the Reagan Administration, Bruce Fein, has written an excellent commentary in the Washington Times.

For those (like myself) who have heard Fein speak over the years, these arguments are not new. For those who appreciate his grasp of history, his fiery defense of our Constitution and adherence to the intentions of our forefathers, Fein's words are always refreshing.

FEIN: Rethinking US Role:

By Bruce Fein
Tuesday, September 16, 2008

COMMENTARY:

If the United States neglects to rethink its purpose informed by the genius and practice of the Founding Fathers, it is destined to self-destruct like every other empire from hubris and overreach. At present, the Republic is undergoing a metamorphosis into executive despotism featuring escalating taxes and permanent warfare because of staggering ignorance of the nation's birth certificate among officeholders, candidates and the public.

The Constitution's preamble explains that the national interest of the United States lies in providing for the "common defense" and "secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The Founding Fathers denied that the United States was saddled with either a moral or legal responsibility to implant freedom throughout the planet.

None ever hinted at a national duty to overthrow the French Bourbons, the Russian Romanovs, or the Ottoman Sultans. Nor did they believe Americans would be made either safer or freer by attempting to cram American democracy down the throats of feudalistic, tribal, sectarian or autocratic foreign political cultures, for example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia or China. The exercise would be futile because the knowledge needed to pluck the flower of democracy from the nettle of longstanding tyranny is beyond human grasp.

Further, these utopian larks would make Americans less safe and less free. Military interventions abroad make enemies by the inevitable killing of innocent civilians in pursuit of actual enemies. Think of the mounting "collateral damage" deaths in Afghanistan or Iraq. Resentments are also awakened by the insult to national dignity implicit in American military bases or occupation forces - a variation of "The Ugly American" by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer.

In addition, the trillions of dollars squandered in foreign military frolics subtract from fashioning a virtually invulnerable defense posture at home earmarked by spy satellites and aircraft, anti-missile systems, submarines, upgraded border security, sophisticated intelligence collection, and a credible threat to destroy any enemy nation with the audacity to attack.

Finally, the military exertions necessary to effectuate an endless American crusade for democracy abroad would be the death knell of the republic. War endows the president with invincible power at home. He controls the public record of information through selective disclosures of classified intelligence. He awards military honors and contracts. And he commands popular political support by exploiting the natural patriotism and fears of Americans that he manufactures by logarithmically inflating foreign threats.

A president with unchecked authority spies on political opponents, flouts the rule of law, cripples the congressional power of oversight, and, arbitrarily detains, harasses or punishes citizens or noncitizens alike on his say-so alone.

In sum, the United States would have become a mirror of the tyranny that provoked the Declaration of Independence if its mission was the global expansion of liberty.

President Bush epitomizes the light years the United States has traveled from its more modest founding purpose and the Constitution's injunctions. Bob Woodward reports in his new book "The War Within": "The opportunity to spread freedom throughout the globe, and particularly in the broader Middle East and in the Muslim world," [Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen] Hadley said that day, "that is, I think for the president, the defining idea of his presidency... it is not only a sort of moral duty, it's not only consistent with our principles, it's consistent with our interests, it's actually essential for our national security. ... For liberty to be secure at home, liberty has to be on the march abroad. Big stuff. Not big. Huge." But President Bush's ambitions are also delusional, ill-founded and extra-constitutional.

Not a syllable in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, however, suggests the president has either the duty or authority to carry freedom to the four corners of the Earth. And Mr. Bush's concoction of a moral obligation is unconvincing. The United States did not create the dictatorships, autocracies or lawlessness that afflict Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Ethiopia or Syria. It is not morally bound to relieve afflictions it did not create.

Further, that messianic task would contradict the nation's principles as expounded by the Founding Fathers. Then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in his July 4, 1821, address amplified: "[The United States] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings. ... She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. ... She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

In addition, liberty in the United States can thrive irrespective of foreign dictators or despots. The suppression of human rights in Burma, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea does not undermine enforcement of the Bill of Rights.

To be sure, nations that honor democracy are less likely to attack the United States. But nondemocracies can be deterred by the threat of incineration a la Hiroshima or Nagasaki coupled with enhanced defense technologies and intelligence. Moreover, the United States does not know how to evolve democracies from political cultures barren of democratic DNA.

Alarming theories of national purpose and interests are propounded by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the 2008 Republican and Democratic Party contenders for the White House. Those grandiose ideas clearly demonstrate the quartet would have been Tories opposed to the American Revolution. They would have been denied admission to the ranks of the Minutemen as fifth columnists. They would have been excluded from the Constitutional Convention as unfit. None can be trusted to recapture the republican principles of the Founding Fathers needed to frustrate executive despotism.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer with Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. and author of "Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for our Constitution and Democracy" (Palgrave Macmillan).

Another message; more specific

Bat Cave III

Too funny. In a depressing way of course; but funny. No less funny than a Daily Show or Colbert sketch. This stuff just cries out for parody.

Excellent, amusing piece by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post:

Somewhere in Gotham, the Batphone rings. Loyal butler Alfred (played by Robert Byrd) summons Bruce Wayne ( Leahy). It's Commissioner Gordon on the line, and the news is grim: A villainous alliance has been formed by the Riddler (Karl Rove), the Penguin (Dick Cheney), the Joker (Alberto Gonzales) and Catwoman (Harriet Miers).

The fearsome foursome has brainwashed the previously incorruptible White House counsel (Fred Fielding), and the villains are trying to take over the American government through wanton and reckless claims of executive privilege. The latest sign of doom: Fielding has missed yet another deadline to respond to Senate subpoenas probing a secret eavesdropping program.

Enter the caped crusader, who has flown in from Vermont wearing a Batman-gray business suit and Batman-black loafers. He strikes back at Gotham's criminal masterminds with his signature weapon: the news conference. Meeting reporters in the Judiciary Committee hearing room, the Dark Knight encounters so many Batmicrophones on his Batlectern that he has to hold his Batspeech in his hands.

"The administration has produced no documents!" Leahy growled.

POW!

"No adequate basis for noncompliance!"

BANG!

"No privilege claims!"

BOP!

"No complete privilege log!"

BING!

Aspiring superhero Leahy came up short when asked at a news conference yesterday what specific weapon he might use to force the White House to comply. But he left little doubt that, if the ne'er-do-wells continue to defy him, he may give the White House another good scolding when Congress returns from recess. And -- who knows? -- he may bring Robin the Boy Wonder (played by Chuck Schumer).

Neener neener neener

Well Senator Leahy? What now, pray tell?

Vice President Cheney's office acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has dozens of documents related to the administration's warrantless surveillance program, but it signaled that it will resist efforts by congressional Democrats to obtain them.

The disclosure by Cheney's counsel, Shannen W. Coffin, came on the day that the Senate Judiciary Committee had set as a deadline for the Bush administration to turn over documents related to the wiretapping program, which allowed the National Security Agency to monitor communications between the United States and overseas without warrants.

Sounds like Cheney is once again telling you to go f... yourself.

Jon Stewart: Even Dick don't know Dick

I linked to this clip of 1994 Cheney a few days ago... absolutely remarkable. Can a man change so much; forget so much of what he once obviously knew, in such a short period of time?

Could a war that was so obviously a terrible idea in 1990... oh never mind. We'll never know, will we?

It appears that Cheney 2004 'can't recall' Cheney 1994.

It would appear that an outbreak of mass amnesia -- of nearly epic proportion -- hit the White House at some point within the last 6 years. Do you imagine it was mold in the ductwork?

Which Cheney is this?

My hat is off to Rex Manning over at Daily Kos for digging out this 1994 Dick Cheney interview. I was astounded when I watched it.

Which Cheney is this...? Was this, reasonable Cheney suddenly possessed by war demons after taking office? Or did this 1994 Dick Cheney simply state what everyone (at the time) expected him to say?

Will the real Dick Cheney please stand up...

A sad day for the U.S. Senate

Put out the torch, Lady Liberty. It was nice while it lasted.

From the AP:

The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants.

The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic version of the bill.

Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation this weekend.

The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to quickly follow suit.

The bill "will give our intelligence professionals the essential tools they need to protect our nation," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent that this legislation become law as quickly as possible."

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days.

I'm speechless. Democratic majority? My own Senator, Evan Bayh, has betrayed us. Democratic majority? Cowards. They caved to Bush AGAIN. They threw our constitutional rights under the bus, again, for a little 'temporary safety.'

Benjamin Franklin is rolling in his grave.

No Republicans voted against the bill. The following Democrats voted for it: Evan Bayh (Indiana); Tom Carper (Delaware); Bob Casey (Pennsylvania); Kent Conrad (North Dakota); Dianne Feinstein (California); Daniel Inouye (Hawai‘i); Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota); Nancy Mary Landrieu (Louisiana); Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas); Claire McCaskill (Missouri); Barbara Mikulski (Maryland); Bill Nelson (Florida); Ben Nelson (Nebraska); Mark Pryor (Arkansas); Ken Salazar (Colorado); Jim Webb (Virginia).

Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama all opposed the bill, as did 23 other Democrats and Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont. Joe Lieberman voted... with the neocons, of course.

From the NY Times:

A furious push by the White House to broaden its wiretapping authority appeared on the verge of victory on Friday night after the Senate approved a measure that would temporarily give the administration more latitude to eavesdrop without court warrants on foreign communications that it suspects may be tied to terrorism.

The House is expected to take up the White House-backed measure on Saturday morning before going into its summer recess.

Democratic leaders acknowledged that the bill would probably pass.

Democrats in both the House and the Senate failed to pass competing measures on Friday that would have included tougher judicial checks and oversight on the eavesdropping powers.

The White House and Congressional Republicans hailed the Senate vote as critical to plugging what they saw as dangerous gaps in the intelligence agencies’ ability to detect terrorist threats.

“I can sleep a little safer tonight,” Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who co-sponsored the measure, declared after the Senate vote.

Rock-a-bye baby Bond... you were more likely to be injured by a car accident than a terrorist, you coward.

What ever happened to 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?' I guess they're damned good swimmers. Or maybe the real problem is that Bush hasn't been looking for 'them' at all, but simply bullying Iraq into signing his oil bill, while 'they' continued to get stronger and stronger in Pakistan.

Only days before recess, the White House started screaming that a desperately needed FISA upgrade was required to give Bush broader spying capabilities. Here is why they got their panties in a bunch, from Newsweek:

Aug. 1, 2007 - A secret ruling by a federal judge has restricted the U.S. intelligence community's surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas and prompted the Bush administration's current push for "emergency" legislation to expand its wiretapping powers, according to a leading congressman and a legal source who has been briefed on the matter.

And what did this judge know that we apparently do not? We'll never know! I'm guessing that the Senate will never know either. This will of course be 'privileged information,' and we the people... we will never be so privileged. We are just the great unwashed, kicked out of our own democracy -- and by our representatives no less.

The measure “goes far, far beyond” the National Security Agency program that the president secretly approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

Caroline Frederickson, head of the American Civil Liberties Union office here, said: “The Democrats caved in to the politics of fear we’re seeing from this administration. They didn’t want to be depicted as soft on terrorism. But this measure removes any court oversight from surveillance on Americans in a large number of cases.”

Nice try Russ, but they aren't listening to you. It's a bitch caring about democracy these days. It's a real bummer to have a grasp of history and the Constitution. Lonely, frightening and beyond depressing.

We are losing everything: the very soul of this once proud country. Stolen from us because we are... in fact, no longer 'the home of the brave' at all; or even the descendants of the greatest generation that liberated Europe from fascism.

Apparently we are now merely the home of the quivering, fearful and the gullible.

But I'll be mailing a pair of kneepads to Senator Bayh, to take some pressure off his poor kneecaps for his return to the Senate next month. Poor Bayh: cowering before the supreme executive must be humiliating work. I can think of better ways to make a living. Like cleaning toilets.

I hope he gets a nice tan while he is off on 'recess.' I hope he sleeps a lot better than I do.

Bush and Cheney are much more interested in partisan and corporate interests than terrorists (we were never attacked before he took office, did you notice?)

Corporate Bush buddies can now use 'Homeland Security' to attack people who blow the whistle on law-breaking, corporate polluters; so you can just imagine how Bush will use these broader powers he so desperately wanted, while the Senate is home facing our wrath.

And they will face our wrath:

Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S. spies from tapping in on foreign suspects. However, they initially demanded the FISA court to review the eavesdropping process before it begins to make sure that Americans aren't targeted.

By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush administration wanted.

Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.

"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy -- not the executive branch."

Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.

"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control -- it's mind-boggling."

I will never vote for any Senator who voted for this bill. Ever. And I will never forget this betrayal.

You don't know Dick; Silver box of DEATH

I now pronounce you Dick & Larry

Bushie aide blocked health report

Gosh, another wet-behind-the-ears, clean cut, know-nothing Bushie aide (Liberty college?) blocked a medical report drafted by then Surgeon General Richard Carmona because... aw shucks... it just wasn't political enough for him.

It seems there was a Bushie with longstanding connections to both Bush and Cheney standing between the American people and information about their health and safety, not to mention the spread of diseases around the globe.

I'm shocked - SHOCKED to hear this has been happening! Whatever will we hear next? That Bush has been breaking laws?

From the Washington Post:

Carmona told lawmakers that, as he fought to release the document, he was "called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, 'You don't get it.' " He said a senior official told him that "this will be a political document, or it will not be released."

If there is really something called 'corruption fatigue' then I'm suffering from it. Are you?

And aren't you sick of these sweet, WHITE, young and oh-so-innocent looking political robots the Bush administration has planted throughout the entire administration? What -- couldn't Bush find anyone with a brain and a conscience to do his lockstep without squealing? And of course we can't forget -- he can't hire anyone smarter than he is. So that leaves most of the country out of the equation.

The report - which when you hear about it, seems to have been doomed from the offset - highlighted the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to fight diseases as an aim of it's foreign policy plan (what plan?) and called on corporations (yeah, right!) to 'help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate.'

I'm so sure!

Nice try Carmona... but this is so totally anti-Bushie! What were you thinking...? Fighting diseases? What does that have to do with bombing people? Where is the money in this?

Did you honestly believe that Bushies are capable of caring about the health or the wellbeing of anyone but their rich, White corporate cronies? Helping poor people? Get out - didn't you see what happened in New Orleans?



Here is a copy of the actual report, posted with this story by The Washington Post.

Three people directly involved in its preparation said its publication was blocked by William R. Steiger, a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history whose family has long ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Since 2001, Steiger has run the Office of Global Health Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services.

The rest of the Washington Post story can be found here. Read it and weep.

Congress: No August recess for you!!

Open letter to both Houses of Congress:

Don't come home. I'm serious. STAY WHERE YOU ARE. We as a nation cannot afford to have you taking an entire month off at a time like this. Proceed with the full vote in the House and declare Miers and Bolton in contempt. Demand a special counsel to investigate Gonzo - and stay there and follow through. Get it done!

All you have to do, if you won't listen to us directly, is to look at your poll numbers and you will see that we are displeased. We want justice. We demand a return to the rule of law. We're not asking you, we're demanding this: we sent you to Washington to represent us.

Don't come home. We don't want you here. We want you THERE. I shudder to imagine what Bush and Cheney will be doing while you are away for an entire month. Don't let them. We want you on that wall.

Don't come home. We don't want you here.

Our troops aren't getting any 'August recess' from the 100+ degree heat of Baghdad. They are there every day, fighting in the blazing sun and risking death and injury. You have an obligation to remain and work, because your work is only just beginning and you have nothing to show for your work until there are RESULTS.

Stay and work. The rest of us don't have the luxury of an August vacation.

Your work is the most important work of all: it falls to you to defend our Constitution and our very democracy. No -- no August vacation in a 'time of war.' This war has two fronts... the one overseas, and the one in Washington D.C.

Stay right there and fight it. We don't want you here.

He's really quite ridiculous

Transcripts of today's 'Gonzo grill' in the Senate are truly mesmerizing. I am amazed that the Senate still hasn't tossed the liar in a jail cell for contempt.

How much more of this can they take?

The man obviously cannot be embarrassed into telling the truth. He appears to know that nothing will be done no matter what he says. And yet... and yet... we get this:

Specter: How can you get approval from sedated Ashcroft?

Gonzales: Can I continue?

Specter: No, answer my question.

Gonzales: Obviously there was concern about Ashcroft's condition. There are no rules governing when Ashcroft decides he is well enough.

Specter: He had given us AG duties.

Gonzales: We knew he was ill...

Specter: Not making progress. Moving on. Do you think constitution govt can survive if Pres has unilateral authority to reject congress inquiries for Exec Privilege and prevent prosecution of claim?

Gonzales: Ongoing matter, I am recused, I cannot answer.

Specter: I am asking about constitutional law.

Gonzales: You are talking about an on-going issue.

Specter: No. Answer.

Gonzales: I won't answer - it is ongoing controversy and I am recused.

Leahy: Calls for decorum (room is protesting).

Specter: Won't pursue. This is hopeless. You are not just AG, you are a lawyer. This is a fundamental issues separate from USA resignations. Other subject. Do you have a conflict regarding the firing of US AGs?

Gonzales: Yes.

Specter: Do you have a conflict of interest about Miers?

Gonzales: Yes. I won't answer.

Specter: Let's find one you will answer. How about death penalty case? Charlton contacted your office and said case was not appropriate for dp. Testimony that AG spent 5-10 minutes on the issue...is this accurate?

Gonzales: I have no specific recollection of this case. But we have a detailed process for capital case review.

Specter: I am not interested in that. I want an answer to my question. You don't remember a case regarding a man's execution?

Gonzales: I have no recollection of the conversation.

Specter: Do you disagree with the testimony?

Gonzales: I can't agree or disagree.

He can't agree or disagree? Huh?

It gets even more ridiculous:

Schumer: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you're getting right close to the edge right here. You just said there was just one program -- just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn't directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.

Gonzales: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

Schumer: What did you say to the reporter?

Gonzales: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

Schumer: Oh, wait a second -- you did not.

(LAUGHTER)

OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

Gonzales: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement...

Schumer: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect -- and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman -- in all due respect, you're just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don't even know what he said. You don't even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you're bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You're now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?

Gonzales: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.

Pundits are losing their minds trying to find a way to spin this, or even simply cover it. I just laugh, shake my head... and wonder if maybe this time - this time - they will disbar him.

Is all of this for show? If so, it is a good one. An 'American Idol' for political pundits. Or perhaps the 'Gonzo Gong Show.'

Andrew Cohen from the Washington Post seems almost speechless with contempt:

Forget about the politicization of the Justice Department. Forget about the falling morale there. Forget about the rise in violent crime in some of our biggest cities. Forget about the events leading up to the U.S. Attorney scandal and the way he has handled the prosecutor purge since. Forget about the Department's role in allowing warrantless domestic surveillance. Forget about the contorted and contradictory accounts he's offered before in his own defense.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales deserves to be fired for his testimony Tuesday alone; for morphing into Jon Lovitz's famous "pathological liar" character (or maybe just one of the Marx Brothers) as he tried to dodge and duck responsibility before the Senate Judiciary Committee not just for his shameful leadership at Justice but also his shameless role in visiting an ailing John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to strong-arm him into renewing the warrantless surviellance program. Can anyone out there remember a worse, less-inspiring, less confidence-inducing performance on Capitol Hill? I cannot.

Neither can Gonzo. In fact, he couldn't remember much of anything today.

The most amazing thing (I think) to come out of today's testimony is proof that Cheney has been granted authority parallel with the President when it comes to intervening on pending matters at the Justice Department.

Now it's all starting to make sense, eh?

According to RAW STORY:

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) questioned the Attorney General about the independence of the Justice Department and communications with the White House on pending cases or investigations.

He then pointed to a May 4, 2006 memorandum signed by Gonzales which showed that the Office of the Vice President had been granted parallel privileges with the Executive Office of the President on communicating directly with the Justice Department's staff on criminal and civil matters.

"What - on earth - business does the Office of the Vice President have in the internal workings of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal investigations, civil investigations, and ongoing matters?" the Senator asked.

Gonzales was stumped, "As a general matter, I would say that's a good question."

Whitehouse then pointed out that in the same memo, the Chief of Staff and Counsel of the Vice President were also explicitly granted the same authority.

"On its face - I must say - sitting here, I'm troubled by this," Gonzales added.

Doh!

Whitehouse got the drop on the White House today - he came prepared. Here is a snip of the now famous memo that Gonzo can't recall ever seeing, or signing:



Catchy, huh?

Whitehouse went on to compare the Gonzales memo to the 'Ashcroft memo,' which allowed various members of the President's staff to communicate with the Justice Department. He then compared both memos with a letter written by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994, which placed specific limitations on communications about pending cases to conversations between the White House Counsel or Deputy Counsel, the President or Vice President, and Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney General. Not scores of miscellaneous staffers.

In other words... there was once a line between the judicial and the executive. I wonder, has that line now been irreparably blurred?

And now the kicker! From RAW STORY again:

In addition to granting the staff of the Office of the Vice President the ability to communicate with the Justice Department on civil and criminal matters, Gonzales' May 2006 memo gave Cheney's staff the ability to raise another issue with the Justice Department: 'Presidential Clemency Matters.'

Whether or not Cheney's office has intervened in discussions relating to presidential clemency has been of interest to Congress in recent weeks.

Before the White House commuted the sentence of former Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) of the House Judiciary Committee asked Cheney to recuse himself from internal White House deliberations on the subject.

White House spokesman Tony Snow did not rule out Cheney's engagement in the discussions on Libby when he discussed Bush's decision earlier in the month.

For once... no Snowjob?

Russ calls for censure of Bush and Cheney

Breaking: Valerie Plame's Civil Suit Dismissed

Valarie Plame's civil suit has been dismissed by a Bush appointed judge. I have to add that note, because of course in this time where partisan reigns supreme, this point is very relevant.

From wilsonsupport.com:

Washington, DC -- Earlier today, District of Columbia District Court Judge John D. Bates dismissed Joe and Valerie Wilson's civil suit against Vice President Dick Cheney, presidential aide Karl Rove, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage. While Judge Bates recognized that the Wilsons' claims "pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he dismissed their suit on a threshold legal issue: that there is no constitutional remedy available to them.

While the Wilsons' lawyers are reviewing the decision, they anticipate filing an appeal. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW"), one of the Wilsons' lawyers, said today, "While we are obviously very disappointed by today’s decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court." Sloan continued, "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends."

Here is a little background on the judge who chose to dismiss this case:

On December 9, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Congress' watchdog, the General Accounting Office (GAO), led by Comptroller General David M. Walker, lacked standing to sue Vice President Dick Cheney for access to the records of the energy task force. In his ruling, Judge Bates stated that "[t]here is no doubt here that the issues framed by the parties invoke core separation of powers questions at the heart of the relationship among the three branches of our government."

Judge Bates added that, in his assessment of whether the Comptroller General has asserted a sufficient injury to establish standing, "the Court must therefore be mindful that the standing inquiry should be 'especially rigorous' because reaching the merits of this dispute could require deciding whether an action taken by one of the other branches of government was unconstitutional."

Named to the bench by President Bush, the Judge is being attacked for his decision, with some arguing that he took the easy way out by deciding the case on the jurisdictional grounds of standing, rather than on the merits. Others are critical for what they see as a crushing loss for the public's right to know, coming at a time when Americans are demanding more accountability from their government and corporate leaders.

Arguments for dismissal were the following:

Defendants in this action argue that two statutes, whether considered independently or in combination, counsel hesitation [to recognize a private right of action) under the special-factors analysis.

The first and most important of these statutes is the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2000), which "regulate[s] the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information" about individuals by federal agencies. Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-579, § 2(a)(5), 88 Stat. 1896, 1896. The second statute, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, 50 U.S.C. §§ 421-426 (2000), criminalizes the intentional public disclosure of information identifying a covert agent. Defendants contend that by enacting these statutes, Congress considered the proper recourse for individuals whose personal information has been improperly disclosed by government officials -- the alleged activity giving rise to plaintiffs' claims. Furthermore, the absence in these statutory schemes of a civil damages action against the offending officials was not inadvertent, and Congress has not plainly expressed an intention that the courts preserve Bivens remedies. Therefore, defendants argue, this Court should not imply additional damages remedies under the Constitution.

Oh please don't remind us of our now gutted, bleeding Constitution.

From the Washington Post:

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration's war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties.

"The alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform," Bates wrote in an opinion released this afternoon.

Bates also ruled that the court lacked the power to award damages for public disclosure of private information about Plame. The judge said that was because Plame and Wilson had failed to exhaust other remedies in seeking compensation from appropriate federal agencies for the alleged privacy violations.

Turns out that it's OK to commit the felony of outing a covert CIA agent if you are part of the Unitary Executive. Or if you are a King. Seems we have one or the other. At any rate, the judge certainly isn't going to question the power of a King.

Perfect storm today. Lawless. We are now a lawless nation. Look out world! Lawless nation with lots of big guns, coming through! (Duck and cover - we've been told that and duct tape work wonders.)

Perished from the earth

Over a hundred years ago, Abraham Lincoln gave one of the most stirring speeches in American history:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Surely the American Civil War as a time of much greater fear and terror than anything we have ever known in our sheltered, spoiled lifetimes.

And yet President Lincoln never demanded that the people BE AFRAID, never cut Congress out of the loop. He created a bipartisan cabinet of brilliant minds to guarantee that the best interests of the nation would be upheld, even at the cost of his own personal comfort (many of them hated him, and openly looked down on him because of his humble background.)

This was no rich men's pawn. This was a president. This man was one of us; and he believed in us.



Lincoln suspended habeas corpus when riots broke out in cities all across the North, and threatened the safety of the masses. (We citizens have never really liked our wars... have we?) And Lincoln later lifted it. We will find out today if our Senate thinks the current suspension of habeas corpus is worth lifting... without a single American city in flames, or even one lawless riot rampaging through our streets. Yes, we will see.

Lincoln was trying to save our nation... not destroy it for his own, personal gain. Lincoln believed in the dream of our nation's founders.

Democracy. Liberty. Justice.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Yes, wars will do that. Quite a lot of 'testing' goes on during wartime. 58,168 Americans died in the Vietnam war. 54,246 Americans died in Korea. 407,316 Americans died in WWII. 116,708 Americans died in WWI.

558,052 Americans died in the American Civil War, in the course of only 4 years... out of a total national population of about 30 million (today we have a population of 300 million.) Imagine the impact on society, on towns, cities and farms all across America. And imagine... they didn't toss out the Constitution - and Lincoln still conferred with Congress before going to war.



The South fought to form their own, new Constitution; the Union fought to defend the current. Each side was, in their way, fighting for their vision of America... just as today, angry voices on the right and angry voices on the left all fight for their own vision, their own American reality.

We disagree on everything else, but we all do love our country.

Unfortunately for us, corporations do not love our country. They want to rule our country. They want ever more money, ever more power, ever more control. But no, they do not love anything... but money.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. - Thomas Jefferson

Commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic. - James Madison

We were warned. We have been warned by everyone; from Jefferson to Eisenhower. We didn't listen. We were lured by trinkets and toys, and capitalism grew and grew, until at last it ate democracy.

But back to Gettysburg. Back to the battlefield.

We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

We are engaged, once again, in a war. But this war was never about freedom. This war was never about ideals; although the money powers spun it a way that would inspire yet another generation of idealistic, patriotic warriors to fight.

This war has always been about money.



We are daily met on a battlefield of a war. We just haven't yet awakened as a nation to the true nature of our war; and exactly who it is that has declared war on us.

We are misled, co-opted, enslaved... more and more, every day. Our freedom is being stolen from us at every turn by the money powers that lurk in the shadows; the powers that pay for our politicians, own our media, and call the shots. The money that wields the real power behind the scenes in Congress.

Do we think -- do we really think, for one moment, that anything we see is happening without their consent?

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

And how do we do that exactly? How do we end this 'perpetual war' that was declared against our will? This war... this endless war that will kill generation after generation of American and 'enemy' warriors alike, along with untold millions of innocent civilians...while destroying our very democracy in the process?

How do we resist this 'war beast' that is intent on killing us?

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Ah, father Abraham... that is the crux of the matter. That is the heart of everything. Because you see, we no longer are a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.' That government has indeed, as you once feared, perished from this earth. It happened in increments. It happened with a bill here, an amendment there, and many, many signing statements. It happened while we went to work, went to school, eat, watched TV and slept. It happened quietly and in back rooms.

All across this country, people are demanding justice, demanding the removal of this lawless presidency. For some reason, the Democrats - who we elected to 'make it right' and save our democracy - refuse to act. Most of them refuse to even listen to the voices of the people.

Even Senator Feingold who I have held in the very highest esteem and never once doubted - not for a moment - seems to believe that impeachment is not worth the time.

How can saving our Constitution and our balance of power in government, not to mention our own voice - the voice of the people - how can this not be worth the time?

Lincoln would have thought it worth the time.



Yesterday, Senator Feingold posted a diary on Daily Kos. He responded to the many angry impeachment comments that completely flooded his last diary on Kos. He restated that he feels that impeachment is not a good use of time.

I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress’s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.

When I try to contact anyone about impeachment (congressman or senator,) I hear much the same... only unlike Senator Feingold, (who did approach us in good faith and is listening,) they speak to me as if talking to a small, confused child. It is as though I must be some left-wing radical to even broach the subject of impeachment. I have to tell them that I actually LEFT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OVER THIS before they stop and listen.

I will never belong to any party, ever again. I have lost all faith in parties. Party before nation? NEVER. I put the onus on the Democrats to restore that faith by doing something - anything - to save my country from slipping into a fascist dictatorship.

And perhaps the Democrats are satisfied to have a Democratic dictator rather than a Republican. Perhaps that is the deal that was brokered behind our backs. As long as the uniform is blue instead of red... and the right party 'wins.'



NO.

This was a government built on the rights and the voice of the people; and no one gives a damn about us anymore except when we're actually voting, excepting of course that our elections are now broken too.

And do you know why that is? Because lobbyists now outnumber lawmakers 24-1.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

Why would Congress give a damn about us? We don't pay their way... the corporations do. Perhaps the money powers who own the candidates and the media (except for a couple of mavericks - the ones who are ignored by the media by some strange coincidence;) perhaps these king makers told the Democratic party that they will not receive any endorsements - any money - for next year's election if they push through with impeachment.

Has anyone considered this?

These corporations are growing fat on the Bush Administration's policies, on this contractors' war, on land giveaways, cutbacks on corporate oversight, plundering of the environment, union-bashing, corporate tax cuts... this is pig trough heaven for the corporate world. In fact, corporate lobby representatives now oversee every single oversight agency; and corporations now make the rules and 'police themselves.'



And that is why I now believe that we will never, ever get this back; this government of the people. The whole thing has already gone too far under Bush and Cheney; the corporations will never give up all of this power now. And no one in Congress (other than Dennis and a handful of others) has the courage to stand against them.

One of the starkest Lincoln quotes I've ever seen was written in a letter to an officer during the Civil War. Some people have insisted Lincoln didn't write it, but a historian tracked it down and verified. I was floored when I saw it. How could he have... forseen this? But since that day, I have read many other warnings, going all the way back to our founding fathers. This danger has been looming since the very beginning of our nation.

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. - Abraham Lincoln

If even Senator Feingold says 'do nothing,' it must be because he cannot see any way that Democrats can win next year without keeping impeachment off the table. And what on earth... would make a man like Senator Feingold, who so obviously loves the Constitution and agrees that these tyrants deserve to be impeached; what would make him suggest that impeachment was a bad use of time?



Perhaps the threat of continuing, lawless Neocon rule.

The sad thing... is that if this is true, and it is all about campaign finance: the Democrats are being played.

The corporations will never allow the Democrats to take over Congress or the White House unless they agree to keep things just as they are now. The corporate world will never give up a single tool in their presidential toolbox. I had nothing at all against Hillary; nothing at all... until she became lost in Rupert Murdoch's shadow. And of course Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. And Times Warner. Why would Hillary concern herself with listening to me? I will never have that kind of money.

But I still doubt that they really want Hillary; they'd much rather have a greedy Neocon like Fred Thompson.

I'm imagining a different scenario. I expect they will tell the Democrats to toe that line just a little too long... until the people become increasingly enraged and disaffected.

Then they will toss the people an independent candidate to split the weakened, Democratic vote. And of course, the gravy train will go right on, as if nothing ever happened. Giuliani or Fred Thompson. Probably Thompson because he was a lobbyist. Who better for the new corpocracy?

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. - Thomas Jefferson

Do I sound cynical? Machiavelli called this hundreds of years ago. Jefferson foresaw it during the birth pangs of our nation. Adams predicted that our fledgling democracy could not survive, but would eventually 'commit suicide.'

It must have leapt while we weren't looking.

If we've lost Senator Feingold, we've lost our Democratic Congress. And they were all we have to represent us in these dark, dark days.

We have no Lincoln... except the one with the tired, sad eyes, staring out from the dusty, faded pictures of our past. The man, the president of the people; who saw the future, and is perhaps still trying to warn us across time and space.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. - Abraham Lincoln

Brave New Films: Impeach Cheney video