Clinton Takes On Fox News
FULL TRANSCRIPT: Clinton Takes On Fox News
Today, President Bill Clinton taped an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, which is scheduled to be aired Sunday. He was told the interview would focus on his nonpartisan efforts to raise over $7 billion to combat the world’s biggest problems.
Early in the interview, Wallace attempted to smear Clinton with the same kind of misinformation contained in ABC’s Path to 9/11. Clinton was having none of it.
ThinkProgress has obtained a transcript of the interview. Here are some highlights –
Wallace repeats Path to 9/11 misinformation, Clinton fights back:
WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.
CLINTON: OK..
WALLACE: …may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20.
CLINTON: No let’s talk about…
WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.
Clinton takes on Fox News bias:
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.
WALLACE: Right…
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t…I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..
WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…
CLINTON:…
WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…
WALLACE: We asked…
CLINTON:…
WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?
CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…
CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth.
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth.
WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…
WALLACE: [laughs]
CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.
Clinton on his priorities and the Bush administration priorities:
CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…
WALLACE: [Laughs]
CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
Growing chaos over US House Dem primary results in Maryland
Growing chaos over US House Dem primary results in Maryland. Six years after 2000 presidential election, balloting still not fixed by GOP congress
by Joe in DC - 9/22/2006 11:08:00 AM
They're still counting votes in the Democratic Primary in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District 10 days later. There seems to be a lack of concern about the obvious problems that arose during that election. Keep in mind that this was a Democratic Party primary -- a general election controversy would be bad enough -- but this is an intra-party voting scandal. Since November of 2000, we've known that there are problems with counting votes in American elections. Maryland's 4th C.D. Democratic Primary is the quintessential example. Last week, I wrote a post in which I referred to Al Wynn as "Landslide Al" linking to a site which documented the electoral shenanigans of "Landslide Lyndon" Johnson back in 1948. Johnson basically cheated to win. Apparently, Al Wynn likes that comparison:
From a House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing, September 19, 2006:
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX): Down in Texas, we had a Democratic primary about 50 years ago that Lyndon Johnson won by 54 votes. And he got the nickname "Landslide Lyndon." We have Mr. Wynn next. He had a little bit of a tussle last week, but he did win. And so, I want to recognize "Landslide Wynn" for any opening statement that he wishes...Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In fact, they're still counting, but we're quite optimistic. And I did take a couple pages out of Lyndon's book, so if I win, it can be attributed to Texas know-how.(LAUGHTER)Barton: I hope not. I hope you win fair and square.(LAUGHTER)Wynn: A win is a win.Really funny, huh? Maybe "a win is a win" in football, Al, but not in the electoral process. This isn't a game. It's the heart of our democracy. No surprise that Al Wynn is just about the only elected official in Maryland who is not concerned about the major problems with the election system. He shows contempt for the voters in his district.Also, considering the magnitude of this issue, there really is a dearth of coverage of this race in the media. This is happening in the back yard of the Washington Post. The media has obsessed over Iraqi elections, but can't focus on the failings of the electoral system in their own back yard. Maybe if voters in the 4th District had purple fingers, their ability to participate in the democratic process would be honored.In the meantime, Al Wynn has no credibility.
by Joe in DC - 9/22/2006 11:08:00 AM
They're still counting votes in the Democratic Primary in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District 10 days later. There seems to be a lack of concern about the obvious problems that arose during that election. Keep in mind that this was a Democratic Party primary -- a general election controversy would be bad enough -- but this is an intra-party voting scandal. Since November of 2000, we've known that there are problems with counting votes in American elections. Maryland's 4th C.D. Democratic Primary is the quintessential example. Last week, I wrote a post in which I referred to Al Wynn as "Landslide Al" linking to a site which documented the electoral shenanigans of "Landslide Lyndon" Johnson back in 1948. Johnson basically cheated to win. Apparently, Al Wynn likes that comparison:
From a House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing, September 19, 2006:
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX): Down in Texas, we had a Democratic primary about 50 years ago that Lyndon Johnson won by 54 votes. And he got the nickname "Landslide Lyndon." We have Mr. Wynn next. He had a little bit of a tussle last week, but he did win. And so, I want to recognize "Landslide Wynn" for any opening statement that he wishes...Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In fact, they're still counting, but we're quite optimistic. And I did take a couple pages out of Lyndon's book, so if I win, it can be attributed to Texas know-how.(LAUGHTER)Barton: I hope not. I hope you win fair and square.(LAUGHTER)Wynn: A win is a win.Really funny, huh? Maybe "a win is a win" in football, Al, but not in the electoral process. This isn't a game. It's the heart of our democracy. No surprise that Al Wynn is just about the only elected official in Maryland who is not concerned about the major problems with the election system. He shows contempt for the voters in his district.Also, considering the magnitude of this issue, there really is a dearth of coverage of this race in the media. This is happening in the back yard of the Washington Post. The media has obsessed over Iraqi elections, but can't focus on the failings of the electoral system in their own back yard. Maybe if voters in the 4th District had purple fingers, their ability to participate in the democratic process would be honored.In the meantime, Al Wynn has no credibility.
Tickle Me Elmo Extreme taking the market by storm
This is how the new Tickle Me Elmo Extreme works. He is so funny. He gets funnier and funnier the more times you push his buttons!!
Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Debunking Popular Mechanics'
9/11 Lies
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven
politics
Paul Joseph
Watson/Prison Planet.com August 10 2006
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media
circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began
in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11
truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating
falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven
politics.
It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics
is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed
film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and
yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
The magazine is a cheerleader for the
sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in
areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of
its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors.
Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite
9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced
investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?
Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover
story was entitled 'Debunking
9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point
for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.
Following the publication of the article
and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin
for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on
the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security.
This means that Benjamin Chertoff was
hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about
the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly
to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.
This is unparalleled nepotism and completely
dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the
first page.
The arguments presented in the article
have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a
straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed
to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.
One of the most glaring errors in the
Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section
where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted
only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet,
in October 1999."
As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent
rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a
published report of
scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin
that is one of PM's cited experts!"
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled
jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often
as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."
The article also makes no mention whatsoever
of the numerous war
games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air
defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as
is documented by the recent release of the NORAD
tapes.
A section on the collapse of the World
Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported
numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting
out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers
fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.
The article was released before analysis
conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered
traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.
"Using advanced techniques we're
finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium
and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which
is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said
Professor Jones.
The article regurgitates pancake and truss
theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager
Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed
to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.
The article also completely fails to answer
why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building
7 subsequent to the collapses.
The classic crimp implosion of Building
7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries
to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings
collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside
from three examples in one single day.
Commenting on his own interview for the
magazine piece, Alex Jones said that initially he thought it was a fake
interview or a crank call. Jones has given hundreds of TV and print interviews
and thousands of radio interviews but his experience with Benjamin Chertoff
was like no other.
"People from school newspapers sound
more credible and serious," said Jones.
Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office
and verify that Chertoff actually worked for them. In the course of doing
so he was erroneously told by Editor in Chief James Meigs that the story
was not going to be a hit piece and that it was simply intended to explore
the different theories surrounding 9/11.
In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted
an article that Jones had posted on his website about incendiary devices
in the World Trade Center.
Jones' websites feature a cross-section
of mainstream and alternative media articles. An article written by Jones
himself is clearly labeled as such.
The magazine had contacted the individuals
featured in the article who told them that they had never spoken to Jones.
The article was clearly attributed to its orginal author - Randy Lavello
- and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked Popular Mechanics if they were going
to contact the individuals again and ask if they had spoken with the original
author, they dropped the subject.
As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly
packaged dross, the book 'Debunking 9/11 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James
Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor (watch below).
Meigs and O'Reilly need to be reminded
that constantly parroting the word "fact," without presenting
any actual evidence, does not make something a fact.
Meigs contradicts himself completely in
claiming that, "No one had ever seen a one hundred plus story building
collapse to the ground before," and yet less than two minutes later
agrees with O'Reilly's comment that nothing unexpected about the impact
of the planes or the collapses surprised analysts.
Meigs concurs that it's an unprecedented
event and yet claims that analysts knew exactly what was going to happen.
How could they have known the ins and outs of an event that had never happened
before?
Meigs calls the WTC implosion, "The
most closely studied collapse in world history," yet fails to address
the fact that 50,000 tons of steel from the WTC, a supposed crime scene,
was shipped
to Asia and a further 10,000 tons to India, preventing a detailed
analysis.
Meigs, citing opinions of engineers, bizarrely
states that, "The real surprise is that the building stood up as long
as it did."
In February 2005, The Windsor building
in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed
almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core
of the WTC was exponentially
more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building
that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to
two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from
limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes
- and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!
Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation
is "not political," and yet the foreword
to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator
John McCain.
In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent
amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly
as the government claims it did.
"We liberated Afghanistan from the
murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al
Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.
Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state
run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul
is secure, malnutrition amongst children is the highest in the world outside
Africa, and opium production is at record levels. Bellicose statements about
chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat contradicted by the fact
that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent and outgoing CIA director
AB “Buzzy” Krongard told
the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this
with President
Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned
about him," and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.
McCain also uses the callous tactic of
saying that questioning the government's version of 9/11 insults the victims
and this is also parroted in the Popular Mechanics magazine piece.
Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative
of the largest group of 9/11 family members has
to say on this subject.
"If you want to believe what they
want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy,"
said Doyle.
"It looks like there was a conspiracy
behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now
feel the same way."
Doyle said that half of the family members
- relatives of the 9/11 victims - he represents thought that the US government
was complicit in 9/11.
Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics
to whitewash government complicity in 9/11 via a front page feature story
and a new book, recent polls clearly show an increasing trend towards a
rejection of the official version of events.
If we are to set aside the 30%
of Americans that do not even know the year in which September
11 happened, then we are left with figures of around 36%
who agree that the government was involved in the attack and
only 34% of Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place
that still think it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19 incompetent
morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on
a kidney dialysis machine.
Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy
sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain
to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators
by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly
3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack
changed US foreign policy.
Restraining order against Bush denied
Black GOP group ad claims Dems started KKK, King a Republican
Freedom of Info Act overhaul approved by Senate
Four added to list of oil-tied 'Dirty Dozen' in Congress
Conservative sites: Rove promises 'October surprise'
RFK Jr.: Will upcoming elections be hacked?
Ahmadinejad: 'I'm not an anti-Semite''We love everyone ... Don't need bomb'; Says could halt enrichment if terms right.
Pentagon: Secret unit couldn't stop 9/11Report rejects idea that Able Danger could have stopped terror acts.
Restraining order against Bush denied Ex-GOP candidate seeks to stop 'acts of war'; May appeal to Supreme Court.
Freedom of Info Act overhaul approved by Senate
Four added to list of oil-tied 'Dirty Dozen' in Congress
Conservative sites: Rove promises 'October surprise'
RFK Jr.: Will upcoming elections be hacked?
Ahmadinejad: 'I'm not an anti-Semite''We love everyone ... Don't need bomb'; Says could halt enrichment if terms right.
Pentagon: Secret unit couldn't stop 9/11Report rejects idea that Able Danger could have stopped terror acts.
Restraining order against Bush denied Ex-GOP candidate seeks to stop 'acts of war'; May appeal to Supreme Court.
U.N. expert: Iraq torture may be worse than under Saddam
U.N. expert: Iraq torture may be worse
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 21, 12:20 PM ET
GENEVA - Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under
Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, made the remarks as he was presenting a report on detainee conditions at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay as well as to brief the U.N. Human Rights Council, the global body's top rights watchdog, on torture worldwide.
Reports from Iraq indicate that torture "is totally out of hand," he said. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
Nowak added, "That means something, because the torture methods applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine."
Some allegations of torture were undoubtedly credible, with government forces among the perpetrators, he said, citing "very serious allegations of torture within the official Iraqi detention centers."
"You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are actually abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed," Nowak told reporters at the U.N.'s European headquarters.
"It's not just torture by the government. There are much more brutal methods of torture you'll find by private militias," he said.
A report by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office cited worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women.
Iraq's government, set up in 2006, is "currently facing a generalized breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq" such as police and security forces and the legal system, the U.N. report said, noting that torture was a major concern.
Nowak has yet to make an official visit to Iraq and said such a mission would be unfeasible as long as the security situation there remains perilous. He based his comments on interviews with people during a visit to Amman, Jordan, and other sources.
"You find these bodies with very heavy and very serious torture marks," he said. "Many of these allegations, I have no doubt that they are credible."
According to the U.N. report, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the U.N. report said Wednesday.
It attributed many of the deaths to rising sectarian tensions that have pushed Iraq toward civil war.
___
Associated Press writers Bradley S. Klapper in Geneva and Nick Wadhams at the
United Nations' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> United Nations contributed to this report.
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 21, 12:20 PM ET
GENEVA - Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under
Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, made the remarks as he was presenting a report on detainee conditions at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay as well as to brief the U.N. Human Rights Council, the global body's top rights watchdog, on torture worldwide.
Reports from Iraq indicate that torture "is totally out of hand," he said. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
Nowak added, "That means something, because the torture methods applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine."
Some allegations of torture were undoubtedly credible, with government forces among the perpetrators, he said, citing "very serious allegations of torture within the official Iraqi detention centers."
"You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are actually abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed," Nowak told reporters at the U.N.'s European headquarters.
"It's not just torture by the government. There are much more brutal methods of torture you'll find by private militias," he said.
A report by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office cited worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women.
Iraq's government, set up in 2006, is "currently facing a generalized breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq" such as police and security forces and the legal system, the U.N. report said, noting that torture was a major concern.
Nowak has yet to make an official visit to Iraq and said such a mission would be unfeasible as long as the security situation there remains perilous. He based his comments on interviews with people during a visit to Amman, Jordan, and other sources.
"You find these bodies with very heavy and very serious torture marks," he said. "Many of these allegations, I have no doubt that they are credible."
According to the U.N. report, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the U.N. report said Wednesday.
It attributed many of the deaths to rising sectarian tensions that have pushed Iraq toward civil war.
___
Associated Press writers Bradley S. Klapper in Geneva and Nick Wadhams at the
United Nations' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> United Nations contributed to this report.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Senator Clinton Reiterates Call for Secretary Rumsfeld to Resign
Senator Clinton Reiterates Call for Secretary Rumsfeld to Resign
Clinton Speaks on Senate Floor in Support of Resolution Expressing “No Confidence” in Secretary Rumsfeld
Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today made remarks on the Senate floor underscoring her support for a Senate resolution expressing “no confidence” in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s stewardship of the Department of Defense. Senator Clinton reiterated the need for a new direction in Iraq, emphasizing that “we went to war with the secretary of defense we had. Now it is time to complete the mission with a new secretary of defense that we need.” The following is the text of Senator Clinton’s remarks on the Senate floor.
Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Senate Floor on the Sense of the Senate Resolution on Secretary Rumsfeld
We are here debating this resolution for two simple reasons. First, no matter how the lily is gilded, things are not going well in our war against terrorism and there is no doubt that we need new leadership. Secondly, this Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and hold the administration accountable for the decisions which it has made over the course of the last five years.
This is quite unusual in American history because ordinarily the Congress would play that role of check and balance. You know, in the middle of World War II, which truly was a world war, then-Senator Harry Truman was the chair of a commission looking into war profiteering and other matters related to the conduct of the war. There was a Democratic Congress, a Democratic president, and yet the Congress, under then-Senator Truman's leadership, fulfilled its responsibility.
During the Vietnam War, which ripped this country apart, Senator Fulbright felt compelled to hold hearings about the conduct of that war -- a Democratic Congress, a Democratic president, fulfilling its responsibility. Well, we've seen none of that with very few exceptions. This Congress has been either intimidated or negligent in the fulfillment of its responsibilities to hold the administration accountable.
You know, absolute power not only corrupts but it can lead to bad decisions. And this has been a very small group of decision-makers.
You know, recently the president changed the leadership of his economic team because we all know the economy is not doing as well as advertised. Profits are up, productivity is up, but average wages and income aren't. And it's getting harder and harder for the average American to make ends meet. So the president changed his economic leadership, changed his chief of staff in the White House, and yet there is no accountability with respect to his security team.
I've just returned, like my colleagues, from our recess, and I visited throughout my state, and in every kind of community people are expressing deep concerns about the direction we are heading when it comes to the war in Iraq, when it comes to American security interests. New Yorkers, as most Americans, want things set right in Iraq when so much both has gone wrong and seems to continue to go wrong. And so what we're asking for is some accountability.
Now, there is no illusion on this side of the aisle that this resolution will pass. We know it won't. We may not even get a vote on it because, heaven forbid, the other side would have to stand up and actually vote. We know that many on the other side share our doubts. Privately, they will say some of the most harsh and critical comments about the secretary of defense, about the president, about the vice president and the conduct of this war. But they abdicate their responsibility in public. So we have no illusions we are going to get a vote on this. And yet we owe it to ourselves, our troops, our fellow citizens to raise these issues.
One doesn't have to read the recently published book "Fiasco" or the book before it "Cobra II" to see how badly things have gone. We know that. And at the center of so many of the wrong calls, the misjudgments, the strategic blunders, has been the secretary of defense.
No one is questioning his patriotism, his honorable service. We're questioning his judgment and his leadership.
We went to war with the secretary of defense we had. Now it is time to complete the mission with a new secretary of defense that we need.
It is past time. And our friends on the other side will come forward and make the most impassioned arguments about how things are going and how we have to stay the course and what has to be done in order to succeed, but under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, it has not happened. We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq. I don't care what you label it -- civil war, sectarian violence -- the fact is, the Iraqis are losing hundreds and hundreds of lives and as of yesterday 2,652 servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq; amongst them, 123 New Yorkers.
We didn't go with enough troops to establish law and order, to put down a marker as to our authority as we replaced an authoritarian dictatorship. We went with this dysfunctional bureaucracy known as the Coalition Provisional Authority, which disbanded the Iraqi Army, which we're now trying to re-create.
Secretary Rumsfeld rejected virtually all of the planning that had been done previously to maintain stability when the regime was overthrown, and he deliberately and repeatedly underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence and the spread of Iranian influence.
Let us not confuse the leadership's failures with either the remaining mission in Iraq or the war on terrorism or with our support for our troops. What we have here is a failure of leadership to accomplish that mission. What was hailed as our shortest war has now become one of our longest. What was hailed as a model of democracy teeters on the brink of complete anarchy. What was the leadership that quickly claimed credit for success has been lethargic in the face of misjudgments and setbacks. I don't see what other conclusion one can draw.
You know, we will have the same president and vice president for the next two years, but why not ask the president to exercise his judgment to bring in new leadership to send a new signal to our troops, to our military leadership, to our friends and our allies and to our country that, guess what, we get it? We need new leadership.
When I confronted Secretary Rumsfeld a month ago, he continued to obfuscate and deny responsibility. He denied he ever painted a rosy picture in Iraq. In response, my office compiled a list of 13 statements out of many that he had made which clearly painted a rosy scenario. I ask unanimous consent that those statements be included in the record.
It is time for the United States Senate to exercise our responsibility; for the members of this chamber to decide, what do we owe our constituents, our young men and women in uniform? What do we owe history in terms of our responsibility? We know the answer. Whether we stand up and deny it or not, we know the answer.
History is going to judge this period harshly. I wish that we could as a body redeem ourselves and redeem this mission, give it a chance for success with new eyes and ears, with new way of thinking and leading. I have no idea who the president might ask to replace the secretary were he to be asked to leave or resign. But I have to believe that some fresh thinking, some new ideas, would make a difference.
It is time that we put our policy, our chance for success, ahead of politics; that we put wise decision making and new leadership ahead of the status quo. When it's not working, why do we keep digging a deeper hole?
And so, Mr. President, I would hope that this body would exercise responsibility in the only way open to us since we cannot have the oversight and accountability that the Congress should be demanding.
###
Clinton Speaks on Senate Floor in Support of Resolution Expressing “No Confidence” in Secretary Rumsfeld
Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today made remarks on the Senate floor underscoring her support for a Senate resolution expressing “no confidence” in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s stewardship of the Department of Defense. Senator Clinton reiterated the need for a new direction in Iraq, emphasizing that “we went to war with the secretary of defense we had. Now it is time to complete the mission with a new secretary of defense that we need.” The following is the text of Senator Clinton’s remarks on the Senate floor.
Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Senate Floor on the Sense of the Senate Resolution on Secretary Rumsfeld
We are here debating this resolution for two simple reasons. First, no matter how the lily is gilded, things are not going well in our war against terrorism and there is no doubt that we need new leadership. Secondly, this Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and hold the administration accountable for the decisions which it has made over the course of the last five years.
This is quite unusual in American history because ordinarily the Congress would play that role of check and balance. You know, in the middle of World War II, which truly was a world war, then-Senator Harry Truman was the chair of a commission looking into war profiteering and other matters related to the conduct of the war. There was a Democratic Congress, a Democratic president, and yet the Congress, under then-Senator Truman's leadership, fulfilled its responsibility.
During the Vietnam War, which ripped this country apart, Senator Fulbright felt compelled to hold hearings about the conduct of that war -- a Democratic Congress, a Democratic president, fulfilling its responsibility. Well, we've seen none of that with very few exceptions. This Congress has been either intimidated or negligent in the fulfillment of its responsibilities to hold the administration accountable.
You know, absolute power not only corrupts but it can lead to bad decisions. And this has been a very small group of decision-makers.
You know, recently the president changed the leadership of his economic team because we all know the economy is not doing as well as advertised. Profits are up, productivity is up, but average wages and income aren't. And it's getting harder and harder for the average American to make ends meet. So the president changed his economic leadership, changed his chief of staff in the White House, and yet there is no accountability with respect to his security team.
I've just returned, like my colleagues, from our recess, and I visited throughout my state, and in every kind of community people are expressing deep concerns about the direction we are heading when it comes to the war in Iraq, when it comes to American security interests. New Yorkers, as most Americans, want things set right in Iraq when so much both has gone wrong and seems to continue to go wrong. And so what we're asking for is some accountability.
Now, there is no illusion on this side of the aisle that this resolution will pass. We know it won't. We may not even get a vote on it because, heaven forbid, the other side would have to stand up and actually vote. We know that many on the other side share our doubts. Privately, they will say some of the most harsh and critical comments about the secretary of defense, about the president, about the vice president and the conduct of this war. But they abdicate their responsibility in public. So we have no illusions we are going to get a vote on this. And yet we owe it to ourselves, our troops, our fellow citizens to raise these issues.
One doesn't have to read the recently published book "Fiasco" or the book before it "Cobra II" to see how badly things have gone. We know that. And at the center of so many of the wrong calls, the misjudgments, the strategic blunders, has been the secretary of defense.
No one is questioning his patriotism, his honorable service. We're questioning his judgment and his leadership.
We went to war with the secretary of defense we had. Now it is time to complete the mission with a new secretary of defense that we need.
It is past time. And our friends on the other side will come forward and make the most impassioned arguments about how things are going and how we have to stay the course and what has to be done in order to succeed, but under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, it has not happened. We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq. I don't care what you label it -- civil war, sectarian violence -- the fact is, the Iraqis are losing hundreds and hundreds of lives and as of yesterday 2,652 servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq; amongst them, 123 New Yorkers.
We didn't go with enough troops to establish law and order, to put down a marker as to our authority as we replaced an authoritarian dictatorship. We went with this dysfunctional bureaucracy known as the Coalition Provisional Authority, which disbanded the Iraqi Army, which we're now trying to re-create.
Secretary Rumsfeld rejected virtually all of the planning that had been done previously to maintain stability when the regime was overthrown, and he deliberately and repeatedly underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence and the spread of Iranian influence.
Let us not confuse the leadership's failures with either the remaining mission in Iraq or the war on terrorism or with our support for our troops. What we have here is a failure of leadership to accomplish that mission. What was hailed as our shortest war has now become one of our longest. What was hailed as a model of democracy teeters on the brink of complete anarchy. What was the leadership that quickly claimed credit for success has been lethargic in the face of misjudgments and setbacks. I don't see what other conclusion one can draw.
You know, we will have the same president and vice president for the next two years, but why not ask the president to exercise his judgment to bring in new leadership to send a new signal to our troops, to our military leadership, to our friends and our allies and to our country that, guess what, we get it? We need new leadership.
When I confronted Secretary Rumsfeld a month ago, he continued to obfuscate and deny responsibility. He denied he ever painted a rosy picture in Iraq. In response, my office compiled a list of 13 statements out of many that he had made which clearly painted a rosy scenario. I ask unanimous consent that those statements be included in the record.
It is time for the United States Senate to exercise our responsibility; for the members of this chamber to decide, what do we owe our constituents, our young men and women in uniform? What do we owe history in terms of our responsibility? We know the answer. Whether we stand up and deny it or not, we know the answer.
History is going to judge this period harshly. I wish that we could as a body redeem ourselves and redeem this mission, give it a chance for success with new eyes and ears, with new way of thinking and leading. I have no idea who the president might ask to replace the secretary were he to be asked to leave or resign. But I have to believe that some fresh thinking, some new ideas, would make a difference.
It is time that we put our policy, our chance for success, ahead of politics; that we put wise decision making and new leadership ahead of the status quo. When it's not working, why do we keep digging a deeper hole?
And so, Mr. President, I would hope that this body would exercise responsibility in the only way open to us since we cannot have the oversight and accountability that the Congress should be demanding.
###
House Passes Bill to Make Voters Show ID
House Passes Bill to Make Voters Show ID
By JIM ABRAMSAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.
The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.
House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.
Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."
"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."
But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly - groups that tend to vote Democratic - who might have trouble producing a photo identification.
"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said he was initially denied a voter ID required under a Missouri state law because he doesn't have a driver's license and couldn't immediately produce a passport or birth certificate. His congressional ID card was not accepted.
Missouri court earlier this month struck down the state law, and on Tuesday a state superior court judge in Georgia ruled that that state's law requiring a photo ID was an unconstitutional condition for voting.
The bill would require everyone to present a photo ID before voting in federal elections by 2008. By 2010 voters would have to have photo IDs that certified they were citizens. In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted Wednesday to take up a bill to build a 700-mile fence along one-third of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Action on the fence, which could cost billions of dollars, comes four months after the Senate approved legislation that, along with tightening border security, created a guest worker program and outlined how people in the country illegally could work toward legal status and eventual citizenship.
President Bush has supported this broader approach, but it has met strong resistance in the House, where opponents have said it was tantamount to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Bush, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, said he would sign a fencebuilding bill as part of efforts to strengthen the border. But he added, "I would view this as an interim step. I don't view this as the final product. And I will keep urging people to have a comprehensive reform."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "While I've made it clear that I prefer a comprehensive solution, I have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform."
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered, "We can build the tallest fence in the world and it won't fix our broken immigration system." To do that, he said, "we need the kind of comprehensive reform that the Senate passed earlier this year."
The current bill wouldn't provide funding to cover costs of the fencing and other barriers aimed at preventing illegal entry. About $1 billion for the fencing is likely to be included in a bill for the Department of Homeland Security that Congress is expected to approve before its scheduled adjournment next week for the elections.
Also on Wednesday, a bipartisan task force recommended that Congress provide a path to legal status for immigrants who can demonstrate steady employment, knowledge of English and payment of taxes and who pass a background security check.
The panel, chaired by Spencer Abraham, former Republican senator from Michigan and energy secretary, and Lee Hamilton, former Democratic representative from Indiana and chair of the 9/11 Commission, also urged new verification mechanisms to assist employers in hiring only authorized workers.
---
The voter ID bill is H.R. 4844.
The fence bill is H.R. 6061.
---
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
By JIM ABRAMSAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.
The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.
House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.
Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."
"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."
But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly - groups that tend to vote Democratic - who might have trouble producing a photo identification.
"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said he was initially denied a voter ID required under a Missouri state law because he doesn't have a driver's license and couldn't immediately produce a passport or birth certificate. His congressional ID card was not accepted.
Missouri court earlier this month struck down the state law, and on Tuesday a state superior court judge in Georgia ruled that that state's law requiring a photo ID was an unconstitutional condition for voting.
The bill would require everyone to present a photo ID before voting in federal elections by 2008. By 2010 voters would have to have photo IDs that certified they were citizens. In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted Wednesday to take up a bill to build a 700-mile fence along one-third of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Action on the fence, which could cost billions of dollars, comes four months after the Senate approved legislation that, along with tightening border security, created a guest worker program and outlined how people in the country illegally could work toward legal status and eventual citizenship.
President Bush has supported this broader approach, but it has met strong resistance in the House, where opponents have said it was tantamount to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Bush, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, said he would sign a fencebuilding bill as part of efforts to strengthen the border. But he added, "I would view this as an interim step. I don't view this as the final product. And I will keep urging people to have a comprehensive reform."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "While I've made it clear that I prefer a comprehensive solution, I have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform."
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered, "We can build the tallest fence in the world and it won't fix our broken immigration system." To do that, he said, "we need the kind of comprehensive reform that the Senate passed earlier this year."
The current bill wouldn't provide funding to cover costs of the fencing and other barriers aimed at preventing illegal entry. About $1 billion for the fencing is likely to be included in a bill for the Department of Homeland Security that Congress is expected to approve before its scheduled adjournment next week for the elections.
Also on Wednesday, a bipartisan task force recommended that Congress provide a path to legal status for immigrants who can demonstrate steady employment, knowledge of English and payment of taxes and who pass a background security check.
The panel, chaired by Spencer Abraham, former Republican senator from Michigan and energy secretary, and Lee Hamilton, former Democratic representative from Indiana and chair of the 9/11 Commission, also urged new verification mechanisms to assist employers in hiring only authorized workers.
---
The voter ID bill is H.R. 4844.
The fence bill is H.R. 6061.
---
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
PBS set to reveal 'stealth campaign' to cut healthcare, education
PBS set to reveal 'stealth campaign' to cut healthcare, education
RAW STORYPublished: Wednesday September 20, 2006
PBS newsmagazine NOW this week plans to target what producers are calling, "a stealth campaign for deep cuts in social services," RAW STORY has learned.
The program is to examine ballot initiatives across the nation that it will characterize as deceptively-titled attempts to slash funding in health care and education. "Initiatives with titles like 'Taxpayers' Bill of Rights' and 'SOS - Stop Over Spending'" will be the focus of the segment.
The program is also set to assert that one wealthy New Yorker is secretly helping to orchestrate the push by providing major funding for the nationwide initiatives. Questionable legal and campaign tactics will also be highlighted.
Whether or not the program will attempt to link the "stealth campaign" to previous attempts to slash funding for public broadcasting is unknown.
On Friday, the NOW website will launch a state by state guide to the propositions--and related campaign financing.
RAW STORYPublished: Wednesday September 20, 2006
PBS newsmagazine NOW this week plans to target what producers are calling, "a stealth campaign for deep cuts in social services," RAW STORY has learned.
The program is to examine ballot initiatives across the nation that it will characterize as deceptively-titled attempts to slash funding in health care and education. "Initiatives with titles like 'Taxpayers' Bill of Rights' and 'SOS - Stop Over Spending'" will be the focus of the segment.
The program is also set to assert that one wealthy New Yorker is secretly helping to orchestrate the push by providing major funding for the nationwide initiatives. Questionable legal and campaign tactics will also be highlighted.
Whether or not the program will attempt to link the "stealth campaign" to previous attempts to slash funding for public broadcasting is unknown.
On Friday, the NOW website will launch a state by state guide to the propositions--and related campaign financing.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Injunction Issued Against Georgia's Voter ID Law
Injunction Issued Against Georgia's Voter ID Law
by TChris
As TalkLeft reported here, state and federal judges restrained the implementation of successive versions of Georgia's voter ID law. The first version, nullified by the federal judge, was a transparent effort to impose a poll tax designed to make it more burdensome for poor people to vote. The second version, restrained by the state judge, continued to burden disadvantaged voters. The state judge (predictably labeled an "activist" by Republicans because he actively followed the law) yesterday transformed his temporary restraining order into a permanent injunction.
"Nowhere in the Constitution is the legislature authorized to deny a registered voter the right to vote on any other ground, including a possession of a photo ID," he wrote.
These pesky constitutions have a way of foiling Republican plans to achieve a government that will be permanently controlled by Republicans. It's back to the drawing board for Republicans in the Georgia legislature, who will undoubtedly try to cook up another law to disenfranchise voters who might not vote for Republicans.
by TChris
As TalkLeft reported here, state and federal judges restrained the implementation of successive versions of Georgia's voter ID law. The first version, nullified by the federal judge, was a transparent effort to impose a poll tax designed to make it more burdensome for poor people to vote. The second version, restrained by the state judge, continued to burden disadvantaged voters. The state judge (predictably labeled an "activist" by Republicans because he actively followed the law) yesterday transformed his temporary restraining order into a permanent injunction.
"Nowhere in the Constitution is the legislature authorized to deny a registered voter the right to vote on any other ground, including a possession of a photo ID," he wrote.
These pesky constitutions have a way of foiling Republican plans to achieve a government that will be permanently controlled by Republicans. It's back to the drawing board for Republicans in the Georgia legislature, who will undoubtedly try to cook up another law to disenfranchise voters who might not vote for Republicans.
THE LET AMERICA VOTE ACT!
THE LET AMERICA VOTE ACT!
CALL ON CONGRESS TO PASS 'EMERGENCY PAPER BALLOT LEGISLATION' NOW!
Every Registered American Voter Must Be Allowed to Vote This November!
Given this year's primary election meltdowns and train wrecks that we've been reporting since March 7th of this year, in which electronic voting machines have failed to start up and thousands of American voters have been turned away from the polls when they came to vote, but couldn't…
Given the fact that one such meltdown occurred last Tuesday in Maryland, where many of the DC media and politicos live…
Given VelvetRevolution's new Princeton Diebold Virus Hack report demonstrating conclusively that electronic voting machines may be hacked in a minute's time resulting in flipped elections without a trace left behind…
Giving that American democracy and the right to vote in that democracy ought to be a beacon to the world…
It is NOW time for Emergency Paper Ballot Legislation to be brought and passed immediately by both houses of the U.S. Congress, in order to at least mitigate the coming train wreck this November 7th.
Call it the Let America Vote Act (LAVA) of 2006…Let democracy flow!
The legislation can, and should be, as short as a single paragraph so that it can be read and passed quickly by every U.S. Congress member. It can apply only to this November's general election, if that is needed to get it passed and signed quickly.
It should read something like this…
LET AMERICA VOTE ACT(EMERGENCY PAPER BALLOT MANDATE OF 2006)
Emergency paper ballots shall be made available at every voting jurisdiction in the United States during the November 7th, 2006 General Election. These paper ballots shall be available in sufficient numbers for optional use by voters who prefer to use them, and by all voters in the event of voting machine failure or unavailability. These paper ballots are not to be provisional ballots, but regular paper ballots that shall be counted immediately upon the close of polls on election night along with all other votes cast by properly registered voters.
Note: At this point, I don't give a damn how the Emergency Paper Ballots will be counted; by hand, by optical scanner, whatever. So long as voters are not disenfranchised by the millions — as thousands have already been so far in this year's primary elections across the country — by showing up to the polling place only to be told they can't vote at all, or by being told they must vote provisionally (provisional ballots are not counted on election night, and frequently not at all) because the new voting machines are broken or otherwise unavailable.
States such as Texas, Arkansas and other have already had to do this this year when Secretaries of State put out emergency notices to Elections Administrators to create such Emergency Paper Ballots after the voting machine companies failed to provide programmed ballots or working machines.
All states are already required by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to have such paper ballots available at every polling place as Provisional Ballots, so those can be copied NOW if need be for use as Emergency Paper Ballots (which is better than the scraps of paper some counties reportedly have tried to use in emergency situations so far this year!)
BOTTOM LINE: With the passage of this Emergency Legislation, at least properly registered American citizens will be able to vote on Election Day if they choose to!
Feel free to call it the "Hail Mary Emergency Election Protection Act" if you want. I don't much care, so long as it's passed by Congress in time to ensure that voters can actually vote this November!
I've spoken with a number of people on the Hill and within the Election Integrity movement…scientists, activists, politicians, in DC and around the country, and they have all been in favor of this legislation and have pledged their support.
I am attemping to find sponsorship for this bill in Congress, and I'm calling on all Election Integrity organizations and concerned citizens who may have better connections than I to help find such Congressional sponsorship immediately.
I am calling on these same people to then call on Congress to pass this legislation immediately!
I am hoping to have an official version/wording of the bill posted shortly. It will, of course, be available as a new item here at The BRAD BLOG no later than tomorrow. It will spell out, in official "bill-like" language, precisely what I've posted above. [UPDATE: A complete legislative language version of the bill is now posted here.]
Democracy is at stake. After at least two years of reporting in exhaustive details on these matters, and at this late stage of the game, I believe the above "reform" is, unfortunately, the most we can likely hope for in time to have any real impact in mitigating a full-on train wreck during this November's crucial excercise of the rite of democracy.
Please forward this item to everybody you know, cross-post it or link to it as you see fit (this is the URL: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3495)…And please contact your Congress person and ask them to support and/or sponsor this initiative today!
CALL ON CONGRESS TO PASS 'EMERGENCY PAPER BALLOT LEGISLATION' NOW!
Every Registered American Voter Must Be Allowed to Vote This November!
Given this year's primary election meltdowns and train wrecks that we've been reporting since March 7th of this year, in which electronic voting machines have failed to start up and thousands of American voters have been turned away from the polls when they came to vote, but couldn't…
Given the fact that one such meltdown occurred last Tuesday in Maryland, where many of the DC media and politicos live…
Given VelvetRevolution's new Princeton Diebold Virus Hack report demonstrating conclusively that electronic voting machines may be hacked in a minute's time resulting in flipped elections without a trace left behind…
Giving that American democracy and the right to vote in that democracy ought to be a beacon to the world…
It is NOW time for Emergency Paper Ballot Legislation to be brought and passed immediately by both houses of the U.S. Congress, in order to at least mitigate the coming train wreck this November 7th.
Call it the Let America Vote Act (LAVA) of 2006…Let democracy flow!
The legislation can, and should be, as short as a single paragraph so that it can be read and passed quickly by every U.S. Congress member. It can apply only to this November's general election, if that is needed to get it passed and signed quickly.
It should read something like this…
LET AMERICA VOTE ACT(EMERGENCY PAPER BALLOT MANDATE OF 2006)
Emergency paper ballots shall be made available at every voting jurisdiction in the United States during the November 7th, 2006 General Election. These paper ballots shall be available in sufficient numbers for optional use by voters who prefer to use them, and by all voters in the event of voting machine failure or unavailability. These paper ballots are not to be provisional ballots, but regular paper ballots that shall be counted immediately upon the close of polls on election night along with all other votes cast by properly registered voters.
Note: At this point, I don't give a damn how the Emergency Paper Ballots will be counted; by hand, by optical scanner, whatever. So long as voters are not disenfranchised by the millions — as thousands have already been so far in this year's primary elections across the country — by showing up to the polling place only to be told they can't vote at all, or by being told they must vote provisionally (provisional ballots are not counted on election night, and frequently not at all) because the new voting machines are broken or otherwise unavailable.
States such as Texas, Arkansas and other have already had to do this this year when Secretaries of State put out emergency notices to Elections Administrators to create such Emergency Paper Ballots after the voting machine companies failed to provide programmed ballots or working machines.
All states are already required by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to have such paper ballots available at every polling place as Provisional Ballots, so those can be copied NOW if need be for use as Emergency Paper Ballots (which is better than the scraps of paper some counties reportedly have tried to use in emergency situations so far this year!)
BOTTOM LINE: With the passage of this Emergency Legislation, at least properly registered American citizens will be able to vote on Election Day if they choose to!
Feel free to call it the "Hail Mary Emergency Election Protection Act" if you want. I don't much care, so long as it's passed by Congress in time to ensure that voters can actually vote this November!
I've spoken with a number of people on the Hill and within the Election Integrity movement…scientists, activists, politicians, in DC and around the country, and they have all been in favor of this legislation and have pledged their support.
I am attemping to find sponsorship for this bill in Congress, and I'm calling on all Election Integrity organizations and concerned citizens who may have better connections than I to help find such Congressional sponsorship immediately.
I am calling on these same people to then call on Congress to pass this legislation immediately!
I am hoping to have an official version/wording of the bill posted shortly. It will, of course, be available as a new item here at The BRAD BLOG no later than tomorrow. It will spell out, in official "bill-like" language, precisely what I've posted above. [UPDATE: A complete legislative language version of the bill is now posted here.]
Democracy is at stake. After at least two years of reporting in exhaustive details on these matters, and at this late stage of the game, I believe the above "reform" is, unfortunately, the most we can likely hope for in time to have any real impact in mitigating a full-on train wreck during this November's crucial excercise of the rite of democracy.
Please forward this item to everybody you know, cross-post it or link to it as you see fit (this is the URL: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3495)…And please contact your Congress person and ask them to support and/or sponsor this initiative today!
Penis transplant removed after two weeks
Penis transplant removed after two weeks
AP - Tue Sep 19, 8:59 PM ET
Chinese doctors say they successfully transplanted a penis on a man who lost his own in an accident, but had to remove it two weeks later because of psychological problems experienced by the man and his wife.
AP - Tue Sep 19, 8:59 PM ET
Chinese doctors say they successfully transplanted a penis on a man who lost his own in an accident, but had to remove it two weeks later because of psychological problems experienced by the man and his wife.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Video: CNN demonstrates e-vote hacks to tilt midterms
Video: CNN demonstrates e-vote hacks to tilt midterms
David EdwardsPublished: Monday September 18, 2006
CNN explores the possibility of midterm e-vote hacks in the following video clips. In one clip, investigators demonstrate that a single hacker could use a virus to infect large numbers of electronic voting machines.
The Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University has studied the security of one popular electronic voting machine produced by Diebold. The study, titled "Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine", located serious security flaws "that undermine the
accuracy and credibility of the vote counts".
The Center for Information Technology Policy's website contains the full report, as well as a comprehensive video demonstration a Diebold Accuvote-TS voting machine hack.
Just In
NY LEGISLATORS RELEASE REPORT CRITICIZING SWEENEY AND HIS SKI WEEKENDSA report released on Friday alleges that Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) used weekends that were ostensibly for raising money for the Lake Placid Olympic facilities instead to reward people politically or personally connected to the Representative and his colleagues.[Roll Call]
EARMARK RULES CHANGES MAY STALL IN SENATERule changes in the Senate that would require more transparency in the earmarking process and that would eliminate secret holds may not be enacted before the legislative season ends.[Roll Call]
IL GOV. FINDS INTERESTING WAYS AROUND HIRING RULESAmong other practices, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich filled internships for college students with well-connected adults. [Chicago Tribune]
BUSH TO GIVE DONATIONS FROM CONVICTED COIN DEALER TO CHARITYThe Republican National Committee said on Friday that President Bush would donate to charity $45,400 of illegal donations received from Tom Noe, a rare coin dealer who has been convicted of violating campaign contribution laws. [AP]
TAYLOR'S TIES TO RUSSIA BECOME A CAMPAIGN ISSUERep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) has developed ties to Russia that his critics say improperly mix business and politics.[AP]
DONATIONS TO NJ SEN CANDIDATE QUESTIONEDDemocrats have suggested that Republican Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr. voted against closing a tax loophole to benefit a major donor.[Star-Ledger]
EARMARK RULES CHANGES MAY STALL IN SENATERule changes in the Senate that would require more transparency in the earmarking process and that would eliminate secret holds may not be enacted before the legislative season ends.[Roll Call]
IL GOV. FINDS INTERESTING WAYS AROUND HIRING RULESAmong other practices, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich filled internships for college students with well-connected adults. [Chicago Tribune]
BUSH TO GIVE DONATIONS FROM CONVICTED COIN DEALER TO CHARITYThe Republican National Committee said on Friday that President Bush would donate to charity $45,400 of illegal donations received from Tom Noe, a rare coin dealer who has been convicted of violating campaign contribution laws. [AP]
TAYLOR'S TIES TO RUSSIA BECOME A CAMPAIGN ISSUERep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) has developed ties to Russia that his critics say improperly mix business and politics.[AP]
DONATIONS TO NJ SEN CANDIDATE QUESTIONEDDemocrats have suggested that Republican Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr. voted against closing a tax loophole to benefit a major donor.[Star-Ledger]
Gore Calls For Immediate Freeze on C02 Emissions, Elimination of Payroll Taxes
Gore Calls For Immediate Freeze on C02 Emissions, Elimination of Payroll Taxes
Today, Former Vice President Al Gore gave a major speech on global warming at NYU law. Notably, he called for an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions:
Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.
An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead.
Gore also called for the complete elimination of the payroll tax. It would be replaced by a tax on CO2:
For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.
Gore concludes:
This is an opportunity for bipartisanship and transcendence, an opportunity to find our better selves and in rising to meet this challenge, create a better brighter future — a future worthy of the generations who come after us and who have a right to be able to depend on us.
Read the full text of the speech here.
Today, Former Vice President Al Gore gave a major speech on global warming at NYU law. Notably, he called for an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions:
Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.
An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead.
Gore also called for the complete elimination of the payroll tax. It would be replaced by a tax on CO2:
For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.
Gore concludes:
This is an opportunity for bipartisanship and transcendence, an opportunity to find our better selves and in rising to meet this challenge, create a better brighter future — a future worthy of the generations who come after us and who have a right to be able to depend on us.
Read the full text of the speech here.
40 Years Later
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 - In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.
The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.
Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."
The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.
The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.
"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.
Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.
"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."
'Over the Edge'
The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.
Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.
The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.
There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.
And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.
"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."
Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.
One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.
"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.
After 40 Years
Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.
As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.
The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.
Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.
"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 - In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.
The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.
Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."
The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.
The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.
"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.
Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.
"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."
'Over the Edge'
The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.
Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.
The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.
There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.
And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.
"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."
Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.
One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.
"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.
After 40 Years
Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.
As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.
The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.
Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.
"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.
At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
At Least 7 of the 9/11Hijackers are Still Alive
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
The muscle hijackers 'picked by bin Ladin':
Satam al Suqami, Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers) Both Alive, Abdul Aziz al Omari Alive, Fayez Banihammad (from the UAE), Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri Alive, Saeed al Ghamdi Alive, Ahmad al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami Alive, Majed Moqed, and Salem al Hazmi Alive (the brother of Nawaf al Hazmi).
How can the 9/11 Commission be taken seriously when they refer to 9/11 'hijackers' who are still alive?
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
The muscle hijackers 'picked by bin Ladin':
Satam al Suqami, Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers) Both Alive, Abdul Aziz al Omari Alive, Fayez Banihammad (from the UAE), Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri Alive, Saeed al Ghamdi Alive, Ahmad al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami Alive, Majed Moqed, and Salem al Hazmi Alive (the brother of Nawaf al Hazmi).
How can the 9/11 Commission be taken seriously when they refer to 9/11 'hijackers' who are still alive?
Sunday, September 17, 2006
9/17/06
U.S. war prisons legal vacuum for 14,000
U.S. holds AP photographer in Iraq 5 mos
Number of E. coli spinach cases hits 109
Mixed reaction as pope expresses regret
GOP expresses confidence on CIA bill
Election experts fear major problems at US polls
Olbermann: Bush's rush about 'covering his own backside?'
NYT page ones: Developments in HP leak case... Late...
Lindsay Graham: US can survive without me in Senate - Video
Major computing advancement will be revealed tonight
U.S. holds AP photographer in Iraq 5 mos
Number of E. coli spinach cases hits 109
Mixed reaction as pope expresses regret
GOP expresses confidence on CIA bill
Election experts fear major problems at US polls
Olbermann: Bush's rush about 'covering his own backside?'
NYT page ones: Developments in HP leak case... Late...
Lindsay Graham: US can survive without me in Senate - Video
Major computing advancement will be revealed tonight
Journalists In Danger Overseas...From U.S. Governement
Journalists In Danger Overseas...From U.S. Governemnt
AP Robert Tanner Posted Saturday September 16, 2006 at 01:28 PM
From the AP:
The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Associated Press photographer for five months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing.
AP photographer Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, was detained on April 12 after working for the AP since September 2004. The AP has not found any evidence of inappropriate contact with insurgents and and have called for him to receive due process under the Iraqi justice system, saying it is in contravention of Iraqi law and the Geneva convention.
According to the AP, the military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, one linked to al Qaeda. Said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner in an email in May: "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces." The military also claims that there were bomb-making materials in Hussein's apartment at the time of his arrest. Hussein denies the charge.
According to the AP, the U.S. military has detained 14,000 people worldwide, with 13,000 in Iraq, most held without specific charge.
AP Robert Tanner Posted Saturday September 16, 2006 at 01:28 PM
From the AP:
The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Associated Press photographer for five months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing.
AP photographer Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, was detained on April 12 after working for the AP since September 2004. The AP has not found any evidence of inappropriate contact with insurgents and and have called for him to receive due process under the Iraqi justice system, saying it is in contravention of Iraqi law and the Geneva convention.
According to the AP, the military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, one linked to al Qaeda. Said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner in an email in May: "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces." The military also claims that there were bomb-making materials in Hussein's apartment at the time of his arrest. Hussein denies the charge.
According to the AP, the U.S. military has detained 14,000 people worldwide, with 13,000 in Iraq, most held without specific charge.
Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough eviscerates Bush in Sunday's Washington Post
Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough eviscerates Bush in Sunday's Washington Post by John in DC - 9/17/2006 12:48:00 AM
"The" story this election isn't the civil war in Iraq, it's the civil war in the Republican party. Front page of the Outlook Section, no less.
I can't help but feel sorry for my old Republican friends in Congress who are fighting for their political lives. After all, it must be tough explaining to voters at their local Baptist church's Keep Congress Conservative Day that it was their party that took a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a record-setting $400 billion deficit.How exactly does one convince the teeming masses that Republicans deserve to stay in power despite botching a war, doubling the national debt, keeping company with Jack Abramoff, fumbling the response to Hurricane Katrina, expanding the government at record rates, raising cronyism to an art form, playing poker with Duke Cunningham, isolating America and repeatedly electing Tom DeLay as their House majority leader?How does a God-fearing Reagan Republican explain all that away?Easy. Blame George W. Bush....Even when the administration would not give generals the troops they needed to win the war in Iraq, Republican leaders did nothing. When the president refused to veto a single spending bill while the deficit spiraled upward, Republican leaders looked away. And when chaos was reigning in the streets of New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast in Katrina's horrific aftermath, Republican leaders remained mute.That silence -- proof that it is better to be feared than loved in politics -- has had devastating results. The United States is more divided than ever, our leaders are despised around the world, our fiscal situation is catastrophic and congressional approval ratings are the lowest ever. Since nothing sharpens the mind like a political hanging, Republican leaders in the Senate and House are finally considering doing what effete newspaper editorialists have suggested for years: throwing Bush overboard....Of course, you GOP candidates can be sure that such attacks will annoy Bush, even though your survival may be all that stands between him and a crazy Democratic chairman launching impeachment hearings. But if you win this fall only to face his stern rebuke next winter, just tell him it was schadenfreude for all the times the White House treated you badly. With any luck, Bush will think you are talking about that Berlin disco that Moammar Gaddafi bombed back in 1986 and then dismiss you like the worthless billy goat he always suspected you were.
"The" story this election isn't the civil war in Iraq, it's the civil war in the Republican party. Front page of the Outlook Section, no less.
I can't help but feel sorry for my old Republican friends in Congress who are fighting for their political lives. After all, it must be tough explaining to voters at their local Baptist church's Keep Congress Conservative Day that it was their party that took a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a record-setting $400 billion deficit.How exactly does one convince the teeming masses that Republicans deserve to stay in power despite botching a war, doubling the national debt, keeping company with Jack Abramoff, fumbling the response to Hurricane Katrina, expanding the government at record rates, raising cronyism to an art form, playing poker with Duke Cunningham, isolating America and repeatedly electing Tom DeLay as their House majority leader?How does a God-fearing Reagan Republican explain all that away?Easy. Blame George W. Bush....Even when the administration would not give generals the troops they needed to win the war in Iraq, Republican leaders did nothing. When the president refused to veto a single spending bill while the deficit spiraled upward, Republican leaders looked away. And when chaos was reigning in the streets of New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast in Katrina's horrific aftermath, Republican leaders remained mute.That silence -- proof that it is better to be feared than loved in politics -- has had devastating results. The United States is more divided than ever, our leaders are despised around the world, our fiscal situation is catastrophic and congressional approval ratings are the lowest ever. Since nothing sharpens the mind like a political hanging, Republican leaders in the Senate and House are finally considering doing what effete newspaper editorialists have suggested for years: throwing Bush overboard....Of course, you GOP candidates can be sure that such attacks will annoy Bush, even though your survival may be all that stands between him and a crazy Democratic chairman launching impeachment hearings. But if you win this fall only to face his stern rebuke next winter, just tell him it was schadenfreude for all the times the White House treated you badly. With any luck, Bush will think you are talking about that Berlin disco that Moammar Gaddafi bombed back in 1986 and then dismiss you like the worthless billy goat he always suspected you were.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
