Former 9/11 Commissioners: U.S. at Risk

This article, by HOPE YEN, AP is really interesting. What exactly is our government doing about Homeland Security these days? Is Homeland Security the functional equivalent of FEMA. God help us all. I do have an idea to make any kind homeland security work: turn it into Pork. My comments are in orange, because my Snark Level today is rated at Orange.

WASHINGTON - The U.S. is at great risk for more terrorist attacks because Congress and the White House have failed to enact several strong security measures, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said Sunday.

"It's not a priority for the government right now," said the former chairman, Thomas Kean, ahead of the group's release of a report Monday assessing how well its recommendations have been followed. "More than four years after 9/11 ... people (I strongly suspect he means our elected officials here...maybe we can send in Supernanny and she can get them to work nice together.) are not paying attention," the former Republican governor of New Jersey said. "God help us if we have another attack."

Added Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic vice chairman of the commission: "We believe that another attack will occur. It's not a question of if. We are not as well-prepared as we should be." (Hello? Anyone in Washington listening?) The five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission, whose recommendations are now promoted through a privately funded group known as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, conclude that the government deserves "more Fs than As" in responding to their 41 suggested changes. Ex-commissioners contended the government has been remiss by failing to act more quickly. Kean said the Transportation Security Administration was wrong to announce changes last week that will allow airline passengers to carry small scissors and some sharp tools. He also said the agency, by now, should have consolidated databases of passenger information into a single "terror watch list" to aid screening. (Hey, how about hiring some American IT professionals with experience who have been outsourced and are now working at Starbucks or other stores for a fraction of what they used to make? Hire my husband, and we might actually be able to avoid bankruptcy!)

Calling the country "less safe than we were 18 months ago," former Democratic commissioner Jamie Gorelick said Sunday the government's failure to move forward on the recommendations makes the U.S. more vulnerable.

She cited the failure to ensure that foreign nations are upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical materials, as well as the FBI's resistance to overhauling its anti-terror programs.

"You remember the sense of urgency that we all felt in the summer of 2004. The interest has faded," the Washington lawyer said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "You could see that in the aftermath of Katrina. We assumed that our government would be able to do what it needed to do and it didn't do it."

One thing Katrina did was expose to the world the weakness and disorganization of the US government. Talk about giving terrorist a gift on a silver platter! I'll bet they are studying the whole mess closely. It wouldn't surprise me if the next terrorist act would involve so sort of ecological terror.
___

Jeff Seemann, OH 16th District Congressional Candidate

Check this out. Jeff Seemann is a candidate for Congress in Ohio's 16th District. He is currently spending 100 hours as a homeless person. I couldn't do what he's doing. Physically, I couldn't. But I admire him for, as my grandmother would put it "walking in someone else's moccasins".

November 21, 2005
Day 2

Hello. I am writing this diary on behalf of Jeff Seemann. As many of you know, Jeff is running for Congress in Ohio's 16th District, and he's trying a different strategy. He believes that you cannot represent people until you truly understand their lives. Currently, he is spending 100 hours homeless, in an attempt to better understand what life is like for people who have lost everything. We all witnessed the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, but Katrina only magnified a problem that exists in every town on every day of every week. I just spoke with Jeff, and he has asked me to relay the story of his first 20 hours to you and several other blogs. The following is Jeff's entry;

Hello everyone. After my first day out here, if I can give you any amount of wisdom, it will be this; don't take anything for granted. You can always end up worse off than you are right now. It hasn't been easy here. The experiences and lessons I've learned already range from harsh to easy, but it's certainly been an eye-opener.

Last night, I tried to find a place to sleep. It was dark by the time I got downtown, and being a Sunday, everything was closed. I went into this experience blind, so I had no idea where any homeless shelters may be located, and I therefore decided to try a few churches. No luck there, all the doors were locked at the 4 area chuches I could find. I ended up by myself for the entire night, and found a bit of warmth behind the Palace Theater sometime around 10pm. I had hoped to find somebody to help me locate a place to sleep, but again, no luck. It was an awful night of sleep, if you can call it that at all. The temperature was probably in the 30s or low 40s. By midnight, I had a splitting headache. It's amazing how many things we take for granted in our everyday lives...like aspirin. I'm pretty sure I fell asleep a couple of times, but it was never anything that one could reasonably call sleep. By about 7 or 8 am, I was chased out of my space by a police officer. I've heard the words "move along" more times than I thought I would today. This morning, I found myself a few agencies that can help the homeless, but they are few and far between. So far, they've been helpful, but the people I've spoken to who benefit from these agencies tell me that the help doesn't last very long.

At one agency, I was told that I "picked a bad time to end up homeless" (as if there's a good time). This is the end of the year, and the grant money has dried up. Agencies don't have any money left to set anybody up with accomodations, and until January 1st, you're at the mercy of the streets. Churches do step in from time to time, but that's usually for one night only. I didn't know that a "homeless hotline" existed, but was advised to call them. One of the agencies allowed me use of their phone, and the hotline referred me to Open Door, a shelter at the Turnaround Community Outreach. I'm to report there tonight between 930 and 10pm, and I have to leave by 6am tomorrow morning. It's an African-American church, and I've already been by there for a meal at 2pm today. Very nice people, very comforting. Tomorrow, they're also having a free meal at 2pm at Open Door, but in order to eat you have to attend a church service first. I'm not willing to question this policy, but I wonder if they would still offer to feed the hungry if they were Buddhist, Jewish or even Muslim? At today's meal, there were 28 people in attendance. Almost all were homeless, but a few had homes but were well below the poverty line. The ages ranged from 18 months old to 70+ years. The 18 month old was a sweetheart. Her mother lives near the church and has no money, so she does what she can to keep her baby fed. The church gave her a few extra biscuits, and she slipped them in her baby's diaper bag (which was not really clean enough to handle food).

For the benefit of those of you concerned with whether or not I may be taking food or a bed from somebody who needs it more, I will gladly report that I waited until everyone had their plates of food before I approached the line (and was told that there was plenty if anybody needed more), and the cot I will sleep on tonight is not the last one. They can fit many more than will attend tonight, so everyone who has requested a place to sleep will get it. Also, no I have no money to make my situation any more comfortable than it is. I have no ATM card, no pocket change, no photo ID, nothing. If I was going to deprive anybody of anything during my experience, I will gladly give it up and go elsewhere. It's only been a short period of time, and I'm only 25% of the way through this, but I can tell you that I've learned a lot.

For starters, there's a whole system you have to know and those who can work it best survive with the least amount of trouble. There are a few phone numbers to call and get assistance, but most places can only offer you referrals to other agencies. It's a messed up web that you have to maneuver through in order to get anywhere. And I'm told that the funds are being slashed for 2006.

That half-eaten corn dog I saw on theground last night....I was too proud to pick it up, a move I could later regret. That bag of Fritos I saw in a trash can while walking down 12th Street...it might have had food inside. Earlier today, maybe some of you stopped by Burger King or Wendy's. Did you finish your french fries? If not, I know of a few people who would love to have what you just threwaway. Man, just that small handfull of leftover fries or the pickles you took off your burger would be a wonderful gift to some people. No, I'm notasking you to take some cold leftover food to people right now....but I am asking you to never again take for granted what you have. Tomorrow, you may not have it anymore.

Jeff Seemann

I'll be posting this diary in a few locations that Jeff has directed me to. I'll try to answer any questions you have if I have the time. In the meantime, you can help out Jeff's campaign - he's promised to deliver 10% of all funds raised to homeless shelters in the area. Visit Jeff's ActBlue page or his blog.

And trust me, as his friend, I heard it in his voice that he's not having an easy time with this. He's surviving just fine, but the people he is meeting are really eating away at his soul. He's going to walk away from this a very different person, even more sympathetic than he is now.

Peace be with you all, Michelle

I have no idea how people suffering from chronic illness survive on the streets. Or what it must be like to be a child on the streets. I do know I'm grateful for what I do have, and try to what I can to help. One person at a time can make difference, some people, like Jeff, may make a bigger difference.

Blue Cat Lair Reads

Since I'm an avid reader, I'm now posting my monthly reads at Blue Cat Lair Reads.

I tend to be an eclectric reader, so stop by, you might come across something interesting.

Oh, yeah, there might be some DVD or CDs listed occassionally, although they'll usually be at Chasing Waves of Light.

A Democrat plan for Iraq

At least someone has a plan. Think the administration will listen? Nah, not until their purse strings are affected. (Cynical little critter, ain't I?)

This is from Harry Reid's site:

First, 2006 should be a significant year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security. It’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. Iraqis must begin to run their own country. In 2006, the US and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible.

Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.

Third, the President needs to submit – on a quarterly basis - a plan for success to Congress and the American people. This plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in Iraq, timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from Iraq as these goals are met.

Click here for the entire text.

Jimmy Carter weighs in on the real America

All I can say is -- he's absolutely right. I hope everyone listens to him.

This isn't the real America, By Jimmy Carter

JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," published this month by Simon & Schuster.

IN RECENT YEARS, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.

Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.

These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.

Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.

Of even greater concern is that the U.S. has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in U.S. custody.

Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.

Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation's global environmental policies.

Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.

As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.

It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years.

Bill O'Reilly drips on...

"I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue about what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace."

"Land of Oz" philosophy. Sounds interesting, but why does the face of Bill O'Reilly on a flying monkey keep popping into my head now?

Bill O'Reilly spouts off against SF.

This beautiful picture of Coit Tower is from SF Images. It's a great site - a way to tour San Francisco without being there. I stare at this particular picture often. Seriously. It's like being there.

Bill O'Reilly is having another hissy fit:

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead. "

He says some pretty out there stuff, but this is just outrageous. On the other hand, if SF ever decides to go ahead and be their own country, my husband and I just might go out and join them. I've only been there once, but I fell in love with the place.

You know, Bill, in America we get to disagree with one another. It fine to say what you want to say, but don't try to tell others that they shouldn't disagree. If the citizens of SF want to ban military recruiting in schools, and a majority wants it - that's democracy. Don't say it's OK for al Qaida for blow up something because they disagree with you.

Why make a fuss over the 2,000th casualty?

We've reached the 2,000th casualty and American death toll is continuing to rise. Why is that number important? Why is the 2,000th soldier to die any different than the first? The 2,001st?

Every one of those numbers represent not just a statistic, but a person who was loved by someone, who loved others in return, and who served their country willingly. They were not drafted. They all had their reasons for volunteering; it's safe to say that part of the reason was they loved their country and wanted to defend it.

The 2,000th casualty, Staff Sergeant George T. Alexander, Jr was no lesser or greater than the first casualties, Major Jay Thomas Aubin (USMC), Captain Ryan Anthony Beaupre (USMC), Corporal Brian Matthew Kennedy (USMC), Staff Sergeant Kendall Damon Watersbey (USMC), Second Lieutenant Therrel S. Childers (USMC), Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez (USMC) and Lieutenant Thomas Mullen Adams (USN).

So why is the number 2,000 important, aside from the fact that we love to mark milestones, however macabre? It's not because the 2,000th death is more important than the first and will be less important than the 3,000th. (God forbid we have that many, however I fear we will.)

It's important because with each death we are forced to think back and remember why we went to war in the first place. This is where it starts getting disturbing. This is where we have to look back at the reasons given to justify the war. It's now obvious that lies and misinformation formed the basis for this war.

Were the lies inadvertent or deliberate? Was the misinformation known to be wrong but was used anyway because it was politically expedient? That is what we must find out. We need to know if individuals within the administration can be proven without a shadow of a doubt to have misled the American people and the rest of the world into entering the war under false pretexts. We need an independent investigation to determine this. Fitzgerald may just have touched on the tip of the iceberg and we need to see the entire picture, no matter how high in the government the evidence leads, even if it leads to the Oval Office itself.

That's why the 2,000th death marked such a milestone. Because there were many of us who didn't believe the administration's reasons for going to war in the first place. There was evidence by sources that contradicted what the administration was presenting, but people were cajoled into joining the bandwagon. Now many are jumping off that same bandwagon.

Each of the deaths that occurred as a result of this war is one more nail in the coffin in which the truth was buried for a political agenda based on greed and deceit.

As long "Bush's Folly" is allowed to continue, the United States will continue to rot from within unless people stand up and DEMAND THE TRUTH. That is why the 2,000th death is an important milestone. It showed that people are now waking up to the fact that we were lied to. The United States is no longer fit to consider itself the moral compass of the world. We need find a way to stop the next milestone, before the soul of our country is forever tainted.

HARRY REID FORCES CLOSED SESSION!

The Senate was forced to operate behind closed doors thanks to Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who firmly won his place in my heart. This is the speach he gave before the Senate closed its doors. I think he deserves lots of credit for doing this.

Thanks to dmsilev for posting a transcription. I've cleaned it up a bit to post here. There are some areas where it's unclear and I've put (unclear) in those spots.

Mr. Reid: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just a couple of days ago, my son Lief called me and indicated that his lovely wife Amber was going to have another baby. That will be my -- our 16th grandchild. Mr. President, i have thought about that, and I have to say that I've been in public service a long time.

Never have I been so concerned about our country. We have gas prices that are really unbelievable. This year they've been over $3 in the state of nevada. Diesel fuel is still over $3 a gallon in nevada. The majority leader of the House of Representatives is under indictment. The man in charge of contracting for the federal government under indictment. Deficits, Mr. President, so far you can't see them. The deficits have been basically run up by President Bush's administration these last five years. We're the wealthiest nation in the world but we are very poor as it relates to health care. We have an intractable war in Iraq. Is it any wonder that I'm concerned about my family, my grandchildren?

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of l. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, also on the President's staff, a senior advisor to the President. Mr. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. Is it any wonder, Mr. President, that I'm concerned about my grandchildren?

This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and were morally repugnant. The decision made to place United States soldiers, our military into harm's way I believe
is the most significant responsibility the Constitution vests in the Congress and in the President.

The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. Mr. President, these are not just words from Harry Reid.

Larry Wilkerson, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff -- Colin Powell, of course, was Secretary of State. This man was his chief of staff for four years. Here's what he said about the war in Iraq. "If -- in President Bush's first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security, including vital decisions about post-war Iraq, were made by a secretive, little-known cabal, was made up of a very small group of people led by vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions."

That's what I'm here to talk about today, Mr. President. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration. This cloud is further darkened by the administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies throughout this administration. And unfortunately, it must be that said a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled
Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican administration accountable for its misdeeds on these issues.

During the time that we had a Democratic President, eight years, and when the Democrats were in charge of the co committees, we were in the majority, oversight hearings were held covering the gamut of what went on in this administration -- that administration. Today there is not an oversight hearing held on anything. Let's take a look at back how we got here with respect to Iraq.

The record will show that within hours of the terrorist acts of 9/11, senior officials in this administration recognized those attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made its case for attacking, for invading Iraq. There are numerous examples of how the administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war.

The administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with al Qaeda represent the best examples how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. The American people were warned time and time again by the President, the Vice President, the current Secretary of State and their other capacities about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said -- and I quote -- "Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear programs." Playing upon the fears of Americans after september 11, these officials and others raised the specter that left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons. Obviously we know now that their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate.

But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false. The situation very similar with respect to Saddam's links to al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people -- I quote again -- "we know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al Qaeda organization."

These assertions have been totally discredited, not a little bit, totally discredited. But again, the administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims. Again, Wilkerson is a person in point.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Nothing.

Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No.

Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No.

Did it even attempt to force this administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not a limit -- is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prison abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina, and we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the American -- the Republican administration -- rather than to get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened.

There's also another disturbing pattern, namely, about how this administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Often this administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career was ended -- fired, relieved of duty when he (unclear) out its inspectors.

When Nobel Prize winner and head of the IAEA raised questions about the administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Ambassador Joe Wilson stated that there was an attempt by Saddam -- no attempt by Saddam to acquire weapons from Niger, the administration not only went after him to discredit him, they launched a vicious and coordinated campaign going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a C.I.A. spy. These people are now having 24-hour protection fearing for their own safety. Given this administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, and I've only mentioned a few, what has been the response of the Republican-controlled Congress? Absolutely nothing.

And where their inactions they provide political cover for this administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq. Now everyone may think that the troops in Iraq are 100% Republican. I've met a friend -- I've made a friend. He's a Marine. He was over in when the elections were held ten months ago. He said where he was and he never even went to the bathroom without a rifle, wherever he was in his duty all over this area, he said he couldn't find anyone that was happy with the way the elections turned out.

They, the Republicans, do anything they can to keep the truth from people like my Marine friend. This behavior -- I would give you his name -- this behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000s died 2,025 now, Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the month of October alone, the fourth deadliest month in this go-on three-year war. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain over there in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been made and continue to be made.

Mr. President, we've had soldiers and marines from Nevada killed, from Eli, from Las Vegas, from Henderson, from Boulder City, from Tonapaw. Every time one of these deaths occur, it's a dagger in the heart of that community. This behavior is unacceptable. I'm a patient man, mr. President. I'm a legislator and I know things don't happen over night. I'm a parent man but the call from my son has put this in perspective. I'm worried about my family. The toll in Iraq is as staggering
as I repeat it is solemn. The troops have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice.

For example, more than 40 Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President canning -- asking four basic questions about this administration's Iraq policy, and we received, Mr. President, -- we received a four-sentence fence that is response. "Thank you for your letter to the President expressing your concerns with Iraq. I've shared your letter with the appropriate administration officials." Remember we wrote it to the President. "And agencies responsible in this area. Please be assured your letter is receiving the attention it deserves. Thank you for your compliments, Candy Wolf. (Condi Rice? - No, there really is a Candy Wolf. Jon Stewart did point out it does sound like a porn name.)"

That's the letter the senators of the United States wrote to the President of the its and we get a letter from Candy Wolf that says, thanks, we're working on it. America deserves better than. This they also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush administration brought this country to war, key questions that need to be answered include how did the Bush administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?

We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said. Who did the Bush administration officials listen to and ignore? How did the senior Bush administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress or the American people?

What was the role of the White House Iraq Group, a group of senior
white house officials, tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics. We know what Colonel Wilkerson says. How did the administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the administration's assertions. We know what happened to them. I listed a few. Why has this administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that would shed light on their misconduct and the misstatements?

Unfortunately, the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine these questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep that commitment. Despite the fact that he's restated the commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing. Except assemble a few quotes from Democratic and Republican senators going back to the first Iraq war. We need a thorough investigation that that committee is capable and tasked to do. At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect it will be playing political games by producing an analysis that files any of these important questions.

Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from this administration. Key facts about the intelligence --

a Senator: Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. Reid: Key facts:

June 4, 2003, Intelligence Committee commits to bipartisan review of the deeply flewed intelligence in Iraq's W.M.D. Phase one.

February 12, 2004, Intelligence Committee commits to Phase 2, an investigation looking at five areas including whether the administration exaggerate and manipulated mel dense (unclear).

July 9, 2004, committee publishes Phase One report on the intelligence agencies mistakes on Iraq. Senator Rockefeller says publicly that Phase Two is as yet unbegun. Republican chairman Roberts says it is one of my top priorities.

July 11 on Meet The Press, Republican chairman Roberts says, even as I'm speaking our staff is working on phase two and we'll get it done.

Fall of 2004, House IntelligenceCommittee, after no follow through on the Iraq W.M.D. investigation, the House announced on May 2003, no final report. Republican committee chairman Porter Goss is selected to
C.I.A. Director.

Regarding the question of vetting the Valerie Plame leak Goss said
show me a blue dress and some DNA and I'll give you an investigation. End of quote.

November, 2004, we had the Presidential election.

March 2005, President's hand-picked W.M.D. intelligence committee says the intelligence agencies got the intelligence dead wrong but says that under the President's terms of reference we are not authorized to investigate how policy-makers used the intelligence assessments they received from the intelligence community.

March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts says it would be monumental waste of time to
replow this ground any further?

April 10, 2005, "Meet The Press" Senator Roberts commits to Tim Russert that the review will get done. September 2005, committee democrats file additional views to their authorization bill blasting the committee for failing to conduct phase two. There have been letters written to the committee, a press release was issued even saying that they were going to go forward with this.

Mr. President, enough time has gone by. I demand on behalf of the
American people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted, and in accordance with rule 21, I now move that senate go into closed session.

Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I motion the -- second the motion.

The presiding officer: the motion has been made to closed session. The. The chair pursuant to rule 21 directs the sergeant at arms to clear all galleries, clear all doors of the senate chamber and exclude from the chamber and its immediate
corridors all employees and officials of this senate who under the rule are are -- are not eligible to attend the closed session and are not sworn to secrecy. The question is nondebatable.

Then there is this is from his website, Give 'em Hell, Harry.

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false.
The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.”

The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

o How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
o Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
o How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
o What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
o How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions?
o Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and a half years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.

Lewis "Loose Lips" Libby

I can't say I'm surprised, can you? I did hear Bush's speechlet on the way home. What struck me the most is not anything he said, but that he made the statement from the driveway of the White House. It just struck me as strange. I have to think about that some more. Plus he sounded, um, odd? He's obviously very stressed. I haven't seen the footage yet, but it will be interesting to watch because his body language often doesn't match what's coming out of his mouth. I haven't heard from my friend who's into NLP, but I'm sure she has been busy analyzing it.

Today has been laundry day, so I've not been able get enough of my media fix. I haven't even read the indictment yet.

I'll post something tomorrow.

Iraq War Grief

Pass the flame on. This in not my graphic, it's from Iraq War Grief

President GHW Bush once referred to 1,000 points of light. Well, friends, we need to be point of light for the Iraqi children. I strongly suggest every day that you read Iraq Daily War Grief. Today it's on day 292. I'll warn you ahead of time this is graphic stuff. This is the war the networks aren't televising. This is real life, not Hollywood special effects. It's available at DailyKos, Booman Tribune, European Tribune, and My Left Wing.

This is the war your sons and daughters and husbands and wives and partners are fighting. This is the face of the war you need to remember when you are judging the Powers-That-Be that lied to get us into their war. he faces of those children, could soon be our children if we don't find our way out of "Bush's Folly" as I like to call it.

When Iraqis and the rest of the world see these pictures, especially the ones of of children with the blood of their parents splattered on them, the pictures of Abu Graib -- it gives them a reason to despise the US. Don't anyone give me any crap about "these pictures are only one side of a story". There's always more that one side. What you need to ask is why pictures like these aren't in the media. Remember Viet Nam. I remember vomiting more than once on seeing photographs and footage from that war. That's one of the reason people became so outraged and we finally got out. Get outraged!

Since the Republicans are in their own little bubble, fellow Democrats, it's left to us. Tell the truth, present the evidence. Let's not screw it up.

2006, then 2008. Start now and change the future.

My Sweet, Sweet Onion

One of my favorite publications, The Onion, uses the prezinetial seal with its parody of the weekly radio address. So, the WH sent a letter and said "stop that!" It turns out that there is a rule that says you can't you the seal to for a commercial enterprise, but the Lair isn't a commercial enterprise. So, why'd they send a letter to the Onion when they should have also sent one to http://www.westernwhitehousegifts.com/pages/915632/. They have jewelry, assorted and sundry items and a rug with the presidential seal made of 100% New Zealand wool. Were all our American sheep were busy? I wonder where it was actually made?

Anyhows, lot of blogs are now showing the seal as well. And support my sweet, sweet Onion. It shouldn't be fried just because some wonk got their knickers in a knot! Check out Daily Kos for more.

Andrea Mitchell, Hardball and Deliberate Misinformation

On a recent visit to Hardball, Andrea Mitchell checked some facts on the door. She's NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, so you'd think she'd know better! So what did she say that's getting people like me in a tizzy?

This is what Andrea Mitchell said on NBC's Meet the Press, July 6, 2003 edition:

"Joe Wilson went on television with us and in interviews and said he had been dispatched by the vice president...he led people to believe, he said publicly, that he had been dispatched by the vice president. And that was clearly not the case by every bit of reporting that I have been able to do."

Media Matters can't find any reference anywhere that Wilson claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger. Mitchell can't seem to back the her own assertions either. In the July 6, 2003, interview, this is what Wilson said regarding the his Niger trips:

"The [question of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger] was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president."

This what Factcheck.org says on the matter:

July 6, 2003 – Wilson publishes " What I didn’t find in Africa" in The New York Times, identifying himself for the first time as the unnamed “envoy.” He writes, “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq 's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” Wilson does not mention that he learned there was a possibility Iraq had sought uranium during a 1999 trade meeting with Niger’s former Prime Minister.


Contrary to later statements by White House officials, Wilson does not claim that Cheney sent him on the Niger trip, only that he was sent to answer questions from Cheney’s “office.” He also doesn’t claim that Cheney was told of his findings, only that it would be “standard operating procedure” for the CIA to brief Cheney’s office on the results of his mission. (Wilson, " What I didn’t find, New York Times July 6, 2003).

How did Mitchell come to her conclusion that Wilson had been "dispatched by the vice president"? What does her "every bit of reporting" include? Apparently a fanciful leap of logic. I think she owes viewers an explanation and a retraction.

Note to Andrea Mitchell: Facts still are facts Andrea; how about checking yours before you make on-air statements instead of being a shill?

There's an excellent diary at Daily Kos that goes into the matter in more depth, and since I'm not one to reinvent wheels, I'll send you there so you can read VirginaDem's diary.

Every few centuries a handful of people make a change in our lives, our ways of thinking, our world. Some are driven from birth to grab the world by the shoulders and shake it into change. Some decide to use their voice and argue the world into change. On December 1st, 1955, one tired woman simply sat down on a city bus and our world changed forever. Today, Rosa Parks left this earth, and I know that in Heaven she is gathered among the angels and the saints who left this planet a better place than they found it when they first arrived.

I was born a little over a year after Ms. Parks sat down on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, but I can remember, even as a young child (maybe three or four years old), how my grandmother told me a the story of the woman who wouldn't give up her seat to a white man and go to the back of the bus as was expected of her in that day and time. I forget exactly under what circumstances my grandmother has decided to tell me the story, but I do remember her sitting me on her lap to tell me about Ms. Parks. I remember she said that she though the woman was an angel sent to earth to teach us all a lesson about love and what was right.

Rosa Parks, we will miss you here, but we are eternally grateful for your courage that turned a simple act of defiance (even though you only wanted to get home!) into a lesson for us all.

I'm doing the happy dance!

Because I won an argument with my cable and internet provided about a payment made via bounced check to my account. Some slight problems though: I don't use checks to pay my bills, the amount didn't match what my bill monthly payment is, my bank showed no record of a transaction that matched what "Company X" said was mine, I didn't have a check by that number anyway, and at the time the payment was made (in a very odd amount I might add) I had just paid my monthly fee and had a balance of $0.00.

It took over a week to straighten in out, and I did my little bit of hell-raising, and eventually they had to admit I was right. Even after one of the customer service androids said "We can't make a mistake like this, the computer won't let us."

Hah! I'm back, and I have a nice fat credit to my account too.

And that is why there have been no entries. I will make up for it though because there has been a wee bit going on in the world.

Let's have a sing along!

This is what I do when I'm bored. Even though the indictments aren't out yet, it's wishful thinking by a lot of us! Enjoy, and let me know if you want a song mangled to current events. Snarkmusik is always free! Cross posted at Daily Kos.

Holly Jolly Fitzmas
Rogneid (c) 2005

Have a holly, jolly Fitzmas;
It's the best time of the year
I don't know if Bush will go,
but Libby 'n Rove are toast.
Have a holly, jolly Fitzmas;
And when you walk down the street
Wave bye-bye to Scooter and Turd
and pray Darth Cheney's next.

Oh, how the crooks must go
all hung out to dry;
Somebody's perpwalking
It's just so great to see.
Have a holly jolly Fitzmas,
Just one thing left to do:
impeach Dick 'n Dubya too
and have a jolly Fitzmas day!

With sincere apologies to Johnny Marks, whose musical skills far surpass mine!
Holly Jolly Christmas, Johnny Marks (c) 1962
But feel free to pass mine around as long as yougive me credit...I'm soooo needy ;-)

"The rats are jumping ship"

That's the title of the email I recieved from a friend of mine who forwarded me this. You know when lawyers jump ship there's something wrong somewhere!

Career Lawyers Leaving Justice Department
by Ari Shapiro

Civil Rights Division Letters Critics say these two letters are evidence of the division's changing culture. A Justice spokesman says there is no fundamental difference between the two.

Vista, Calif., Letter (2003) (Requires Adobe Acrobat)

Franklin, Ohio, Letter (2005) (Requires Adobe Acrobat)

Morning Edition, October 6, 2005 · Tension has been growing between career lawyers and political appointees in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, according to some longtime career attorneys who have recently left the division. Now the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings for a new leader of the politically sensitive group.

Some career professionals who have left the Civil Rights Division say they left because they were shut out of the decision making process in a way that did not occur under previous administrations.

Darn. I missed Morning Edition today because I had a job interview. The letters are interesting and definitely are not just variations on a theme, but you can judge for yourself.

Now, George, There You Go Again!

Have you ever noticed that when things aren't going well for Bush he gives a speach reminding us about the terrorists who hate us because we are free?

He did it again today, and I'm going to go out on a limb today to predict that within six weeks, he will find a way to up the Terror Alert. Will there be a real threat? Doesn't matter - the neocons have turned the terror alerts into a joke and no one will believe them anyway. Just look at the history of the alerts vs. Bush administration problems. Somwhere on Frankenbot I've got a list I was compiling and as soon and I'll post it as I find it.

The speech today was given before the National Endowment for Democracy, a doublespeak group founded during Reagan's WH. To find out the skinny on the group, click here for the Cato Institute, or if you are in a Googling mood, click yourself silly.

Here are some highlights and some of my heckling of his speech.

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. [I didn't think the definition of a global campaign of freedom was lying to the American public and the UN about WMD and then going to war about it while many of our friends opposed us. I guess they just don't love freedom like we do.]

[snip]

I appreciate Carl Gershman. [Carl Gershman? The same Carl Gershman who was a member of the Socialist Party USA in the 70s? The answer to that is apparently yes.]

[snip]

The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. [It might be prudent to note that the militants who did this were Checnyan rebels; so because the Russian government did NOT support Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Checnyan rebels killed the 180 schoolchildren? What would they have done if Russia had supported it?]

There's more, but it's the usual warmed over rehash of old material. You can read the full text here.

I spy with my little eye....

This is from ABC News:

Oct. 5, 2005 — Both the FBI and CIA are calling it the first case of espionage in the White House in modern history.

Officials tell ABC News the alleged spy worked undetected at the White House for almost three years. Leandro Aragoncillo, 46, was a U.S. Marine most recently assigned to the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I don't know of a case where the vetting broke down before and resulted in a spy being in the White House," said Richard Clarke, a former White House advisor who is now an ABC News consultant.

Federal investigators say Aragoncillo, a naturalized citizen from the Philippines, used his top secret clearance to steal classified intelligence documents from White House computers.

In 2000, Aragoncillo worked on the staff of then-Vice President Al Gore. When interviewed by Philippine television, he remarked how valued Philippine employees were at the White House.

"I think what they like most is our integrity and loyalty," Aragoncillo said.

Aragoncillo admits to spying in while in Cheney's office, and he worked at Al Gore's office when he was VP, but he doesn't whether he spyed there as well.

Huffington Post has good dirt on Miers.

What is it with Texans and corruption? What'd they all do: go to the J.R. Ewing School of Ethics? David Sirota at the Huffington Post reports this:

In case anyone thought Harriet Miers wasn't a corporate-shill-in-White-House-clothing, take a gander at how Miers did her best Ken Lay impression while heading a major Texas corporate law firm. That's right, according to the 5/1/00 newsletter Class Action Reporter, Miers headed Locke, Liddell & Sapp at the time the firm was forced to pay $22 million to settle a suit asserting that "it aided a client in defrauding investors."

The details of the case are both nauseating and highly troubling, considering President Bush is considering putting Miers at the top of America's legal system. Under Miers' leadership, the firm represented the head of a "foreign currency trading company [that] was allegedly a Ponzi scheme." The law-firm admitted that it "knew in March 1998 that $ 8 million in [the company's] losses hadn't been reported to investors" but didn't tell regulators.

Read more here.

Quick! Say "Corrupt Corporate Conservative Cronies" five times real fast!

O'Reilly does bait and switch with David Kline

David Kline's blog is BlogRevolt.com and here's an excerpt about his date with Bill O'Really, er, O'Reilly.

Last night I appeared on the conservative TV talk show The O'Reilly Factor, ostensibly to talk about political blogs and the impact they are having on the American political process.

Or so I was told by the two producers for the show who spent over an hour pre-interviewing me. Unbeknownst to me, however, the show turned out to be a total set-up job in which host Bill O'Reilly and guest Jed Babbin spent the entire time attacking the web site Media Matters for having posted commentary in the past critical of them both.

Kline had been invited on the talk show to supposed to have a chat about the impact of American blogs and how they are affected the American political process. Alas, at the last minute, O'Reilly (can't imagine why) and his producers pulled a bait and switch and railed on against Media Matters. Media Matter doesn't seem to be very fond of Bill, and aren't afraid to show it. Anyway O'Reilly got his knickers in a knot about this, and went off on the blog, despite Kline having absolutely nothing to do with the blog whatsoever.

It's a good read. You should click here.

While you're at it, check out Media Matters to see their reaction to this. Here's a choice cut:

In a segment on the October 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that he promoted as examining "the most vicious political websites in the country," host Bill O'Reilly named Media Matters for America "the worst," falsely claiming that Media Matters "make[s] stuff [up] about me ... [e]very day of my life" and has "no ethics or scruples." He also referred to Media Matters as "assassins" and called those alerting the media of items posted at Media Matters "zombies."

Nothing like a good cat fight to help you wake up in the morning while you are waiting for the coffee to brew!

The Wild, Wild South

First of all, let me go on record as saying I'm for responsible gun ownership. I have family members who are hunters, and I can also understand the need of having a gun for protection as long as a person knows how to use it properly. However, I think Florida has gone a bit bonkers on his. And I think the National Rifle Association went bonkers long ago.

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- Clark Ramm sees shades of the Wild West in Florida's new law giving greater legal protections to people who shoot or use other deadly force when threatened or attacked.

"It seems like everybody ought to be packing a piece," said Ramm, a visitor from Ukiah, California. "I don't know if that's the right thing to do."

Ramm and other tourists found out about the law Monday from a gun control group handing out leaflets at Miami International Airport.

The leaflets begin with the words "An Important Notice to Florida Visitors" in bold red type by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Do not argue unnecessarily with local people," it says. "If someone appears to be angry with you, maintain to the best of your ability a positive attitude, and do not shout or make threatening gestures."

Florida's "stand your ground" law, which took effect Saturday, removes a duty on the part of citizens to retreat in the face of an attack as long as they are in a place they have a legal right to be, including a public street or their place of business.

It also gives immunity from criminal or civil charges to a shooter as long as the person shot is not a police officer.
The rest of the article is here.

The NRA thinks the measure will make Florida a safer place. I lived for about 40 years in Florida, and it's not guns that will make it a safer place, it's people not acting like jerks while they are armed! Unfortunately legislating the jerk factor is hard to do.

I'm not aware of any city, state, or nation with a law like this. Florida used to have a slogan in the 70's: "The Rules Are Different Here." It looks like they still are.

Let me give you a theoretical situation to describe the problem I have with the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Stan has a restaurant in Coconut Grove and late one Saturday night the police are called to the restaurant because he says he was being robbed and shot the intruder. Under the law, Stan isn't in danger of being charged with murder if the alleged robber dies. But what if he wasn't being robbed and mistook the actions of a foreigner who was just trying to break and fifty dollar bill. It's Stan's word against the dead guys. And the dead guy isn't going contribute much to the conversation. What was a request for change turned into a murder of an innocent man. But if Stan says he was threatened, it's OK.

This is just a bad law. Florida's governor: Jeb Bush, presidential brother.

Brother in Idaho Prison Needs Assistance

I have a brother in the Idaho prison in Boise. He has numerous health problems, including bipolar disorder, type 1 diabetes and dystonia.

He is only getting 4 of his 11 physician prescribed medications, which is adversely affecting his health. A few days ago he suffered an insulin reaction. His blood sugar went down into the 30's. It could have been avoided if the guards had not taken the food he is allowed to keep in his room to prevent such reactions.

If anyone knows of an prisoner advocacy group there, please let me know. I've not had much luck online, and Idaho is a bit backward when it comes to dealing with mentally ill prisoners.

Actually, they are backward with dealing with the mentally ill period. When my mother was severely depressed and in the midst of a disassociative attack, the police were called because my mother was turning violent. Did they take her to a mental health facility or hospital? No, they arrested her. Yes, arrested her. It's Idaho's way of dealing with the mentally ill when the police are called to help. When she finally came out of the dissassociate fugue, she found herself in chains before a judge. She should have been in a hospital, not in jail. That gives you an idea of what the Idaho criminal justice system is like when dealing with the mentally ill.

I don't know if the ACLU deals with this type of problem my brother is having, but I'm sure John probably isn't the only prisoner having these problems. I've emailed the ACLU and I'm awaiting a response. Because has no access to computers, so I'm doing the virtual legwork for him. If anyone can help, please let me know and feel free to pass on my email (bovina_sancta@yahoo.com) to anyone you think might be able to help John.

At this point I am concerned for his life. If he had not been found the other night, he could have died from the insulin reaction.

Gee, Wally, Did Tom Delay Really Launder Money?

Gosh Beav, I'm not sure; let's get on the internet and check it out.

Sorry, I couldn't resist that. Why I thought of the Wally and Beaver is beyond me. It's not something I normally do.

Let's answer the question though. This is the definition of money laundering according to Wikipedia:

If a person is making thousands of dollars in small change a week from his business (not unusual for a store owner), and he wishes to deposit that money in a bank, he cannot do so without possibly drawing suspicion. In the United States, for example, cash transactions and deposits of more than $10,000 are required to be reported as "significant cash transactions" to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), along with any other suspicious financial activity as "suspicious activity reports". In other jurisdictions suspicion based requirements are placed on financial services employees and firms to report suspicious activity to the authorities. [snip]

One method of keeping this small change private would be for an individual to give his money to an intermediary who is already legitimately taking in large amounts of cash. The intermediary would then deposit that money into his account, take a premium, and write a check to the individual. Thus, the individual draws no attention to himself, and can deposit his check into a bank account without drawing suspicion.

Another method involves establishing a business whose cash inflow cannot be monitored, and funneling the small change into this business and paying taxes on it. All bank employees however are trained to be constantly on the lookout for any transactions which appear to be an attempt to get around the currency reporting requirements.

By the strictest definition of the term, anyone who assists in concealing the proceeds from his transactions is considered a money launderer. An individual therefore may be unwittingly employed by money launderers, and may still be criminally liable in many jurisdictions.

So in a nutshell, Wally and Beav;

1) Somebody gives money to a person or group, but they don't want to attract suspicion that the money may have been from an illegal source or a legal sources, but is intended to be used for illegal purposes.

2) The person who received the money takes a percentage (maybe not, maybe they're doing this as a favor and not taking any payment) and then deposits the money into another account.

3) Then, the money is returned to the original person, or to other people, having been "laundered".

And boys, it's not just for laundering drug money anymore. It's been used for tax evasion and other purposes as well.

Let's get serious now.

How do the charges against DeLay stack up against the Wikipedia definition of money laundering? This is from the Democratic Party site, and deals specifically with TRMPAC and DeLay.

TRMPAC Indicted. "A grand jury has indicted a political action committee formed by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and a Texas business group in connection with 2002 legislative campaign contributions. The five felony indictments against the two groups were made public Thursday... The charge against Texans for a Republican Majority alleged the committee illegally accepted a political contribution of $100,000 from the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care." [AP, 9/8/05]

DELAY CLOSELY INVOLVED IN TRMPAC FROM THE BEGINNING

DeLay Closely Involved With TRMPAC. DeLay was a founder of TRMPAC, serves on its advisory board and has helped with its fundraising. . . . Some documents in the civil case suggested he may have been actively involved in gathering corporate donations. [AP Online, 3/17/05]

National GOP Leader Founded Texas Republican PAC. US House GOP Leader Tom DeLay founded the political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) to elect Republicans to the Texas state legislature. DeLay contributed $75,000 from his federal 'leadership' PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority, (ARMPAC). In addition, the executive director of ARMPAC, Jim Ellis, co-founded and served as a paid consultant to TRMPAC. [Dallas Morning News, 3/21/2004; Austin American-Statesman, 4/6/2004]

Subpoenaed Documents Show DeLay Had Direct Involvement With Fundraising Campaign.

* According to the New York Times, "Documents, which were entered into evidence last week in a related civil trial in Austin, the state capital, suggest that Mr. DeLay personally forwarded at least one large corporate check to the committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, and that he was in direct contact with lobbyists for some of the nation's largest companies on the committee's behalf." [New York Times, 3/9/05]

* In one e-mail from August 2002, RoBold tells John Colyandro, the Texas committee's executive director, to create a "top 10 list of givers" he could ask for a large contribution. . . . "I would then decide from response who Tom DeLay others should call. If this is more successful, I will do more of them," the e-mail said. . . . In a September 2002 e-mail between RoBold and Drew Maloney, a Washington lobbyist and former legislative director for DeLay in the House, Maloney said he had two checks from Reliant Energy. "Will deliver to T.D. next week probably," the e-mail said. [AP Online, 3/10/05]

* An e-mail exchange from the computer files of a member of the committee's advisory board notes that a ''finance committee'' conference call in October 2002 was postponed at Mr. DeLay's request ''because of action on Iraq.'' . . . Other documents show how often Mr. DeLay's name was cited by the committee's fund-raisers when they were seeking donations. An e-mail message sent by Mr. Colyandro on Sept. 20, 2002, asked that a telephone call be made to a prominent Texas lawyer for his help at a fund-raising event the following week. ''He needs a push,'' Mr. Colyandro wrote. ''Please tell him how important he is and how important this is to T.D.'' [New York Times, 3/10/05]

TRMPAC LAUNDERED CORPORATE DONATIONS THROUGH THE RNC

TRMPAC Laundered $190,000 of Corporate Money Through the RNC. TRMPAC contributed $190,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee on September 20, 2002 that included corporate money. Within two weeks, the RNSEC contributed the same amount back to TRMPAC targeted candidates. [CQ Weekly, 3/20/2004; San Antonio Express-News, 3/15/2004; Austin American-Statesman, 2/26/2004; FEC, www.fec.gov, 4/8/2004; Texas Ethics Commission, www.ethics.state.tx.us, 4/8/2004]

* TRMPAC Collected $190,000 In Corporate Contributions. Recently indicted documents conclude six "corporate donations totaling $190,000 were made to TRMPAC." [Washington Post, 3/4/05]

* TRMPAC Director Donated $190,000 To Republican National Committee. According to The Washington Post, TRMPAC Director, John Colyandro sent $190,000 in one lump sum to the RNCs Republican National State Elections Committee. Jim Ellis, the director of DeLay's national PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority, "delivered the check to the RNC and gave the committee a list of names and the check amounts, totaling $190,000, to be mailed back to the Texas legislative candidates in noncorporate money." [Washington Post, 3/4/05]

* RNC Donated $190,000 To TRMPAC Supported Texas Candidates. The RNC's State Election Committee then transferred $190,000 to seven TRMPAC supported Texas House candidates. "Three weeks later, the committee sent checks in the equivalent amount that had been raised from individual donors to seven Republican statehouse candidates supported by TRMPAC. Texas law prohibits the use of corporate funds in election campaigns." [Washington Post, 3/4/05]

So let's try to answer the boys' question with what we have here.

1) Somebody gives money to a person or group, but they don't want to attract suspicion that the money may have been from an illegal source or from an legal source but will be used for illegal purposes. Did DeLay do this?

* According to the New York Times, "Documents, which were entered into evidence last week in a related civil trial in Austin, the state capital, suggest that Mr. DeLay personally forwarded at least one large corporate check to the committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, and that he was in direct contact with lobbyists for some of the nation's largest companies on the committee's behalf." [New York Times, 3/9/05]

* TRMPAC Director Donated $190,000 To Republican National Committee. According to The Washington Post, TRMPAC Director, John Colyandro sent $190,000 in one lump sum to the RNCs Republican National State Elections Committee. Jim Ellis, the director of DeLay's national PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority, "delivered the check to the RNC and gave the committee a list of names and the check amounts, totaling $190,000, to be mailed back to the Texas legislative candidates in noncorporate money." [Washington Post, 3/4/05]

* In one e-mail from August 2002, RoBold tells John Colyandro, the Texas committee's executive director, to create a "top 10 list of givers" he could ask for a large contribution. . . . "I would then decide from response who Tom DeLay others should call. If this is more successful, I will do more of them," the e-mail said. . . . In a September 2002 e-mail between RoBold and Drew Maloney, a Washington lobbyist and former legislative director for DeLay in the House, Maloney said he had two checks from Reliant Energy. "Will deliver to T.D. next week probably," the e-mail said. [AP Online, 3/10/05]

The answer? It certainly looks like DeLay had an active role in this.

2) The person who received the money takes a percentage (maybe not, maybe they're doing this as a favor and not taking any payment) and then deposits the money into his account. Did someone take DeLay's money and deposit it into another account?

* TRMPAC Director Donated $190,000 To Republican National Committee. According to The Washington Post, TRMPAC Director, John Colyandro sent $190,000 in one lump sum to the RNCs Republican National State Elections Committee. Jim Ellis, the director of DeLay's national PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority, "delivered the check to the RNC and gave the committee a list of names and the check amounts, totaling $190,000, to be mailed back to the Texas legislative candidates in noncorporate money." [Washington Post, 3/4/05]

I'd say the answer to this question is obviously yes. Not only was the money from TRMPAC send $190,000 to the RNC, but they also gave a list of names and check amounts that were to be mailed back to specific candidates.

3) Then, the money is returned to an intended recipient, having been "laundered". Was this done?

* RNC Donated $190,000 To TRMPAC Supported Texas Candidates. The RNC's State Election Committee then transferred $190,000 to seven TRMPAC supported Texas House candidates. "Three weeks later, the committee sent checks in the equivalent amount that had been raised from individual donors to seven Republican statehouse candidates supported by TRMPAC. Texas law prohibits the use of corporate funds in election campaigns." [Washington Post, 3/4/05]

Again the answer is yes. Because Texas law prohibits the use of corporate funds in election campaigns, by taking the corporate donations deposited into TRMPAC, sending the to the RNC State Election Committee, then the RNCSEC send the money back to the TRMPAC chosen candidates, it made it appear that the money did not come from a corporate source, but directly from RNCSEC.

So you see, Wally and Beav, there is evidence of money laundering. I guess we have to wait for the trial to see if the judge and jury agree.

GO RONNIE EARLE!

Katrina and Louisiana Politics

Katrina has effected state and local governments and the repercussions could last for decades. New Orleans may lay off as much as 40% of it’s workforce just to balance their budget. St. Bernard Parish has already laid of 120 municipal employees and is asking for federal assistance so that they can make payroll for the remaining employees. The parish is estimating that 80% of the homes will have to be demolished due to hurricane damage. The entire business community was wiped out, as was the Parish’s tax base.

And then there is this – it sounds like Ebenezer Scrooge has been appointed head of FEMA.

Mike McCormick, a spokesman for FEMA, said that the federal government had historically paid only the "extraordinary costs" of local governments and that the agency could not change this policy unilaterally.

With conservatives in Congress already complaining about spending levels, it was not clear how the request would be received.

Responding to widespread criticism, the White House on Monday rescinded the $250,000 limit it had placed on federal government credit cards for use in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

In instructions issued to government agencies, the Office of Management and Budget restored the usual $2,500 limit for so-called micropurchases.

The limit can be raised to $15,000 under some circumstances. An emergency appropriations bill passed early last month had increased the ceiling to $250,000 for Hurricane Katrina recovery needs.

The NYT has more here.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY EFECTS

If evacuees from the Ninth Ward in New Orleans - a reliable bloc of 30,000 black voters that is traditionally easy to mobilize - choose suburban or rural areas over their urban roots in coming years, it could be a political blow to Democrats, said Roy Fletcher, a political consultant from Shreveport who helped elect former Gov. Mike Foster, a Republican.

"It would give a whole lot of a stronger foothold to Republicans in the Legislature and statewide," Mr. Fletcher said. "Louisiana has always been a swing state, a purple state that's both blue and red. You take the Ninth Ward out of that equation and you get a real shot of Republicans winning statewide office."

Barry Erwin, president of a Council for a Better Louisiana, a nonpartisan nonprofit group that monitors the activities of state government, said such a change could forever alter the political landscape.

"These things are symbolic of a divide that we've always had," he said. "There's an us versus them thing. In New Orleans, it's like us, and then there's the rest of the state. Around the rest of the state, it's like us, and then there's New Orleans. This could change all of that."

Read more here:

I'd say now is the time for the Democratic Party to work on a strategy to solidify and build a Democratic majority in Louisiana considering the poor response of the Republican administration and appointees. Any suggestions on how to do this and deal with the basic needs of over 1,000,000 people whose lives have been disrupted at the same time?

Harriet Miers?

Bush made this announcement on October 3rd:

This morning, I'm proud to announce that I am nominating Harriet Ellan Miers to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. For the past five years, Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government, including one of the most important legal positions in the country, White House Counsel. She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice. She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Harriet was born and raised in Dallas, Texas. She attended public schools. When illness struck her family during her freshman year in college, Harriet went to work to help pay for her own education. She went on to receive a bachelor's degree in mathematics and a law degree from Southern Methodist University.

Over the course of a distinguished legal career, Harriet has earned the respect and admiration of her fellow attorneys. She has a record of achievement in the law, as well as experience as an elected member of the Dallas City Council. She served at high levels of both state and federal government. Before state and federal courts, she has tried cases, and argued appeals that covered a broad range of matters. She's been a leader in the American Bar Association, and has been recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the most powerful attorneys in America.

Why is it all his nomination speaches sound like encyclopia entries? And does being Bush's friend and White House council qualify her to be a Supreme Court Justice? To be fair not all Justices have been judges; 10 of the 34 Justices since 1933 came from within the administration, with no judicial experience, namely Lewis Powell, Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, Tom Clark, Hugo Black, William Douglas and Felix Frankfurter, and of course William Rhenquist.

Miers' expertise is in corporate law, not constitutional. That's not to say she wouldn't be a good Justice. She was head of the Texas Lottery Commission and is credited with ferreting out corruption within the agency. She's donated to both Republican and Democrats, which really irks the Conservatives.

I'm amused that some Conservatives feeled betrayed by Bush on this nomination: William Kristol (Weekly Standard) feels disappointed, depressed, demoralized. Jeez, is her nomination that bad?

She's a FOG (Friend of George), his White House Counsel, from Texas, and by people who have actually interacted with her on a professional level, she is indeed a legal pit bull. On the other hand she thinks Bush is extremely intelligent...

I can hardly wait for the confirmation hearings to begin. Following Roberts is not going to be easy. It's like having an opening act that ended up following the main attraction: she's going to be compared to Roberts, and probably found to be lacking. She's going to be getting some heavy duty questioning from both sides and it will be interesting to see how well she holds up.

Minutemen a threat wrapped in "patriotism"

Some things are just wrong. Yes, we have illegal immigrants crossing our borders, but the Minutemen are nothing more than a fanatical fringe racist organization wrapped in a mantle of faux patriotism. What will it take for people to take notice that this group is potentially dangerous. Read the article from the Boston Globe, and judge for yourself.

Volunteers beginning watch near Canada line
Minutemen see threat in north

By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | October 4, 2005

The Minutemen have come to New England.

The civilian group, which previously focused its efforts on patrolling the Mexican border, is turning its attention to the US-Canada line. The group is seeking volunteers in eight northern states in an attempt to prevent people from entering the United States illegally and began watching border crossings in some of those states, including Vermont, over the weekend.

''The north is still a threat to national security," said Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. ''There are 1,000 border patrol agents to cover a 4,000-mile northern border. It's an outrage. It's an embarrassment that millions of people a year enter this country illegally across both borders."

The organizers are seeking volunteers to watch the 789-mile Canadian border along New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, in addition to the other northern states. The effort is part of a monthlong, nationwide campaign to keep a closer eye on the nation's entry points and to draw attention to what Simcox's group says are the inadequate resources given to border control in this country.

The effort has started more quietly in New England than in states on the southern border, where Simcox said about 500 people volunteered this month.

''It's developing slowly, but it's developing," Simcox said.

But local officials question the necessity of the volunteer force.

''I don't see much need for that," said Doug Hazlett, town manager in Houlton, a border town in northern Maine. ''It's not like we have a porous border like the Mexican border is. People don't come across to work illegally or anything like that. I'm surprised to hear about it. I'm not sure I fully understand what their mission would be."

So far, the patrol in this region has consisted of one group of a dozen or so volunteers watching the border in Vermont over the weekend. They did not spot anyone trying to cross the border illegally, Simcox said. The patrols in New England are currently a weekends-only proposition, though Simcox said he hopes to recruit volunteers and expand them.

Immigrant-rights groups decried the effort yesterday, accusing the Minutemen of importing intolerance to the region. ''You never hear complaints about the US-Canada border up here," said Judy Elliott of the New Hampshire Immigrants' Rights Task Force. ''So I don't think it comes from New Hampshire people at all. It comes from folks from outside who are trying to bring a malicious message into this state."

The Department of Homeland Security has beefed up security along the US-Canadian border since 2003, tripling the number of agents there. Hazlett said that in addition to the officers, helicopters and aircraft survey the area regularly.

''The degree of sophistication on the border between us and Canada is very, very high now, after 9/11," he said. ''If you ask agents whether they feel any degree of porousness, you would get the answer back that it was minimal."

Customs and Border Protection officers arrested 7,340 people along the northern border in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to preliminary figures. About 2,100 of those people were arrested in the border regions of New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont. But there is no way to tell how many of those arrests were of people trying to enter illegally and how many were for other immigration violations, said Customs and Border Protection spokesman Mario Villarreal.

The arrest numbers are dwarfed by those in the South: During the same year, about 1.2 million people were arrested by border patrol officers along the 2,000-mile southern border.

Villarreal said the Minutemen are taking on a job they are not trained to do.

''The front-line border patrol agents are committed to protecting our nation's borders," he said. ''They have the training, they have the equipment, and they are empowered to enforce the immigration laws of this country. We highly discourage private citizens from taking matters into their own hands."

But Simcox said that border patrol agents are overwhelmed because they are given scant resources and that illegal immigrants continue to pour into this country as a result.

The Minuteman volunteers park themselves in lawn chairs on this side of the border, with binoculars and cellphones, ready to report illegal entrants. They watch for people who are crossing over fields, through woods, and along unmanned roadways.
''We feel we can do most good by being a pair of extra eyes," Simcox said. ''Our goal is to force the government to do its job. Until they do it in a way that meets our satisfaction, we will help do it ourselves. That's the American way."

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

And now, my two cents:

''The north is still a threat to national security," said Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. ''There are 1,000 border patrol agents to cover a 4,000-mile northern border. It's an outrage. It's an embarrassment that millions of people a year enter this country illegally across both borders."

There have been illegals come across the Canadian border, but the MCDC should let the government do their job. Their view that the 1,000 border patrol agents isn't adequate to patrol the 4,000 mile northern border is questionable. They are ignoring the fact that there's a little thing called technology that helps our legitimate agents. That's certainly better than the folding chairs and binoculars the MCDC use. And the "north as a threat to national security" smacks of paranoia, not patriotism.

Immigrant-rights groups decried the effort yesterday, accusing the Minutemen of importing intolerance to the region. ''You never hear complaints about the US-Canada border up here," said Judy Elliott of the New Hampshire Immigrants' Rights Task Force. ''So I don't think it comes from New Hampshire people at all. It comes from folks from outside who are trying to bring a malicious message into this state."

How true. Racism and intolerance are alive and well in the US, even though many Americans seem to pretend it doesn't exist. Groups like the MCDC foment racism. They are a hate group, pure and simple. They are not performing a community service, but instead are a "Big Brother" group.

The Minuteman volunteers park themselves in lawn chairs on this side of the border, with binoculars and cellphones, ready to report illegal entrants. They watch for people who are crossing over fields, through woods, and along unmanned roadways.

How do the determine someone is an illegal entrant? Do they ask for identification? It's not their job. They are private citizens: to do this is just harassment.

Government officials in states where the MCDC is active should take action and ban this group before someone gets killed. And I mean that literally. Some Minutemen are armed, and it may just be a matter of time before this posse decides to shoot first and ask questions later.

Finally to name themselves Minutemen is an insult to the original Minutemen who played an important role in American history, particularly the Revolutionary War.