Feinstein to Gonzales...Resign

A member of the Seante Judiciary, Senator Diane Feinstein, today, called for Alberto Gonzales to resign. Documents released Friday show that Gonzales DID participate in a meeting where the plans were disgussed even though the Attorney General said he was not involved im any discussions of the dismissals of the Federal Prosecutors.

More from the AP via SFGate:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein called Sunday for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, saying he'd lost her confidence and hadn't told her the truth.


Feinstein, D-Calif. and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had held off on calling for Gonzales to step down even as many leading Democrats and some Republicans did so in recent weeks.


"I believe he should step down. And I don't like saying this. This is not my natural personality at all," Feinstein said on Fox News Sunday. "But I think the nation is not well served by this. I think we need to get at the bottom of why these resignations were made, who ordered them, and what the strategy was."

"Attorney General Gonzales has the view that he serves two masters, that he serves the president and that he serves as the chief law enforcement officer," said Feinstein. "He serves one master, and that's the people of this country."


Feinstein is particularly concerned over the dismissal of former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in San Diego who was fired while prosecuting a corruption case stemming from the conviction of jailed ex-GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.


Feinstein suspects a connection and highlighted her concerns about that and other aspects of the situation in a speech on the Senate floor in January. She also introduced legislation to undo a change in the Patriot Act allowing the administration to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. After that she got a call from Gonzales.


"You have to understand, he called me when I began to become involved in this," Feinstein said. "He told me I didn't know my facts, I didn't know what I was doing. It turns out he wasn't telling me the truth then, either."


A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to an e-mail message seeking comment Sunday.

Of course Bush is still behind him 100%. Wonder what Gonzales has over Bush's head?

New documents show Gonzales signed off on the US Attorneys firings

Remember the 3000 new document drop from the last post? These documents were just released tonight and prove that Gonzles approved the firings. Here's the AP report:

Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings
WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.

Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said it was not immediately clear whether Gonzales gave his final approval to begin the firings at that meeting. Scolinos also said Gonzales was not involved in the process of selecting which prosecutors would be asked to resign.

On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers - where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Later, he added: "I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated."

The documents were released Friday night, a few hours after Sampson agreed to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

So they released these documents after Sampson decided to testify. Are the powers that be afraid of what Sampson will say? Is this the part where they throw Alberto to the wolves? Thank goodness that this admin is even incompetent at being evil!

Attorneygate Updates

Right now the Congress vs the White House seems to be at a standoff. There's some interesting information coming out about this whole situation. Let's start with some comedy:

Remember the offer the White House gave the Congress? Rove, Miers and a few others would appear before the committees but only if it was in closed session, with few members present, not under oath, and no transcripts. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show mocks the "generous offer" made by the White House. Raw Story has the video here.

And there have been reams of paper emails released but there are 18 days missing. Conveniently like the 18 minutes lost from the Nixon tapes. But TPM Muckraker reports that:

3000 Pages and Counting
By Paul Kiel - March 23, 2007, 2:21 PM
We hear there's likely to be another document release from the Justice Department sometime today.

And here's Tony Snow's Flip Flop on this from Think Progress:

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow appeared on the morning talk shows on all the major networks and repeated his talking point that Congress “has no oversight responsibility over the White House.” A sampling of his statements:

There’s another principle, which is Congress doesn’t have the legislative — I mean oversight authority over the White House. [CNN, 3/22/07]

First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn’t have oversight. [MSNBC, 3/22/07]

Congress doesn’t have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House. [Fox, 3/22/07]

But back when he was asked whether the conservative-led 109th Congress should be investigating members of the Executive Branch, he was singing a different tune:

QUESTION: What is the president’s opinion of a request by Republican leaders in the House to launch an investigation of Sandy Berger’s involvement in the removal of classified documents from the National Archives?

SNOW: There were questions last week, about investigations involving Republican members. Members of Congress have their own oversight obligations. They may proceed as they wish. They’re a separate and co-equal branch of government and I’m not going to tell them what they can and can’t do. [Briefing, 10/16/06]

Of course one of the Right's talking points on this issue is "Clinton did it"! Here's what really happened from the LA Times:

Three weeks ago, Justice Department officials settled on a "talking point" to rebut the chorus of Democratic accusations that the Bush administration had wrongly injected politics into law enforcement when it dismissed eight U.S. attorneys.

Why not focus on the Clinton administration's having "fired all 93 U.S. attorneys" when Janet Reno became attorney general in March 1993? The idea was introduced in a memo from a Justice Department spokeswoman.

The message has been effective. What's followed has been a surge of complaints on blogs and talk radio that it was the Clinton administration that first politicized the Justice Department.

The facts, it turns out, are more complicated.

But historical data compiled by the Senate show the pattern going back to President Reagan.

Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.

The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.

Here's another Video Link from Raw Story of the interview of Sen. Patrick Leahy by Keith Olbermann:

Thursday night on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee hinted that he might have more "whistleblowers" set to testify on the ongoing US Attorneys scandal, which some have dubbed "Attorneygate."

In the interview with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Olbermann referred to comments made previously on the show by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) about "really angry career employees," then asked if the Committee had any "rabbits in hats."

"He said that he hoped that the White House would let Mr. Rove and the others testify on the record," Olbermann related to Leahy. "If they did not, there really were enough really angry career employees, prosecutors in the Justice Department who would ensure that this information, the actual facts of the case would get out anyway."

Bridge, at the Sam Seder Show blog, posted this from the Vanity Fair's Wolcott blog as a reminder: (H/T to bridge)

James Wolcott:

"When Dick Cheney famously told Pat Leahy to go fuck himself, he and the rest of the administration clearly never anticipated the day when Leahy would return to powerful chairmanship; I think they internalized Karl Rove's visionary scheme of a permanent Republican majority and thought the future was in the bag. Now they're holding the bag and it's leaking all over their laps."

And it seems the Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former Chief of Staff, will testify next Thursday. No subpoena necessary. This from TPM Muckraker:

Sampson: It's A Date!
By Paul Kiel - March 23, 2007, 4:27 PM
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee extended an invitation for Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff Kyle Sampson to testify. If he didn't want to come voluntarily, the committee said, he'd be subpoenaed.

Today, via a letter from his lawyer to the committee, he accepted -- no subpoena necessary.

"Mr. Sampson looks forward to answering the Committee's questions," the letter reads. "We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States Attorneys."

The hearing will take place at 10 AM next Thursday.

And the last for now but definatly not the least from McClatchy Newspapers

New U.S. attorneys seem to have partisan records

By Greg Gordon, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed laws that narrow minority voting rights and pressed U.S. attorneys to investigate voter fraud - policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.

Bush, his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the "growing problem" of election fraud by Democrats since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department's civil rights division when it was rolling back longstanding voting-rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters.

Another newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin in Little Rock, Ark., was accused of participating in efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Florida during the 2004 presidential election while he was a research director for the Republican National Committee. He's denied any wrongdoing.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the four U.S. attorneys weren't chosen only because of their backgrounds in election issues, but "we would expect any U.S. attorney to prosecute voting fraud."

Taken together, critics say, the replacement of the U.S. attorneys, the voter-fraud campaign and the changes in Justice Department voting rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan political purposes.

The Bush administration's emphasis on voter fraud is drawing scrutiny from the Democratic Congress, which has begun investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys - two of whom say that their ousters may have been prompted by the Bush administration's dissatisfaction with their investigations of alleged Democratic voter fraud.

Bush has said he's heard complaints from Republicans about some U.S. attorneys' "lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases," and administration e-mails have shown that Rove and other White House officials were involved in the dismissals and in selecting a Rove aide to replace one of the U.S. attorneys. Nonetheless, Bush has refused to permit congressional investigators to question Rove and others under oath.

Seems to me Bush and the White House has much to hide. Happy reading!!

LA Times: Making a list of reasons for firing U.S. attorneys

With all the good performance records of these US Attorneys, someone has to show why they were fired. So lets make a list, after the fact, that shows these Attorneys did have performance problems.

From the LA Times:

Justice Department memos show performance issues were being detailed after the fact in order to justify the terminations.
By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer
March 21, 2007


WASHINGTON — Senior Justice Department officials began drafting memos this month listing specific reasons why they had fired eight U.S. attorneys, intending to cite performance problems such as insubordination, leadership failures and other missteps if needed to convince angry congressional Democrats that the terminations were justified.

The memos, organized as charts with entries for each of the federal prosecutors and labeled "for internal DOJ use only," offer new details about disputes over policy, priorities and management styles between the department and several of its U.S. attorneys.

The prosecutors' shortcomings also were listed in a talking-points memo, indicating the willingness of the Justice Department to make public what are normally confidential personnel matters in order to counter its critics.

Justice Department officials hoped that documenting specific reasons for terminating the prosecutors would satisfy demands for more information after Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, described the dismissals as vaguely "performance-related."

According to the charts, as well as e-mails and other documents made public Monday and Tuesday, Carol C. Lam in San Diego was dismissed for not prosecuting more firearms and border smuggling cases, and for repeatedly missing deadlines.

How dumb do they think we are!?! Or how blatant and arrogant can they be!?!

It's time to stop this crime syndicate of a government we have.

Was Fired Attorney, Carol Lam, targeting the White House?

To refresh your memory, Carol Lam was the US Attorney that prosecuted Randy "Duke" Cunningham. And Ms. Lam was targeting former CIA official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo and House Appropriations Committee Chairman, Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is belief that she also targeted the White House, specifically the office of the VP. Think Progress and the LA Times has more on this.

From Think Progress

But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam’s target list. Here are the connections:

– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.

– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”

– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”

– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.

To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated.

So the right thing to do would be to follow the money. Where did Mitchell Wade and his company MZM get this money? Let's now go to the LA Times via the CREW web site:

Fledgling Firm Takes Off

MZM Inc. was incorporated in 1993 but had not posted any revenue as late as 2001. Still, the company began paying for Cunningham's expenses, according to court documents. In November 2001, a company check for $12,000 paid for three nightstands, a leaded-glass cabinet, an antique washstand and four armoires.

In December 2001, a $50,000 company check was sent to a mortgage banker, who in turn made out a check to Cunningham for the same amount. In January 2002, the company's American Express card was used to purchase a leather sofa and a sleigh bed for Cunningham.

In all, more than $100,000 in cash and furnishings were given to Cunningham even before MZM had posted its first revenue.

Although MZM had no experience with government contracts, the General Services Administration in May 2002 placed the company on a list of approved information technology service providers, a key step for the company to get business from federal agencies.

The first contract, worth $140,000, came from the White House — to provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.

Enter the Vice President. Remember the first contract was worth $140,000 and came from the office of the Vice President.

Two weeks later, on Aug. 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht, later christened "Duke-Stir," for $140,000, according to court documents. Cunningham used the yacht, docked at the Capital Yacht Club, as his home in Washington — and the scene of parties for lobbyists and others.

The money and gifts MZM gave Cunningham were a small price to pay for the ultimate prize. In September 2002, the General Services Administration signed a so-called blanket purchase agreement with MZM totaling $250 million over five years.

Under the agreement, specific computer services for the Pentagon would be contracted to MZM without competition.

Such contracts are typically used to expedite routine ordering of such things as office supplies, but in recent years they also have been used to buy sophisticated equipment and services from specialized technology companies.

"It just makes no sense," said Keith Ashdown, vice president for policy at the government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "How does someone with little experience get a blanket contract?"

This will be interesting to follow.

Bush says Gonzales stays and offers the Dems a deal to allow Meiers and Rove to speak, not testify, but speak to Congress

You have to live inside a bubble not to know what is happening today. Bush, just now on TV, said that Alberto Gonzales will stay and that the Dems are on a fishing expidition re the eight State Attorneys fired recently.

The White House made an offer to allow Miers and Rove to talk to the Senate and the House, and here's the Big BUT, not under oath and behind closed doors and no transcripts! Are they afraid of taking an oath? Seems to me if all is above board then Miers and Rove would agree to an oath.

Here's Bush's testy, arrogant press briefing from the AP:

Bush warns Dems to take offer in firings
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago

President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."

Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call to his longtime friend and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," the president said.

The Senate, meanwhile, voted to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority. (the vote was 94-2)

Several Democrats, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden and John Edwards, have called for Gonzales' ouster or resignation. So have a handful of Republican lawmakers.

And here's the Deal the Dems were offered from the White House:

White House Won’t Allow Rove, Miers To Testify »
MSNBC’s Mike Viquiera: “Fred Fielding, he’s the White House counsel, he was just here meeting with the House Judiciary Committee. He made the following offer to the Congress, both House and Senate. He said Rove and Harriet Miers would be offered to the committees for their testimony in the Alberto Gonzales prosecutors scandal. However, it would be unsworn testimony, not under oath, behind closed doors, and no transcript would be permitted. Now, that is not what Congress is looking for.”

UPDATE: During a press conference, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also revealed that the White House is restricting the types of documents that it is willing to release voluntarily. Schumer said the White House is willing to turn over emails between the White House and the Justice Department, and between the White House and third parties, but not intra-White House emails. Schumer explained the problem:

So, if Karl Rove sent a communication to Harriet Miers and said, and this is purely hypothetical, “We have to get rid of US Attorney Lam. Come up with a good reason…” and the only communication we get is the good reason that Harriet Miers sent to the Justice Department.

This from Think Progress

This issue is heating up and now that several Republicans are voting against Bush, it doesn't look good for this administration. Have the Republicans had enough or is it that they are no longer afraid of the Bush admin, or is it this next election coming up?

NYT: Firing Attorneys could be against the law!

Adam Cohen, an Attorney, wrote an editorial in the New York Times titled "It Wasn’t Just a Bad Idea. It May Have Been Against the Law."

Cohen says:

It is true, as the White House keeps saying, that United States attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the president,” which means he can dismiss them whenever he wants. But if the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid prosecution, or to punish them for not misusing their offices, that may well have been illegal.

He gives examples of crimes that could have been committed:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Go to the link for more explanations of these "crimes".

Pelosi Ask for Gonzales resignation.

Nancy Pelosi,Speaker of the House of Representatives, gave an interview to WGN-TV and met with the Trbune Editorial Board and said "I believe we need a new attorney general.''

Here's an excerpt from the Chicago Tribune:

Pelosi calls for new attorney general

By Jill Zuckman
Tribune national correspondent
Published March 19, 2007, 11:31 AM CDT
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) added her voice to the growing chorus of discontent over the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors, saying today, "I believe we need a new attorney general.''

In a meeting with The Chicago Tribune editorial board and in an interview with WGN-TV, Pelosi said there was a reason Republicans feared a Democratic victory last November.

"They knew that the era of no oversight was over and that they would have to be held accountable,'' she said, citing the scandal at Walter Reed over the treatment of wounded soldiers, as well as questions about whether politics played a role in the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"I think what is unfolding looks pretty bad for the administration as well as Alberto Gonzales,'' Pelosi said, noting that Republicans have begun calling for his dismissal in addition to Democrats.

In this article she goes on to say:

"I don't think Alberto Gonzales fundamentally understood the difference between being the president's lawyer and the attorney general of the United States and the premier defender of the Constitution,'' she said. "I think what is important is for us to have the hearings, which will be thorough and reasoned and put the facts on the record."

"I don't think it looks good for him right now," Pelosi said of Gonzales.

So the Speaker of the House has joined many who ask for Gonzales removal from office. Some are Republicans. It's time for "Alberto" to go!

UPDATE: Arlen Spector is now on the Senate floor saying that the US Atty's should not be removed while in the middle of an investigation. He's looking for an amendment to correct this in the future.

President Bush speaks on Fourth Anniversary of Iraq war.

Bush Speaks. He said nothing new. Nothing we haven't heard before. "The new strategy needs time". He asks us to be patient. Patient? I have no patience for this war and his incompetence in waging it. He's asking for another chance to make things right.

But the sad fact is Bush, his admin, and the generals he's chosen, none of them know what to do now. To be honest, he's made such a mess of it that nobody knows how to fix it at this point. So the talking points from the right have been, You, Dems, what would you do? Well first of all, if the Dems were in charge, this war would not have happened in the first place. So what would we do now that your president and his admin screwed up so badly? Well I would not send more troops to die there.

How about diplomacy Mr Bush! How about getting your fading coalition and the nations surrounding Iraq together and put a plan together that doesn't require bombing the hell out of a nation and causing more upheavel! You make speeches all the time, Mr Bush. I see your face on my TV screen daily, Mr. Bush. Why don't you try talking to people other than us that could help make a difference in Iraq?

Are you biding your time til someone else can take over your war, Mr. Bush? If that is the case, Mr. Bush, do us the favor and resign now and take Cheney with you, and let people take over that might be able to fix your mistake. Just like those past endeavors in your life!

Four Years of the Iraq War on March 19

It's been four years since Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Lots has happened in those four years. Think Progress will help you remember just what has happened. They have created a timeline and simply calls it the TIMELINE.

Here's a few excerpt:

MARCH 19, 2003: Bush launches invasion of Iraq

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are

We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

APRIL 9, 2003: Saddam Statue Toppled

The Los Angeles Times later reported that the fall was “stage-managed” by the Army. [LAT, 7/3/04]
APRIL 11, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: Stuff happens

Think what’s happened in our cities when we’ve had riots, and problems, and looting. Stuff happens! … Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that’s what’s going to happen here. [DoD briefing, 4/11/03]

APRIL 16, 2003: Bush signs $79 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq [DoD, 4/16/03]
MAY 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished

[M]y fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. [Bush, 5/1/03]

Let me skip here:

SEPTEMBER 3, 2003: Report shows Bush failed to plan

A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff lays the blame for setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process that ‘limited the focus’ for preparing for post-Saddam Hussein operations. [Washington Times, 9/3/03]

OCTOBER 19, 2003: Bush ignored the experts

A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials. [NYT, 10/19/03]

And another skip:

JANUARY 17, 2004: 500 U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq since the invasion [Commondreams.org, 1/19/04]

JANUARY 22, 2004: CIA officers warn of civil war

CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address. [Knight-Ridder, 1/22/04]

JANUARY 28, 2004: Iraq Survey Group inspector David Kay reports

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing. [Kay, 1/28/04]

Remember Abu Ghraib:

APRIL 28, 2004: Images of torture at Abu Ghraib are revealed

APRIL 2004: Up to this point, the deadliest month in Iraq, and second highest total overall. 135 U.S. servicemembers lost their lives. [Washington Post, 11/1/05]

MAY 5, 2004: Appearing on Arab TV, Bush expresses sorrow over prisoner abuse

The American people are just as appalled at what they have seen on TV as Iraqi citizens have. The Iraqi citizens must understand that. [NYT, 5/5/04]

MAY 11, 2004: Video released showing Nicholas Berg, an American contractor, being beheaded by Iraqi militants. [USA Today, 5/11/04]

Things starting to go really wrong. More Iraqis killed and our troop loss climbs:

JUNE 28, 2004: U.S. transfers sovereignty to Iraq. Bush’s response: “Let freedom reign!”

AUGUST 27, 2004: Bush acknowledged for the first time that he made a “miscalculation of what the conditions would be” in postwar Iraq [Reuters, 8/27/04]

AUGUST 30, 2004: “Catastrophic Success”

BUSH: Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success–being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day. [Time, 8/30/04]

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004: Death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq reaches 1,000 [CNN.com, 9/8/04]

There's so much more, like the Downing Street Memo, Cheney's remark that Insurgency is in it's last throes, Joe Wilson's column...etc. This Timeline will be of great historic value. Take a look and maybe download and save or print. TIMELINE.

Fallout from the Fired State Attorney-gate

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is on the hot seat. Now even Republicans are starting to call for his resignation. With Alberto, it's not just the State Attornys who have been fired, it's also the warrantless wiretapping and, I think, many of the Dems still hold him responsible for the torture decisions.

President Bush is still standing up for him but this may not last long. Pressure is coming from both sides of the aisle now.

The AP reports:

“I think the president should replace him,” Sununu said in an interview with The Associated Press. …

“We need to have a strong, credible attorney general that has the confidence of Congress and the American people,” said Sununu, who faces a tough re-election campaign next year. “Alberto Gonzales can’t fill that role.”

“I think the attorney general should be fired,” Sununu said.

Next up to be questioned....Rove:

Think Progress reports:

Today on CNN’s Situation Room, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) blew off White House signals that Karl Rove and other senior Bush officials may resist testifying before Congress on the U.S. Attorney purge.

“Frankly, I don’t care whether [White House Counsel Fred Fielding] says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want,” Leahy said. “If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.” Asked whether he’ll subpoena Rove, Leahy answered, “Yes. He can appear voluntarily if he wants. If he doesn’t, I will subpoena him.”

And more on Rove from the Chicago Tribune:

Former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) said Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove told him in the spring of 2001 that he should limit his choice for U.S. attorney in Chicago to someone from Illinois.

According to Fitzgerald, who was determined to bring in a prosecutor from outside the state, Rove "just said we don't want you going outside the state. We don't want to be moving U.S. attorneys around."

Fitzgerald said he believes Rove was trying to influence the selection in reaction to pressure from Rep. Dennis Hastert, then speaker of the House, and allies of then-Gov. George Ryan, who knew Fitzgerald was seeking someone from outside Illinois to attack political corruption.

Things seem to be falling apart for Bush and his admin. Truth eventually will out.

More on the Haliburton Move

Raw Story is reporting that "Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is calling on the U.S. Treasury to ensure that a controversial Houston-based multinational corporation, Halliburton, is not benefiting financially from the move of its headquarters to the United Arab Emirates".

Here's my comment from my post from March 11, 2006:

So is it that Haliburton is abandoning the Bush admin for greener pastures or is there a grander scheme? It's closer to Iraq and Iran. And I believe that Haliburton is already in Iran. I need time to dissect this move but it doesn't feel right.

Iran!

The Raw Story article goes on to say:

In response to the announcement that Halliburton's CEO is moving the company's headquarters to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) called on the Treasury Department to make sure Halliburton's move is not part of a larger effort to increase Halliburton's business with Iran by evading current U.S. sanctions laws prohibiting any U.S. company from doing business with terrorist states.

Also the no bid contracts that Haliburton received from our government is an issue in this as well as Congress's investigation of over charges to our government.

Read the rest of the Raw Story article that also shows the letter that Sen. Laughtenburg wrote to the US Treasury Dept.

More to come, I am sure!

More on Kiley

Ap is saying that Lt. General Kiley, The Army surgeon General has been "forced to retire".

Here's some of the article:

The Army forced its surgeon general, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, to retire, officials said Monday, the third high-level official to lose his job over poor outpatient treatment of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Kiley, who headed Walter Reed from 2002 to 2004, has been a lightning rod for criticism over conditions at the Army's premier medical facility, including during congressional hearings last week. Soldiers and their families have complained about substandard living conditions and bureaucratic delays at the hospital overwhelmed with wounded from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kiley submitted his retirement request on Sunday, the Army said in a statement.

"We must move quickly to fill this position — this leader will have a key role in moving the way forward in meeting the needs of our wounded warriors," Acting Secretary of the Army Pete Geren said in an Army statement.

Geren asked Kiley to retire, said a senior defense official speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was not involved in the decision to ask Kiley to retire, the official said.

Kiley's removal underscored how the fallout over Walter Reed's shoddy conditions has yet to subside. Instead, the controversy has mushroomed into questions about how wounded soldiers and veterans are treated throughout the medical systems run by the military and the Department of Veterans Affairs and has become a major preoccupation of a Bush administration already struggling to defend the unpopular war in Iraq.

"I submitted my retirement because I think it is in the best interest of the Army," Kiley said in Monday's Army statement. He said he wanted to allow officials to "focus completely on the way ahead."

They finally got rid of the right person!

Rove being called to testify in the firing of States Attorneys hearing

Senator Schumer has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to call White House Karl Rove to testify over the US Attorney purge. The White House acknowledged yesterday that Rove was involved.

Here's Senator Schumer's statement from Think Progress:

“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. Attorney purge,” Schumer said. … “There’s an emerging pattern that is extremely disturbing and everyday the sanctity of U.S. Attorneys as neutral enforcers of law without fear or favor is diminished,” Schumer said. “We will get to bottom of this.”

Eventually Rove will get his due. There is still a sealed file from the Grand Jury for the Plame incident so he's not cleared yet. It will be interesting to watch how this all falls out.

UPDATE: From McClatchy: "Mr. Conyers and Ms. Sanchez intend to talk with Karl Rove about any role he may have had in the firing of the U.S. attorneys," said Sanchez spokesman James Dau.

Rove on the Hot Seat!

No Birth Certificate - No Medicaid!

The federal law that requires people filing for Medicaid to produce papers confirming they are citizens is backfiring. This rule was designed to keep illiegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid, but many citizens in the US do not have a birth certificate if they were born at home. Many are so poor they cannot purchase their birth certificates or cannot get to the county or state office that provides copies of these certificates.

Here's some excerpts from the New York Times that ran the story today:

Citizens Who Lack Papers Lose Medicaid
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, March 11 — A new federal rule intended to keep illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid has instead shut out tens of thousands of United States citizens who have had difficulty complying with requirements to show birth certificates and other documents proving their citizenship, state officials say.

Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia have all reported declines in enrollment and traced them to the new federal requirement, which comes just as state officials around the country are striving to expand coverage through Medicaid and other means.

Under a 2006 federal law, the Deficit Reduction Act, most people who say they are United States citizens and want Medicaid must provide “satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship,” which could include a passport or the combination of a birth certificate and a driver’s license.

Some state officials say the Bush administration went beyond the law in some ways, for example, by requiring people to submit original documents or copies certified by the issuing agency.

“The largest adverse effect of this policy has been on people who are American citizens,” said Kevin W. Concannon, director of the Department of Human Services in Iowa, where the number of Medicaid recipients dropped by 5,700 in the second half of 2006, to 92,880, after rising for five years. “We have not turned up many undocumented immigrants receiving Medicaid in Waterloo, Dubuque or anywhere else in Iowa,” Mr. Concannon said.

Jeff Nelligan, a spokesman for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the new rule was “intended to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are citizens without imposing undue burdens on them” or on states. “We are not aware of any data that shows there are significant barriers to enrollment,” he said. “But if states are experiencing difficulties, they should bring them to our attention.”

So people that really need the help won't even apply because they don't have the documentation that they are truly citizens. More:

“Congress wanted to crack down on illegal immigrants who got Medicaid benefits by pretending to be U.S. citizens,” Mr. Jones said. “But the law is hurting U.S. citizens, throwing up roadblocks to people who need care, at a time when we in Wisconsin are trying to increase access to health care.”

Medicaid officials across the country report that some pregnant women are going without prenatal care and some parents are postponing checkups for their children while they hunt down birth certificates and other documents.

Rhiannon M. Noth, 28, of Cincinnati applied for Medicaid in early December. When her 3-year-old son, Landen, had heart surgery on Feb. 22, she said, “he did not have any insurance” because she had been unable to obtain the necessary documents. For the same reason, she said, she paid out of pocket for his medications, and eye surgery was delayed for her 2-year-old daughter, Adrianna.

The children eventually got Medicaid, but the process took 78 days, rather than the 30 specified in Ohio Medicaid rules.

Dr. Martin C. Michaels, a pediatrician in Dalton, Ga., who has been monitoring effects of the federal rule, said: “Georgia now has 100,000 newly uninsured U.S. citizen children of low-income families. Many of these children have missed immunizations and preventive health visits. And they have been admitted to hospitals and intensive care units for conditions that normally would have been treated in a doctor’s office.”

Dr. Michaels, who is president of the Georgia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that some children with asthma had lost their Medicaid coverage and could not afford the medications they had been taking daily to prevent wheezing. “Some of these children had asthma attacks and had to be admitted to hospitals,” he said.

The ones who suffer most are the children and the elderly.

My thoughts are that this law/rule was also instituted for the purpose of pushing the need for a Federal ID Card. But even with the ID card you still need to prove citizenship.

The other problem this creates is a health problem. Without medicaid many people, children inparticular, do not get regular checkups and serious problems would bring them to an emergency room. This puts stress on the hospitals and eventually raises the rate we pay for healthcare.

Everything that has been done in the past 6 years by the admin and the Congress is suspect!

Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley to "Retire"

Just heard this on MSNBC that Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley has submitted his retirement request.

It's about time!

Waxman looking into Haliburton Move

More on the Haliburton move to Dubai from the Time-blog
When I said earlier it doesn't sound right, I guess I wasn't the only one. There's also more of this story at the Financial Times

Is this about tax breaks? Getting beyond the reach of congressional subpoenas? And what about all that sensitive information that Halliburton has had access to? At a minimum, reincorporating in Dubai would mean that Halliburton will be paying less taxes to the U.S. Treasury, even as it collects billions from government contracts.

The last paragraph of the FT story begins to answer the questions about Halliburton's, uh, interestingly timed decision to move its corporate headquarters:

Dubai has long positioned itself as a regional business hub, with a laisser faire attitude to business regulations. The government has launched several free zones allowing foreign firms to circumvent laws barring foreigners owning businesses.

Karen Tumulty from Time-blog also has this UPDATE: Henry Waxman is likely to hold a hearing on this, an aide tells me.

I am sure there will be more to this story.

Who compiled the list of States Attorneys to be fired?

It seems the Department of Justice with help from the White House.

Here's an excerpt from Newsweek:

Justice officials say the dismissals were for "job-performance reasons," as well as for failure to pursue Bush administration policy priorities. But where did the list of particular U.S. attorneys to fire come from? Two senior Justice officials, who didn't want to be named discussing the dismissals, tell NEWSWEEK that Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October—with input from the White House. In a recent statement, the White House said it approved the firings, but didn't sign off on specific names.

And as timing would have it, Gonzales is in more trouble because of this:

Gonzales is now being accused of falling down on the job himself. Even as he struggled last week to calm the outrage over the fired attorneys, another scandal broke out: an investigation by the Justice inspector general showed that the FBI had repeatedly misused a Patriot Act provision to secretly collect personal data—including financial records—from citizens without a judicial warrant. Gonzales said there was "no excuse" for the bureau's actions, and he demanded that FBI Director Robert Mueller find out "what went wrong and who is accountable." Asked by reporters whether Gonzales was considering firing Mueller or other senior officials for the apparent intrusion on civil liberties, the A.G. didn't answer. The issue of "job performance," it seems, is becoming an ever more awkward subject at the Justice Department.

Eventually the crime catch up with you (Gonzales).

US army is lagging behind Iraq's insurgents tactically

This kind of news you wouldn't hear from the media here in the US. This comes from Britain, the Observer. Of course our media is getting a touch better in certain areas helped by the Internet.

Here's the rest of the story from the Observer:

'Smart' rebels outstrip US

Top American generals make shock admission as Iraq leader pleads with neighbouring countries to seal off their borders
Paul Beaver in Fort Lauderdale and Peter Beaumont
Sunday March 11, 2007
The Observer
The US army is lagging behind Iraq's insurgents tactically in a war that senior officers say is the biggest challenge since Korea 50 years ago.
The gloomy assessment at a conference in America last week came as senior US and Iraqi officials sat down yesterday with officials from Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia in Baghdad to persuade Iraq's neighbours to help seal its borders against fighters, arms and money flowing in. During the conference the US, Iranian and Syrian delegations were reported to have had a 'lively exchange'.

In a bleak analysis, senior officers described the fighters they were facing in Iraq and Afghanistan 'as smart, agile and cunning'.
In Vietnam, the US was eventually defeated by a well-armed, closely directed and highly militarised society that had tanks, armoured vehicles and sources of both military production and outside procurement. What is more devastating now is that the world's only superpower is in danger of being driven back by a few tens of thousands of lightly armed irregulars, who have developed tactics capable of destroying multimillion-dollar vehicles and aircraft.

By contrast, the US military is said to have been slow to respond to the challenges of fighting an insurgency. The senior officers described the insurgents as being able to adapt rapidly to exploit American rules of engagement and turn them against US forces, and quickly disseminate ways of destroying or disabling armoured vehicles.

The military is also hampered in its attempts to break up insurgent groups because of their 'flat' command structure within collaborative networks of small groups, making it difficult to target any hierarchy within the insurgency.

The remarks were made by senior US generals speaking at the Association of the US Army meeting at Fort Lauderdale in Florida and in conversations with The Observer. The generals view the 'war on terror' as the most important test of America's soldiers in 50 years.

Looks like this war is not winnable against these insurgents. Everyone thought Saddam was a devil, and he was, but he kept an uncontrollable country controlled.

Haliburton HQ's is leaving Texas and setting up shop in Dubai

Haliburton is following the money. This is ominous for the US. Evidently, even Haliburton believes we are losing power in the world. Oh, they will keep their office in Houston but it will now become a regional office.

From the AP:

Halliburton will move HQ to Dubai
By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

Oil services giant Halliburton Co. will soon shift its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Mideast financial powerhouse of Dubai, chief executive Dave Lesar announced Sunday.

"Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston," spokeswoman Cathy Mann said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE."

Lesar, speaking at an energy conference in nearby Bahrain, said he will relocate to Dubai from Texas to oversee Halliburton's intensified focus on business in the Mideast and energy-hungry Asia, home to some of the world's most important oil and gas markets.

"As the CEO, I'm responsible for the global business of Halliburton in both hemispheres and I will continue to spend quite a bit of time in an airplane as I remain attentive to our customers, shareholders and employees around the world," Lesar said. "Yes, I will spend the majority of my time in Dubai."

Lesar's announcement appears to signal one of the highest-profile moves by a U.S. corporate leader to Dubai, an Arab boomtown where free-market capitalism has been paired with some of the world's most liberal tax, investment and residency laws.

"The eastern hemisphere is a market that is more heavily weighted toward oil exploration and production opportunities and growing our business here will bring more balance to Halliburton's overall portfolio," Lesar said.

So is it that Haliburton is abandoning the Bush admin for greener pastures or is there a grander scheme? It's closer to Iraq and Iran. And I believe that Haliburton is already in Iran. I need time to disect this move but it doesn't feel right.