Thursday, June 07, 2007

Official: Cheney Urged Wiretaps

Official: Cheney Urged WiretapsStand-In for Ashcroft Alleges Interference
By Dan EggenWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, June 7, 2007;

Vice President Cheney told Justice Department officials that he disagreed with their objections to a secret surveillance program during a high-level White House meeting in March 2004, a former senior Justice official told senators yesterday.

The meeting came one day before White House officials tried to get approval for the same program from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who lay recovering from surgery in a hospital, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey.

Comey's disclosures, made in response to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicate that Cheney and his aides were more closely involved than previously known in a fierce internal battle over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. The program allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas.

Comey said that Cheney's office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer, Patrick Philbin, because of his role in raising concerns about the surveillance.

The disclosures also provide further details about the role played by then-White House counsel
Alberto R. Gonzales. He visited Ashcroft in his hospital room and wrote an internal memorandum on the surveillance program shortly afterward, according to Comey's responses. Gonzales is now the attorney general. He faces possible congressional votes of no-confidence because of his handling of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

"How are you, General?" Gonzales asked Ashcroft at the hospital, according to Comey.
"Not well," replied Ashcroft, who had just undergone gallbladder surgery and was battling pancreatitis.


The new details follow Comey's gripping testimony last month about the visit by Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then Bush's chief of staff, to Ashcroft's hospital bed on the night of March 10, 2004. The two Bush aides tried to persuade Ashcroft to renew the authorization of the NSA surveillance program, after Comey and other Justice Department officials had said they would not certify the legality of the effort, according to the testimony and other officials.

Ashcroft refused, noting that Comey had been designated as acting attorney general during his illness.


The episode prompted sharp criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, who questioned whether Gonzales and Card were attempting to take advantage of a sick man to get around legal objections from government lawyers. It is unclear who directed the two Bush aides to make the visit.

Democrats said yesterday that the new details from Comey raise further questions about the role of Cheney and other White House officials in the episode.

"Mr. Comey has confirmed what we suspected for a while -- that White House hands guided Justice Department business," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "The vice president's fingerprints are all over the effort to strong-arm Justice on the NSA program, and the obvious next question is: Exactly what role did the president play?"

A White House spokesman declined to comment.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the surveillance program "was always subject to rigorous oversight and review. . . . We have acknowledged that there have been disagreements about other intelligence activities, as one would expect."

Democrats have criticized Gonzales for testifying last year that there were no "serious disagreements" about the program.

According to Comey, the hospital visit was preceded by a March 9, 2004, meeting at the White House on the Justice Department objections. It was attended by Cheney; Gonzales; Card; Cheney's counsel then, David S. Addington; and others, Comey said.

Comey also named eight Justice Department officials who were prepared to quit if the White House had not backed down, including FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, current U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of Alexandria and Jack Goldsmith, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel and led an internal legal review of the surveillance program.

Comey said that the review "focused on current operations during late 2003 and early 2004, and the legal basis for the program." He declined to answer detailed questions about the program or the review, citing restrictions on classified information.

Bush confirmed the existence of the surveillance effort after news reports in December 2005, saying it was authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was vital to protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. The program has since been put under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees clandestine eavesdropping in the United States.

Staff writer Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Iran: Nuclear plan at point of no return

Iran: Nuclear Program Can't Be Stopped
Iranian Leader Warns Against Sanctions, Says It's 'Too Late' to Stop Nuclear Program
By MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN
The Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran
Iran's nuclear program cannot be stopped, and any Western attempt to force a halt to uranium enrichment would be like playing "with the lion's tail," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday.

In Berlin, Germany's foreign minister reported no progress in talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator ahead of the Group of Eight summit. And with the U.N. Security Council preparing to debate a third set of sanctions for Tehran's refusal to suspend enrichment, Britain raised the possibility of adding curbs on oil and gas investment to the limited measures against individuals and companies involved in Iran's nuclear and weapons programs.

"We advise them to give up stubbornness and childish games," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "Some say Iran is like a lion. It's seated quietly in a corner. We advise them not to play with the lion's tail."

Added Ahmadinejad: "It is too late to stop the progress of Iran."

In Washington, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack responded: "It isn't."
"He could make the decision today to take up the reasonable offer to negotiate with the rest of the world," McCormack said. "The international system is not going to be intimidated by these kinds of threats."

Adding to the tensions, shortly after Ahmadinejad's news conference, Tehran issued its harshest refusal yet of American demands to release dual citizens held in Iran on espionage charges.
The Foreign Ministry said U.S. abuses from prisoner mistreatment at Guantanamo to a UCLA police officer's shocking an Iranian-American student with a Taser showed that Washington had no right to criticize Iran's human rights record.

"Instead of offering inefficient suggestions, America should assess its own tactics secret prisons, mistreatment and even inhuman treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in a statement released by his office.
Iran has detained Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Middle East Program at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars; Kian Tajbakhsh with George Soros' Open Society Institute; journalist Parnaz Azima from the U.S.-funded Radio Farda; and Ali Shakeri, a peace activist and founding board member at the University of California, Irvine, Center for Citizen Peace building.

The Iranian statement referred to three Iranian-Americans charged with espionage and endangering national security, without providing names.

Hadi Ghaemi, an Iran expert for New York-based Human Rights Watch, said Esfandiari, 67, has been detained for nearly a month without being seen by relatives or attorneys, raising concerns for her well-being.

"It is extremely, cruel and inhumane to treat an internationally respected scholar in such a way," he said. "It is not only the U.S. government that is criticizing this detention but people from across the political spectrum, from Noam Chomsky to major human rights organizations."
Ahmadinejad touched briefly on the issue at his news conference, saying Iran's judiciary would rule independently on the dual citizens' cases. He then returned to international issues including Iraq, fighting in Lebanon and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Ahmadinejad's news conference was his first since talks between U.S. and Iranian diplomats in Baghdad on May 28 the first public talks between the two countries in nearly three decades. The two sides are supposed to meet again in less than a month.

He scoffed at U.S. accusations that Iranian agents were helping fellow Shiite militants in Iraq but said that Tehran wanted to help calm the violence there.

"We are prepared, for the sake of the Iraqi people, to help," he said. "We won't spare any efforts."

The Security Council first imposed sanctions on Iran in December and modestly increased them in March over Iran's refusal to suspend enrichment. Iran says it is within its rights to pursue uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes.

The country's nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said this week that the atomic standoff could be settled in the coming weeks if the council drops preparations to debate the third round of sanctions.

Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

Bush’s Nominee For Surgeon General Wrote Study On The ‘Dangers’ Of ‘Anal Eroticism’

Bush’s Nominee For Surgeon General Wrote Study On The ‘Dangers’ Of ‘Anal Eroticism’
President Bush recently nominated James W. Holsinger to become the next Surgeon General of the United States:

As America’s chief health educator, he will be charged with providing the best scientific information available on how Americans can make smart choices that improve their health and reduce their risk of illness and injury. … I am confident that Dr. Holsinger will help our Nation confront this challenge and many others to ensure that Americans live longer, better, and healthier lives.

It is doubtful that Holsinger is the person most fit to be America’s doctor and provide the public with “the best scientific information available.” As ThinkProgress noted last week, Holsinger has a long history of prejudice against gays and lesbians, including founding a church that “ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian.”

In 1991, Holsinger wrote a document titled “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality” for the United Methodist Church’s Committee to Study Homosexuality. The graphic document argues that gay sex can lead to “lacerations, perforations and deaths” and concludes that it is “intuitively” unnatural:

It is absolutely clear that anatomically and physiologically the alimentary and reproductive systems in humans are separate organ systems; i.e., the human does not have a cloaca. Likewise it is clear that even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse, and the birth of children. Indeed our own children appear to “intuitively” understand these facts. I think we should note that these simple “scientific facts are the same in any culture - patriarchal or matriarchal, modern or primitive, Jewish or gentile, etc. The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.

Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and physiology, when dealing with the complementarity of the human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself!

Holsinger resigned from the committee in the early 1990s “because he believed the committee ‘would follow liberal lines.’” He also warned “that acceptance of homosexuality would drive away millions of churchgoers.”

Read the full document HERE.

POLICE STATE

POLICE STATE
200 Arrested on Tiananmen Square on Anniversary of Massacre Approximately 200 demonstrators gathered on Beijing's Tiananmen Square on the 18th anniversary of the 1989 June 4 Massacre. Police immediately arrested all the demonstrators.

16,000 police deployed to halt violence A multinational coalition of protesters will today begin their bid to physically prevent world leaders from gathering at the G8 summit despite widespread criticism of violent tactics during growing demonstrations in Germany.

Bush derails attempts to end illegal wiretapping

Bush derails attempts to end illegal wiretapping
Submitted by Canada IFP on Tue, 2007-06-05 08:06.

President Bush derailed a bill by the US Congress aimed at ending the Administration's illegal wiretapping by not providing documents related to the President’s warrantless wiretapping program to the Senate Intelligence Committee that is currently reviewing the proposed legislation.

The US house of representatives last month passed the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 bill with an amendment that makes Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) the only means by which domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information may be conducted.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Intelligence Committee, but the Committee is unable to proceed as the White House has repeatedly refused to hand over the relevant documents.

"Another critical priority for congressional oversight is government wiretapping of Americans, conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and, illegally, under the President’s warrantless wiretapping program," Senator Russ Feingold said. "When the program was finally placed within the FISA process, an opportunity arose for the Administration and the Congress to move forward, under the law. Unfortunately, the Administration has yet to demonstrate a real interest in doing so."

Feingold accused the Administration of seeking broad new authorities unrelated to keeping FISA up-todate with new technology, and pursuing these authorities while refusing to rule out further surveillance activities entirely outside of the law.

"For more than four years, the Administration failed to inform the full congressional intelligence committees of the warrantless wiretapping program," said the Senator who cosponsored an ammendment by co-sponsor by Senator Feinstein to ensure that all members of the Committee receive, at a minimum, summary information about programs that the Administration has sought to limit to the Chairman and Vice Chairman. "In doing so, the Administration violated the National Security Act, which allows restricted notification to the “Gang of Eight” only in certain limited cases involving covert action."

In 2005 Bush acknowledged that he authorised the National Security Agency in 2002 to eavesdrop on US citizens communicating with people overseas.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Giuliani caught in direct lie

Giuliani caught in direct lie-listen to him tell Peter Jennings he was warned WTC was going to collapse


If Giuliani was warned that the WTC was going to collapse, why weren't the fire fighters told to evacuate?

By the way, Drudge is carrying a story in which Giuliani denies advance knowledge of the collapse. You can;t have it both ways Rudy. Either you lied to Jennings, or you are lying now. Either way, you are a liar and not fit for government office.




Libby gets sentenced

Breaking: Libby Sentenced to 30 Months in Jail and $250,000 fine. "Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, stood calmly before a packed courtroom as a federal judge said the evidence overwhelmingly proved his guilt."

END THE WAR

Americans are cranky, really cranky about Iraq by
Joe Sudbay (DC) ·

We all know Bush and the GOP won't make Iraq right. Bush is just too out of touch. The GOPers in Congress, who've enabled Bush for years, are willing to commit political suicide by sticking with him. The American people are over this war. They've had enough. Now, they are expecting action to end it -- and that means the Democrats have to step up:

Growing frustration with the performance of the Democratic Congress, combined with widespread public pessimism over President Bush's temporary troop buildup in Iraq, has left satisfaction with the overall direction of the country at its lowest point in more than a decade, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.Almost six in 10 Americans said they do not think the additional troops sent to Iraq since the beginning of the year will help restore civil order there, and 53 percent -- a new high in Post-ABC News polls -- said they do not believe that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States.Disapproval of Bush's performance in office remains high, but the poll highlighted growing disapproval of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significant, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent.Much of that drop was fueled by lower approval ratings of the Democrats in Congress among strong opponents of the war, independents and liberal Democrats. While independents were evenly split on the Democrats in Congress in April (49 percent approved, 48 percent disapproved), now 37 percent said they approved and 54 percent disapproved. Among liberal Democrats, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 18 points.Bush's overall job-approval rating stands at 35 percent, unchanged from April.

After what Bush has done to our democracy, he has some nerve lecturing Putin about democracy

After what Bush has done to our democracy, he has some nerve lecturing Putin about democracy by

John Aravosis (DC) · 6/05/2007

He is kidding, right? Lecturing Putin about derailing democracy? Sorry, Mr. Bush, but Putin is doing exactly what you and Cheney and the Republicans have been doing in our country over the past six years. When the going got tough, you threw democracy under the bus. You and the Republicans are fair-weather democrats. You only believe in democracy when the going gets easy. When terrorists strike, when you fear for your nation's safety, you are the first to roll back democracy, to spy on your own citizens, to take away their rights to a fair trial, to try them in secret courts - just like the Soviets used to.Remember that cute little phrase that the Republicans in the Senate all liked to quote in order to justify revoking our democratic liberties at home? You have no constitutional rights if you're dead. Here is the former Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, the guy who was in charge of making sure the Bush administration didn't violate our democracy by illegally spying on us just like the communists do on their own citizens:

"I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties," Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) remarked at yesterday's Hayden confirmation hearings, "but you have no civil liberties if you are dead."Just a fluke? Hardly. Here are two more GOP Senators in the past year or two:

GOP Senator Jeff Sessions referring to the rightness of Bush's domestic spying after 9/11 declared melodramatically:"Over 3,000 Americans have no civil rights because they are no longer with us."...Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said on December 20, 2005:"None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."What they mean is, what's the point of upholding the Constitution's rights if we end up dying as a result? Well, I suspect Putin would argue that you have no fledgling democratic reforms if you're all dead. So spare us the lectures directed at Russia, Mr. Bush, a country that has suffered the same kind of terrorism that America faces, and actually suffers from greater instability than we do by far (they've even got a serious separatist movement). That certainly doesn't excuse Russia rolling back democratic reforms - I don't believe that any country should roll back democracy for any reason. It's not as if the Framers of the Constitution, the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence, were living during stable and secure times. Yet it was during times of trouble, times of uncertainty, times of danger that the founders of our country penned those very freedoms that Bush and Putin now believe aren't required during times of danger.George Bush and the Republicans don't believe in democracy. They have no right to lecture Putin for doing exactly what they would do, exactly what they have done.

Monday, June 04, 2007

Fox analyst: 'Space aliens kidnapped president' and 'left this tool'


Fox analyst: 'Space aliens kidnapped president' and 'left this tool'
David Edwards and Muriel Kane

On Monday, Fox News covered Vladimir Putin's threat that if the US government goes ahead with setting up a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, Russia will target its own missiles at European targets.



The discussion led to an unlikely reversal of political positions, with conservative Fox political analyst Tammy Bruce describing the situation as "another glaring example of the growing incompetency of the Bush administration and his foreign policy," while Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded that "I support Bush on this ... and it's a strange day when I do that."



Bruce began by defending Putin and asked how we in the US would feel if Russian missiles were sited in Cuba or Honduras. She pointed out that the US missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland are supposedly intended to guard against the threat of potential Iranian long-range missiles, even though those missiles don't yet exist and we've said we're not going to allow Iran to develop them.



She then blew up about immigration and Iraq as well, saying, "I'm waiting to find the space aliens that kidnapped the president that I grew to admire after September 11 and left this tool behind. ... I'm furious."



When Beckel weighed in to insist that in this case he doesn't think Bush deserves conservative anger, because "Putin has been a thug from the beginning," Bruce retorted that "every maniac in the world has felt empowered during the last five years. That is the president's issue ... because Bush has been so ineffective."



The following video is from Fox's American Newsroom, broadcast on June 4.








Military Judge Throws Out US Case Against Guantanamo Detainee

Guantanamo Judge Dismisses Terror Case
ANDREW O. SELSKY

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba — A military judge dismissed terrorism-related charges Monday against a prisoner charged with killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, delivering a blow to the Bush administration's attempt to try Guantanamo detainees in military courts.

The ruling raised questions about whether the U.S. would have to further revise procedures for prosecuting prisoners, leading to major delays.

The chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, argued that the ruling could spell the end of the war-crimes trial system set up last year by Congress and President Bush after the Supreme Court threw out the previous system.

A military prosecutor said the ruling would be appealed, and the U.S. military entity responsible for holding the military trials said it believed Congress intended to grant jurisdiction to try suspected Taliban and al-Qaida members and supporters.

Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, who was 15 when he was captured after a deadly firefight in Afghanistan and who is now 20, will remain at the remote U.S. military base along with some 380 other men suspected of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, said he had no choice but to throw out the Khadr case because he had been classified as an "enemy combatant" by a military panel years earlier _ and not as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant."

The Military Commissions Act, signed by Bush last year, says only those classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants can face war trials here, Brownback noted during the arraignment in a hilltop courtroom.

Later Monday, a lawyer representing the only other detainee charged with war crimes, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, asked another military judge to throw out that case, based on the Khadr ruling. The judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, called a recess before the prosecutor could make a statement.

Sullivan said the dismissal in the Khadr case would have "huge" impact because none of the detainees held at this isolated military base in southeast Cuba has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

"It is not just a technicality; it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Sullivan told journalists. "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values."

Sullivan said that in order to reclassify the detainees as "unlawful" combatants, the whole review system would have to be overhauled, a time-consuming act.

The Pentagon said the issue was little more than semantics.

A spokesman said the system was not dealing with lawful combatants, who fight in uniform for a national army. It was set up to determine if a detainee acted as an "unlawful enemy combatant" who was not in an internationally recognized military, did not wear a uniform or rank insignia, did not carry arms openly and was not a party to the Geneva Conventions, he said.
"It is our belief that the concept was implicit that all the Guantanamo detainees who were designated as `enemy combatants' ... were in fact unlawful," Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon told The Associated Press.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said that because Brownback dismissed the case without prejudice, the U.S. may be able to retry Khadr. He also said it is unclear whether all detainees would have to be reclassified.

A military spokeswoman, Army Maj. Beth Kubala, said the prosecution had five days in which to file an appeal.

But Sullivan said the court designated to hear any appeal _ known as the court of military commissions review _ doesn't even exist.

Kubala told AP Television News that Brownback's ruling underscored the fairness of the system. "The military commissions procedures and rules are robust and grant significant rights to the accused," she said.

The only other Guantanamo detainee currently charged with crimes is Hamdan, who is accused of chauffeuring Osama bin Laden and being the al-Qaida chief's bodyguard.
The third detainee charged under the new system, Australian David Hicks, pleaded guilty in March to providing material support to al-Qaida and is serving a nine-month sentence in Australia.

Brownback's ruling came just minutes into Khadr's arraignment on charges he committed murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism and spying.

Khadr allegedly killed a U.S. Army soldier with a grenade in the firefight, in which he was wounded. He appeared in the courtroom with a beard and wearing an olive-green prison uniform.

"The charges are dismissed without prejudice," Brownback pronounced as he adjourned the proceeding.

A prosecutor, Army Capt. Keith Petty, said he had been prepared to show Khadr was an unlawful combatant because he fought for al-Qaida, and videotapes showed Khadr making and planting explosives targeting American soldiers.

Khadr seemed oblivious to the ruling. He calmly watched the judge throw out the case _ looking not at Brownback but at a computer screen at the defense table that showed a live TV broadcast of the proceedings. Khadr could see himself on the screen
The U.S. military has hoped to accelerate its prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees, with the Pentagon saying it expects to eventually charge about 80 of the 380 prisoners held at this isolated base, but questions lingered about the legitimacy of the process.

The Supreme Court, ruling in favor of a lawsuit brought by Hamdan, last June threw out a previous military tribunal system that was set up in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, calling it unconstitutional. Congress responded with new guidelines for war-crimes trials and Bush signed them into law.

Hamdan's attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, told The Associated Press that he will challenge the new system as unconstitutional.

For example, the Military Commissions Act retroactively made certain acts, such as conspiracy a crime, Swift said.

"This case raises significant questions" about the separation of powers, Swift said. "Congress cannot violate the Constitution to fix things ... but they are backdating anything and making it a crime."

Hamdan is charged with conspiracy _ centered on his alleged membership in al-Qaida and purported role in plotting to attack civilians and civilian targets _ and with providing material support for terrorism.

As part of the second charge, Hamdan is accused of transporting at least one SA-7 surface-to-air missile to shoot down U.S. and coalition military aircraft in Afghanistan in November 2001.
The son of an alleged al-Qaida financier, Khadr is accused of killing U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer with a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002.

Khadr's attorneys said he was a child soldier and should be rehabilitated, not imprisoned.
"The U.S. will be the first country in modern history to try an individual who was a child at the time of the alleged war crimes," the attorneys said in a joint statement in April.

Report: GOP leaders plot to thwart 'no confidence' motion on Gonzales

Report: GOP leaders plot to thwart 'no confidence' motion on Gonzales
RAW STORY
Published: Monday June 4, 2007

According to a Capitol Hill newspaper, "If Senate Democrats press ahead next week with their plan to hold a no-confidence vote on embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it is unclear whether any of Gonzales’ GOP critics will go along — and the Senate Republican leadership is ginning up plans to thwart the measure."
"Six GOP Senators have gone on the record essentially demanding Gonzales’ resignation, and one of them — Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) — already has declared he’ll vote against the nonbinding no-confidence resolution," Rachel Van Dongen reports for Roll Call.
The article continues, "The five others — Sens. John Sununu (N.H.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.) — were unwilling to tip their hands about how they will vote, despite repeated attempts to contact them last week."
According to Roll Call, "Republicans are
likely to tie up the Senate floor with all kinds of procedural mischief and introduce any number of amendments, including perhaps one on whether the Iraq War is actually 'lost' as Reid has suggested."
Excerpts from article:

#

The expanding Justice probe, which seems to reveal a new embarrassment for the administration every week, underlines why a no-confidence vote could put Republicans in a bind. Despite GOP skepticism that Gonzales can remain effective on the job, it is uncertain whether that translates into a vote supporting Democrats’ bid to throw him out.
Coburn, for instance, who has been harshly critical of Gonzales, already has chosen sides and plans on opposing the motion. In a May 22 letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Coburn said he would like to be notified before the Senate enters into any unanimous consent request to consider the Gonzales motion. Coburn notified McConnell that if the motion
comes to the floor, he plans to introduce an amendment “expressing no confidence in Congress’s ability to cut wasteful spending or balance the budget.”

Staged Terror?

JFK Airport Plot Has All The Hallmarks Of Staged Terror
Near-retarded "ringleader", paid government provocateur mirrors legion of previous cases
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, June 4, 2007


An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks, terminal buildings and fuel lines running beneath Kennedy International Airport has all the hallmarks of being another staged terror alert, having never advanced beyond a rudimentary planning stage while being prodded and provocateured by a paid government informant.

In every single major terror sting we have researched in the west since 9/11, not one single plot has been absent the ingredient of a government provocateur, save the cases that were outright manufactured by imaginative government propagandists in alliance with the corporate media.

In this case, the provocateur was "An informant with a criminal history including drug trafficking and racketeering agreed to work with investigators on the case, in exchange for payments and a reduced sentence," according to the New York Times.

Officials have refused to say how they became aware of the plot in the first place, but in every previous case of this nature we have found that it is the government agent provocateur who radicalizes the group and formulates the plot. The cover story is that the group is infiltrated by the informant having already planned the attack but as more details emerge, inevitably the plot always reveals itself as an artificial creation on behalf of the intelligence services.

What's the motive? The war on terror is the most politically exploited concept since the cold war. The propaganda boon from hoodwinking Americans into thinking they are constantly under threat from terrorists is unsurpassed. On the very day that this alleged plot was announced, Rudy Giuliani was already using it to inflate his presidential campaign.
In addition, the new head of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, told a reporter this past weekend that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.

Once again we learn that "the plot was only in a preliminary phase and the
conspirators had yet to lay out detailed plans or obtain financing or explosives," and yet the event is reported by a jingoistic and frothing media as if an imminent attack on the scale of 9/11 has been averted.

But as always, the devil is in the details, because even if the group had managed to acquire the financing and explosives to enact the plot, it would have been unsuccessful, due to "safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even part of the network."

The sum of the group's planning for the alleged attack amounts to nothing more than visiting Google Maps and printing off photographs.

It appears that part of the agenda in hyping the alleged plot is to undermine Hugo Chavez, since the ringleader, Russell Defreitas, has links to Jamaat al-Muslimeen, a Muslim group headed up by Imam Yasin Abu Bakr, and in turn Bakr has been affiliated with Chavez.
As Kurt Nimmo writes, Neo-Con websites are already exploiting these tenuous links to demonize Hugo Chavez, who - whatever you think of his domestic policies - has been a constant thorn in the side of the Globalists and was subject to an attempted CIA coup in 2002.
Defreitas is described by one law enforcement official as “a sad sack” and “not a Grade A terrorist,” who would have been incapable of carrying out any attack. A
friend described him as "not smart enough" to have carried out the attack.

In several other cases, we see a pattern where near-retarded individuals are used as patsies for terror plots orchestrated by intelligence agencies because they are easily manipulated and cannot defend themselves after the fact.

From out of nowhere, Defreitas goes from embracing American culture and enjoying jazz music to dressing in traditional Muslim garb and referring to himself as Mohammed while planning a devastating attack due to his supposed hatred of the west.

The basic tenet that the terror threat has been overhyped and magnified a thousand-fold for political propaganda is proven alone by documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that show only 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security were terrorism related
, despite the fact that the Bush administration has repeatedly asserted that it is the primary focus of the DHS.
As more details leak out, there seems little doubt that the JFK airport plot will dissipate into nothing more than another hyped terror alert - coddled, molded, and directed by the government, before being unleashed on an increasingly skeptical American public in another vain attempt to prop up the flagging legitimacy of the "war on terror".

What if our mercenaries turn on us?

What if our mercenaries turn on us?
Chris Hedges

is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and won a Pulitzer Prize as a foreign correspondent
for the New York Times

Armed units from the private security firm Blackwater USA opened fire in Baghdad streets twice in two days last week. It triggered a standoff between the security contractors and Iraqi forces, a reminder that the war in Iraq may be remembered mostly in our history books for empowering and building America's first modern mercenary army.

There are an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq, although there are no official figures and some estimates run much higher. Security contractors are not counted as part of the coalition forces. When the number of private mercenary fighters is added to other civilian military "contractors" who carry out logistical support activities such as food preparation, the number rises to about 126,000.

"We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of defense," said House defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D., Pa.). "How in the hell do you justify that?"

The privatization of war hands an incentive to American corporations, many with tremendous political clout, to keep us mired down in Iraq. But even more disturbing is the steady rise of this modern Praetorian Guard. The Praetorian Guard in ancient Rome was a paramilitary force that defied legal constraints, made violence part of the political discourse, and eventually plunged the Roman Republic into tyranny and despotism. Despotic movements need paramilitary forces that operate outside the law, forces that sow fear among potential opponents, and are capable of physically silencing those branded by their leaders as traitors. And in the wrong hands, a Blackwater could well become that force.

American taxpayers have so far handed a staggering $4 billion to "armed security" companies in Iraq such as Blackwater, according to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.). Tens of billions more have been paid to companies that provide logistical support. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) of the House Intelligence Committee estimates that 40 cents of every dollar spent on the occupation has gone to war contractors. It is unlikely that any of these corporations will push for an early withdrawal. The profits are too lucrative.

Mercenary forces like Blackwater operate beyond civilian and military law. They are covered by a 2004 edict passed by American occupation authorities in Iraq that immunizes all civilian contractors in Iraq from prosecution.

Blackwater, barely a decade old, has migrated from Iraq to set up operations in the United States and nine other countries. It trains Afghan security forces and has established a base a few miles from the Iranian border. The huge contracts from the war - including $750 million from the State Department since 2004 - have allowed Blackwater to amass a fleet of more than 20 aircraft, including helicopter gunships. Jeremy Scahill, the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, points out that Blackwater has also constructed "the world's largest private military facility - a 7,000-acre compound near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina." Blackwater also recently opened a facility in Illinois ("Blackwater North") and, despite local opposition, is moving ahead with plans to build another huge training base near San Diego. The company recently announced it was creating a private intelligence branch called "Total Intelligence."

Erik Prince, who founded and runs Blackwater, is a man who appears to have little time for the niceties of democracy. He has close ties with the radical Christian Right and the Bush White House. He champions his company as a patriotic extension of the U.S. military. His employees, in an act as cynical as it is dishonest, take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. But what he and his allies have built is a mercenary army, paid for with government money, which operates outside the law and without constitutional constraint.

Mercenary units are a vital instrument in the hands of despotic movements. Communist and fascist movements during the last century each built rogue paramilitary forces. And the appearance of Blackwater fighters, heavily armed and wearing their trademark black uniforms, patrolling the streets of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, may be a grim taste of the future. In New Orleans Blackwater charged the government $240,000 a day.
" 'It cannot happen here' is always wrong," the philosopher Karl Popper wrote. "A dictatorship can happen anywhere."

The word contractor helps launder the fear and threat out of a more accurate term: "paramilitary force." We're not supposed to have such forces in the United States, but we now do. And if we have them, we have a potential threat to democracy. On U.S. soil, Blackwater so far has shown few signs of being an out-and-out rogue retainer army, though they looked the part in New Orleans. But were this country to become even a little less stable, outfits like Blackwater might see a heyday. If the United States falls into a period of instability caused by another catastrophic terrorist attack, an economic meltdown that triggers social unrest, or a series of environmental disasters, such paramilitary forces, protected and assisted by fellow ideologues in the police and military, could ruthlessly abolish what is left of our eroding democracy. War, with the huge profits it hands to corporations, and to right-wing interests such as the Christian Right, could become a permanent condition. And the thugs with automatic weapons, black uniforms and wraparound sunglasses who appeared on the streets in New Orleans could appear on our streets.

Dick Cheney Rules

Dick Cheney Rules

Americans are accustomed to Vice President Dick Cheney’s waiting out a terrorist threat in a “secure undisclosed location.” Now it seems that Mr. Cheney wears the cloak of invisibility in secure disclosed locations.

The Associated Press reported that Mr. Cheney’s office ordered the Secret Service last September to destroy all records of visitors to the official vice presidential mansion — right after The Washington Post sued for access to the logs. That move was made in secret, naturally. It came out only because of another lawsuit, filed by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seeking the names of conservative religious figures who visited the vice president’s residence.

This disdain for accountability is distressing, but not surprising. Mr. Cheney has had it on display from his first days in office, when he refused to name the energy-industry executives who met with him behind closed doors to draft an energy policy.

In a similar way, Mr. Cheney seems unconcerned about little things like checks and balances and traditional American notions of judicial process. At one point, he gave himself the power to selectively declassify documents and selectively leak them to reporters. In a recent commencement address, he declaimed against prisoners who had the gall to “demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States.”

Mr. Cheney is the driving force behind the Bush administration’s theory of the “unitary executive,” which holds that no one, including Congress and the courts, has the power to supervise or regulate the actions of the president. Just as he pays little attention to old-fangled notions of the separation of powers, Mr. Cheney does not overly bother himself about the bright line that should exist between his last job as chief of the energy giant Halliburton and his current one on the public payroll.

From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Cheney received “deferred salary payments” from Halliburton that far exceeded what taxpayers gave him. Mr. Cheney still holds hundreds of thousands of stock options that have ballooned by millions of dollars as Halliburton profited handsomely from the war in Iraq.

Reviewing this record — secrecy, impatience with government regulations, backroom dealings, handsome paydays — it dawned on us that Mr. Cheney is in step with the times. He has privatized the job of vice president of the United States.

Hillary

Hillary Clinton on Cheney’s “Diplomacy”
By: John Amato on Sunday, June 3rd, 2007 at 7:10 PM - PDT

hillary-nh-debate.jpg Hillary gets off one of the funnier lines about Cheney at the NH debate. Condi, Dick, diplomacy and Iran….


video_wmv Download (2713) Play (3411) video_mov Download (1156) Play (2340)


A "Cheney Peace Envoy" is a pretty creepy notion….


2008?

Iraq President Talabani says Iraqi troops will be ready at the end of 2008


talibani.jpg The Iraqi President tells ABC that building an army takes time and he foresees they won't be ready until the end of '08 to defend themselves. Are you listening, Rahm? Talabani said "in the next two years", three years ago. Al-Maliki also promised in Nov. 2006 that his “country’s forces would be able to assume security command by June 2007. He also denies that their parliament signed a petition that wants the US out of Iraq. They were deceived. He doesn't say how, so let's get Agatha Christie involved…Talabani concurs with the Gates's Korean analogy—the US will have a presence in Iraq for many years.


video_wmv Download (931) Play (237) video_mov Download (587) Play (148)


TALABANI: I agree to put constructive pressure on Iraqi government, but I think we must be realistic. Unless we will be able to prepare our forces, armed forces, including army and police forces, to replace coalition forces, something as unpractical and…


STEPHANOPOULOS: But how long is that going to take? The training's been going on for so long.


TALABANI: Well, you know, to building an army after the collapse of the regime is not so easy.


STEPHANOPOULOS: When will the Iraqi army be ready to defend Iraq?


TALABANI: I think in the end of the next year.


STEPHANOPOULOS: End of 2008.


TALABANI: Yes.




(Read the rest of this story…)


Sunday, June 03, 2007

While More Dead Soldiers Come Home, Congress Goes on Vacation

Congress goes on vacation while more 'honored dead' come home
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAYMcClatchy Newspapers

This week it’s Congress’ turn in the bulls-eye _ all of the elected worms on both sides of the aisles. Especially the new Democratic majority, which arrived last January with the mistaken idea that their long ordeal of wandering, Moses-like, in the desert was at an end.

The late Will Rogers was fond of remarking that the Republic was never in greater danger than when the United States Senate was in session. Thankfully, the senators and their colleagues in the House of Representatives are on vacation this week.

It is to be fondly hoped that those who aren't out inspecting the food and wine in Paris and the carpets in various exotic bazaars in earnest pursuit of "facts" are now back home getting an earful from the unfortunate citizens they were elected to represent.

The mandate that emerged from the mid-term elections last November was not one for Democratic control. It was a thundering vote in favor of reform, or rebellion, if you will. The voters understood that this august body the founding fathers envisioned as one-third of a system of checks and balances was utterly broken, utterly corrupt.

And what's come of it? What have they wrought? Nothing much.

They've reformed nothing, fixed nothing.

The dust from all those victory laps by the grandmotherly Nancy Pelosi of California and the cadaverous Harry Reid of Nevada is still in the air, and to date they and their majority have done nothing of what was demanded of them.

They've been flim-flammed by Mortimer Snerd and Charlie McCarthy into passing a bill that funds the continuation of a war that 70 percent of Americans no longer support.

For all their posturing and demands for withdrawal timelines and benchmarks for an Iraqi government that's only marginally less functional than our own, in the end they caved and gave George W. Bush exactly what he wanted - another $100 billion or so to carry on the killing and dying and suffering.

On Memorial Day, when politicians of all stripes turned up at military cemeteries to bask in the glory reflected off the white marble tombstones of men and women who died for their mistakes, 10 more American soldiers and Marines were killed in Iraq.

One could almost hear the whispering voices of the honored dead, passing the word: Move over. Make some more room.

There's one stark image that lingers in my mind from Memorial Day 2007. It's that photograph of the young fiancee of a slain Army Ranger sergeant stretched facedown and full length on the cold earth of his grave at Arlington National Cemetery. She was embracing with love all that she and we have lost.

Did you weep for her, America? Did you weep for him? Did you feel or even notice the pain and suffering that radiated from that image?

Did it speak to your heart of the events - the grotesque mistakes of a president and his underlings and the utter failures of a Congress and both political parties - that brought the sergeant and his fiancee to that place?

As I write, there's still time, a few hours left of May, 2007, for this month to move, temporarily at least, into the record book as the cruelest month for Americans in Iraq in four-plus years. June and July and August don't promise much relief.

While the president turns his back on reality, his failed war and his failed presidency, and as Congress postures and preens, those who daily risk life and limb in Iraq soldier on. They're the best of us, and the best of their generation, and the politicians blather and dither and pontificate while their blood is shed.

How dare they? How dare they go on vacation in the middle of a misbegotten war? Death in Iraq takes no vacation. The patrols go out 24/7. The medical evacuation helicopters deliver their ghastly cargoes of dead, dying and maimed to field hospitals. The suicide bombers cut down innocent Iraqis as they shop or walk to school. The death squads come in broad daylight and drag away more innocents to the slaughter for their different belief in a same God.
And what do we do? We go on with our lives as if none of this was happening. We sacrifice nothing more than a few of the precious rights that a million Americans bought with their lives in other wars.

We trade away our rights to the privacy of our communications and our personal business. We blink, and under the guise of something the politicians had the gall to call the Patriot Act, we hand over to one deeply flawed man the sole power to declare us outside the protection of both law and the Constitution. He can waive our right of habeas corpus and our right to face our accusers in a court of law.

On a day when a young woman embraced a cold grave with pure love, our elected representatives vacationed while the senseless and unnecessary war that took her fiance raged on. Most Americans didn’t even notice what they'd lost as they shopped and partied and, yes, fiddled while a great dream born 231 years ago in the minds and of the blood of true patriots was being stolen by men and women unfit and unwilling to protect the precious gift our forebears gave us.

Murtha: Iraq War incites homegrown terror groups

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), on ABC's morning news show This Week, argued that the US presence in Iraq is being used by al Qaeda as a recruitment tool.



When asked by host George Stephanopoulos if "homegrown terrorist plots," like the one to attack JFK airport, were "being inspired by the US work in Iraq," Murtha responded, "Absolutely."



"Our presence in Iraq, our occupation of Iraq gives these people the inspiration," continued Murtha about terrorists planning to carry out attacks on US interests. "We didn't have this kind of a problem before, they came from Afghanistan, but now we even have them in the United States. So I'm absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people."



"We did have 9/11 before we went into Iraq," said Stephanopoulos.



"Yeah, we had 9/11," replied Murtha, "but that came from Afghanistan. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq."



The following video is from ABC's This Week, broadcast on June 3.



US can forget about winning in Iraq: top retired general

US can forget about winning in Iraq: top retired general
Published: Sunday June 3, 2007

The man who commanded US-led coalition forces during the first year of the Iraq war says the United States can forget about winning the war.

"I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will -- not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.

Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration has fallen short in Iraq.

"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez told AFP after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.

"We've got to do whatever we can to help the next generation of leaders do better than we have done over the past five years, better than what this cohort of political and military leaders have done," adding that he was "referring to our national political leadership in its entirety" - not just President George W. Bush.

Sanchez called the situation in Iraq bleak, which he blamed on "the abysmal performance in the early stages and the transition of sovereignty."

He included himself among those who erred in Iraq's crucial first year after the toppling of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Sanchez took command in the summer of 2003 and oversaw the occupation force amid an insurgency that has sparked a low-grade civil war in Iraq.

He was in the middle of some of the most momentous events of the war, among them the dissolution of the Iraqi army and barring millions of Baath Party members from government jobs: two actions seen as triggering the rebellion among Sunni Muslims, who fell from power with Saddam.

Sanchez is also most closely identified with the Abu Ghraib scandal, which occurred on his watch.

Though he was cleared of wrongdoing by an Army probe, Abu Ghraib's images of naked prisoners humiliated by a rogue torture squad cost Sanchez an almost certain fourth star in the Senate, which approves general officer promotions.

Sanchez, 56, declined to talk about Abu Ghraib or other key events of the war, or say who was to blame for what went wrong.

"That's something I am still struggling with and it's not about blame because there's nobody out there that is intentionally trying to screw things up for our country," he said. "They were all working to do the best damn job they can to get things right."

Despite those good intentions, Americans will be forced to "answer the question what is victory, and at this point I'm not sure America really knows what victory is," said Sanchez, who is thinking of writing a tell-all book about his year in Baghdad.

The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, reacted on Sunday to Sanchez's comments by insisting: "It's just way premature to be talking in terms of victory or defeat."

"What we're trying to do here is stabilize the security situation, particularly in Baghdad, to allow a political process some time and space to work," he said on Fox News.

He said time was needed for Bush's "surge" strategy, launched in January, of ploughing thousands more troops into Iraq "to make a difference on the streets and then time for this political process to unfold."

Sanchez said a large troop commitment would be needed for years to come but conceded it is "very questionable" whether Americans would support it.

Still, he said, "the coalition cannot afford to precipitously withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices."

Andrew Krepinevich, a former aide to three defense secretaries who heads the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, shared that assessment.

"What you are looking at are three factions who are profoundly mistrustful of one another," he said. "Iraq is a country where those on top have brutally repressed those on the bottom, and that is the way they look at seizing power and maintaining power."

Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, a ground commander in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, said he's trying to remain optimistic but thinks domestic support for the war will evaporate within 36 months.

"I personally don't think it's over yet," said McCaffrey, who recently toured Iraq. He said he thinks General David Petraeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, and Crocker can stave off a wider civil war.

"The question is, can the ambassador and Petraeus open reconciliation talks among Iraqis, and (Secretary of State) Condi Rice keep the regional powers from meddling any more in Iraq? The jury's out," he said.

Giuliani: Worse Than Bush

Giuliani: Worse Than Bush

He's cashing in on 9/11, working with Karl Rove's henchmen and in cahoots with a Swift Boat-style attack on Hillary. Will Rudy Giuliani be Bush III?
Matt Taibbi

Posted May 31, 2007 8:59 AM

>> See what people are saying about Taibbi's latest column and add your own response here.
Early Wednesday, May 16th, Charleston, South Carolina. The scene is a town-hall meeting staged by GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, only a day after he wowed a patriotic Republican crowd at a nationally televised debate with a righteous ass-kicking of the party's latest Hanoi Jane, terrorist sympathizer Ron Paul. A bump in the polls later, "America's Mayor" is back on the campaign trail -- in a room packed with standard-issue Adorable Schoolchildren, in this case beatific black kids in elementary school uniforms with wide eyes and big RUDY stickers pinned to their oblivious breasts.

Giuliani has good stage presence, but his physical appearance is problematic -- virtually neckless, all shoulders and forehead and overbite, with a hunched-over, Draculoid posture that recalls, oddly enough, George W. Bush, the vestigial stoop of a once-chubby kid who grew up hiding tittie pictures from nuns. Not handsome, not cuddly, if he wins this thing it's going to be by projecting toughness and man-aura. But all presidential candidates have to play the baby-kissing game, and here is an early chance for Rudy to show his softer side.

"So," he whispers to the kids. "What do you all want to be when you grow up? Do any of you know?"

A bucktoothed boy raises his hand.

"I wanna be a doctor," he says, "and a lawyer."

The crowd laughs, then looks at Rudy expectantly. The obvious line is "A doctor and a lawyer? Whaddya want to do, sue yourself?" and you can see Rudy physically straining for the joke. But this candidate's funny bone is a microscopic thing, like one of those anvil-shaped deals in the ear, and the line eludes him.

"A doctor and a lawyer, huh?" he says, grinning nervously. "Uh . . . whaddya want to do, sue the doctor?"

My notes from that moment read: Chirping crickets.

Rudy moves on. "How about you?" he says to the next boy.

"I want to be a policeman!" the kid says.

Rudy smiles. Then the next boy says he wants to be a fireman, and the crowd twitters: Wow, a fireman and a policeman, in the same room! Rudy is beaming now, almost certainly aware that every grown-up present is suddenly thinking about 9/11. His day. As he leans over, the room is filled with popping flashbulbs. Then, instead of capitalizing on the sense of pride and shared purpose everyone is feeling, Giuliani utters something truly strange and twisted.

"A fireman and a policeman, huh?" he says. "Well, the first thing that I want to do is make sure that you two get along."

Huh? Amid confused applause, Rudy flashes a queer smile, then moves on to the heart of his presentation, a neat little speech about how the election of a Democratic president will result in certain nuclear attack and the end of the free market as we know it. I'm barely listening, however, still thinking about the "make sure you get along" line.

Although few people outside of New York know it yet, there is an emerging controversy over Giuliani's heroic 9/11 legacy. Critics charge that Rudy's failure to resolve the feuding between the city's police and firefighters prior to the attack led to untold numbers of deaths, the most tragic example being the inability of firemen to hear warnings from police helicopters about the impending collapse of the South Tower. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the two departments had been "designed to work independently, not together," and that greater coordination would have spared many lives.

Given all that, why did Rudy offer this weirdly unsolicited reference to the controversy now? Was he joking? And if so, what the fuck? It was a strange and bitter comment to make, especially right on the heels of his grand-slam performance in the previous night's debate. If this is a guy who chews over a perceived slight in the middle of a victory lap, what's he going to be like with his finger on the button? Even Richard Nixon wasn't wound that tight.

--
Rudy giuliani is a true American hero, and we know this because he does all the things we expect of heroes these days -- like make $16 million a year, and lobby for Hugo Chávez and Rupert Murdoch, and promote wars without ever having served in the military, and hire a lawyer to call his second wife a "stuck pig," and organize absurd, grandstanding pogroms against minor foreign artists, and generally drift through life being a shameless opportunist with an outsize ego who doesn't even bother to conceal the fact that he's had a hard-on for the presidency since he was in diapers. In the media age, we can't have a hero humble enough to actually be one; what is needed is a tireless scoundrel, a cad willing to pose all day long for photos, who'll accept $100,000 to talk about heroism for an hour, who has the balls to take a $2.7 million advance to write a book about himself called Leadership. That's Rudy Giuliani. Our hero. And a perfect choice to uphold the legacy of George W. Bush.

Yes, Rudy is smarter than Bush. But his political strength -- and he knows it -- comes from America's unrelenting passion for never bothering to take that extra step to figure shit out. If you think you know it all already, Rudy agrees with you. And if anyone tries to tell you differently, they're probably traitors, and Rudy, well, he'll keep an eye on 'em for you. Just like Bush, Rudy appeals to the couch-bound bully in all of us, and part of the allure of his campaign is the promise to put the Pentagon and the power of the White House at that bully's disposal.
Rudy's attack against Ron Paul in the debate was a classic example of that kind of politics, a Rovian masterstroke. The wizened Paul, a grandfather seventeen times over who is running for the Republican nomination at least 100 years too late, was making a simple isolationist argument, suggesting that our lengthy involvement in Middle Eastern affairs -- in particular our bombing of Iraq in the 1990s -- was part of the terrorists' rationale in attacking us.
Though a controversial statement for a Republican politician to make, it was hardly refutable from a factual standpoint -- after all, Osama bin Laden himself cited America's treatment of Iraq in his 1996 declaration of war. Giuliani surely knew this, but he jumped all over Paul anyway, demanding that Paul take his comment back. "I don't think I've ever heard that before," he hissed, "and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."
It was like the new convict who comes into prison the first day and punches the weakest guy in the cafeteria in the teeth, and the Southern crowd exploded in raucous applause. Coupled with yet another implosion by aneurysm-in-waiting John McCain a few days later ("Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room!" McCain screamed at a fellow senator during a meeting about immigration), the Ron Paul ass-whipping revived Giuliani's standing among conservatives who lately had begun to abandon him over his pro-choice status.
The Paul incident went to the very heart of who Giuliani is as a politician. To the extent that conservatism in the Bush years has morphed into a celebration of mindless patriotism and the paranoid witch-hunting of liberals and other dissenters, Rudy seems the most anxious of any Republican candidate to take up that mantle. Like Bush, Rudy has repeatedly shown that he has no problem lumping his enemies in with "the terrorists" if that's what it takes to get over. When the 9/11 Commission raised criticisms of his fire department, for instance, Giuliani put the bipartisan panel in its place for daring to question his leadership. "Our anger," he declared, "should clearly be directed at one source and one source alone -- the terrorists who killed our loved ones."

Whether Rudy believes in this kind of politics reflexively, as the psychologically crippled Bush does, or as a means to an end, as Karl Rove does, isn't clear. But there's no question that Giuliani has made the continuation of Swift-Boating politics a linchpin of his candidacy. His political hires speak deeply to that tendency. Chris Henick, formerly Karl Rove's most trusted deputy, is now a key aide at Giuliani Partners, the security firm set up by the mayor to cash in on his 9/11 image. One of his top donors, Richard Collins, is a longtime Bush supporter who was instrumental in setting up "Stop Her Now," a 527 group modeled on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that will be used to attack Hillary Clinton. And the money for the smear campaign comes from the same Texas sources behind the Swift Boaters, including oilman T. Boone Pickens and Houston home builder Bob Perry.

To further emulate the Bush-Rove model, Giuliani has recruited some thirty Bush "Pioneers," the key fund-raisers who served as the president's $100,000 bagmen. In addition, he hired the woman who spearheaded the Pioneer program to be his chief fund-raiser. "Rudy definitely got some of Bush's heavier hitters, including all the Swift Boater types," says Alex Cohen, a senior researcher at Public Citizen, who tracks the president's top donors.
--
Rudy's stump speech on the trail these days is short and sweet. He talks about two things -- national security and free-market capitalism -- and his catchphrase for both is "going on offense." When he talks about "economic offense," Giuliani is ostensibly communicating the usual conservative contempt for taxes and big government. But he means more than that. Like the Bush-Cheney crew, Rudy believes everything should be for sale, even public policy -- particularly when he's in a position to do the selling.

In his years as mayor -- and his subsequent career as a lobbyist -- Rudy jumped into bed with anyone who could afford a rubber. Saudi Arabia, Rupert Murdoch, tobacco interests, pharmaceutical companies, private prisons, Bechtel, ChevronTexaco -- Giuliani took money from them all. You could change Rudy's mind literally in the time it took to write a check. A former prosecutor, Giuliani used to call drug dealers "murderers." But as a lobbyist he agreed to represent Seisint, a security firm run by former cocaine smuggler Hank Asher. "I have a great admiration for what he's doing," Rudy gushed after taking $2 million of Asher's money.
As mayor, Rudy had a history of asking financially interested parties to help shape important government policies. At one point, he allowed a deputy mayor who was on the payroll of Major League Baseball to work on deals for the Yankees and Mets; at another point he commissioned a $600,000 report on privatizing JFK and LaGuardia from a consultant with ties to the British Airport Authority, Rudy's handpicked choice to manage the airports.

And let's not forget Bernie Kerik, Rudy's very own hairy-assed Sancho Panza, who was nixed as director of Homeland Security after investigators uncovered a gift he received from a construction firm with alleged mob ties that wanted to do business with Giuliani's administration. It is a testament to the monstrous breadth of Rudy's chutzpah that he used his post-9/11 celebrity to push his personal bagman for a post that milks the world's hugest security-contracts tit -- at the very moment when he himself was creating a security-services company.

Then there's 9/11. Like Bush's, Rudy's career before the bombing was in the toilet; New Yorkers had come to think of him as an ambition-sick meanie whose personal scandals were truly wearying to think about. But on the day of the attack, it must be admitted, Rudy hit the perfect note; he displayed all the strength and reassuring calm that Bush did not, and for one day at least, he was everything you'd want in a leader. Then he woke up the next day and the opportunist in him saw that there was money to be made in an America high on fear.
For starters, Rudy tried to use the tragedy to shred election rules, pushing to postpone the inauguration of his successor so he could hog the limelight for a few more months. Then, with the dust from the World Trade Center barely settled, he went on the road as the Man With the Bullhorn, pocketing as much as $200,000 for a single speaking engagement. In 2002 he reported $8 million in speaking income; this past year it was more than $11 million. He's traveled in style, at one stop last year requesting a $47,000 flight on a private jet, five hotel rooms and a private suite with a balcony view and a king-size bed.

While the mayor himself flew out of New York on a magic carpet, thousands of cash-strapped cops, firemen and city workers involved with the cleanup at the World Trade Center were developing cancers and infections and mysterious respiratory ailments like the "WTC cough." This is the dirty little secret lurking underneath Rudy's 9/11 hero image -- the most egregious example of his willingness to shape public policy to suit his donors. While the cleanup effort at the Pentagon was turned over to federal agencies like OSHA, which quickly sealed off the site and required relief workers to wear hazmat suits, the World Trade Center cleanup was handed over to Giuliani. The city's Department of Design and Construction (DDC) promptly farmed out the waste-clearing effort to a smattering of politically connected companies, including Bechtel, Bovis and AMEC construction.

The mayor pledged to reopen downtown in no time, and internal DDC memos indicate that the cleanup was directed at a breakneck pace. One memo to DDC chief Michael Burton warned, "Project management appears to only address safety issues when convenient for the schedule of the project." Burton, however, had his own priorities: He threatened to fire contractors if "the highest level of efficiency is not maintained."

Although respiratory-mask use was mandatory, the city allowed a macho culture to develop on the site: Even the mayor himself showed up without a mask. By October, it was estimated, masks were being worn on site as little as twenty-nine percent of the time. Rudy proclaimed that there were "no significant problems" with the air at the World Trade Center. But there was something wrong with the air: It was one of the most dangerous toxic-waste sites in human history, full of everything from benzene to asbestos and PCBs to dioxin (the active ingredient in Agent Orange). Since the cleanup ended, police and firefighters have reported a host of serious illnesses -- respiratory ailments like sarcoidosis; leukemia and lymphoma and other cancers; and immune-system problems.

"The likelihood is that more people will eventually die from the cleanup than from the original accident," says David Worby, an attorney representing thousands of cleanup workers in a class-action lawsuit against the city. "Giuliani wears 9/11 like a badge of honor, but he screwed up so badly."

When I first spoke to Worby, he was on his way home from the funeral of a cop. "One thing about Giuliani," he told me. "He's never been to a funeral of a cleanup worker."
Indeed, Rudy has had little at all to say about the issue. About the only move he's made to address the problem was to write a letter urging Congress to pass a law capping the city's liability at $350 million.

Did Giuliani know the air at the World Trade Center was poison? Who knows -- but we do know he took over the cleanup, refusing to let more experienced federal agencies run the show. He stood on a few brick piles on the day of the bombing, then spent the next ten months making damn sure everyone worked the night shift on-site while he bonked his mistress and negotiated his gazillion-dollar move to the private sector. Meanwhile, the people who actually cleaned up the rubble got used to checking their stool for blood every morning.

Now Giuliani is running for president -- as the hero of 9/11. George Bush has balls, too, but even he has to bow to this motherfucker.

>> See what people are saying about Taibbi's latest column and add your own response here.

Seven U.S. soldiers killed, Baghdad attack thwarted

Seven U.S. soldiers killed, Baghdad attack thwarted
By Paul Tait1 hour, 28 minutes ago

U.S. Apache helicopters thwarted a rocket attack on Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, the U.S. military said on Sunday, but the number of U.S. casualties rose with seven more soldiers reported killed.

June has begun on the same bloody note that May ended, with nine U.S. soldiers killed in the first two days of the month. A total of 127 died in May, the third worst total for U.S. forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

North of the capital, a suicide car bomber attacked a police convoy in volatile Diyala province, killing 10 people in a busy market area and wounding 30 others, the local police chief said.
Gunmen at a fake checkpoint near Diyala's provincial capital of Baquba sprayed two minibuses with bullets, killing five people, police said.


Heavy machinegun fire and explosions boomed across central Baghdad late on Saturday from the direction of Sadr City, a sprawling Shi'ite slum and stronghold of radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's feared Mehdi Army militia.

The U.S. military said on Sunday helicopters had strafed militants preparing to fire rockets into the Green Zone, Baghdad's most secure area which houses the Iraqi parliament, many government ministries and the U.S. embassy.

A Reuters journalist saw an air-to-ground missile fired during Saturday's operation.
A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, said helicopters opened fire after gunmen were spotted trying to launch 12 rockets at the Green Zone.
"Reports indicate four terrorists were killed and one wounded," he said.


DEADLY TOLL

U.S. and Iraqi troops have launched a security crackdown in Baghdad to try to quell sectarian violence that threatens all-out civil war. The U.S. military has said it expects higher casualties as more U.S. troops take to the streets.

The crackdown is an attempt to buy time for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government to meet a series of political benchmarks set by Washington aimed at promoting national reconciliation.

But as U.S. casualties grow, U.S. President George W. Bush is coming under increasing pressure, including from within his own Republican Party, to demonstrate progress in the unpopular war or set a timetable for the return of U.S. troops.

Six of the seven U.S. soldiers reported killed died on Saturday, the seventh on Friday, the U.S. military said. Five were killed by roadside bombs, by far the biggest killers of U.S. troops.
The worst months for U.S. soldiers were November 2004, when 137 were killed, and April the same year when another 135 died. A total of 3,487 soldiers have died since the invasion began.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the same period. Police said the bodies of 26 people were found in Baghdad on Saturday, apparently the victims of sectarian death squads. Sectarian murders have been on the rise again in Baghdad despite the nearly four-month-old crackdown in the capital.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Frank Rich on Nixon, Bush, and 'failed presidents'

Frank Rich on Nixon, Bush, and 'failed presidents'
RAW STORY
Published: Saturday June 2, 2007

"Failed presidents ain't what they used to be," writes Frank Rich for his Sunday New York Times article this week. Comparing notes on two men whom many consider to be among the worst presidents in modern history, Rich concludes that while Nixon's overarching paranoia and need for control earned the deep-seated hatred of many Americans, President Bush is simply "too slight to hate."

"Unlike Nixon, President Bush is less an overreaching Machiavelli than an epic blunderer surrounded by Machiavellis," writes Rich. "He lacks the crucial element of acute self-awareness that gave Nixon his tragic depth."

Analyzing a current state of affairs that has promoted a backlash that, while agressive and all-encompassing, has differed markedly from the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon. Most Americans "simply wish the Bush presidency would end," Rich writes, and would rather hold out for someone to undue the present damange.

While Americans are nearly uniform in their dissatisfaction with the direction the country is going in, each party is rife with crippling infighting and political disunity. Trapped by their need for party-line adherence, Rich notes that "what the angriest proselytizers on the left and right have in common is a conviction that their political parties will commit hara-kiri if they don't adhere to their bases' strict ideological orders."

Despite all the gridlocked rhetoric, Rich believes, American are moving towards clear change on the issues that are currently dividing their parties the most, Iraq and immigration. "This relatively unified America can't be compared with that of the second Nixon term, when the violent cultural and political upheavals of the late 1960s were still fresh. But in at least one way there may be a precise political parallel in the aftermaths of two failed presidencies rent by catastrophic wars: Americans are exhausted by anger itself and are praying for the mood pendulum to swing."

saturday

Petraeus has already decided he's going to call the surge a success in September

Petraeus has already decided he's going to call the surge a success in September
John Aravosis (DC) · 6/01/2007

An incredibly disturbing story from ABC News. Basically, General Petraeus has already decided that the surge in Iraq will be such a resounding success come September that we're going to keep the surge troops there another four months beyond when we were told they were needed. Did you get that? The mission is such a success that it's going to take twice as long. Now that's a man who knows how to spin.But it's even better than that. We been told forever that it would just impossible to tell if the surge is working until September or even later because, you know, the surge troops wouldn't even all be in Iraq until July. Now, per ABC, Petraeus is telling people he already knows what he's going to report in September - that the surge has been a huge success. Which is a bit odd, since the last of the surge troops only just arrived in Iraq a day or two ago (yeah, they lied about July). Yet now we suddenly already know how successful we'll by September even though we were told that September would likely be too early to tell. It's all one big joke for Petraeus and Bush. Not to mention, I love that Petraeus and Bush basically misled the entire Congress last week. Congress just gave him $100 billion for Iraq based on the latest, best briefings on what was going on. Unless Petraeus told Congress last week that he already had determined that the surge would be a success in September, he misled them. He held back information that they needed to know in order to properly fund this war.Oh but it gets better. Petraeus is already making plan to keep a sizable number of troops in Iraq for another five to ten years. And he says he wants us to "draw down" the number of troops to 130,000 by the end of 2008. Draw down? You mean, get us back to the number of troops we had in Iraq before this summer's surge. Some draw down.So basically, Petraeus and Bush are not planning on doing squat with Iraq until after the presidential election. Isn't that convenient for the Republican presidential and congressional candidates. I'm sure it's just a coincidence - it's not like Petraeus would be actively scheming on how to throw a US election.

LEAKED ! 2007 STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH ; SEE BUSH PROMPTED!

LEAKED ! 2007 STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH ; SEE BUSH PROMPTED



LEAKED ! See and hear President George Bush practicing his 2007 State of the Union Speech with his Prompter.Welcome to the future. Where a global elitist cult uses puppet enemies, wars, fear and "Doublethink" to instill a worldwide elite controlled caste system; supported by insulting illusions of political democracy; where average citizens are giving up their values, personal rights and freedoms for the sake of a propagandized, manufactured "security" scam.

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th