Drinking Liberally®

James Charles: 'When the whole White House is criminal, how do you impeach an entire administration?'
Date: Tuesday, February 28 @ 09:47:01 EST
Topic: The Bush Administration

James Charles, Dissident Voice

The list of criminal acts is long, depressing as it is frightening. Equally depressing is the silence of the Democrats, the media and ordinary citizens. Is American democracy dead?

In the current issue of The National Review, William F. Buckley calls for the Bush administration to admit that it made a hideous mistake by invading Iraq, writing that "the administration has, now, to cope with failure and the acknowledgment of defeat" of its entire policy from launching the war to believing it could unite and pacify religious enemies whose mutual hatred goes back a millennia, to installing a government that superficially resembles a democracy.

On one hand, when the dean of modern conservative politics says Iraq was a mistake, even the most ideologically driven neo-con must pay attention. On the other, the "failure" and "defeat" he writes about is not simply another "Oops, we goofed!" mea culpa that White House apologists can spin on the Sunday morning interview shows. While cloaking his condemnation in polite Ivy League-ese terms like "postulates" and "mitigation of policies," Mr. Buckley overlooks one simple fact: No matter how noble a policy of spreading freedom may look on paper, the White House has been criminal in carrying it out.

The dilemma for America is: When the whole executive branch is criminal, how do you impeach an entire administration?

* President Bush knowingly lied to Congress when he certified in writing an immediate threat to the security of the United States mandated the need to use armed force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. As has been well documented over the past three years, the administration knew before Bush's 2003 State of the Union message that there were serious doubts in the intelligence establishment -- the CIA, DIA, State Dept. and Dept. of Energy -- that Saddam had either chemical weapons or a program to build atomic weapons. Lying to Congress is a federal offence, a felony punishable with prison; on its face, it is also a "high crime and misdemeanor" -- an impeachable offence.

* The President knowingly violated both the Constitution and the law by authorizing warrantless wiretapping, eavesdropping and spying on Americans. Likewise, in claiming the power to arrest and hold without charge citizens he has violated the Constitution and his oath of office to uphold that very document. He committed a felony and an impeachable offence.

* Vice President Dick Cheney, armed with an Executive Order he got Bush to sign allowing him to unilaterally declassify information, decided to declassify Valerie Plame's role in the CIA. He then set about outing her when her husband returned from Niger and wrote a report stating that there was no evidence Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake, a necessary ingredient to make a nuclear weapon. Jason Leopold, who has been covering Plamegate from the start, reported on Feb. 24, 2006, that the White House had just "found" 250 allegedly missing e-mails about Plame and that the Vice President is implicated directly. The e-mails purportedly show Cheney lied to FBI agents about his role in the scandal, itself a federal offence punishable by imprisonment. It also meets the "high crime and misdemeanor" impeachment test.

* Even after being warned by the Navy's general counsel -- its top lawyer -- that interrogation techniques being used by Americans at Guantanamo were illegal, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an order authorizing what amounts to physical and psychological torture. He has repeatedly denied the Red Cross private access to prisoners despite a treaty which guarantees the agency such access, a treaty which was first written by the United States. Likewise, the FBI warned the Defense Dept. that the interrogation of prisoners it witnessed was violating US law against torture, a warning Rumsfeld ignored. Now, along with the Red Cross, groups including the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have condemned the US for violating basic human rights, partly because it keeps secret the names of prisoners being held and partly for abusing the prisoners in custody. Put Mr. Rumsfeld in the dock next to Bush and Cheney.

* While White House counsel, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, with help from ideologue sycophants like former Justice Dept. lawyer and now law professor John Yoo, created a convoluted rationale to support the illegal actions of the Executive Branch. Apparently, Mr. Gonzales never studied the laws written largely by the United States for the Nuremberg trials that judged Nazi war criminals. That code of justice punished jurists who formulated and interpreted laws created to justify criminal acts. There is a special place in court for people like Mr. Gonzales who manipulate the law to countenance criminality.

The list of criminals is seemingly endless.

Colin Powell, a man of otherwise impeccable integrity who devoted his life to the service of his country, knowingly allowed himself to be made the administration's Knight Errant by trying to convince the world that war was necessary. Lawrence Wilkerson, who wrote Powell's UN speech and had access to all the intelligence -- not just bits the administration wanted people to hear -- admitted on the PBS public affairs program Now on Feb. 3, 2006: "I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."

Former CIA director George Tenet knowingly gave the White House select bits of intelligence he knew it wanted as justification for invading Iraq. While National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice knew -- or "should have known," as lawyers say -- that the pre-war intelligence was being cooked to prop up a shaky case for war and neither objected nor resigned. Don't forget the Joint Chiefs of Staff who, in 2003, went along with dubious war plans, also without objection or resignation. Or the field generals and senior officers who oversaw not just prison camp torture but waged an indiscriminate war on Iraqi civilians, particularly in Fallujah where white phosphorus shells rained down on innocent men, women and children cowering in their hovels. The website Baghdad Burning, written by a woman living in Iraq, also writes about how US troops break into homes in the middle of the night for no reason while ignoring what she calls "the vicious civil war" being fought on the country's streets every day.

At home, FBI Director Robert Mueller violates his oath of office by allowing agents to illegally spy on citizens only exercising their constitutional right of protest. Michael Chertoff, who is so incompetent running Homeland Security his behavior borders on criminal, is quietly spending $387 million with a Halliburton subsidiary to construct detention camps at secret locations across America to house up to several hundred thousand people for the undefined "rapid development of new programs." And don't forget Karl Rove, who orchestrated the theft not just one but two presidential elections, new evidence dribbling out now reveals.

The list is long, as depressing as it is frightening.

Yet equally depressing is the silence of Democrats, the news media and ordinary citizens. The Democrats look cowed, the news media is a placid mouthpiece accepting administration talking points, and ordinary citizens are afraid. "Please don't send me your investigative reporting or political columns by e-mail," a long-time friend wrote to me by snail mail a few months ago. "I'm afraid it will trigger NSA computers and make me a target." It took the funeral of Coretta Scott King for even a few people of conscience to "speak truth to the powerful" in the tradition of black churches, saying to Pres. Bush's face the unpleasant realities that many are thinking.

Democracy in America may not be dead but it is in critical condition.

People who lived through Watergate remember how Richard Nixon tried stealing the Constitution and the crisis he provoked as a result. Yet today, there is a far stealthier, more powerful and darkly insidious effort afoot to undermine and even destroy more than 230 years of American democratic ideals, liberal political thought, and tradition of dissent and debate.

When the huge task of writing the Constitution was finally completed, Benjamin Franklin emerged from the building in Philadelphia where the convention was held to be confronted by a woman waiting word. "What did you give us, Mr. Franklin?" she asked. Franklin laid his hand on her shoulder and replied, "A democracy, madam, if you can keep it."

The question today remains, as it was in Franklin's time, can America keep its democracy?

James Charles is an independent investigative journalist and writer, an American who lives in Toronto.

Source: Dissident Voice
http://dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Charles27.htm

This article comes from The Smirking Chimp
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com/article.php?sid=25043

Posted by Maria at 11:57 AM

I wondered what that stench coming from Lexington was. From the minute this outrage began I knew it was only a matter of time before Rush, Frist and the assorted wingnuts from the GOP (including all our republican members of congress) would go week in the knees and back this deal to sell out our port *security.* From the AP:

Homeland Security Protested Ports Deal
By Ted Bridis
The Associated Press

Sunday 26 February 2006

Washington - The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other congressional leaders, the company and Bush administration officials were working on a compromise intended to derail plans by Republicans and Democrats for legislation next week that would force a new investigation of security issues relating to the deal. Talks were to continue through the weekend.

"My comfort level is good, but I have 99 other United States senators who need the opportunity to ask their questions," Frist told the Lexington Herald-Leader before speaking at a Republican dinner Saturday evening in Lexington, Ky.

"We're behind the president 100 percent," he added. "We believe the decision in all likelihood is absolutely the right one." [FLIP FLOP!]

Under one proposal being discussed, DP World would seek new approval of the deal from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, given the company's surprise decision Thursday to indefinitely postpone its takeover of U.S. port operations. Other proposals included a new, intensive 45-day review of the deal by the government - something the White House had refused to consider as recently as Friday.

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said discussions among congressional leaders centered on that issue. "It's my understanding that they are trying to build support for a deal involving a new 45-day investigation," he said.

Frist, R-Tenn., said that while legislation may not be necessary now, having "30 to 45 days" to step back and evaluate the deal still could be necessary.

"If there's some question about the diagnosis, then maybe we need to get a second opinion," said Frist, a former heart surgeon.

King, R-N.Y., said he would need to see all the details of a compromise before deciding if it met all of his concerns, or met the demands of the legislation he planned to offer.

Despite persistent criticism from Republicans and Democrats, the president has defended his administration's approval of the ports deal and threatened to veto any measures in Congress that would block it. The company's voluntary delay in taking over most operations at the six U.S. ports did little to quell a political furor or appease skeptical members of Congress that the deal does not pose any increased risks to the U.S. from terrorism. Republican House and Senate leaders are to meet Tuesday to discuss how to proceed.

Posted by vicki at 12:55 PM

The secret deal to have the UAE government run major American ports is far more extensive and risky than first reported. read the full UPI stroy here

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

[snip]

President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.

At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.

But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.

[snip]

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of officials from 12 government departments and agencies, including the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security, approved the deal unanimously on January 17.

Central to the debate is the fact that the United Arab Emirates, while a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has had troubling ties to terrorist networks, according to the Sept. 11 Commission report. It was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the al-Qaida-friendly Taliban government in Afghanistan; al-Qaida funneled millions of dollars through the U.A.E. financial sector; and A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear technology smuggler, used warehouses near the Dubai port as a key transit point for many of his shipments.

Since the terrorist attacks, it has cut ties with the Taliban, frozen just over $1 million in alleged terrorist funding, and given the United States key military basing and over-flight rights. At any given time, there are 77,000 U.S. service members on leave in the United Arab Emirates, according to the Pentagon.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the uproar about
The security of port terminal operations is a key concern. More than 7 million cargo containers come through 361 American ports annually, half of the containers through New York-New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Only a small percentage are physically searched and just 37 percent currently screened for radiation, an indication of an attempt to smuggle in nuclear material that could be used for a "dirty bomb."

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government began a new program that required documentation on all cargo 24 hours before it was loaded on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States. A "risk analysis" is conducted on every shipment, including a review of the ship's history, the cargo's history and contents and other factors. Each ship must also provide the U.S. government 96 hours notice of its arrival in an American port, along with a crew manifest.

None of the nine administration officials assembled for the briefing could immediately say how many of the more than 3,000 port terminals are currently under foreign control.

Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.

"The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues," Muldoon said.

The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.

Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.

"The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now ... but who's to say that couldn't change, or they couldn't be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy," said Muldoon.

In a January report, the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out the vulnerability of the shipping security system to terrorist exploitation.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. customs agency requires shippers to follow supply chain security practices. Provided there are no apparent deviations from those practices or intelligence warnings, the shipment is judged low risk and is therefore unlikely to be inspected.

CFR suggests a terrorist event is likely to be a one-time operation on a trusted carrier "precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the U.S. with negligible or no inspection."

"All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a 'trusted' shipper's complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers," CFR wrote.

Posted by vicki at 11:36 AM

DL Friend, Carol, will be having a House Party for Lt. Col. Andrew Horne and you are all invited. In case you've been on planet Mars, he is a Democrat running for third district congressional seat against Republican Anne Northup.

When: March 24, 7:00-?
Where: 10529 Championship Ct.
Prospect, KY 40059

Call Carol for more details: 502-500-6915

Posted by vicki at 09:30 AM

I know a lot of you are fired up and wanting to support liberal/progressive candidates. Hell, simple competence would do these days! If you are interested, check out these candidates wanting your assistance.

http://www.amyshir.com

Amy Shir for State Representative
2905 Wood Briar Court
Louisville, KY 40241

I met Amy at a DFA event a few weeks ago and found her to be intelligent, thoughtful and sincere. Check out her website for more details. Some of us are even her future constituents.

Then there is this from DFA:

Play Texas Hold'em and help Russ Salsman win Circuit Clerk!

Please join friends and family of Russ Salsman, and members of Democracy for
America, for a No Limit Texas Hold ’em fundraiser tournament.

With your help, Russ Salsman is on the way to winning election to the office
of Circuit Clerk! We already know that Russ is the best man for the job, but elections require funds, and we need your help making sure that our community elects the most effective person for this important office.

Come out, play cards, have fun, win prizes, and help us fund the purchase of
more gear and communication materials for the campaign!

Friday, March 3rd
6-9pm
Swiss Hall
719 Lynn St., Louisville, 40217

And one more event to fire you up. Carol is having a House Party For Col. Horne in March. I'll get the details to you soon. I got lost in 75 emails and will forward it as soon as I retrieve it.

Don't forget to place your Army Men all around the city! I already have placed them in the grocery, gas pump, hair salon and on a pick-up truck. Where are YOUR Army Men?

Peace!

Vicki

Posted by vicki at 09:44 PM

Here's an excerpt from Nat Parry's extrodinary article in Consortium News. If you think the Bu$h Admin is merely secretitive and paranoid, you have another thing comming. You can read the entire article at www.truthout.org Take a look at this:

The combination of the Bush administration's expansive reading of its own power and its insistence on extraordinary secrecy has raised the alarm of civil libertarians when contemplating how far the Pentagon might go in involving itself in domestic matters.

A Defense Department document, entitled the "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support," has set out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an "active, layered defense" both inside and outside US territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges to "transform US military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the ... US homeland."

The Pentagon strategy paper calls for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance to "defeat potential challengers before they threaten the United States." The plan "maximizes threat awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us."

But there are concerns over how the Pentagon judges "threats" and who falls under the category "those who would harm us." A Pentagon official said the Counterintelligence Field Activity's TALON program has amassed files on antiwar protesters.

In December 2005, NBC News revealed the existence of a secret 400-page Pentagon document listing 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period, including dozens of small antiwar demonstrations that were classified as a "threat."

The Defense Department also might be moving toward legitimizing the use of propaganda domestically, as part of its overall war strategy.

A secret Pentagon "Information Operations Roadmap," approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003, calls for "full spectrum" information operations and notes that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa."

"PSYOPS messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," the document states. The Pentagon argues, however, that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [US government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."

It calls for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but does not outline any corresponding limits on PSYOP campaigns.

Similar to the distinction the Pentagon draws between "collecting" and "receiving" intelligence on US citizens, the Information Operations Roadmap argues that as long as the American public is not intentionally "targeted," any PSYOP propaganda consumed by the American public is acceptable.

The Pentagon plan also includes a strategy for taking over the Internet and controlling the flow of information, viewing the Web as a potential military adversary. The "roadmap" speaks of "fighting the net," and implies that the Internet is the equivalent of "an enemy weapons system."

In a speech on Feb. 17 to the Council on Foreign Relations, Rumsfeld elaborated on the administration's perception that the battle over information would be a crucial front in the War on Terror, or as Rumsfeld calls it, the Long War.

"Let there be no doubt, the longer it takes to put a strategic communication framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news informers that most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture of what is actually taking place," Rumsfeld said.

The Department of Homeland Security also has demonstrated a tendency to deploy military operatives to deal with domestic crises.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the department dispatched "heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, (and had them) openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans," reported journalists Jeremy Scahill and Daniela Crespo on Sept. 10, 2005.

Noting the reputation of the Blackwater mercenaries as "some of the most feared professional killers in the world," Scahill and Crespo said Blackwater's presence in New Orleans "raises alarming questions about why the government would allow men trained to kill with impunity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to operate here."

US Battlefield

In the view of some civil libertarians, a form of martial law already exists in the United States and has been in place since shortly after the 9/11 attacks when Bush issued Military Order No. 1 which empowered him to detain any non-citizen as an international terrorist or enemy combatant.

"The President decided that he was no longer running the country as a civilian President," wrote civil rights attorney Michael Ratner in the book Guantanamo: What the World Should Know. "He issued a military order giving himself the power to run the country as a general."

For any American citizen suspected of collaborating with terrorists, Bush also revealed what's in store. In May 2002, the FBI arrested US citizen Jose Padilla in Chicago on suspicion that he might be an al-Qaeda operative planning an attack.

Rather than bring criminal charges, Bush designated Padilla an "enemy combatant" and had him imprisoned indefinitely without benefit of due process. After three years, the administration finally brought charges against Padilla, in order to avoid a Supreme Court showdown the White House might have lost.

But since the Court was not able to rule on the Padilla case, the administration's arguments have not been formally repudiated. Indeed, despite filing charges against Padilla, the White House still asserts the right to detain US citizens without charges as enemy combatants.

This claimed authority is based on the assertion that the United States is at war and the American homeland is part of the battlefield.

"In the war against terrorists of global reach, as the Nation learned all too well on Sept. 11, 2001, the territory of the United States is part of the battlefield," Bush's lawyers argued in briefs to the federal courts. [Washington Post, July 19, 2005]

Given Bush's now open assertions that he is using his "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as Commander in Chief for the duration of the indefinite War on Terror, Americans can no longer trust that their constitutional rights protect them from government actions.

As former Vice President Al Gore asked after recounting a litany of sweeping powers that Bush has asserted to fight the War on Terror, "Can it be true that any President really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is 'yes,' then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?"

In such extraordinary circumstances, the American people might legitimately ask exactly what the Bush administration means by the "rapid development of new programs," which might require the construction of a new network of detention camps.

-------

Posted by vicki at 10:50 AM

Osama, Saddam and the Ports

By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Friday 24 February 2006

The storm of protest over the planned takeover of some U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World doesn't make sense viewed in isolation. The Bush administration clearly made no serious effort to ensure that the deal didn't endanger national security. But that's nothing new - the administration has spent the past four and a half years refusing to do anything serious about protecting the nation's ports.

So why did this latest case of sloppiness and indifference finally catch the public's attention? Because this time the administration has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.

Let's go back to the beginning. At 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave military commanders their marching orders. "Judge whether good enough hit S. H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time - not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]," read an aide's handwritten notes about his instructions. The notes were recently released after a Freedom of Information Act request. "Hard to get a good case," the notes acknowledge. Nonetheless, they say: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." [emphasis added]

So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals - especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.

But to exploit the atrocity, President Bush had to do two things. First, he had to create a climate of fear: Al Qaeda, a real but limited threat, metamorphosed into a vast, imaginary axis of evil threatening America. Second, he had to blur the distinctions between nasty people who actually attacked us and nasty people who didn't.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam - what's the difference?

Now comes the port deal. Mr. Bush assures us that "people don't need to worry about security." But after all those declarations that we're engaged in a global war on terrorism, after all the terror alerts declared whenever the national political debate seemed to be shifting to questions of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, the administration can't suddenly change its theme song to "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

The administration also tells us not to worry about having Arabs control port operations. "I want those who are questioning it," Mr. Bush said, "to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

He was being evasive, of course. This isn't just a Middle Eastern company; it's a company controlled by the monarchy in Dubai, which is part of the authoritarian United Arab Emirates, one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan.

But more to the point, after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, "But these are good Arabs."

Finally, the ports affair plays in a subliminal way into the public's awareness - vague but widespread - that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed deliverer of democracy to the Middle East, and his family have close personal and financial ties to Middle Eastern rulers. Mr. Bush was photographed holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (now King Abdullah), not the emir of Dubai. But an administration that has spent years ridiculing people who try to make such distinctions isn't going to have an easy time explaining the difference.

Mr. Bush shouldn't really be losing his credibility as a terrorism fighter over the ports deal, which, after careful examination (which hasn't happened yet), may turn out to be O.K. Instead, Mr. Bush should have lost his credibility long ago over his diversion of U.S. resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda and into an unnecessary war in Iraq, his bungling of that war, and his adoption of a wrongful imprisonment and torture policy that has blackened America's reputation.

But there is, nonetheless, a kind of rough justice in Mr. Bush's current predicament. After 9/11, the American people granted him a degree of trust rarely, if ever, bestowed on our leaders. He abused that trust, and now he is facing a storm of skepticism about his actions - a storm that sweeps up everything, things related and not.

Posted by vicki at 09:21 AM

Check out WHAS news tonight for the latest challenge from Lt. Col Horne to the silent Anne Northup on our port security. What insanity.

Our GOP, supposed Reps, have stabbed us in the back at every turn in favor of the hideous policies that make us less safe and more prone to invasions of privacy. They must go! Vote, Louisville.

Posted by vicki at 03:59 PM | Comments (1)

This is what passes for justice in Bu$hWorld. This kind of injustice puts a hideous stain on the character of America. Culture of Life? I think not.

Abusive G.I.'s Not Pursued, Survey Finds

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 23, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 22 (AP) — The longest sentence for any member of the American military linked to a torture-related death of a detainee in Iraq or Afghanistan has been five months, a human rights group reported Wednesday.

In only 12 of 34 cases has anyone been punished for the confirmed or suspected killings, said the group, Human Rights First, which is based in New York and Washington.

Beyond those cases, in almost half of 98 known detainee deaths since 2002, the cause was never announced or was reported as undetermined.

"In dozens of cases documented here, grossly inadequate reporting, investigation and follow-through have left no one at all responsible for homicides and other unexplained deaths," it said in the report, based on military court records, news reports and other sources.

The Pentagon says it conscientiously investigates such deaths.

"Some 250 people have been punished in one way or another," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last month of the abuse cases.

When asked Wednesday for a status report on investigations and prosecutions in individual cases of abuse, the Pentagon said it could not offer a comprehensive compilation because the information was too scattered.

Army lawyers at the Pentagon do not "have access to the information because other Army commands have the documents," Maj. Wayne Marotto, a spokesman, said.

In Baghdad, a victim's son dismissed the seriousness of the pursuit of those responsible.

"Justice wasn't done in our father's case by the U.S. forces, because if he was a criminal, they should have interrogated him fairly and not tortured him barbarically and then killed him," Qusay Mowhoush, the son, said.

His father, Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who was suspected of supporting the anti-American insurgency, died in 2003 when an Army interrogator covered him in a sleeping bag, sat on his chest and put his hand over his mouth. General Mowhoush was detained 10 days earlier when he appeared at an American base to seek the release of his four sons.

The interrogator, Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer Jr., originally charged with murder, was convicted of negligent homicide in a military trial last month and was reprimanded, without jail time.

Posted by vicki at 12:13 PM

I can't wait to see how Northup tap dances around this one. Is there any Bu$h fiasco she hasn't embraced?

Lt. Col. Andrew Horne voices concern about port security deal
Urges Northup to join him in asking president to explain, reconsider


Louisville, Ky. -- Marine Reserves Lt. Col. Andrew Horne, a veteran of wars in both Kuwait and Iraq, today raised strong concern about a deal that would give the United Arab Emirates (UAE) control of six strategic American ports, including those in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. Horne, a Democratic candidate for Kentucky's 3rd District congressional seat, believes the takeover of port operations by Dubai Ports World could increase the risk of terrorism, and called on U.S. Rep. Anne Northup (R-Ky.) to join him in urging the Bush administration to reconsider allowing the sale. President Bush has blessed the takeover and yesterday threatened to veto any legislation that would block the $6.8 billion agreement.

"It's become obvious that President Bush -- again defying logic -- will ignore the advice and bipartisan pleas of governors, security experts and congressional leaders to protect our citizens, starting at our water's edge," said Horne. "Like invading Iraq under false pretenses with too few resources and without a plan, President Bush is intent on staying the course on another failed policy. He refuses to listen to the people or the commanders on the ground."

"There's more to this deal than meets the eye," Horne added, "because it just doesn't make sense. Someone's hiding the truth, or the president needs to explain to America why this is a good idea."

Critics of outsourcing America's security to the UAE note that it has demonstrated ties to terrorism. The 9/11 Commission Report said al-Qaeda used the UAE as a financial and planning base, two of the 9/11 hijackers were its citizens, and it is believed to have been a transfer point for smuggled nuclear components by a Pakistani scientist to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

"I call on Anne Northup to join me immediately, on behalf of the people of the 3rd Congressional District and our nation, in asking the president to reconsider the facts and prevent this outrageous transaction."

# # #

Posted by vicki at 01:31 PM | Comments (1)

What is up with this Mis-Administration and breaking the law? And why has Congress abdicated its oversight duties? It is breathtaking that Bu$h would go off half cocked and turn over major U.S ports to the UAE without the manditory 45 day investigation before a final decision is made. Here is a brief snip from an article in the NY Times by David Sanger and Eric Lipton: My emphasis has been added.

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

Administration officials acknowledged on Tuesday that they had, at least in some ways, mishandled the matter by not briefing members of Congress early enough to avoid the outburst that resulted when the news of the deal was made public.

"We probably should have gotten up there further in advance than we did," said Clay Lowery, assistant secretary for international affairs at the Treasury Department.

But officials insisted that they made the right choice, conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the management structure at Dubai Ports World, its operations abroad, and its security plans. [/end snip]

Does anyone seriously think we shoud trust this administrations judgement? Hahahahahahahaha.

Posted by vicki at 10:56 AM

Bu$h's phony love of renewable energy sources is a big, fat joke. The Times tells the truth of the matter.

Bush Admits to 'Mixed Signals' Regarding Laboratory on Renewable Energy

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: February 22, 2006

GOLDEN, Colo., Feb. 21 — President Bush acknowledged on Tuesday that his administration had sent "mixed signals" to the Department of Energy's primary renewable energy laboratory here, where government budget cuts forced the layoff of 32 employees who were then hastily reinstated just before Mr. Bush's visit.

"I recognize that there has been some interesting, let me say, mixed signals when it comes to funding," Mr. Bush said at the start of a panel discussion at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which researches solar and wind power as well as energy from plants, like ethanol.

Mr. Bush added: "The issue of course is whether or not good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. Part of the issue we face, unfortunately, is that there are sometimes decisions made as a result of the appropriations process, where money may not end up where it is supposed to have gone."

[We need a translation into plain English.]

The president was referring to an embarrassing sidelight of his State of the Union address on Jan. 31, when he called for new research into alternative energy to help wean the nation from its century-old oil habit. But the next day the laboratory announced that a $28 million budget cut was forcing it to lay off researchers in ethanol and wind technology, two of the areas that Mr. Bush cited in his address as full of promise.

This past weekend, with Mr. Bush's visit to the laboratory looming, the Energy Department announced that it had transferred $5 million back into the laboratory's budget and that the 32 employees would be reinstated.

"My message to those who work here is, we want you to know how important your work is," Mr. Bush said. "We appreciate what you're doing. And we expect you to keep doing it. And we want to help you keep doing it." [So he'll cut your budget by $23 million.]

Managers at the laboratory began calling the employees back on Monday, a holiday, and phone calls were continuing on Tuesday. None of the employees were back at work in time for the president's visit, said a laboratory spokesman, George Douglas.

"Human Resources had to figure out how to do this," Mr. Douglas said in an interview as Mr. Bush shook the hands of employees. "There was some paperwork. We've never done this before — let people go and then hire them back in two weeks."

Mr. Douglas said the laboratory still faced a $23 million shortfall for the 2006 fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, with its total annual budget now at $179 million. As cost-cutting measures, he said, the laboratory planned to cut back on subcontractors, employee travel and conferences.

Mr. Bush's appearance at the laboratory came at the end of a two-day, three-state tour, to Wisconsin, Michigan and Colorado, to try to focus Americans' attention on the alternative energy proposals he set forth in his State of the Union address. In that speech, Mr. Bush declared that the United States is "addicted to oil" and proposed that the government spend more money on research into ethanol, solar and wind power and battery- and hydrogen-powered cars.

"I think part of this deal today is to help develop national will," Mr. Bush said in the panel discussion, when he was flanked by seven White House-selected energy specialists who backed up his ideas.

Members of both parties generally praise the president's proposals, although Democrats say they are not adequate to address the nation's dependence on oil and Republicans are skeptical about the practicality of alternative fuels like ethanol, which is made from corn or plant fibers.

Mr. Bush was a voice of optimism on the panel, where he tried to cut through the scientific jargon and nudge the experts into nontechnical sound bites for the local news.

When Dan Arvizu, the director of the laboratory, went into a complicated explanation about a new form of ethanol made from wood fiber, Mr. Bush interjected: "I think what he's saying is one of these days, we're going to take wood chips, put them through the factory, and it's going to be fuel you can put in your car. Is that right?"

"That's the difference between the Ph.D. and a C student," Mr. Bush said, referring to his well-known grade-point average in college.

Does that idiot have any shame at all? I am not amused by our international embarrassment.

Posted by vicki at 10:10 AM

From the http://Mouthswideope.org website.

Welcome to the Mouths Wide Open
Army Men Project!

We’re spreading plastic Army Men around the country and around the globe as small, everyday reminders of the ongoing horrors of the war in Iraq and to serve as tools to foster dialogue, action and resistance to the war. Here in the United States we’re encouraged to forget about the war, to go on with our lives, to “go shopping.” But what if everywhere people went there were little plastic Army Men nudging them to remember that we’re waging war? At Home Depot, on the gas pump, in the 7-11, at the post office, on the hood of the car, in the public restroom, at the movie theatre, in the produce section of the grocery store … in your neighborhood …?

Help these little messengers appear everywhere— to be green plastic pin-pricks to the American conscience, to help create an environment in which it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the war, the loss of life and the unending destruction. The war is not going away. We want people to realize that by doing nothing they contribute to a war that has cost the lives of almost 2,000 American soldiers and many, many thousands of Iraqi civilians (conservative estimates put the Iraqi civilian death toll, as of September 7th, 2005 at 27,718. Source: iraqbodycount.net).
Join the Army Men Project – spread the plastic everywhere!

Particpate! Distribute Army Men Near You!
Send us Photos! Join the Dialogue!

ARMY MEN: Please help us cover the United States and the globe with plastic Army Men. You can either order your own Army Men and download your own stickers or you can order them directly from Mouths Wide Open.
PHOTOS: And please take photos of your soldiers in their various “outposts” and send them to us (click here for info on photo file size). Add your photo to our Army Men Gallery— be sure to let us know WHERE the Army Man is. (click here for Images).
TALK TO US: If you’ve come upon one of these little plastic soldiers and have something to say about it, please join the dialogue – email us at speak@mouthswideopen.org. (Responses soon to be posted.)
And please check out OUR LINKS PAGE to access groups who are working directly with soldiers and soldiers’ concerns and to see articles related to militarism. Creating an environment in which Americans have been hospitable to making war on Iraq has been fostered, in part, by a growing militarism in our culture. This LINKS PAGE provides a great foundation of related articles describing militarism in fashion, video games, advertising, etc. which impacts and affects all of us every day.

Posted by vicki at 08:22 PM

This was sent in from Hank. Thanks, buddy! You always know where the parties are.

Gumbo A Go-Go
2109 Frankfort Ave.
Louisville, KY 40206
502-896-4046

Gumbo A Go-Go Happenings
http://www.gumboagogo.com/events.html

Our 1st Annual Mardi Gras Fest
02.23.06 — 02.28.26
Put on your dancing shoes and bring your biggest appetite to our 1st Annual
Mardi-Fest, Thursday 2/23 through Tuesday 2/28. We have food & drink
specials, music and more planned for just about every day of the week. Here
are some of our tentative plans — we'll keep you posted as plans finalize.

Fri: 2/24: 12 Noon — 10PM
We celebrate Frankfort Avenue's FAT Friday with the return of our famous
"All Day, All You Can Eat" special for $10 (that's right, come for lunch and
come back for dinner). Then at 6 PM Louisville's Rascals of Ragtyme liven up
the joint with some genuine Dixieland Jazz.

As an additional treat, Mardi Gras Louisville, a benefit event for Gulf
Coast families who have relocated to Louisville as a result of Hurricanes
Katrina and Wilma, will have street musicians, floats, and other Mardi Gras
festivities up and down Frankfort Avenue. Visit www.mardigraslouisville.com
for details.

Tuesday: 2/28: All Day
Start your FAT Tuesday off with Beignets (delicious Cajun doughnuts) and
Chicory Coffee, from 8 - 11AM. Then join chef Billy Fox for lunch and dinner
as he tackles that most Southern of traditions — a Catfish Fry.

http://www.gumboagogo.com/events.html

Posted by vicki at 03:47 PM

Has Bu$h or Congress done anything for YOU lately? Unless you are fabulously wealthy or give them campaign cash, the answer is, NO. Read this excertp from the LA Times and weep. It's also online at Http://truthout.org

Privacy Guardian Is Still a Paper Tiger
By Richard B. Schmitt
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 20 February 2006
Privacy Guardian Is Still a Paper Tiger
By Richard B. Schmitt
The Los Angeles Times

A year after its creation, the White House civil liberties board has yet to do a single day of work.
Washington - For Americans troubled by the prospect of federal agents eavesdropping on their phone conversations or combing through their Internet records, there is good news: A little-known board exists in the White House whose purpose is to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected in the fight against terrorism.

Someday, it might actually meet.

Initially proposed by the bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created by the intelligence overhaul that President Bush signed into law in December 2004.

More than a year later, it exists only on paper.

Foot-dragging, debate over its budget and powers, and concern over the qualifications of some of its members - one was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for Texas governor - has kept the board from doing a single day of work.

On Thursday, after months of delay, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a first step toward standing up the fledgling watchdog, approving the two lawyers Bush nominated to lead the panel. But it may take months before the board is up and running and doing much serious work.

Critics say the inaction shows the administration is just going through the motions when it comes to civil liberties.

"They have stalled in giving the board adequate funding. They have stalled in making appointments," said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.). "It is apparent they are not taking this seriously."

The Sept. 11 commission also has expressed reservations about the commitment to the liberties panel.

"We felt it was absolutely vital," said Thomas H. Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who led the commission. "We had certainly hoped it would have been up and running a long time ago."

The inaction is especially noteworthy in light of recent events. Some Republicans joined Democrats to delay renewal of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act because of civil liberties concerns. And the disclosure in December that Bush approved surveillance of certain US residents' international communications without a court order has caused bipartisan dismay in Congress.

"Obviously, civil liberties issues are critically important, and they have been to this president, especially after 9/11," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, adding that the White House had moved expeditiously to establish the board. "We do not formally nominate until we are through the background investigation and the full vetting. It takes time to present those nominations to the Senate. But now that they have been confirmed, that is a good thing."

The board chairwoman is Carol E. Dinkins, a Houston lawyer who was a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was the treasurer of George W. Bush's first campaign for governor of Texas, in 1994, and co-chair of Lawyers for Bush-Cheney, which recruited Republican lawyers to handle legal battles after the November 2004 election.

Dinkins, a longtime partner in the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales once was a partner, has specialized in defending oil and gas companies in environmental lawsuits.

Foremost among her credentials, she told Senate Judiciary Committee members in a response to their questions, was the two years she spent as deputy attorney general in President Reagan's Justice Department. There, she said, she had to weigh civil liberties concerns while overseeing domestic surveillance and counter-intelligence cases.

The board vice chairman is Alan Charles Raul, a Washington lawyer who first suggested the concept of a civil liberties panel in an opinion article in the Los Angeles Times in December 2001. Raul, a former Agriculture Department general counsel currently in private practice, has published a book on privacy and the digital age and is the only panel member with apparent expertise in civil liberties issues.

The panel's lone Democrat, Lanny J. Davis, has known Bush since the two were undergraduates at Yale. Civil liberties groups regard the Washington lawyer, who worked in the Clinton White House, as likely to be a progressive voice on the panel.

The board also includes a conservative Republican legal icon, Washington lawyer and former Bush Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, whose wife, Barbara, died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The fifth member is Francis X. Taylor, a retired Air Force general and former State Department counter-terrorism coordinator, who is chief security officer at General Electric Co.

The board members declined to comment for this article. Three referred calls to Dinkins, who referred calls to the White House.

The idea of such a watchdog agency was broached almost immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, as conservatives and liberals alike saw a need for the government to consider the implications of new and growing anti-terrorism measures.

The idea was to have professionals ask hard questions about whether the government was going too far in collecting and disseminating information about suspected terrorists, and to have those professionals make their views known in regular reports to the president.

The board was given a broad mandate to review the civil liberties effects of proposed regulations and executive branch policies related to the war on terrorism. It will report to Bush.

The law gives the panel access to classified information under certain circumstances, but not the power to subpoena documents. The board, which is within the Executive Office of the president, operates at the behest of the administration.

Civil liberties groups saw it as a promising first step.

"The board has the potential to be an important force in protecting civil liberties if the White House gives the board a role in the policymaking process, as Congress intended," the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington advocacy group, wrote at the time the law was passed.

So far, that potential has not been realized.

The Bush administration waited nine months to send the nominations of Dinkins and Raul to the Senate for approval. The three other members of the board did not require Senate confirmation, but they could not function without a chairman.

Doubts about funding also developed. The administration proposed an initial budget of $750,000, which lawmakers doubled. But critics consider that far from adequate. A similar board in the Homeland Security Department was initially proposed to have a $13-million budget.

Some members of Congress are concerned that the administration may still be trying to shortchange the board.

The fiscal 2007 budget that the administration released this month includes no express mention of any funding for it. That triggered a letter of protest from Maloney and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) to the Office of Management and Budget.

A spokesman for the office, Scott Milburn, said in an interview that money was being requested for the board, but he declined to say how much.

Congress, which championed the idea of the board, also dragged its heels. Dinkins and Raul were officially nominated in September, when the Senate Judiciary Committee was busy with a Supreme Court nomination. The panel held a confirmation hearing in November, but only two of the 18 members showed up.

The committee finally approved Dinkins and Raul on Thursday without discussion. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said his panel moved as quickly as possible considering its other duties, such as Supreme Court nominations, and considering the time the White House took in sending the nominations to the panel.

The top Judiciary Committee Democrat, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, said in an interview: "They seem to be good people. They have done good things in their lives. But they certainly don't bring any special expertise to what I consider to be an extremely challenging position."

But Durbin said he believed the board could still be a valuable addition to the debate over security and liberty as concern over the growing power of government after Sept. 11 cuts across ideological lines.

Dinkins asserted in her written responses to the Senate committee that the board would not be a pushover for the administration. [editorial comment: Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.]

Posted by vicki at 03:08 PM

AMERICA 2000+ FEBRUARY MEETING: MEET THE CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES (from Brian Daly)

Suite 200, Louisville, KY

Four candidates are vying for this important position: Burrell Farnsley, Andrew Horne, James Moore, and John Yarmuth. All have important messages and each brings his own style to the job. Come hear how they will defeat their Republican opponent and bring sanity and honesty back to the U.S. Congress.

Each candidate will be asked to give a 5 minute "commercial" about why he is the best candidate to win this seat. After the candidates have presented their arguments, we will have a panel format where the audience can pose their important questions to the candidates.

A short business meeting will be conducted from 7:00 to 7:10 pm.

Other candidates for other positions will be allowed 1 (one) minute for a commercial about why we should vote for him/her from 7:10 to

7:15. Congressional candidate speaking order will be randomly

chosen.

All events include refreshments. Guests are always welcome.

******************

3rd DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE (from Honi Goldman)

The First Debate between the Primary Candidates for the Third Congressional District.

Thursday, April 6, 2006

Masterson's

1830 South Third Street

Louisville

Burrel Charles Farnsley (confirmed)

Andrew Horne (invited)

James Walter Moore (confirmed)

John Yarmuth (confirmed)

Moderator is Francene Cucinello, 84WHAS Radio

Time, sponsors and further details of this debate to be announced.

For further information, media contact is:

Honi Marleen Goldman

Tel: (502) 451.4564

Cell: (502) 419.0426

Fax: (502) 451.5487

Email: hmgoldman1@aol.com

Posted by vicki at 08:20 AM | Comments (2)

From Glenn Greenwald's blog: Http://Glenngreenwald.blogspot.com

Monday, February 20, 2006
The dying scandal that keeps growing

Ever since the NSA scandal began, Bush followers, led by Karl Rove, and even some frightened Democrats, have loudly insisted that this scandal is actually beneficial for Republicans, because they can use it to depict Democrats as weak on national security. Democrats want to hang up when Osama calls, while Bush is being aggressive in protecting our children from being blown up. As a result, they claimed, Republicans want this scandal to last as long as possible because it will only benefit Republicans politically and damage Democrats by highlighting their vulnerabilities.

While spouting that bravado, the Administration's actions reveal that they fear this scandal and want more than anything for it to disappear. At every turn, they have tried to prevent a meaningful investigation into the legality of their actions. If the NSA scandal is really the political weapon which the GOP can use to bash Democrats as being weak on national security, wouldn't the White House be doing the opposite - that is, encouraging every hearing and investigation possible?

The supplemental claim we hear most from the Administration is that this scandal is dying. It will all fade away with some nice legislation designed to render legal the President's four years of deliberate law-breaking. But the NSA scandal continues to dominate the news. Every day brings more conflicts, more disputes, more internecine fighting among Republicans. Indeed, Republicans are all fighting with each other on virtually every aspect of this scandal - when have we ever seen that?

Just review media reports on this scandal over the last 24 hours alone. Does this sound like an Administration that welcomes this scandal as something that is politically beneficial? Does this sound like a scandal that is dying:

From The Washington Post, today, reporting on the White House's frenzied, desperate efforts to quash Congressional investigations into its conduct:

At two key moments in recent days, White House officials contacted congressional leaders just ahead of intelligence committee meetings that could have stirred demands for a deeper review of the administration's warrantless-surveillance program, according to House and Senate sources.

In both cases, the administration was spared the outcome it most feared, and it won praise in some circles for showing more openness to congressional oversight.

But the actions have angered some lawmakers who think the administration's purported concessions mean little. Some Republicans said that the White House came closer to suffering a big setback than is widely known, and that President Bush must be more forthcoming about the eavesdropping program to retain Congress's good will.

And The New York Times, this morning, reports that the White House was groping around, offering any concessions that were demanded, in order to avoid the very investigation which Karl Rove and some inane, frightened Democrats insist would be so good for Republicans:

But two days before Mr. Bush spoke, the White House opened the door to talks in the hope of avoiding a full-scale Congressional investigation. According to lawmakers involved in the discussions, a number of senior officials, including Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff, began contacting members of the Senate to determine what it would take to derail the investigation.

And, as the Post article details, the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee who were depicted as having fallen passively into line apparently don't appreciate those reports and are eager to demonstrate otherwise:

Posted by vicki at 11:27 AM

Here's an excerpt from James Wolcott's amazing blog. You can read the entire piece here

Skeet Don't Bleed
Posted by James Wolcott

Andrew Sullivan quotes an eloquent chastisement from Matthew Scully, author of Dominion: The Power of Men, the Suffering of Animals, and a Call to Mercy, regarding the callous disregard demonstrated by Vice President Cheney.

"Birds are not skeet. They are living creatures, 'the fowl of the air,' and it is unkind and dishonorable to treat them this way. The sportsman shoots in jest, to paraphrase a saying, but the creature dies in earnest."

I saw a creature die in earnest earlier this afternoon on CNN. Rick Sanchez was filing a report on hunting protocol and safety, tramping through the woods with a pair of experienced hunters. At the end of the segment one of the hunters shot a quail, which fell from the air and landed in the grass, its wings thrashing. An animal died so that the segment could make its point. And it made me realize or re-realize that I don't have any respect even for "responsible" hunting, because the deaths it causes are still wanton and unnecessary, even if the carnage is less promiscuous than that of the canned hunts favored by Cheney, Scalia, and similar Davy Crocketts on male-bonding expeditions.

I can't remember where I read this but a few years ago there was a book about Hemingway in Africa reviewed in the British press. After a long quote from the book (perhaps taken from Hemingway's own words) about the dozens of the wild animals Hemingway and party had bagged on his most recent safari, the reviewer commented in succinct disgust, "What fucking waste." Yet the Hemingway mystique still stalks the oddest corridors, as Tom Watson observes, where the thrill of the kill is a rite of manhood that makes political junkies go as goosepimply as Seinfeld's Costanza when he got to 'hang' with a cool dude.

"The talking head Beltway media mouths are covering the pellet-sprayed tort reform episode in Texas as if it's a story from some exotic culture, little-known in these parts, but somehow authentic to the mythical heartland that - as well as know - actually stands for the real America, and elects manly Presidents besides...

"This line of talk reveals a strange, even warped vision of authentic Americanism - one that ignores the fact that the huge majority of Americans live in cities or subdivisions, and hunt only for bargains on Playstations, flat screen TV's, and gasoline.

"It also gives a style of hunting that can charitably be described as shooting fish in a barrel with fine Italian shotguns far more old-fashioned American macho credit than it deserves, as if wealthy hunters driving Hummers around a private ranch to blast away at cage-raised 'prey' hold any fair comparison at all with the kind of tough, ready men of the outdoors..."

Rich guys pretending to be Jeremiah Johnson is one of the many fascimile editions of rawhide authenticity being successfully peddled in the media with no one willing to stop and say that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on animals should be a source of sin and shame, and that the decent thing to do would be to break Cheney's shotgun in two before anyone or anything else is harmed by his buffoonery.

Posted by vicki at 12:54 PM | Comments (3)

The Louisville Peace Action Org sent out this notice:

Mark your calendars
Two Louisville Anti War Actions

Presidents Day? Yes, a call for Impeachment!

Monday February 20th 12-2:00
4600 Block of Shelbyville Road (Near the Plaza)
Banners, signs and peaceful presence

Marking the Third Anniversary of the start of the War

Saturday, March 18
12-3:00
Intersection of Taylorsville Road and Hurstbourne Lane.
Banners, signs and peaceful presence

Another setup of the 2000 plus shirts representing the US military deaths and Iraqi civilians

For those who participated in the marking of the 2000th US death in Iraq, you know it takes a lot of people to pull this off! We would like people to volunteer to come with 5 others to hold a “length” of 50 shirts on a line. Send a note to admin@louisvillepeace.org to let us know if you can do this.

Posted by vicki at 11:33 PM

I got this from Elaine Supkis' excellent blog:

http://culturelifenewsii.blogspot.com/

You just cannot make this shit UP! Poor, poor pitiful, suffering Big Dick had a bad week.

Posted by vicki at 11:12 PM

Woo Hoo! Jimmy Moore, Democrat, 3rd District candidate made a surprise visit to DL again last night. The crowd went wild! It was enough to make us want to do the Jimmy dance. (See pic) I'm going to scan some of the hilarious Candidate Questionnaires he got from the NRA and Right To Life. The questions are so loaded and ridiculous, I don't know why an intelligent being would respond to them as serious.

Anyway, visit his website and learn more.

http://www.jameswmooreforcongress.com/

Thanks Jimmy. Come back often. We heart you.

Posted by vicki at 10:50 PM | Comments (1)

Big Dick Cheney shoots an old man in the face and heart. Not a big deal right? Talk about the gang who couldn't shoot straight. If Howie the Putz gets it, we're onto something here. From the Washington Post:

Gunning for Cheney

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; 10:24 AM

Other than the fact that a sitting vice president hasn't shot anyone since Aaron Burr dispatched Alexander Hamilton, why is Dick Cheney the non-sharpshooter getting so much coverage?

Okay, other than the fact that the comics haven't had so much fun since President Bush choked on a pretzel. (Letterman: "We can't get Bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney.")

Okay, other than the fact that the VP saw no reason to tell the press and immediately went into the metaphorical equivalent of a secret undisclosed location?

And other than the this-isn't-so-funny-after-all news yesterday that the birdshot had caused Harry Whittington to suffer a minor heart attack?

The reason this is such a crossover hit, I believe, is that it encapsulates everything we know, or think we know, about Vice President Cheney.

So secretive that he even waited to tell Bush. So taciturn that he feels no need for a public apology. So insulated that he defers a police interview until the following morning. So defensive that he has not so much as acknowledged a mistake.

At 2:47 p.m. yesterday, Cheney's office finally put out a statement, saying he had called Whittington and wished him well--but still not even a hint of public regret.

Part of the dynamic here is that the birdshot brouhaha gives everyone a chance to play their assigned roles.

The White House press corps is outraged at the 21-hour delay in informing the world.

Liberals say this is typical of the way the administration botched the war, and they wonder why journalists didn't get this exercised about being misled on WMD.

Conservatives say this is nothing but a common hunting accident, and they blame journalists for blowing it way out of proportian.

[/end snip]

Jeepers H. Christmas! Vice is out of control. Scan any headline in any legit newspaper in the world and you will find any number of reasons to be frightened of your own government. This cannot stand. Get busy, get active and take back your government.

Posted by vicki at 12:38 PM

Westen is a good choice but Perry has a really bizarre voting record. He's anti chice for women and pro marriage for teens under the age of 16. OY! From today's Courier Journal:

37th Districts vote for Democrats
Clark, Weston win Senate, House seats
Senate election ends long dispute
By Joseph Gerth
and Sheldon S. Shafer The Courier-Journal

It took two elections and a yearlong court fight, but residents of Jefferson County's 37th Senate District finally have a representative in Frankfort.

Former Rep. Perry Clark will be the 37th District's new state senator, and former Metro Council member Ron Weston will replace him in the state House.

With 100 percent of the vote counted, Clark won by more than 900 votes over political newcomer Debbie Peden in the Senate race.

The special election became necessary after the state Supreme Court ruled that Republican Dana Seum Stephenson wasn't qualified to serve after getting the most votes in the 2004 general election.

Weston won by more than 1,400 votes over Republican Carolee Allen in the race for the 37th House District seat, which Clark vacated to run for Senate.

Voter turnout in both races was roughly 20 percent.

Clark and Weston are expected to be seated in Frankfort later this week.

Democrat Ben Abell said he voted for Clark because "I've voted Democratic all my life, and he's a union man." He said Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher is trying to weaken labor's political strength by proposing a state law that would allow people to work in union shops without paying union dues or fees.

Clark, who will serve the remainder of the four-year term that ends in 2008, said he won because voters rejected what he called the Republican Party's "negative campaign using smear tactics" against him.

"A lot of it is misinterpretation, a lot of it is distortion, and some of it is outright lies," he said. "I have no animosity against Debbie Peden. This was all the Republican machine."

Peden said she believed Clark won in part because of the support he received from labor unions and also because of the divisive battle between Stephenson and Democrat Virginia Woodward over the Senate seat.

"I can't point at one specific thing," she said.

Weston, who has been on the Metro Council since Jefferson County and Louisville merged and was the council's first president, said the House election illustrated that "the people in the South End showed they want to make sure they get their fair share" of state aid from Frankfort.

Weston and Allen will face off again in November for a full two-year term for the 37th House District seat. Despite his big win, Weston said he wouldn't take his race against Allen lightly.

Trailing by a 2-1 margin with nearly half the precincts left to count, Allen congratulated Weston and said that his win was "not because he outworked me. I walked every day and had a great group of people helping me."

Senate election
Democratic leaders chose Clark as their 37th Senate District candidate because of his winning track record in southern Jefferson County, where voters liked his brand of libertarian politics and his support of organized labor.

Even so, his selection angered some Democrats who thought Woodward earned the right to run in the special election.

It cost him the vote of Ellie Eichler, a registered Democrat who voted for Peden in part because she was "very, very disgusted" that Woodward didn't get to run.

During the campaign, Republicans used Clark's experience -- and a list of votes and positions they characterized as "bizarre" -- in an effort to convince voters that he was out of the mainstream.

One radio spot recounted several of his votes -- including his vote against a law that would have prohibited most children under the age of 16 from marrying.

A Republican Party mailer showed a black-and-white photo of a heavily bearded mountain man with the question: "Would you vote to allow this man to marry your 12 year old daughter?"

Clark said he voted against the law because the problem wasn't widespread and because legislators couldn't know all the dynamics inside families.

Clark responded with ads accusing Peden of lying about her record and calling her Gov. Ernie Fletcher's handpicked candidate, claiming she would be his puppet in Frankfort.

Among her "lies," Clark said she claimed to have been a teacher at Iroquois High School in 2003 when she was not and that she erroneously claimed she is a current member of the Jefferson County Teachers Association.

Her campaign said they were simple mistakes.

Republican consultant Ted Jackson said that the heavily Democratic district made for a difficult race for any Republican and that Stephenson was able to win in 2004 in part because of the popularity of her father, Sen. Dan Seum.

He added: "The current situation in Frankfort was not a help to Peden in the race."

House election
In the 37th District House race, Allen and Weston were competing to fill the remaining year left when Clark resigned to run for the Senate.

The Allen-Weston campaign was tame compared with the flamboyant Senate race. Allen said she spent more than $25,000 on the race, and Weston spent about $40,000.

"All in all, it was pretty clean," Weston said.

It was the first try for office by Allen, a former aide to then-Judge-Executive Rebecca Jackson and a former marketing official at the Louisville-Jefferson County Riverport Authority.

She promoted her credentials and her Christian values. She said any arena should be built at the fairgrounds, not downtown, and opposed a smoking ban and the fairness ordinance on gay rights -- all positions contrary to Weston's.

Weston's support of the smoking ban cost him the vote of registered Democrat Don Simmon.

"I believe in the right of a business to have smoking," he said.

Weston emphasized his support for labor and the need for the South End to receive its fair share of state assistance. He said he would work to bring jobs to the area and to improve education and funding for senior-citizens programs.

Weston plans to resign from the Metro Council in the next day or two. The council will then select a replacement.

Reporter Joseph Gerth can be reached at (502) 582-4702.

Reporter Sheldon S. Shafer can be reached at (502) 582-7089.

Posted by vicki at 09:41 AM

I just wanted to take a moment to tell you all how much I heart you and enjoy your company at our Drinking Liberally get togethers.

I hope you're all feeling the love today, and I don't mean that corny Hallmark card kind.

Vicki

Posted by vicki at 05:55 PM | Comments (2)

Democrat Questions Cheney's Role in Leak

This is from http://newyorktimes.com

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: February 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, said Sunday that Vice President Dick Cheney would need to resign if he had ordered a leak that resulted in the public exposure of an undercover C.I.A. officer.

Mr. Dean cited news reports last week that I. Lewis Libby Jr., Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, had testified to a grand jury that his "superiors," whom he did not name, had told him to leak classified information to reporters to justify the Iraq war.

But Mr. Libby's testimony, according to the document that was the basis of the news reports, did not say anyone had told him to disclose the name of Valerie Wilson, the undercover operative, as Mr. Dean appeared to suggest. The testimony dealt with a different but related disclosure of classified information from a report about Iraq's nuclear capability.

In an interview on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," Mr. Dean appeared to expand on the news reports about Mr. Libby's testimony, saying grand jury testimony showed that "it turns out that the vice president of the United States may have been responsible for those leaks" about Ms. Wilson's role with the Central Intelligence Agency for political reasons.

Any confusion on Mr. Dean's part about last week's disclosure underlines both the deep complexity of the investigation into who leaked Ms. Wilson's identity to the press and its potential for enormous political opportunities and pitfalls.

There are two reasons the confusion is likely to continue as a criminal case against Mr. Libby proceeds. The first is that Mr. Libby is not charged with improperly disclosing Ms. Wilson's identity in the summer of 2003; rather, he is charged with lying to investigators about how he learned of her position at the C.I.A. and her role in the agency assigning her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, to go to Africa to determine if Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear materials.

Mr. Wilson accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities, and days later, his wife's cover was blown in a column by Robert D. Novak in July 2003.

Mr. Wilson has asserted that his wife's identity was exposed in retaliation for his public criticism.

The second troublesome dimension is that the issue deals with the unacknowledged but frequent practice of government officials selectively leaking classified information to journalists. Although such leaks are forbidden by law, there is widespread recognition that it is done.

The document that was disclosed last Thursday, a prosecutor's letter to Mr. Libby's lawyers, shows that Mr. Libby told the grand jury he was engaging in just such a practice. The document said he told the grand jury that his superiors had authorized him to share with reporters information from a National Intelligence Estimate in June and July 2003. The intelligence estimate, a classified report about Iraq's nuclear capability, was used to rebut growing public concern about the rationale for invading Iraq. [/end snip]

Good grief! How many "superiors" did Libby have? His bosses are Bu$h and Cheney, for crying out loud. Makes me want to Drink Liberally.

Dean is perfectly correct to question whether or not Cheney authorized leaking of classified information.

Posted by vicki at 03:00 PM

Got this in the subject line of an email from June and just had to *share*

Guns don't shoot people, Vice Presidents Do.

Hahahahahahaha.

This Admin really can't shoot straight. Hahahahahaha.

Posted by vicki at 11:26 AM

You really cannot make this stuff UP. The man who was shot by Big Dick is refusing to talk to the press "out of respect to the Vice President."

How do you respect someone who shot you in the face?

Anyway, you can read the Times article here

My head hurts.

Posted by vicki at 10:27 AM

I think the picture speaks for itself. Good old "Pissin' Jim." I wish all of you would have gotten to meet Jim last night and hear his views and what he stands for as a candidate. I'm confident you would have been impressed. Check out his website here

Thanks for coming to DL, Jimmy! We were honored to have you.

Posted by vicki at 04:17 PM | Comments (3)

The New York Times ran the article below deep inside. The op/ed page carried an opinion piece by Porter Goss (head spook at the CIA) crying big, fat tears over the leak of classified information about the illegal domestic spying on U.S. citizens. He basicly calls the CIA agents who leaked (they claimed it was over concern that they were being ordered to break the law) traitors who are wrecking the "war on terror" and endangering Americans lives. Hahahahahaha. Of course, he shows no remorse that the the WH directed the outing of a covert agent and actually endangered her life and the lives of her contacts overseas.

Ex-Cheney Aide Testified Leak Was Ordered, Prosecutor Says


By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: February 10, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, told a grand jury that he was authorized by his "superiors" to disclose classified information to reporters about Iraq's weapons capability in June and July 2003, according to a document filed by a federal prosecutor.

The document shows that Mr. Libby, known as Scooter, was actively engaged in the Bush administration's public relations effort to rebut complaints that there was little evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed or sought weapons of mass destruction, which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The document is part of the prosecutors' case against Mr. Libby, who has been indicted on charges that he lied about his role in exposing the identity of a C.I.A. operative to journalists.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said in a letter to Mr. Libby's lawyers last month that Mr. Libby had testified before the grand jury that "he had contacts with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ('NIE')," that discussed Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. "We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors."

Mr. Libby was indicted on five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice last October in what Mr. Fitzgerald has charged was a willful misleading of investigators about his role in exposing Valerie Wilson as an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. Ms. Wilson is the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who had accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium from the government of Niger.

Posted by vicki at 01:15 PM

Hi friends,

You are cordially invited to the Andrew Horne for U.S. Congress HQ Open
House. Horne HQ is located in the building in Jillian's parking lot at 640
Barrett. It's this Friday after work from 5-7:00pm.

Join us!

For more details and directions go to Andrew's website:
www.horneforcongress.com or click this link

Posted by vicki at 02:56 PM

Be sure to meet us at the BBC tonight at 7:00 to welcome Mr. Moore and to have a pint with all your Liberal pals.

Cant make it? Visit his website here: Http://voteforjimmy.org

Or click here

Here is Mr. Moore in his own words:

Read. Think. Decide.

An end to politics as usual.

I'm not a politician; I'm an engineer. Engineers are trained to tackle complex problems, break them down into their component elements, and solve them. That kind of approach is what government needs, and what government should be about.

Regardless of your political views, I think that you'll all agree with me that money has ruined the political process in the United States and it has disenfranchised all of us - the electorate. The primary goal of my candidacy is to help effect a change in that process by getting the money out of political campaigns. In that regard I have a radical proposal - a ban on all commercial political advertising. That's right - a total ban. Before you start howling about the first amendment, please hear me out.

The giant media buys that are required of modern campaigns means that candidates must either be multi-millionaires, or worse yet, that they become beholden to multi-millionaires in order to gain elected office. The scandalous activities that occur daily on K Street are a direct result of the financial pressures that politicians feel in order to maintain their incumbency. If we remove that pressure, we will also remove a great deal of the scandal that we now associate with political activity.

Modern technology has created the problem that we face, but it also offers us the solutions that we need. The power of the internet allows anyone to reach a vast audience with their message. Broadcast and print media, covering fair, open debates between candidates, gives the electorate a chance to evaluate a candidate's policies and qualifications in a way that thirty second advertisements with Madison Avenue voice-overs can not.

Too many talented people will never run for political office simply because doing so is financially out of their reach. Let's restore the dignity of our political process by changing the rules so that talented people do have a chance. Let's take the big money out of political campaigning.

The Third District Kentucky Democratic Congressional Primary will certainly not be about money, but whoever wins it will have to compete against Anne Northup, an incumbent with a million-dollar war chest. Some of her campaigns funds were derived from sources who are now under indictment for criminal activity. By taking their money Ms. Northup did nothing illegal, but in so doing she is sanctioning a problem that is epidemic in the United States.

If you're intrigued by the idea of removing money from political campaigns, please read further. Review the issues, carefully consider your choices, and decide who you'd like to send as your representative to the U.S. Congress. I don't want your money, but I'd be honored to have your vote

Posted by vicki at 02:03 PM | Comments (3)

Sent by Maria from the MSNBC website:

Notice the glee Bu$h and his collection hard right wing budget busters express while cutting aid to the elderly, the poor and would be college students. Meanwhile, tax cuts for the rich continue. The Military Industrial Complex flourishes and pork takes a bridge to nowhere. And yes, second to the (hard) right is Mitch McConnell. He's right at home with Santorum, DeLay, and Frist

Posted by vicki at 09:31 AM | Comments (2)

Whew! That was fast. Maria alerted me to this disgrace. Notice in the picture, second from the right wing, Mitch McConnell. The obvious glee he and Frist, DeLay and other wingnuts take in having benefits for the aged and poor cut is blood curdling. Here is a snip of the MSNBC article:

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed a measure Wednesday that trims Medicaid and Medicare spending over the next five years, but he said Congress must make bigger changes as baby boomers retire.

Bush said programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the biggest long-term challenge to the budget. Even after the cuts he signed into law, the growth rates projected for the programs are unsustainable, he said.

“By 2030, spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget,” Bush said just before signing the Deficit Reduction Act in the East Room of the White House.

“That will leave future generations with impossible choices — staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending,” the president said.

He defended his budget blueprint for the coming fiscal year in the face of critics from both parties who say he is shaving too much from Medicare and other programs. He said his critics are thinking like free-spending Europeans.

“There are some that, frankly, whose policies would make us look more like Europe than we should, and that is kind of a centralization of power,” Bush said in a visit Wednesday to tax-averse New Hampshire. “The surest way to centralize power is to take more of your own money to Washington.” [Editorial comment: Huh? What a fool.]

Automotive metaphor
Bush’s proposal for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 asks Congress to trim Medicare spending by $35.9 billion over five years, allowing the program to grow at a rate of 7.7 percent instead of 8.1 percent currently projected.

“It is the difference between slowing your car down to the speed limit, or putting your car into reverse,” Bush said both at the White House and before the Business and Industry Association in Manchester, N.H.

The bill he signed is a leftover measure from his 2005 agenda. The measure aims to trim $39 billion out the of budget over five years, partly through small cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and student loan subsidies.

The bill also:

Renews the 1996 welfare overhaul bill.
Cuts $11.9 billion in student loan subsidies.
Aims to raise $10 billion in new revenues from auctioning television airwaves to wireless companies.
Includes $1 billion in new spending to extend an income subsidy program for dairy farmers.

Small cuts compared to deficit

The $39 billion in cuts in the bill are generally small — a 0.4 percent cut in total Medicaid money and 0.3 percent cut from Medicare over five years — compared with deficits expected to total $1.3 trillion or more through 2010. But Bush said it will save an average of about $300 per taxpayer over the five years.

Democrats said the measure was an assault on college students and the elderly and disabled who rely on Medicaid to pay for their health care. They said the bill, which was written in private, was evidence of the undue influence of corporate interests such as insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

Posted by vicki at 08:17 AM

The event will be held in DC at 10:00 AM EST. Check with C-Span or CNN on the web or TV.

In a separate matter entirely, the Wellstoning of the MLK funeral service has begun. Every single news outlet has been critical of the political chiding directed at Bu$h. Excuse me, the Kings and their guests were and are political activists. For the first time in memory, Bu$h had to listen to an audience that was not hand picked or screened. He had it coming.

Posted by vicki at 09:30 AM

This is just wrong. Louisville has the most hazardous air in the Southeast. It is full of soot and chemicals yet Rep. Anne Northup R-Wingnutville and State Senator Dan Seum R-Loonyville want to prevent the STAR program from improving the quality of our air. From the CJ:

Limits on air-quality rules opposed
Bill would block stricter standards

By Katya Cengel
kcengel@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

Early in his ministry, the Rev. Jim Chatham worked at a church in Covington, Va., where his office looked out on a paper mill that he said made the town smelly and dirty.

"The whole community smelled like rotten eggs," said Chatham, pastor emeritus of Highland Presbyterian Church.

The experience left Chatham with a deep appreciation of clean air, a sentiment he expressed yesterday during a news conference at which he and about a dozen others from Louisville's medical, religious and environmental communities announced their opposition to a bill pending in the Kentucky Senate.

Introduced by state Sen. Dan Seum, R-Louisville, Senate Bill 39 would prevent the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District from having any regulations more stringent than those of the state or federal government, thus restricting the city's new Strategic Toxic Air Reduction program.

The STAR program, adopted in June 2005, is requiring some businesses to determine whether certain chemical emissions pose an unacceptable risk to the public. If so, officials are supposed to press them to reduce emissions at a faster pace than required under federal rules.

The program was adopted after a consultant's study found that health risks in some areas from breathing chemicals in the air were higher than the Environmental Protection Agency had estimated anywhere else. Also, a screening analysis completed in 2002 ranked Jefferson County first in the Southeast for health risks from hazardous air pollutants.

Metro Mayor Jerry Abramson expressed his support for the STAR program through his spokesman, Chad Carlton, saying those at the local level are best positioned to make decisions in their community.

Last fall, U.S. Rep. Anne Northup, R-3rd District, questioned the validity of the studies the STAR program is based on and said the city should not have tougher environmental regulations than the federal government.

SB 39 would ensure that Louisville doesn't, and that concerns many who attended yesterday's conference, including Robert Powell, medical director of Norton Hospital.

"When a cancer can be prevented, it is much better to prevent it than to wait for it to attack and try to cure it," he said.

Arnita Gadson, executive director of the West Jefferson County Community Task Force, which monitors pollution in that area, agreed.

"Health should be of the highest priority," Gadson said.

She and others at the news conference released a list of two dozen organizations -- including the Kentucky League of Cities, the League of Women Voters of Louisville, the Kentucky Council of Churches and the Jefferson County Teachers Association -- that have signed a resolution in opposition to SB 39.

The group plans to give the resolution to senators today and to be present when SB 39 is expected to come before the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee tomorrow morning.

Seum could not be reached for comment yesterday, but he has said that he believes the STAR program will hurt the Louisville economy by putting businesses at a disadvantage with competitors in other cities.

Chatham countered by saying that dirty air does not lead to economic prosperity.

"Clean air is not an option," he said, "it is a necessity."

Reporter Katya Cengel can be reached at (502) 582-4224.

Posted by vicki at 08:02 AM

Come out and share a table with 3rd District Democrat, Andrew Horne, and his lovely wife, Steph.

Trivia Night

CLUB

February 18

Check-in 6:30 p.m.

First questioned asked at 7 p.m.

Fire Fighters Union Hall

400 Bakers Lane

$200 per table

$25 per person

(Please join us-even if you don't have 8.

We will combine individuals into tables)

$200 Prize for 1 st Place

Snacks and Coolers are Welcome!

Make checks to Metro Democrats PAC

Reserve a table now 773-5522

Please make your reservation by Feb. 11th

Posted by vicki at 08:05 AM

Here we go again. The very same folks who tried to illegally spy on their domestic *enemies* in the 70's are at it again. The cast of characters are all too familiar. And dangerous. We have 3 corrupt branches of government and no ethical oversight. How messed up it THAT?

Here is an AP article. You can also look into the Http://newsweek.com article for some insight into this misadministration's pissing on the Constitution.

Snooping docs during Ford's administration released

By MARGARET EBRAHIM

WASHINGTON (AP) - An intense debate erupted during former U.S. president Gerald Ford's administration over the president's powers to eavesdrop without warrants to gather foreign intelligence, newly disclosed government documents revealed.

Former president George Bush, current Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney are cited in the documents. The roughly 200 pages of historic records reflect a remarkably similar dispute between the White House and Congress fully three decades before President George W. Bush's acknowledgment he authorized wiretaps without warrants of some Americans in terrorism investigations.

"Yogi Berra was right: it's deja vu all over again," said Tom Blanton, executive director for the U.S. National Security Archives, a private research group that compiles collections of sensitive government documents.

"It's the same debate."

Senate judiciary committee hearings are scheduled to begin Monday on the question of Bush's authority to approve such wiretaps by the ultra-secretive National Security Agency without a judge's approval. A focus of the hearings is to determine whether the Bush administration's eavesdropping program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a 1978 law with origins during Ford's presidency.

"We strongly believe it is unwise for the president to concede any lack of constitutional power to authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes," wrote Robert Ingersoll, then deputy secretary of state, in a 1976 memorandum to Ford about the proposed bill on electronic surveillance.

Former president Bush, then director of the CIA, wanted to ensure "no unnecessary diminution of collection of important foreign intelligence" under the proposal to require judges to approve terror wiretaps, said a March 1976 memorandum he wrote to the Justice Department. Bush also complained some major communications companies were unwilling to install government wiretaps without a judge's approval. Such a refusal "seriously affects the capabilities of the intelligence community," Bush wrote.

In another document, Jack Marsh, a White House adviser, outlined options for Ford over the wiretap legislation. Marsh alerted Ford to objections by Bush as CIA director and Rumsfeld, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft over the scope of a provision to require judicial oversight of wiretaps. At the time, Rumsfeld was defence secretary, Kissinger was secretary of state and Scowcroft was the White House national security adviser.

Some experts weren't surprised the cast of characters in this national debate remained largely unchanged over 30 years.

"People don't change their stripes," said Kenneth Bass a former senior Justice Department lawyer who oversaw such wiretap requests during former president Jimmy Carter's administration.

Posted by vicki at 10:25 AM

3rd District race heats up
Al Cross

It was fitting that Tuesday's deadline to file for partisan office in Kentucky came just five hours before President Bush's State of the Union address. Where Bush takes the union in the next nine months could have much to do with the results of Kentucky's elections for Congress.

The State of the Union wasn't really about policy, but about politics. Bush's core message was that he is Our Protector in the war on terror -- which shouldn't be the same as the war in Iraq, but is, because he made it so.

Will Bush's national-security card, so useful for Republicans in the 2002 and 2004 elections, be trumped by the quagmire in Iraq, rising energy prices and the Jack Abramoff scandal? Only if Democrats find a way to speak coherently and credibly on Iraq, not just criticize Bush's handling of it.

That's why some Democrats have had high hopes for Andrew Horne, the Louisville congressional candidate who lambastes Bush's Iraq policies, and has more credentials than the usual critic because he is a Marine Reserve lieutenant colonel who served in Iraq -- much in the mold of Paul Hackett, [my proud emphisis] the Democrat who almost won a special election for a supposedly safe Republican seat in the Cincinnati suburbs last year.

But before Horne can take on 3rd District Republican Rep. Anne Northup, he must defeat John Yarmuth, a founder of LEO, who kept writing a column for the weekly newspaper after he sold it, and raised his profile even further with television appearances. (James Walter Moore and Burrel Charles Farnsley are also running.)

[Hey, Al Cross! Don't you be hatin' on Jimmy by making him a footnote! Do your homework.]

Yarmuth first said he would not put any of his personal wealth into the race, but when he filed on deadline day, he said he might donate "six figures."

That posed an obstacle for Horne, a first-time candidate who has no experience raising campaign funds but hopes to get loads of money from around the country because he fits the national Democratic profile for a winning challenger this year. Now that the Democratic nominee in the 3rd is uncertain, many of those donors may defer their investment until after the primary.

Without sufficient money, Horne may be unable to build the name recognition and familiarity he needs to beat Yarmuth, a familiar figure to well-informed voters in Democratic primaries. Those voters are more liberal than most, and so is Yarmuth. But that formula for success in a Democratic primary is a recipe for failure in the general election.

The 3rd is the most liberal district in Kentucky, but it is not liberal, and Northup has won it five times with superbly funded and managed campaigns. Republicans are already salivating over the prospect of throwing Yarmuth's liberal columns back at him this fall, much as they did with Democrat Nick Clooney in the 4th District in 2004.

So, Horne may have to run the same kind of ads Republicans would, though his campaign manager, Jim Arnett, told me, "We have no intentions of going negative against John Yarmuth."

Yarmuth told me he will not target Horne, but only Northup, and that he plans to start advertising in April or a bit earlier. He said he's willing to have his columns compared with Northup's votes, and thinks voters are "ready for somebody who is passionate" with firm stands on issues, and more inclined to vote their pocketbooks than social issues.

If Yarmuth loses the primary, his candidacy may actually help Horne, by planting fresh doubt in voters' minds about Northup and giving Horne a chance to tone up his campaign skills, be a winner and have some momentum. The downside, of course, is starting the general-election race with little or no money.

Two Democrats outside the district who may not want Yarmuth to win are former Rep. Baron Hill, who has mounted a strong effort to regain the Southern Indiana seat he lost to Republican Rep. Mike Sodrel in 2004, and state Rep. Mike Weaver, a retired Army colonel who is challenging Republican Rep. Ron Lewis.

With three strong Democratic nominees, the Louisville television market would be a magnet for party and interest-group advertising that would probably benefit the challengers. With Yarmuth the nominee in Louisville, it might be less magnetic.

Metropolitan synergy could also be a factor in the 4th District, which is dominated by Kentucky's fast-growing Cincinnati suburbs. Former Rep. Ken Lucas, who honored a term-limit pledge in 2004 and didn't run, filed last week against Republican Rep. Geoff Davis, whom he defeated in 2002.

Lucas is the Democrats' best hope for gaining a Kentucky congressional seat. He has good conservative credentials and the cooperative image voters probably prefer right now, and Davis hasn't quite learned to act like a congressman.

However, Davis' suburban base is growing and Lucas' rural base is not. In 2002, Lucas lost his home Boone County by almost 3,800 votes, and the other two Northern Kentucky metro counties more narrowly; he won by carrying all the other counties except Oldham and Lewis, where most voters are registered Republican.

If the race is close, Bush's standing and the direction of the country could play major roles.

In the 2nd District, Weaver has shown he can raise money, amassing $86,000 in December, and Lewis' balance of $635,181 is modest for a 12-year incumbent.

Lewis is no beacon of incisive policy analysis, but that does not appear to be the desire of the district, which stretches from Owensboro to Bowling Green to Bullitt County and a small piece of Jefferson County.

Lewis remains what he was in 1994 -- Everyman catapulted to Washington by a special election, then secured by the general election that, in reaction to Bill and Hillary Clinton, turned Congress Republican. Democratic candidates hope for a switch back this year, as a reaction to Bush. The outcome is probably less in their hands than his. [/end article]

My greatest hope and least worry is that Dems will bloody one another race in this. They don't need to. All the Dem candidates running are people of integrity and they want one thing: Taking back the country from special intrest protectors like Northup, McConnell, Bunning and their statewide cronies at home and in the capitol.

Posted by vicki at 08:07 PM | Comments (1)

Below is an excerpt sent by Mike Bailey, co-chair of Democracy for America (DFA). Although DFA endorsed Lt. Col. Horne, I invited Jimmy to visit us at DL and he graciously accepted. The DFA crowd were wowed by him and I hope you will all come out on Thursday and see for yourself. Visit his website for more information.

Http://voteforjimmy.org

After we heard from Melvin Ratchford, Tony Lindauer, and Aaron Tasman, who are running for PVA, the congressional candidates spoke to the group. Since all three candidates are very progressive on the issues, with few substantive differences in policy, I asked them to focus on convincing DFA why they feelthey should be the one to challenge Northup, without focusing on issues.

James Walter Moore http://voteforjimmy.org set the bar incredibly high,winning over the DFA crowd almost immediately with his frank honesty and hissense of humor. His innovative ideas excited many, and his energy and passion greatly impressed the group. Most of us had no idea what to expect from Moore, an engineer and business owner. In fact, I had only discovered his website that morning, and he had been invited to the event with less than eight hours notice. Even so, he was prepared and energized. Moore's main reason
for running is to restore integrity to the political process and after his amazing debut on the political stage, DFA members feel that Moore's participation will make a positive difference.

Andrew Horne (http://horneforcongress.com/), a Marine Lt. Col., spoke to the crowd next. Horne was confident and passionate, directly fielding questions about how he would handle the seemingly inevitable Republican swift-boating should he win the primary, and explaining how he would deal with Republican wedge-issue tactics. It was when he related a dramatic personal story about a turning point in the mismanaged war in Iraq that the DFA crowd seemed to lean back toward Horne. DFA members highly value Horne's service to our country,
and feel that his strength and courage to step into the political ring as a total outsider is refreshing. Horne's impressive media coverage is also an advantage, and it seems that of the three candidates, he is far more likely to draw nationwide donations. Finally, his employment of professionals to help run the traditional portion of his campaign, in combination with his aggressive courting of grassroots support, show his forethought and commitment
to winning the race.

Local celebrity columnist and publisher John Yarmuth wrapped up the
congressional interviews. Expectations were high, and DFA members were anticipating a progressive fighter. Some were wondering if the mood in the cr