Mr. Bush Gets Another Look Into Mr. Putin’s Eyes
By CARLA ANNE ROBBINS
The Russian president arrives Sunday at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport — the only foreign leader to get such an invitation from this President Bush.
Needlenose on Powell:
One gem which the audience enjoyed was the retelling of Powell and President Bush’s first encounters with Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Powell recalled it after the meeting he and Bush were reviewing events and comparing notes and seemingly they disagreed. At one point Bush looked at his Secretary of State and said (with a suitable Texas twang) “Powell, I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw his soul” to which Powell replied: “Mr. President, I looked into President Putin’s eyes and I saw the KGB”.
The Break-In That History Forgot
By EGIL KROGH
I finally realized that what had gone wrong in the Nixon White House was a meltdown in personal integrity.
Smuggling Tunnel Is Found on Arizona-Mexico Border
By GREG CLARK
A smuggling tunnel freshly excavated under the border with Mexico was sealed Friday after a joint raid by United States and Mexican authorities.
U.S. tightens security at some airports 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine - U.S. airports and mass transit systems will tighten security in response to apparent terrorist incidents in Britain, the Bush administration said Saturday.
Two civilians among seven killed in Israeli Gaza air strikes 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
GAZA CITY (AFP) - Two civilians were among seven Palestinians killed in two Israeli air strikes in Gaza on Saturday, as Hamas vowed to resist any international peacekeeping force in the embattled territory.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Just a thought!
9/11 happened shortly after a new president took office in the US. The UK is being attacked shortly after a new Prime Minister took office.
Odd!
Odd!
Ken Silverstein - Under Cover, Under Fire
If you missed the interview of Ken Silverstein by Bill Moyers, you must go to Moyers site and view it. Silverstein did a great job of under cover investigative reporting on Lobbyists. Now he is being attacked, not by just the lobbyists, but by a journalist.
Here's the Ken Silverstein article in the LA Times:
Undercover, under fire
The Washington press corps is too busy cozying up to the people it covers to get at the truth.
By Ken Silverstein, KEN SILVERSTEIN, a former Times staff writer, is the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine.
June 30, 2007
EARLIER THIS YEAR, I put on a brand-new tailored suit, picked up a sleek leather briefcase and headed to downtown Washington for meetings with some of the city's most prominent lobbyists. I had contacted their firms several weeks earlier, pretending to be the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. I told them I wanted to hire the services of a firm to burnish that country's image.
I didn't mention that Turkmenistan is run by an ugly, neo-Stalinist regime. They surely knew that, and besides, they didn't care. As I explained in this month's issue of Harper's Magazine, the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).
All this, Cassidy and APCO promised, could be done quietly and unobtrusively, because the law that regulates foreign lobbyists is so flimsy that the firms would be required to reveal little information in their public disclosure forms.
Now, in a fabulous bit of irony, my article about the unethical behavior of lobbying firms has become, for some in the media, a story about my ethics in reporting the story. The lobbyists have attacked the story and me personally, saying that it was unethical of me to misrepresent myself when I went to speak to them.
That kind of reaction is to be expected from the lobbyists exposed in my article. But what I found more disappointing is that their concerns were then mirrored by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, who was apparently far less concerned by the lobbyists' ability to manipulate public and political opinion than by my use of undercover journalism.
"No matter how good the story," he wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects."
I can't say I was utterly surprised by Kurtz's criticism. Some major media organizations allow, in principle, undercover journalism — assuming the story in question is deemed vital to the public interest and could not have been obtained through more conventional means — but very few practice it anymore. And that's unfortunate, because there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City.
In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and "60 Minutes" gained fame for its use of sting stories.
Today, however, it's almost impossible to imagine a mainstream media outlet undertaking a major undercover investigation. That's partly a result of the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.
The decline of undercover reporting — and of investigative reporting in general — also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they've become part of the very power structure that they're supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.
Chuck Lewis, a former "60 Minutes" producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."
So it isn't just the corporate owners of the media but the egos of the so called journalists! Maybe we should just stop reading them and buying the newspapers and watching the Cable News. We have the internet and we need a real News station on TV.
Here's the Ken Silverstein article in the LA Times:
Undercover, under fire
The Washington press corps is too busy cozying up to the people it covers to get at the truth.
By Ken Silverstein, KEN SILVERSTEIN, a former Times staff writer, is the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine.
June 30, 2007
EARLIER THIS YEAR, I put on a brand-new tailored suit, picked up a sleek leather briefcase and headed to downtown Washington for meetings with some of the city's most prominent lobbyists. I had contacted their firms several weeks earlier, pretending to be the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. I told them I wanted to hire the services of a firm to burnish that country's image.
I didn't mention that Turkmenistan is run by an ugly, neo-Stalinist regime. They surely knew that, and besides, they didn't care. As I explained in this month's issue of Harper's Magazine, the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).
All this, Cassidy and APCO promised, could be done quietly and unobtrusively, because the law that regulates foreign lobbyists is so flimsy that the firms would be required to reveal little information in their public disclosure forms.
Now, in a fabulous bit of irony, my article about the unethical behavior of lobbying firms has become, for some in the media, a story about my ethics in reporting the story. The lobbyists have attacked the story and me personally, saying that it was unethical of me to misrepresent myself when I went to speak to them.
That kind of reaction is to be expected from the lobbyists exposed in my article. But what I found more disappointing is that their concerns were then mirrored by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, who was apparently far less concerned by the lobbyists' ability to manipulate public and political opinion than by my use of undercover journalism.
"No matter how good the story," he wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects."
I can't say I was utterly surprised by Kurtz's criticism. Some major media organizations allow, in principle, undercover journalism — assuming the story in question is deemed vital to the public interest and could not have been obtained through more conventional means — but very few practice it anymore. And that's unfortunate, because there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City.
In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and "60 Minutes" gained fame for its use of sting stories.
Today, however, it's almost impossible to imagine a mainstream media outlet undertaking a major undercover investigation. That's partly a result of the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.
The decline of undercover reporting — and of investigative reporting in general — also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they've become part of the very power structure that they're supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.
Chuck Lewis, a former "60 Minutes" producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."
So it isn't just the corporate owners of the media but the egos of the so called journalists! Maybe we should just stop reading them and buying the newspapers and watching the Cable News. We have the internet and we need a real News station on TV.
Fact Sheet on Executive Privilege
From Nancy Pelosi's the Gavel Blog:
Today, House and Senate Judiciary Chairmen John Conyers and Patrick Leahy sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, responding to the President’s executive privilege assertion over documents relating to the US Attorney investigation. The two reiterated their concern that the president’s assertion was unprecedented and over-reaching. They also demanded the White House “immediately provide us with the specific bases for your claims regarding each document withheld via a privilege log…and a copy of any explicit determination by the President with respect to the assertion of privilege.”
See Chairman Conyers’ statement yesterday
See the initial announcement of the subpoeanas
The Committees also released the following fact sheet on Executive Privilege:
The White House’s Broad Claims of Executive Privilege Are Not Supported by Law
Background: President Bush has asserted executive privilege in response to two document subpoenas from the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The subpoenas requested categories of documents highly relevant to the unprecedented and improper firing of nine United States Attorneys and the politicization of the Department of Justice. The executive privilege is not a broad and sweeping authority the President can hide behind because he does not want to cooperate with congressional oversight — it should not prevent Congress from examining White House documents vitally important to its investigation. While courts have recognized a privilege based in the Constitution, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with other constitutional interests, including Congress’s oversight powers.
Courts And Legal Experts Agree Executive Privilege Is Limited:
· The Supreme Court held that the executive privilege is not absolute in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974), writing that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege … .” The DC Circuit elaborated that “the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
· The District of Columbia Circuit found that even in the area of national security, there was no absolute executive privilege against congressional demands for information: “The executive would have it that the Constitution confers on the executive absolute discretion in the area of national security. This does not stand up. While the Constitution assigns to the President a number of powers relating to national security, … it confers upon Congress other powers equally inseparable from the national security… .” United States v. AT&T, 567 F.2d121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1977). [The documents requested by the House and Senate Committees do not implicate any national security concerns.]
· The Congressional Research Service emphasizes the limited nature of the executive privilege. “Executive privilege is not an absolute. It is a qualified privilege and is balanced against the constitutional needs and obligations of other branches.” Congressional Research Service, October 21, 2005.
The Documents Requested By Committees Do Not Fit Into Narrow Executive Privilege:
· The privilege covers communications related to presidential decision-making, which is not at issue here. The DC Circuit has found that the presidential communications privilege applies to communications “intimately connected to his presidential decision-making.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 753. However, numerous witnesses before both House and Senate Committees have testified that the President did not decide which U.S. Attorneys should be fired.
· The privilege, even if it does apply, is overcome by real public need — as exists here. Executive privilege is overcome where the subpoenaed materials likely contain important evidence and where that evidence is not available elsewhere. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 755. Again and again, the evidence the Committee has obtained in this investigation shows significant involvement by Sara Taylor, Harriet Miers, and others in the White House, but the White House has shut down all avenues of obtaining information about that extremely important involvement.
The broader deliberative process privilege does not apply. That privilege does not apply when there is reason to believe government misconduct occurred, as has been clearly established in this matter, and does not apply to full documents – only to specific and relevant passages. Several of the high-ranking officials at the Department of Justice have resigned since this investigation began. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 745.
The White House’s Claims Of Privilege Are Sweeping And Overly Broad:
· The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has been critical of this White House’s sweeping characterizations of executive privilege. “The current Bush Administration … has articulated a legal view of the breadth and reach of presidential constitutional prerogatives that, if applied to information and documents often sought by congressional committees, would stymie such inquiries.” CRS further notes that the Department of Justice’s “assertions of these broad notions of presidential prerogatives are unaccompanied by any authoritative judicial citations.” CRS Congressional Oversight Manual, January 3, 2007, at 45.
· The White House has not sought in good faith to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply. The White House Counsel asserted privilege and declared that “therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents.” June 28, 2007 Letter from Fred Fielding to Chairmen Leahy and Conyers. A serious assertion of privilege would include a serious effort to determine which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply; White House officials have provided no such comprehensive review.
The White House Has Not Sought Accommodation:
· Most disputes between Congress and the Executive about access to documents and information are resolved through compromise. CRS Congressional Oversight Manual at 39.
· The White House in this case has made one unacceptable “take it or leave it” offer of extremely limited access to witnesses, off-the-record interviews, without transcripts, and a small number of documents. The White House has refused to negotiate further. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees have sought the kind of compromise solutions which generally accompany this type of investigation, but have been consistently rebuffed by the White House. Even the Department of Justice has made attempts to respond to congressional inquiries.
Today, House and Senate Judiciary Chairmen John Conyers and Patrick Leahy sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, responding to the President’s executive privilege assertion over documents relating to the US Attorney investigation. The two reiterated their concern that the president’s assertion was unprecedented and over-reaching. They also demanded the White House “immediately provide us with the specific bases for your claims regarding each document withheld via a privilege log…and a copy of any explicit determination by the President with respect to the assertion of privilege.”
See Chairman Conyers’ statement yesterday
See the initial announcement of the subpoeanas
The Committees also released the following fact sheet on Executive Privilege:
The White House’s Broad Claims of Executive Privilege Are Not Supported by Law
Background: President Bush has asserted executive privilege in response to two document subpoenas from the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The subpoenas requested categories of documents highly relevant to the unprecedented and improper firing of nine United States Attorneys and the politicization of the Department of Justice. The executive privilege is not a broad and sweeping authority the President can hide behind because he does not want to cooperate with congressional oversight — it should not prevent Congress from examining White House documents vitally important to its investigation. While courts have recognized a privilege based in the Constitution, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with other constitutional interests, including Congress’s oversight powers.
Courts And Legal Experts Agree Executive Privilege Is Limited:
· The Supreme Court held that the executive privilege is not absolute in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974), writing that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege … .” The DC Circuit elaborated that “the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
· The District of Columbia Circuit found that even in the area of national security, there was no absolute executive privilege against congressional demands for information: “The executive would have it that the Constitution confers on the executive absolute discretion in the area of national security. This does not stand up. While the Constitution assigns to the President a number of powers relating to national security, … it confers upon Congress other powers equally inseparable from the national security… .” United States v. AT&T, 567 F.2d121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1977). [The documents requested by the House and Senate Committees do not implicate any national security concerns.]
· The Congressional Research Service emphasizes the limited nature of the executive privilege. “Executive privilege is not an absolute. It is a qualified privilege and is balanced against the constitutional needs and obligations of other branches.” Congressional Research Service, October 21, 2005.
The Documents Requested By Committees Do Not Fit Into Narrow Executive Privilege:
· The privilege covers communications related to presidential decision-making, which is not at issue here. The DC Circuit has found that the presidential communications privilege applies to communications “intimately connected to his presidential decision-making.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 753. However, numerous witnesses before both House and Senate Committees have testified that the President did not decide which U.S. Attorneys should be fired.
· The privilege, even if it does apply, is overcome by real public need — as exists here. Executive privilege is overcome where the subpoenaed materials likely contain important evidence and where that evidence is not available elsewhere. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 755. Again and again, the evidence the Committee has obtained in this investigation shows significant involvement by Sara Taylor, Harriet Miers, and others in the White House, but the White House has shut down all avenues of obtaining information about that extremely important involvement.
The broader deliberative process privilege does not apply. That privilege does not apply when there is reason to believe government misconduct occurred, as has been clearly established in this matter, and does not apply to full documents – only to specific and relevant passages. Several of the high-ranking officials at the Department of Justice have resigned since this investigation began. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 745.
The White House’s Claims Of Privilege Are Sweeping And Overly Broad:
· The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has been critical of this White House’s sweeping characterizations of executive privilege. “The current Bush Administration … has articulated a legal view of the breadth and reach of presidential constitutional prerogatives that, if applied to information and documents often sought by congressional committees, would stymie such inquiries.” CRS further notes that the Department of Justice’s “assertions of these broad notions of presidential prerogatives are unaccompanied by any authoritative judicial citations.” CRS Congressional Oversight Manual, January 3, 2007, at 45.
· The White House has not sought in good faith to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply. The White House Counsel asserted privilege and declared that “therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents.” June 28, 2007 Letter from Fred Fielding to Chairmen Leahy and Conyers. A serious assertion of privilege would include a serious effort to determine which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply; White House officials have provided no such comprehensive review.
The White House Has Not Sought Accommodation:
· Most disputes between Congress and the Executive about access to documents and information are resolved through compromise. CRS Congressional Oversight Manual at 39.
· The White House in this case has made one unacceptable “take it or leave it” offer of extremely limited access to witnesses, off-the-record interviews, without transcripts, and a small number of documents. The White House has refused to negotiate further. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees have sought the kind of compromise solutions which generally accompany this type of investigation, but have been consistently rebuffed by the White House. Even the Department of Justice has made attempts to respond to congressional inquiries.
CBS posts it's latest Polls
This poll from CBS posts the lowest job approval rating ever on a CBS poll for President Bush.
Let's take a look here:
I still don't understand how Cheney polled even that high! Evidently Bush is taking the heat for what the VP did.
As far as the congress is concerned, I think people are disappointed that the Dems could not get the bill passed that would bring the troops home. Unfortunately, until they get more of the Republicans to vote with them, their hands were tied. Of course they should have kept bringing the same bill up over and over and let Bush veto it until more of the Republicans relented.
Let's take a look here:
Poll: Calls To Get Out Of Iraq Escalate
77% In CBS News Poll Say War's Going Badly, 40% Urge Withdrawal Of All U.S. Troops
CBS) A CBS News poll shows Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the Iraq war, President Bush and the Congress, as well as the overall direction of the country.
More Americans than ever before, 77 percent, say the war is going badly, up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it's going very badly.
While the springtime surge in U.S. troops to Iraq is now complete, more Americans than ever are calling for U.S. forces to withdraw. Sixty-six percent say the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased, including 40 percent who want all U.S. troops removed. That's a 7-point increase since April.
Fewer than one in five thinks that the troop increase is helping to improve the situation in Iraq, while about half think the war is actually creating more terrorists.
The poll has bad news for President Bush, too. His job approval rating slipped to 27 percent, his lowest number ever in a CBS News poll — 3 points less than last month and 1 point below his previous low of 28 percent in January. His disapproval rating is also at an all-time high of 65 percent.
Presidents usually have popularity problems in their last two years in office," said Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys. "But the combination of shrinking support for the war in Iraq and opposition to domestic initiatives like the immigration bill has made assessment of this administration especially negative.
"Americans don't only disapprove of the president; they overwhelmingly see the country as on the wrong track," Frankovic said
But Congress also fared poorly in the poll. Its approval rating was also at 27 percent — a 9-point drop from last month. Nearly six in 10 among those surveyed said the 110th Congress has accomplished less during the last six months than Congress usually does.
Vice President Dick Cheney received a similarly low rating, with 28 percent approval and 59 percent disapproval.
The poll found a record number of Americans, 75 percent, believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Only 19 percent think the U.S. is on the right track, the lowest number since CBS News first asked the question in 1983.
I still don't understand how Cheney polled even that high! Evidently Bush is taking the heat for what the VP did.
As far as the congress is concerned, I think people are disappointed that the Dems could not get the bill passed that would bring the troops home. Unfortunately, until they get more of the Republicans to vote with them, their hands were tied. Of course they should have kept bringing the same bill up over and over and let Bush veto it until more of the Republicans relented.
"Fast Track" Ends Today
What is "Fast Track" you say? These are Trade Agreements that the president can put through without interventions from congress. And this little gem that has expired today is a cause for the jobs we've lost. Read up!
From the AP:
From the AP:
Bush losing 'fast track' trade powers
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 29, 8:35 PM ET
President Bush loses his power Saturday to seal "fast track" trade agreements without intervention from Congress, where Democrats blame recent deals for sending U.S. jobs abroad.
Since 1975, only one other president, Bill Clinton, has been stripped of that trade promotion authority, designed to speed the reduction of trade barriers and open new markets with other countries. Bush won't get it back again, and the next president might not either.
House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, whose Ways and Means Committee handles trade policy, said in a written statement Friday that their legislative priorities "do not include the renewal of fast track authority."
"Before that debate can even begin, we must expand the benefits of globalization to all Americans," they said.
In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he had other pressing trade issues, such as extending relief to trade-hit American workers. "I have always said that it is more important to get trade promotion authority done right than to get it done fast."
Rather than promoting new free trade accords, the government should concentrate on rewriting old deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, going after countries such as China that manipulate their currencies, strengthening product safety and pushing anti-sweatshop legislation, said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.
Nonetheless, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Congress on Friday to renew Bush's trade promotion authority. Without it, she said, "America will lose an important diplomatic tool that has proven essential to bringing foreign leaders to the negotiating table and advancing our nation's broader foreign policy interests."
Rangel got a similar pitch in a letter from U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.
"More than 100 bilateral trade negotiations are currently under way among our trading partners," she wrote. "It is important that the United States not sit on the sidelines as other countries lock in new preferential trading arrangements with our competitors."
Democrats say they support expanded trade as long as it's fair to American workers and doesn't exploit developing countries. They complain that Bush pushed too many trade deals at the expense of worker rights and environmental protections.
Fast track authority, which dates back to the Ford administration in 1975, gives the president the right to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can accept or reject, but cannot amend. Every president since then has enjoyed it, although the law lapsed between 1994 and 2002, when Democrats suspicious of trade agreements joined with Republicans hostile to the Clinton administration in opposing its renewal.
The revival of the law in 2002 came only after Republicans agreed to Democratic demands to expand a program assisting U.S. workers hurt by foreign trade.
The expiration of fast track won't affect four outstanding bilateral trade pacts that Congress must consider before they take effect. Negotiations with Peru and Colombia are finished, the United States and Panama signed a deal Thursday, and the free trade accord with South Korea is to be signed in Washington on Saturday, just before Bush's authority expires.
U.S. and South Korean negotiators cleared their final hurdle Friday when the Koreans acceded to new U.S. guidelines demanded by Democratic lawmakers calling for stricter labor and environmental standards.
Democrats reached a broad agreement with the Bush administration last month that worker rights and the environment will be core parts of future free trade agreements. That improved prospects for congressional action on several of the accords, although there are still sticking points, such as violence against labor leaders in Colombia and South Korea's restrictions on U.S. auto imports.
The top Republican on the Ways and Means panel, Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, noted that since Bush took office in 2001, the United States has implemented 10 free trade agreements with countries such as Australia, Bahrain, and Chile, and that the U.S. trade deficit with those countries has fallen by $7.3 billion.
He and other Republicans warned that without fast track, countries leery of congressional tinkering won't come to the negotiating table. "We risk losing market share around the world," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.
But Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., argued that "trade agreements have given us the largest trade deficits in human history." Last year the U.S. trade deficit reached $836 billion.
China changes Labor Laws
From the NY Times:
Lets hope China enforces this.
This one paragraph from this article stood out for me:
"While the new law will do little to eliminate violations of existing laws, it does require that employers treat migrant workers as they do other employees. All employees will have to have written employment contracts that comply with minimum wage and safety regulations."
Might be a good idea for our migrant workers and may control the problem of aliens crossing our southern border.
June 30, 2007
China Passes a Sweeping Labor Law
By JOSEPH KAHN and DAVID BARBOZA
BEIJING, June 29 — China’s legislature passed a sweeping new labor law today that strengthens protections for workers across its booming economy, rejecting pleas from foreign investors who argued that the measure would reduce China’s appeal as a low-wage, business-friendly industrial base.
The new labor contract law, enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, requires employers to provide written contracts to their workers, restricts the use of temporary laborers and makes it harder to lay off employees.
The law, which is to take effect in 2008, also enhances the role of the Communist Party’s monopoly union and allows collective bargaining for wages and benefits. It softens some provisions that foreign companies said would hurt China’s competitiveness, but retained others that American multinationals had lobbied vigorously to exclude.
The law is the latest step by President Hu Jintao to increase worker protections in a society that, despite its nominal socialist ideology, has emphasized rapid, capitalist-style economic growth over enforcing labor laws or ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth.
But it may fall short of improving working conditions for the tens of millions of low-wage workers who need the most help unless it is enforced more rigorously than existing laws, which already offer protections that on paper are similar to those in developed economies.
Passage of the measure came shortly after officials and state media unearthed the widespread use of slave labor in as many as 8,000 brick kilns and small coal mines in Shanxi and Henan provinces, one of the most glaring labor scandals since China began adopting market-style economic policies a quarter century ago.
Police have freed nearly 600 workers, many of them children, held against their will in factories owned or operated by well-connected businessmen and local officials.
Abuses of migrant laborers have been endemic in boom-time China, where millions of temporary workers have faced unsafe working conditions, collusion between factory owners and local officials and unpaid wages. Party-run courts often fail to enforce their legal rights.
Senior leaders in Beijing have grown increasingly concerned about the issue because migrant workers have contributed to a surge in social unrest and violent crime.
While the new law will do little to eliminate violations of existing laws, it does require that employers treat migrant workers as they do other employees. All employees will have to have written employment contracts that comply with minimum wage and safety regulations.
It also moves China closer to European-style labor regulations that emphasize fixed- and open-term employment contracts enforceable by law. It requires that employees with short-term contracts become full-time employees with lifetime benefits after a short-term contract is renewed twice.
Perhaps most significantly, it gives the state-run union and other employee representative groups the power to bargain with employers.
Lets hope China enforces this.
This one paragraph from this article stood out for me:
"While the new law will do little to eliminate violations of existing laws, it does require that employers treat migrant workers as they do other employees. All employees will have to have written employment contracts that comply with minimum wage and safety regulations."
Might be a good idea for our migrant workers and may control the problem of aliens crossing our southern border.
Friday, June 29, 2007
11. The number of Dems that have signed onto the Impeach Cheney Resolution
The newest signer of Dennis Kucinich's resolution is Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).
From Raw Story:
Note: Text and video of McDermott's speech are available at the Congressman's website.
How Nancy pelosi responded to this:
I think it is time to write Rep. Pelosi and explain to her the reason we need to impeach him. She has her web site, the Gavel or you can address it in an email or letter by going to her personal site here.
From Raw Story:
Washington Democrat adds voice to Cheney impeachment drive
Michael Roston
Published: Friday June 29, 2007
A Democratic Congressman from Washington state became the latest Member of Congress to add his voice to the calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. The move came the same night that House Democrats failed to unite their party around a measure to cut the funding for the Office of the Vice President in response to Cheney's declaration that his office was not a part of the executive branch.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) declared in an address on the House floor Thursday night that he was in favor of impeaching the vice president.
"It is time for a new exit strategy, one that removes the Vice President of the United States from office, voluntarily, if he chooses, but by impeachment if he stonewalls," said the Seattle Democrat and Progressive Caucus member. "I have struggled mightily with this matter for a long time...Since the President permits the flagrant disregard of the Constitution, it is up to the Congress to act and defend the American people. With each new revelation, America has seen only glints of what has been done totally in secret."
McDermott said that he was adding his name to H.Res. 333, the Articles of Impeachment introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and already supported by nine additional Congress members. But he also made it clear that he was concerned with crimes beyond those called out in the Ohio Democrat's legislation.
"The Vice President holds himself accountable to no one," Rep. McDermott argued. "He ordered the Secret Service to destroy visitors logs, and we have learned in the Washington Post recently, that the Vice President circumvented every check and balance inside the White House to force through his own agenda, to spy on Americans through illegal wire traps, creating the gulag at Guantanamo, and subverting civil liberties and free speech at every turn."
Note: Text and video of McDermott's speech are available at the Congressman's website.
How Nancy pelosi responded to this:
In a conference call on Thursday afternoon, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made it clear that the decisions of Democrats like McDermott were not enough to change her mind on impeachment, which she continued to insist was off the table.
"It's a choice that has to be made," she said. "I made a decision...one year ago that impeachment was something we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their shortcomings. The president isn't worth impeaching. If it were the beginning of his term, people might think of it differently, but he's at the end of his term...the last two years of his term, we just want to be rid of him."
I think it is time to write Rep. Pelosi and explain to her the reason we need to impeach him. She has her web site, the Gavel or you can address it in an email or letter by going to her personal site here.
Al Gore asks for your help
On 7.7.07 more than two billion people will come together during Live Earth. That number is unfathomable - more than one-fourth of the world�s population will participate in a single event and demand a solution to the climate crisis. This unique moment presents us with a unique choice.
Do we use this unprecedented opportunity to organize a global movement that will last beyond 7.7.07? Or do we let the moment pass?
I know my answer - and I think I know yours. That�s why I am issuing this challenge: Let�s use this moment to pledge our support to solving the climate crisis. Just as important let's ask everyone we know to join us as part of this movement.
Sign the 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:
Live Earth Pledge
The 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:
I PLEDGE:
1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.
Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:
Live Earth Pledge
Together we were able to make March's Congressional hearings a huge moment by collecting more than 500,000 messages and demonstrating the significant public support for solving the climate crisis to our elected leaders and the media. Our next opportunity to demonstrate this growing movement will come on 7.7.07
Live Earth will not just be a 24-hour concert, but the launch of a massive campaign to demonstrate that the political will exists to solve the climate crisis.
Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:
Live Earth Pledge
As our movement grows larger we will shake loose the paralysis currently gripping our political system. Working together we can get it done.
Thank you,
Al Gore
Do we use this unprecedented opportunity to organize a global movement that will last beyond 7.7.07? Or do we let the moment pass?
I know my answer - and I think I know yours. That�s why I am issuing this challenge: Let�s use this moment to pledge our support to solving the climate crisis. Just as important let's ask everyone we know to join us as part of this movement.
Sign the 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:
Live Earth Pledge
The 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:
I PLEDGE:
1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.
Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:
Live Earth Pledge
Together we were able to make March's Congressional hearings a huge moment by collecting more than 500,000 messages and demonstrating the significant public support for solving the climate crisis to our elected leaders and the media. Our next opportunity to demonstrate this growing movement will come on 7.7.07
Live Earth will not just be a 24-hour concert, but the launch of a massive campaign to demonstrate that the political will exists to solve the climate crisis.
Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:
Live Earth Pledge
As our movement grows larger we will shake loose the paralysis currently gripping our political system. Working together we can get it done.
Thank you,
Al Gore
Here's something that flew under the radar!!
The Conservative 5-4 Supreme Court saw fit to eliminate our price protection. Retailers can set prices, now, without violating the anti-trust law. This means that we will be paying more for our things.
From Findlaw:
High Court Eases Ban on Minimum Prices
CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER AP Business Writer
(AP) - WASHINGTON-Manufacturers will have greater leeway to set minimum prices at the retail level without violating antitrust laws under a Thursday Supreme Court ruling that could hurt consumers and small merchants.
By allowing minimum price agreements, the court's 5-4 decision could lead to higher prices, dissenting justices said, as it becomes more difficult for smaller stores and Internet retailers to offer lower-priced goods.
The court said agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition, meaning accusations of antitrust violations will be evaluated case by case.
In a 1991 decision, the Supreme Court had declared that minimum pricing agreements always violate federal antitrust law. But Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the principle that past decisions should be left alone "does not compel our continued adherence" in this instance.
Minimum price agreements can benefit consumers, Kennedy wrote, by enabling retailers to invest in greater customer service without fear of being undercut by discount rivals. The agreements also could make it easier for new products to compete, he added, because a retailer could recoup the costs of marketing a new good by charging a higher price.
Dissenting from that view, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: "The only safe predictions to make about today's decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail."
The Consumer Federation of America said in court filings that the ban on minimum price agreements allowed "innovative retailers to continually enter the market, offering new and lower priced alternatives to consumers."
But Roy Englert, an antitrust attorney at Robbins Russell, said the court's decision does have boundaries that will protect entrepreneurs. The ruling only allows minimum price agreements between manufacturers of a single brand of a product and retailers, Englert said, while other brands of the same product can still compete on price.
Moreover, if only one brand is available, retailers and consumers can still sue manufacturers for anticompetitive conduct, Englert said. The courts will now evaluate such suits on the merits, rather than automatically finding them illegal.
Englert helped prepare a brief in support of Leegin.
Some antitrust experts say consumers shopping on the Internet will be hurt by abandoning the 96-year-old rule.
This Supreme Court seems to be overturning all the past rulings. They have to be stopped. And they, just as Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, can be impeached.
Again, I am pleading, Wake up America!!!
From Findlaw:
High Court Eases Ban on Minimum Prices
CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER AP Business Writer
(AP) - WASHINGTON-Manufacturers will have greater leeway to set minimum prices at the retail level without violating antitrust laws under a Thursday Supreme Court ruling that could hurt consumers and small merchants.
By allowing minimum price agreements, the court's 5-4 decision could lead to higher prices, dissenting justices said, as it becomes more difficult for smaller stores and Internet retailers to offer lower-priced goods.
The court said agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition, meaning accusations of antitrust violations will be evaluated case by case.
In a 1991 decision, the Supreme Court had declared that minimum pricing agreements always violate federal antitrust law. But Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the principle that past decisions should be left alone "does not compel our continued adherence" in this instance.
Minimum price agreements can benefit consumers, Kennedy wrote, by enabling retailers to invest in greater customer service without fear of being undercut by discount rivals. The agreements also could make it easier for new products to compete, he added, because a retailer could recoup the costs of marketing a new good by charging a higher price.
Dissenting from that view, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: "The only safe predictions to make about today's decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail."
The Consumer Federation of America said in court filings that the ban on minimum price agreements allowed "innovative retailers to continually enter the market, offering new and lower priced alternatives to consumers."
But Roy Englert, an antitrust attorney at Robbins Russell, said the court's decision does have boundaries that will protect entrepreneurs. The ruling only allows minimum price agreements between manufacturers of a single brand of a product and retailers, Englert said, while other brands of the same product can still compete on price.
Moreover, if only one brand is available, retailers and consumers can still sue manufacturers for anticompetitive conduct, Englert said. The courts will now evaluate such suits on the merits, rather than automatically finding them illegal.
Englert helped prepare a brief in support of Leegin.
Some antitrust experts say consumers shopping on the Internet will be hurt by abandoning the 96-year-old rule.
This Supreme Court seems to be overturning all the past rulings. They have to be stopped. And they, just as Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, can be impeached.
Again, I am pleading, Wake up America!!!
John Dean's new post on Cheney
I've been waiting for this because I knew John Dean would have to comment on Cheney. After he appeared on the Countdown with Kieth Olbermann, it was only a matter of time.
From Dean's post at Findlaw:
snip
There's much more here. And this is a must read.
From Dean's post at Findlaw:
The Misunderestimated Mr. Cheney:
The Vice President's Record of Willfully Violating the Law, And Wrongly Claiming Authority to Do So
By JOHN W. DEAN
Vice President Dick Cheney has regularly claimed that he is above the law, but until recently he has not offered any explanation of why.
In fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a law that Cheney believes does apply to him, whether that law be major and minor. For example, he has claimed that most of the laws passed in the aftermath of Watergate were unconstitutional, and thus implicitly inapplicable. His office oversees signing statements claiming countless new laws will not be honored except insofar as the President's extremely narrow interpretation allows. He does not believe the War Powers Act should be honored by the President. Nor, in his view, should the President be bothered with laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In fact, it appears Cheney has actively encouraged defiance of such laws by the Bush Administration.
For Cheney, the Geneva Conventions - considered among the nation's most important treaties -- are but quaint relics that can be ignored. Thus, he publicly embraced their violation when, on an Idaho talk radio program, he said he was not troubled in the slightest by our forces using "waterboarding" -- the simulated drowning of detainees to force them to talk. There are serious questions as to whether Cheney himself has also conspired to violate the War Crimes Act, which can be a capital crime.
A man who can so easily disregard the War Powers Act, FISA, the Geneva Conventions, and the War Crimes Act is merely flicking fleas when it comes to complying with laws like the Presidential Records Act, which requires him to keep records. Yet as CNN and other news organizations have reported, Cheney ordered the destruction of the visitor logs to his residence. These, of course, are presidential records the law requires him to preserve and protect. (Indeed, neighbors of the Vice President were surprised when, in the past, a truck for a document shredding service would regularly visit the Vice President's residence at the Naval Observatory.)
Most recently, the Vice President has refused to comply with Executive Order 12958,> as amended by his boss, George W. Bush. These orders were issued to implement the law adopted by Congress in 1995 to clarify the classification and protection of national security information.
Most interesting in Cheney's defiance is his absolutely absurd explanation of why the law is not applicable to him or his staff.
snip
When Cheney was widely ridiculed by humorists, cartoonists, pundits, commentators and several members of Congress for his claim of not being an "entity within the executive branch," the Vice President's chief of staff and counsel >David Addington responded by asserting that the Vice President is not subject to the order because he is not an "agency" as defined by the order. (Addington thus effectively dropped the claim that the Vice President is not an "entity.")
However, Addington does not cite any authority or language for his new claim that the Vice President is not an "agency." In fact, there is none. To the contrary, the order controlling national security classification states exactly the opposite of what Addington claims.
Executive Order 12958 states that the term "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in the statutory language found at 5 U.S.C. 105, and it includes "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information." An entity is any "body" or "unit" or "thing" within the executive branch, and to claim the Vice President's office is none of these is an insult to common sense. So is Addington's claim that the Office of Vice President is not an agency under the law.
Section 105 of Title 5 of the United States Code states that an "'Executive agency' means an … independent establishment" within the executive branch. Independent establishments are defined by Section 104 as "an establishment in the executive branch … which is not an Executive department [which are listed in Section 101, and include the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, etc.], military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment."
The Justice Department issued an >opinion in 1994 that the Vice President was not an "agency" under the Freedom of Information Act. That opinion was largely based on the Supreme Court ruling, in Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, that "agency" does not cover "the President's immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President."
However, the agency definition in E.O. 12985 is very different from that in the Freedom of Information Act. If, as Addington claims, E.O. 12985 was intended to exempt the Vice President's office, why did it not so state? Or, why did Bush not exempt the Vice President when he >amended that order in July 2005?
Cheney's claim his office is neither an entity nor agency defies logic, but it is not surprising since he continues also to claim, with absolutely no evidence to support his claim, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and that terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi set up an al Qaeda operation in Iraq.
There's much more here. And this is a must read.
Murdoch. Bill Moyers analysis
Bill Moyers on Rupert Murdoch: “He’ll eat anything in his path.” Moyers adds, “Rupert Murdoch is no saint, he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was to chastity. When it comes to money and power, he is carnivorous, all appetite, no taste.” Watch it:
In Cheney's own words show he counts self part of executive branch
Make up your mind Cheney!!!
From Government Executive .com
Well there it is folks! He said it himself. Can he now go back on his words? And if he does, will he then have to disclose what happened and who attended that Energy meeting? After all, if he is not a part of the Executive Branch then that meeting he held is open to congressional investigation.
From Government Executive .com
Cheney's words show he counts self part of executive branchBy Keith Koffler CongressDaily June 29, 2007 Vice President Dick Cheney has viewed himself as part of the executive branch of government, according to transcripts of public statements, calling into question a statement by an aide that has been widely seen as a suggestion he is not.
Cheney has been ridiculed and criticized in recent days because of what has been interpreted as a claim that he does not have to comply with an executive order on classified information because he is not in the executive branch. The White House has asserted that the issue is moot, saying the way the order is written makes clear that the president did not intend it to apply to the vice president.
White House officials this week have repeatedly declined to declare Cheney a member of the executive branch, instead characterizing debate over his role as an intriguing constitutional question.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino noted that Cheney receives his paycheck from the Senate, over which he officially presides. But she refused to offer an opinion on which branch of government holds the vice president, saying instead that he has "legislative and executive functions."
But the vice president himself has not always been so fuzzy on the matter.
Cheney did once note he is "a product of the United States Senate" and that he has no "official duties" in the executive branch. But the statement was made as an amusing entree to a political speech. He has on more serious occasions clearly indicated that he considers himself a part of the executive branch.
Speaking on April 9, 2003, to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Cheney placed himself squarely in the executive branch as he lauded a judicial ruling against efforts to obtain information about the energy task force he headed.
"I think it restored some of the legitimate authority of the executive branch, the president and the vice president, to be able to conduct their business," Cheney said.
Speaking to students in China on April 14, 2004, he explained that it was President Dwight Eisenhower who first gave the vice president an office "in the executive branch," adding "since then the responsibilities have gradually increased."
Before a meeting with congressional leaders just days after assuming the presidency, President Bush suggested the matter was, as many others believe, Civics 101.
"We're going to have a frank dialogue about a lot of issues, and I'm going to start by reminding that we know the difference between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, but I do believe the President and the Vice President can play a part, a strong part, in helping advance an American agenda," he said.
Well there it is folks! He said it himself. Can he now go back on his words? And if he does, will he then have to disclose what happened and who attended that Energy meeting? After all, if he is not a part of the Executive Branch then that meeting he held is open to congressional investigation.
News Tidbits
Powell Tells Of Dysfunctional White House, ‘We Weren’t Aware Of The Advice Cheney Was Giving’
In First Full Term, Supreme Court Nominees Roberts And Alito Show True ‘Loyal Bushie’ Colors
Search for WMD in Iraq finally over.
145 lawmakers write to Bush: close Guantanamo. Today, a bipartisan group of 145 members of the House sent a letter to President Bush urging him to close Guantanamo Bay and move the detainees to military prisons in the United States. From their letter:
Special ops no longer a ‘giant killing machine.’ Under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. special operations became a “giant killing machine,” according to former Army colonel Douglas Macgregor, who anticipates a change when Navy Vice Adm. Eric Olson takes the helm of the operations. “The emphasis will be on, ‘If you have to kill someone, then for God’s sakes, kill the right people,’” Macgregor said. “That’s been lost over the last several years.”
In First Full Term, Supreme Court Nominees Roberts And Alito Show True ‘Loyal Bushie’ Colors
Search for WMD in Iraq finally over.
145 lawmakers write to Bush: close Guantanamo. Today, a bipartisan group of 145 members of the House sent a letter to President Bush urging him to close Guantanamo Bay and move the detainees to military prisons in the United States. From their letter:
Special ops no longer a ‘giant killing machine.’ Under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. special operations became a “giant killing machine,” according to former Army colonel Douglas Macgregor, who anticipates a change when Navy Vice Adm. Eric Olson takes the helm of the operations. “The emphasis will be on, ‘If you have to kill someone, then for God’s sakes, kill the right people,’” Macgregor said. “That’s been lost over the last several years.”
Fired US Attorney, McKay, "My job wasn't to serve the Republican Party,"
And he speaks out about Gonzales as well.
From Oregon Live:
Telling...
~~McKay said he and the other fired U.S. attorneys decided to speak up about their dismissals after Gonzales testified to Congress that he would not use a provision in the U.S. Patriot Act to appoint replacements without congressional confirmation -- something the attorneys viewed as a lie under oath.~~
The only way to stop this administration's corruption, lies, secrecy, is to start impeachment investigations. Although many think this would stop the business of the congress, much now is not being accomplished because there is still an imbalance there. And if we, as a nation, do not address these problems now, what will stop future administrations from trying to do the same thing. This already has happened twice in my lifetime. First the Nixon Admin and now the Bush admin. Wake up America!
From Oregon Live:
If anybody knows why U.S. Attorney John McKay was fired, he'd like to know.
In a speech Thursday night at Portland State University celebrating the launch of the Sidney Lezak Fellowships Program, McKay theorized why he was dismissed from his post in western Washington last year, along with eight other U.S. attorneys.
Some members of Congress have called for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign in the wake of the firings, which some suspect were politically motivated.
Snip
McKay addressed a crowd of about 200 lawyers, judges and others, including the current U.S. attorney for Oregon, Karin Immergut. He stressed keeping the criminal justice system independent from political influence.
McKay, who was appointed by the Bush administration in 2001, said he was added to a list in March 2005 of U.S. attorneys to be fired. The action followed a close governor's election in Washington in 2004, won by Democrat Chris Gregoire, which Republicans had wanted him to investigate. He did not.
"My job wasn't to serve the Republican Party," he said.
While McKay denounced what he called a failure of leadership in the Justice Department and White House, he bemoaned questioning the ethics of all the department's staffers, especially when they investigate corruption by public officials.
"It is a reservoir of trust," McKay said of the Justice Department. "And so to do damage to that is a travesty."
McKay said he and the other fired U.S. attorneys decided to speak up about their dismissals after Gonzales testified to Congress that he would not use a provision in the U.S. Patriot Act to appoint replacements without congressional confirmation -- something the attorneys viewed as a lie under oath.
"I would have taken personal disappointment and even personal attack," McKay said. "But I couldn't be part of a lie."
He said he was personally hurt by Gonzales' actions because he had worked closely with him in the past and told lawyer friends it was good news when Gonzales was confirmed as attorney general.
"I said, 'You're gonna like this guy -- he's humble, he's honest, he's hard-working, and he's smart," McKay said. "And he's proved me wrong."
Telling...
~~McKay said he and the other fired U.S. attorneys decided to speak up about their dismissals after Gonzales testified to Congress that he would not use a provision in the U.S. Patriot Act to appoint replacements without congressional confirmation -- something the attorneys viewed as a lie under oath.~~
The only way to stop this administration's corruption, lies, secrecy, is to start impeachment investigations. Although many think this would stop the business of the congress, much now is not being accomplished because there is still an imbalance there. And if we, as a nation, do not address these problems now, what will stop future administrations from trying to do the same thing. This already has happened twice in my lifetime. First the Nixon Admin and now the Bush admin. Wake up America!
Supreme Court to Review Guantanamo Cases
A step in the right direction and a set back for Bushco!
From the AP:
From the AP:
Jun 29, 10:12 AM (ET)
By PETE YOST
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court, reversing course, agreed Friday to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees may go to federal court to challenge their indefinite confinement.
The action, announced without comment along with other end-of-term orders, is a setback for the Bush administration. It had argued that a new law strips courts of their jurisdiction to hear detainee cases.
In April, the court turned down an identical request, although several justices indicated they could be persuaded otherwise.
The move is highly unusual.
The court did not indicate what changed the justices' minds about considering the issue. But last week, lawyers for the detainees filed a statement from a military lawyer in which he desribed the inadequacy of the process the administration has put forward as an alternative to a full-blown review by civilian courts.
In February, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a key provision of a law the Bush administration pushed through Congress last year stripping federal courts of their ability to hear the detainees' challenges to their confinement.
On April 2, the Supreme denied the detainees' request to review the February appeals court ruling.
The detainees then petitioned the court to reconsider its denial.
Dismissing the petitions would be "a profound deprivation" of the prisoners' right to speedy court review, lawyers for the detainees said.
The administration asked that the detainees' Supreme Court petitions be thrown out.
Terrorist Attack in London 2 Days after Blair leaves office
Cable News stations are reporting about this non-stop this morning. The timing of this is close to the second anniversary of the July 7th attack in London. To me it is curious that this has happened 2 days after Blair has left office as Prime Minister.
From the BBC:
From the BBC:
Police avert car bomb 'carnage'
A car bomb planted in central London would have caused "carnage" if it had exploded, police sources have said.
A controlled explosion was carried out on the car, packed with 60 litres of petrol, gas cylinders and nails, in Haymarket, near Piccadilly Circus.
An ambulance crew saw smoke coming from the green metallic Mercedes, near the Tiger Tiger nightclub at 0130 BST.
"International elements" are believed to be involved, Whitehall sources told the BBC.
Earlier Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism command, said: "It is obvious that if the device had detonated there could have been serious injury or loss of life."
The ambulance had been called to the nightclub to treat a sick man when they spotted smoke, now believed to be vapour, inside the car.
Bomb experts manually disabled the "potentially viable explosive device".
DAC Clarke said it was too early to say who was responsible but the incident "resonated" with previous terrorist plots.
He was asked at a press conference if this attempt had any links to a plot foiled by police three years ago which involved plans to create car bombs using gas canisters. But he refused to draw any firm links.
"The threat from terrorism is real. It is here, enduring. Life must go on but we must all stay alert," he said.
Mr Clarke also specifically mentioned nightclubs as a potential target.
Following the discovery, police patrols in central London were stepped up "to provide a visible reassurance", rather than in response to a specific threat.
Net Neutrality - Shot down by FTC
This is not good news. What the FTC is doing is issuing guidlines for the big telcoms. These are not laws or rules, just guidlines. Like the guidelines that were set for anti-pollution, no one paid attention to the guidlines. Not until they became rules!
From the Art of Technology site via Raw Story:
Let's hope that things won't change dramatically before we can change our government and it's office and agency personnel.
From the Art of Technology site via Raw Story:
FTC shoots down Net Neutrality, says it is not needed
By Ken Fisher | Published: June 27, 2007 - 06:07PM CT
The Federal Trade Commission today dealt a serious blow to "Net Neutrality" proponents as it issued a report dismissive of claims that the government needs to get involved in preserving the fairness of networks in the United States.
The report, entitled "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy," was drafted in response to growing concerns about broadband competitiveness and network neutrality. The FTC intends the report to be consulted as a guideline by policy makers and legislators, but it has no binding force. Nevertheless, the report's findings are yet another sign that US government agencies are not particularly interested in the network neutrality problem right now. In fact, the FTC is essentially saying that they can find no evidence of a problem to begin with.
In a statement, Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras said, "This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more - not less - competition. In the absence of significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."
The "hands-off" approach is the approach preferred by the telecoms, who will also be delighted that Chairman Majoras cleared them of any wrong-doing in their network management so far. Nevertheless, the FTC says that it will continue to monitor the situation, as will the FCC and DOJ. Perhaps more encouraging for proponents of such legislation, the FTC says that increased awareness of the debate will help them with monitoring the need for government regulation.
"As a byproduct of the ongoing debate over network neutrality regulation, the agencies have a heightened awareness of the potential consumer harms from certain conduct by, and business arrangements involving, broadband providers," the report states. "Perhaps equally important, many consumers are now aware of such issues. Consumers—particularly online consumers—have a powerful collective voice. In the area of broadband Internet access, they have revealed a strong preference for the current open access to Internet content and applications."
Indeed, while this appears to be another victory for the opponents of net neutrality, the language of the report suggests that should something more fishy arise, the FTC will be watching. In particular, the report says that the FTC will be watching a set of particular questions closely:
How much demand will there be from content and applications providers for data prioritization?
Will effective data prioritization, throughout the many networks comprising the Internet, be feasible?
Would allowing broadband providers to practice data prioritization necessarily result in the degradation of non-prioritized data delivery?
When will the capacity limitations of the networks comprising the Internet result in unmanageable or unacceptable levels of congestion?
If that point is reached, what will be the most efficient response thereto: data prioritization, capacity increases, a combination of these, or some as yet unknown technological innovation?
As you can see, these are all very fundamental questions, and indeed the answer to all of them involves a giant helping of "wait and see."
Let's hope that things won't change dramatically before we can change our government and it's office and agency personnel.
Rahm Emanuel - Defunding Cheney's Branch of Government
Here's the video of Rahm Emanuel's (D-IL) speech on the flour of the House introducing an amendment to slice funding for the vice president's office from the executive branch's budget. Watch:
Video - Keith Olbermann - Senate digs into Cheney
June 27: A Senate committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office over the warrantless eavesdropping program. Keith Olbermann talks with constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Impeach Cheney? Bruce Fein thinks we should
Bruce Fein, if you remember, was the Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Era. And Mr. Fein has written a scathing Editorial, today, Calling for the impeachment of the VP Dick Cheney!
Here's some of the article from Slate:
There's much more and I recommend that you read it all. But lets jump to the meat of the article which is at the end:
That's it! "his sneering contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law". Evil, conniving and contemptuous!
Here's some of the article from Slate:
Impeach Cheney
The vice president has run utterly amok and must be stopped.
By Bruce Fein
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
Under Dick Cheney, the office of the vice president has been transformed from a tiny acorn into an unprecedented giant oak. In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III. The most recent invention we know of is the vice president's insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution. The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.
Take the vice president's preposterous theory that his office is outside the executive branch because it also exercises a legislative function. The same can be said of the president, who also exercises a legislative function in signing or vetoing bills passed by Congress. Under Cheney's bizarre reasoning, President Bush is not part of his own administration: The executive branch becomes acephalous. Today Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington refused to renounce that reasoning, instead laughably trying to diminish the importance of the legal question at issue.
The nation's first vice president, John Adams, bemoaned: "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and meet common fate." Vice President John Nance Garner, serving under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, lamented: "The vice presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss." In modern times, vice presidents have generally been confined to attending state funerals or to distributing blankets after earthquakes.
Then President George W. Bush outsourced the lion's share of his presidency to Vice President Cheney, and Mr. Cheney has made the most of it. Since 9/11, he has proclaimed that all checks and balances and individual liberties are subservient to the president's commander in chief powers in confronting international terrorism. Let's review the record of his abuses and excesses:
The vice president asserted presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes. The Supreme Court rebuked Cheney in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Mr. Cheney claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the president's say-so alone, a frightening power indistinguishable from King Louis XVI's execrated lettres de cachet that occasioned the storming of the Bastille. The Supreme Court repudiated Cheney in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
There's much more and I recommend that you read it all. But lets jump to the meat of the article which is at the end:
In the end, President Bush regularly is unable to explain or defend the policies of his own administration, and that is because the heavy intellectual labor has been performed in the office of the vice president. Cheney is impeachable for his overweening power and his sneering contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law.
That's it! "his sneering contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law". Evil, conniving and contemptuous!
Emptywheel aka Marcy Wheeler has a great blog post today
She explains Fred Fielding's letter to the Senate re the subpoenas and Paul Clemment's letter about executive privilege:
She explains it much better than I do. The Next Hurrah:
Congresswoman Sanchez is right. Fred Fielding's letter telling Congress to fuck off is not so much a legal notice, but a lecture. It spends two paragraphs saying "no," one paragraph spinning the White House as cooperative, and then seven paragraphs talking about the exalted tradition of executive privilege.
More troubling, however, is what Fielding attaches: an opinion written by Solicitor General Paul Clement, explaining that OLC has reviewed Congress' requests and found that those requests fall squarely within the realm of executive privilege.
Dear Mr. President,
snip
More here. This is a must read!!
She explains it much better than I do. The Next Hurrah:
Congresswoman Sanchez is right. Fred Fielding's letter telling Congress to fuck off is not so much a legal notice, but a lecture. It spends two paragraphs saying "no," one paragraph spinning the White House as cooperative, and then seven paragraphs talking about the exalted tradition of executive privilege.
More troubling, however, is what Fielding attaches: an opinion written by Solicitor General Paul Clement, explaining that OLC has reviewed Congress' requests and found that those requests fall squarely within the realm of executive privilege.
Dear Mr. President,
You have requested my legal advice as to whether you may assert executive privilege with respect to the subpoenaed documents and testimony concerning the categories of information described in this letter. It is my considered legal judgment that you may assert executive privilege over the subpoenaed documents and testimony.
Paul Clement, as you'll recall, is the guy currently in charge of any investigation into the US Attorney firings, since Alberto Gonzales recused himself some months ago. He's the one who technically oversees the Office of Special Counsel investigation into whether politics played an improper part in Iglesias' firing or the hiring of career employees in DOJ, he's the one who oversees the joint Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General investigations into whether anything improper--including obstruction of justice--occurred in the hiring and firing of USAs. And now, he's the guy who gets to tell the President that he doesn't have to turn over what might amount to evidence of obstruction of justice in the Foggo and Wilkes case, among others.
Of course, to some degree this makes sense. When this goes to court, it is Clement who will have to defend the White House position on refusing to turn over the documents.
But that just demonstrates how hopelessly compromised Clement is. He is--already, even before we hit the courts--in a position where he is simultaneously defending the White House, and investigating it. And all the while, Team Libby is intent on having Libby's conviction thrown out because, they insist, it's perfectly feasible for an investigation into high level Administration officers to report to some of those same high level officers.
snip
Update: Faiz at TP raises an important point. Clement's conflict of interest not only provides a reason for Democrats either to call for a Special Prosecutor or start an impeachment investigation (which are apparently the only ways to avoid the conflicts Clement has), but it also reveals that the White House has been lying.
In his letter, Clement reveals what investigators have suspected from the very beginning — that the White House was intimately involved in the attorney scandal. Upon examination of the White House documents, Clement writes:
Among other things, these communications discuss the wisdom of such a proposal, specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the dismissals.
The White House had “said that Mr. Bush’s aides approved the list of prosecutors only after it was compiled.” President Bush himself said that “the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted” regarding the removal of the attorneys.
Gosh, they couldn't have given us a clearer investigation to move this forward in a more formal investigation, could they?
Update 1.1: Oh, this is getting fun. Piggybacking on Faiz' find, above, we have this Clement statement that suggests, as soon as we find WH officials lying, we can raid their drawers as well:
The Department has recognized the Committees' interest in investigating the extent to which Department officials may have provided inaccurate or incomplete information to Congress. This interest does not, however, justify the Committees' demand for White House documents and information about the U.S. Attorney resignations. Officials in the Department, not officials in the White House, presented the challenged statements,
Um, Mr. Solicitor General? I think we're now at the point where "officials in the White House" are the one spewing lies. Now will you give us the documents?
Update 2: Here's another interesting bit from Clement:
These confidentiality interests are particularly strong where, as here, the communications may implicate a "quintessential and nondelegable Presidential power," such as the authority to nominate or to remove U.S. Attorneys.
More here. This is a must read!!
Olbermann and Jonathan Turley Discuss Executive Privilege
Thanks to Think Progress there is a video of Jonathan Turley saying that if you present the NSA Wiretapping program as a crime, he won't be able to use executive privilege.
From Think Progress:
(You'll have to go to the link to watch it. It's not on YouTube yet.)
From Think Progress:
Turley: Avoid Bush’s Executive Privilege Claim By Investigating NSA Program As A Crime »
Yesterday, after years of White House stonewalling, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the Bush administration for documents related to the warrantless domestic surveillance program.
Today, during a background discussion with reporters, senior Bush administration officials indicated that they would invoke executive privilege in order to deny the NSA documents to Congress, just as they did this morning concerning subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney scandal. “Our response to [the NSA] subpoenas will be the same as our response was before,” said an anonymous official.
But last night on MSNBC’s Countdown, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley claimed that Congress may be able to “get around the executive privilege in court” by saying “we are investigating a potential crime.” Turley said this was possible because warrantless wiretapping is “a federal crime” that “the president has ordered hundreds of people do.” Watch it:
(You'll have to go to the link to watch it. It's not on YouTube yet.)
Illinois News
Illinois Legislature passes a tough Cable the toughest Consumer Protection Standards in the nation:
From Citizen's Utility Board:
Don't toss the remote! CUB's got good news!
And more here on the Electric Rate issue:
TV probe finds the CORE
of our power problems
I'll try to keep you updated on these issues.
From Citizen's Utility Board:
Don't toss the remote! CUB's got good news!
Cable companies aren’t exactly winning popularity contests. That's why the Illinois Legislature recently passed the toughest cable consumer protection standards in the country, including customer credits for bad service. Read CUB Executive Director David Kolata's Daily Southtown column. (pdf format)
And more here on the Electric Rate issue:
TV probe finds the CORE
of our power problems
A TV investigation reports that while ComEd claimed it was on the verge of bankruptcy it was pouring millions into CORE, a supposed consumer group that ran slick TV ads in favor of huge rate hikes. In another TV report, find out what CUB Executive Director David Kolata said about talks with Ameren and ComEd to give consumers relief from the high rates. And be sure to watch our website for breaking news on the electric front.
I'll try to keep you updated on these issues.
Wisconsin Senate passes Universal Healthcare Plan
This hasn't been signed into law yet, but there's a possibility.
From Madison.com:
The plan is being paid for by payroll taxes. I guess it has to be paid some way and if by everyone paying, it lowers the cost, that's not a bad thing. My medicare is deducted from my Social Security and I still work part time so I am still paying into Social Security and Medicare so I am already on a similar system.
From Madison.com:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A sweeping universal health care plan that would cover virtually every person in Wisconsin cleared the Democratic-controlled state Senate on Tuesday as part of the two-year budget.
It now heads to the Assembly, where Republicans who hold a slim five-seat majority are expected to delete the plan and a number of other tax increases in the $66.1 billion budget.
Ultimately, it will be up to a special bipartisan committee with lawmakers from both the Assembly and Senate to work out a budget that will be sent to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle for his signature and vetoes.
Doyle has not said he supports the universal health care plan. But he has not said he would veto it either.
Because the budget won't pass until well after the start of the new fiscal year on July 1, state government will continue operating under existing spending levels.
Much of the debate in the Senate focused on the universal health care plan, to be funded with a $15 billion payroll tax and start in 2009. Various parts of the plan had been discussed for years, but the actual proposal wasn't introduced until Monday when a hearing was held. Many lawmakers argued it was being passed too quickly and without enough review.
But Democrats said the state was on the cusp of a historic change that would make Wisconsin the nation's health care leader.
"Today we have a historic opportunity to give our businesses, our families, our farmers, what they've been asking for for years. ... What they have been asking for are the same health care benefits as their state legislators," said Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson, D-Beloit.
Business groups assailed the proposal as too expensive and too radical a change that would put some small businesses out of business and put the state's health care system in disarray. But labor groups, some small business owners and others praised it, calling it an innovative way to guarantee health coverage for nearly all Wisconsinites.
The number of people without insurance would drop from around 472,000 to 15,000 under the plan. Nearly everyone would be required to participate in the plan and help pay for it through a payroll tax.
The plan is being paid for by payroll taxes. I guess it has to be paid some way and if by everyone paying, it lowers the cost, that's not a bad thing. My medicare is deducted from my Social Security and I still work part time so I am still paying into Social Security and Medicare so I am already on a similar system.
New poll shows insight of Republican beliefs
Honestly, this poll surprised me. But it also gave me some hope.
We have been living with an admin that wanted to divide and conquer by stiring up the differences between the right and the left. So often I have watched C-SPAN's Washington Journal and have heard the people favoring Bush go on and on how wonderful he is. And the Talk Radio shows where the host riles up the people and tells them what to say. And the hatred was so extreme from these people. And the Religious right stiring the embers of division didn't help either.
But this poll gave me a little hope that their are some reasonable people in this nation.
From the Hill:
Of course further down in the article the poll shows that what is important to the Republicans now is leadership and think that (ugh) Giuliani fits that bill. What a bubble burster that was!! At least the majority are in favor of Universal Health CAre and Gays in the military.
We have been living with an admin that wanted to divide and conquer by stiring up the differences between the right and the left. So often I have watched C-SPAN's Washington Journal and have heard the people favoring Bush go on and on how wonderful he is. And the Talk Radio shows where the host riles up the people and tells them what to say. And the hatred was so extreme from these people. And the Religious right stiring the embers of division didn't help either.
But this poll gave me a little hope that their are some reasonable people in this nation.
From the Hill:
Poll shows many Republicans favor universal healthcare, gays in military
By Aaron Blake
June 28, 2007
A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn’t be the United States’ top foreign policy goal.
The poll, conducted by GOP consultant Tony Fabrizio 10 years after he conducted a similar study, also casts some doubts on the conventional wisdom about moral-issues voters, thought to be the key constituency for President Bush in 2004. It showed that the group hasn’t grown significantly in recent years and is surprisingly willing to vote for former New York
Mayor Rudy Giuliani despite his differences with it on social and moral issues.
The survey of 2,000 self-described Republican voters, titled “The Elephant Looks in the Mirror 10 Years Later,” showed that 71 percent consider themselves conservative, a 16 percent increase over the 1997 numbers.
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Those two issues continue to divide the party, though, with more than 40 percent opposed to both. Fabrizio emphasized that “the devil is in the details” on healthcare, and that providing a plan that pleases the entire 51 percent would be difficult.
Nearly four in five Republicans said that U.S. foreign policy should be based on protecting economic and national security interests, versus 16 percent who preferred basing it on spreading democracy.
Fabrizio described it as a test of support for the “Bush Doctrine.”
“We’re not about spreading democracy around the world; we’re about doing what’s best for us,” Fabrizio said. “Even the [pro-Iraq war] ‘Bush hawks’ don’t buy it.”
“Bush hawks” was one of seven groups into which the survey categorized voters. The others were “moralists,” “government knows best Republicans,” “Dennis Miller Republicans,” “fortress America Republicans,” “heartland Republicans” and “free marketeers.”
The “moralist” section of the party — those focused overwhelmingly on social and moral issues — has grown only slightly since 1997, to just less than a quarter of Republicans.
At the same time, economics-focused “free-marketeer” and “heartland-Republican” voters decreased drastically, from about half to less than 20 percent, while two new foreign policy-focused groups — “Bush hawks” and “fortress America Republicans” — took in most of their ex-members.
Of course further down in the article the poll shows that what is important to the Republicans now is leadership and think that (ugh) Giuliani fits that bill. What a bubble burster that was!! At least the majority are in favor of Universal Health CAre and Gays in the military.
Pew Poll shows the World doesn't trust us
Well, not us, but our "leadership".
From the UK's Guardian:
This all from the Bush admin's arrogant, push it in your face attitude!
From the UK's Guardian:
Environment and US policy top global fears
· Worldwide support for withdrawal of Iraq troops
· But Putin scores worse than Bush in huge survey
Simon Tisdall in Washington
Thursday June 28, 2007
The Guardian
Growing numbers of people worldwide view environmental problems, pollution, infectious diseases, nuclear proliferation and the widening gap between rich and poor as the most menacing threats facing the planet, according to a 47-nation survey published yesterday by the US-based Pew Global Attitudes Project.
The survey, which conducted more than 45,000 interviews, finds that global opinion is increasingly wary of the world's dominant countries but also unimpressed by aspiring leaders in Iran and Venezuela who challenge the international status quo. In contrast, the UN receives strong support.
The US comes in for sharp criticism. "Global distrust of American leadership is reflected in increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of US foreign policy," the survey says. "Not only is there worldwide support for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq but there is also considerable opposition to US and Nato operations in Afghanistan ... The US image remains abysmal in most Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia and continues to decline among the publics of America's oldest allies."
Nine per cent of Turks, 13% of Palestinians and 15% of Pakistanis take a favourable view of the US. In Germany, the figure is 30%, in France 39% and in Britain 51% - all down on previous surveys. Only in Israel, Ghana, Nigeria and Kenya do majorities believe US forces should stay in Iraq.
In an implicit rejection of the Bush administration's "freedom agenda", the survey also finds "a broad and deepening dislike of American values and a global backlash against the spread of American ideas and customs. Majorities or pluralities in most countries surveyed say they dislike American ideas about democracy."
And among key allies in western Europe, the view that the US unilaterally ignores the interests of other countries is deep-rooted. Overall attitudes to the US are broadly positive in most African countries, Japan, South Korea and Poland.
This all from the Bush admin's arrogant, push it in your face attitude!
Bush doesn't like Earmarks unless they are his
From The Hill:
Notice all the (R)'s after these names?
Bush called out for his earmarks
By Alexander Bolton
June 28, 2007
Democratic and Republican appropriators are accusing President Bush of urging Congress to pack spending bills with pet projects despite his high-profile crackdown on earmarks this year.
A House Appropriations Committee report accompanying legislation funding the Department of the Interior shows that Bush requested 93 of the 321 earmarks in the bill. A panel report for the financial services and general government spending bill showed that Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.
Senate appropriators have identified more than 350 earmarks in the military construction spending bill requested by the president.
Lawmakers say these lists of earmarks are inconsistent with Bush’s tough talk on earmarks this year.
During a Rose Garden speech in January, Bush called for the number of earmarks to be cut in half.
“Earmarks often divert precious funds from vital priorities like national defense,” Bush said. “And each year they cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.
“Congress needs to adopt real reform that requires full disclosure of the sponsors, the costs, the recipients, and the justifications for every earmark,” he said. “And Congress needs to cut the number and cost of earmarks next year at least in half.”
When Bush recently nominated former House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) as head of the White House budget office, he reminded Congress that he would veto bills with excessive levels of spending and curb the number of earmarks.
“It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), a Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee.
“Inconsistent would be a fair way to say it,” Aderholt said when asked if Bush was being hypocritical for simultaneously requesting and criticizing earmarks.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations interior subcommittee, shares Aderholt’s view.
“Hypocrisy? No, but one might call that duplicity,” said Craig.
Notice all the (R)'s after these names?
Lots of bad news for our Nation today
First of all, Bush refuses to supply subpoenaed documents.
From the AP:
And from our Supremes, Court Limits Schools on Race
Senate Blocks Immigration Bill. This is not all bad though. I think a better bill can be passed. And it is good news since the president doesn't get his way on this one.
House Members Seek $4,400 Pay Raise
What bothers me most are the decisions that the conservative Supreme Court have passed. Their decisions will hurt our nation.
From the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department, including complaints of undue political influence.
The Democratic chairmen of the two committees seeking the documents accused Bush of stonewalling and disdain for the law, and said they would press forward with enforcing the subpoenas.
"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."
Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.
"Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He portrayed the president's actions as "Nixonian stonewalling."
His House counterpart, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said Bush's assertion of executive privilege was "unprecedented in its breadth and scope" and displayed "an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government."
And from our Supremes, Court Limits Schools on Race
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected school assignment plans that take account of students' race in two major public school districts. The decisions could imperil similar plans nationwide. The Court also blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill.
Today is probably the Court's last session until October.
The school rulings in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle leave public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.
The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's other three liberals.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he said race may be a component of school district plans designed to achieve diversity.
He agreed with Roberts that the plans in Louisville and Seattle went too far. He said, however, that to the extent that Roberts' opinion could be interpreted as foreclosing the use of race in any circumstance, "I disagree with that reasoning."
The two school systems in Thursday's decisions employ slightly different methods of taking students' race into account when determining which school they would attend.
Senate Blocks Immigration Bill. This is not all bad though. I think a better bill can be passed. And it is good news since the president doesn't get his way on this one.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.
The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.
Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.
A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.
The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.
It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.
The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.
And I guess the House members think they need a pay raise. I think they should wait until we get more of what the people they represent want done!
House Members Seek $4,400 Pay Raise
WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year's elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000.
What bothers me most are the decisions that the conservative Supreme Court have passed. Their decisions will hurt our nation.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Senate Committee Subpoenas Cheney, Whitehouse
From Think Progress:
Breaking: Domestic Surveillance Docs Subpoenaed
The Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, the Justice Department, and the National Security Council for documents related to President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program. AP reports:
Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.
The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.
Leahy’s committee authorized the subpoenas previously as part of its sweeping investigation into how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons.
UPDATE: Statement from the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Chairman Leahy issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice, the Office of the White House, the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council for documents relating to the Committee’s inquiry into the warrantless electronic surveillance program. […]
“Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,” Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. “All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.”
UPDATE II: The committee vote was 13-3, with all Democrats and Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Charles Grassley (R-IA) voting for subpoenas.
Breaking: Domestic Surveillance Docs Subpoenaed
The Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, the Justice Department, and the National Security Council for documents related to President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program. AP reports:
Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.
The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.
Leahy’s committee authorized the subpoenas previously as part of its sweeping investigation into how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons.
UPDATE: Statement from the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Chairman Leahy issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice, the Office of the White House, the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council for documents relating to the Committee’s inquiry into the warrantless electronic surveillance program. […]
“Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,” Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. “All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.”
UPDATE II: The committee vote was 13-3, with all Democrats and Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Charles Grassley (R-IA) voting for subpoenas.
A little Illinois Business:
As members of this list may already know, two DuPage County antiwar
activists were arrested after bannering over the expressway. I urge
everyone on this list to read the *Daily Herald* article about the case
below and then call or write the DuPage County State’s Attorney, Joe
Birkett, to demand that the charges against the two activists be
dropped.
Joseph Birkett, States Attorney
503 N County Farm Rd.
Wheaton, IL 60187
630-407-8000
630-407-8151 (fax)
stsattn@dupageco. org
According to the *Daily Herald*, Birkett’s office says the case has
nothing to do with free speech, but that is false. The actual charge
raises a number of First Amendment issues. It says the two activists
"knowingly without a county permit, staged a war protest on the Great
Western Trail overpass in unincorporated DuPage County, Illinois causing
the vehicles on the highway (I355) to swerve causing a traffic
disturbance because unknown objects were being thrown on the expressway,
as well as the American flag being displayed in an upside down manner
from the overpass."
Jeff Zurawski had his first court date today, and I heard the judge read
those charges myself. Apparently, she does not know that, with the
exception of the charge that "unknown [!] objects were being thrown on
the expressway," everything in those charges is perfectly legal.
Contrary to what Birkett’s office claims, then, this case is very much
about free speech and the First Amendment.
Jeff’s next court date is July 16. Between now and then, let’s flood
Birkett’s office with messages demanding that they drop the charges
against the two peace activists.
It is especially important that Birkett hear from residents of DuPage
County, but he should also know that people all across the country are
aware of this case, so please forward this message far and wide.
–-Kevin
Peaceful protest or road hazard?
Activists deny prosecutors’ allegations of throwing objects off bridge
during display
By Christy Gutowski
Daily Herald Legal Affairs Writer
cgutowski@dailyhera ld.com
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Fed up with the war in Iraq, Sarah Hartfield and Jeff Zurawski decided
to let others in on their views.
The friends rode their bikes May 6 to a pedestrian bridge that spans
I-355 near Glen Ellyn and unfurled a banner that read: "Impeach Bush and
Cheney — liars." The protesters also displayed an upside-down American
flag.
They insist it was a peaceful demonstration. A DuPage County sheriff’s
deputy disagreed, and, two weeks later, pursued criminal charges.
Zurawski goes to court this morning for the first time since his May 25
misdemeanor arrest. The 39-year-old Downers Grove man said he spent
seven hours in jail after police led him away from his home in
handcuffs.
Hartfield, 45, of Naperville, said she turned herself in shortly after
learning of her friend’s arrest. She is due in court next month.
"We didn’t do anything wrong," Zurawski said. "All we did was exercise
our constitutional right, and we’re being censored and intimidated. "
Prosecutors said the charge has nothing to do with free speech. Rather,
the protesters are accused of disorderly conduct on suspicion they
tossed unknown objects from the overpass, causing motorists on I-355 to
swerve to avoid the debris.
A passing truck driver complained and is prepared to testify,
prosecutors said. The original allegation of disorderly conduct likely
will be amended to reckless conduct, officials said.
Hartfield and Zurawski, who met in January during a bus trip to a
Washington, D.C., war protest, deny throwing anything onto I-355. The
friends say they displayed their sign and upside-down flag for about 90
minutes without incident when a state police trooper approached them.
Hartfield said the trooper never mentioned anything about falling debris
or swerving cars, but did advise them that the protest could distract
motorists and cause an accident. The pair said he politely advised them
to get a permit to protest elsewhere.
As they packed up, Hartfield and Zurawski said sheriff’s deputies
arrived and began questioning them. They said one of the three deputies
was particularly agitated.
"He was immediately red in the face," Hartfield said. "He asked what
prompted us. I told him I had enough and want to get the message out and
raise awareness. He thought that was a show of disrespect to the troops.
I did my best to explain that, to the contrary, it was out of respect
for their service."
If convicted, Hartfield and Zurawski face up to one year in jail and
$2,500 in fines. Hartfield works in the medical field; Zurawski is a
small-business owner. Neither has a criminal history.
activists were arrested after bannering over the expressway. I urge
everyone on this list to read the *Daily Herald* article about the case
below and then call or write the DuPage County State’s Attorney, Joe
Birkett, to demand that the charges against the two activists be
dropped.
Joseph Birkett, States Attorney
503 N County Farm Rd.
Wheaton, IL 60187
630-407-8000
630-407-8151 (fax)
stsattn@dupageco. org
According to the *Daily Herald*, Birkett’s office says the case has
nothing to do with free speech, but that is false. The actual charge
raises a number of First Amendment issues. It says the two activists
"knowingly without a county permit, staged a war protest on the Great
Western Trail overpass in unincorporated DuPage County, Illinois causing
the vehicles on the highway (I355) to swerve causing a traffic
disturbance because unknown objects were being thrown on the expressway,
as well as the American flag being displayed in an upside down manner
from the overpass."
Jeff Zurawski had his first court date today, and I heard the judge read
those charges myself. Apparently, she does not know that, with the
exception of the charge that "unknown [!] objects were being thrown on
the expressway," everything in those charges is perfectly legal.
Contrary to what Birkett’s office claims, then, this case is very much
about free speech and the First Amendment.
Jeff’s next court date is July 16. Between now and then, let’s flood
Birkett’s office with messages demanding that they drop the charges
against the two peace activists.
It is especially important that Birkett hear from residents of DuPage
County, but he should also know that people all across the country are
aware of this case, so please forward this message far and wide.
–-Kevin
Peaceful protest or road hazard?
Activists deny prosecutors’ allegations of throwing objects off bridge
during display
By Christy Gutowski
Daily Herald Legal Affairs Writer
cgutowski@dailyhera ld.com
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Fed up with the war in Iraq, Sarah Hartfield and Jeff Zurawski decided
to let others in on their views.
The friends rode their bikes May 6 to a pedestrian bridge that spans
I-355 near Glen Ellyn and unfurled a banner that read: "Impeach Bush and
Cheney — liars." The protesters also displayed an upside-down American
flag.
They insist it was a peaceful demonstration. A DuPage County sheriff’s
deputy disagreed, and, two weeks later, pursued criminal charges.
Zurawski goes to court this morning for the first time since his May 25
misdemeanor arrest. The 39-year-old Downers Grove man said he spent
seven hours in jail after police led him away from his home in
handcuffs.
Hartfield, 45, of Naperville, said she turned herself in shortly after
learning of her friend’s arrest. She is due in court next month.
"We didn’t do anything wrong," Zurawski said. "All we did was exercise
our constitutional right, and we’re being censored and intimidated. "
Prosecutors said the charge has nothing to do with free speech. Rather,
the protesters are accused of disorderly conduct on suspicion they
tossed unknown objects from the overpass, causing motorists on I-355 to
swerve to avoid the debris.
A passing truck driver complained and is prepared to testify,
prosecutors said. The original allegation of disorderly conduct likely
will be amended to reckless conduct, officials said.
Hartfield and Zurawski, who met in January during a bus trip to a
Washington, D.C., war protest, deny throwing anything onto I-355. The
friends say they displayed their sign and upside-down flag for about 90
minutes without incident when a state police trooper approached them.
Hartfield said the trooper never mentioned anything about falling debris
or swerving cars, but did advise them that the protest could distract
motorists and cause an accident. The pair said he politely advised them
to get a permit to protest elsewhere.
As they packed up, Hartfield and Zurawski said sheriff’s deputies
arrived and began questioning them. They said one of the three deputies
was particularly agitated.
"He was immediately red in the face," Hartfield said. "He asked what
prompted us. I told him I had enough and want to get the message out and
raise awareness. He thought that was a show of disrespect to the troops.
I did my best to explain that, to the contrary, it was out of respect
for their service."
If convicted, Hartfield and Zurawski face up to one year in jail and
$2,500 in fines. Hartfield works in the medical field; Zurawski is a
small-business owner. Neither has a criminal history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)