Saturday, May 26
According to the NYTimes maybe...
You mean after The Surge ™ eventually fails miserably?
WASHINGTON, May 25 — The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.
It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course
Now, I was just beaten severely about the head and shoulders for suggesting that Democrats hadn't completely lost their minds and simply caved in to electoral terror by voting for the string-less Iraq supplemental. (Feeling should be returning to my extremeties any week now...) My point then was that this war simply will not end until Republicans finally start to realize and admit just what a catastrofuck it's become.
I wasn't expecting to say I told you so so quickly, and in fact, I'm not yet prepared to say it now - but this is indeed interesting news.
The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.
The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.
Call me dense, but aren't these "concepts" amazingly similar to what Bush vetoed just a few weeks ago? Even though there's no Timetable or Benchmark for the Iraqi government - it's like, if the surge fails we scale back to focusing on training the iraqi's to fight for themselves, and the mere thousand or so Al Qeada fighters that are actually there.
But perhaps we shouldn't get our hopes up too fast, the deciderer guy hasn't signed on just yet.
Still, there is no indication that Mr. Bush is preparing to call an early end to the current troop increase, and one reason officials are talking about their long-range strategy may be to blunt pressure from members of Congress, including some Republicans, who are pushing for a more rapid troop reduction.
Republicans calling for troop reduction you say? Do tell.
This just all might be a load of hype, naturally. It's not like anybody with any real clout is pressing this issue is it?
Officials say proponents of reducing the troops and scaling back their mission next year appear to include Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. They have been joined by generals at the Pentagon and elsewhere who have long been skeptical that the Iraqi government would use the opportunity created by the troop increase to reach genuine political accommodations.
Ok, that's clout. But just who is very conspicuous by his absense from this list?
What we might be seeing is the beginning of the internal melt-down with Gates, Rice the Generals and the Congress (Democrat and Republicans) in one corner - and Bush and Cheney in the other. I'd heat up some popcorn for that fight.
But this isn't the first time such a plan has been floated as Thinkprogress points out.
FLASHBACK: New York Times, June 24, 2006:
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
So since we've already been down this yellow-pee stained brick road with Toto and the Tin man before - I'm not ready to say this is a "Slam Dunk", but it is promising. Instead of continuing with the Surge, and the Super Secret Double Surge into next year - we just might be looking at some significant troop reductions and reprioritizing of the mission in Iraq to where it should be. Standing the Iraqi troops up on thier feet, so we can get the heck out of dodge.
Crossing all fingers and toes.
Friday, May 25
The late Douglas Adams, in his seminal comedic work, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" wrote these words to help calm the character Arthur Dent as his world was literally ripped asunder and he was thrown into an entirely alien environment with little more than pajamas, slippers, a bathrobe, and an all important towel.
Today following the passage of the New Iraq Supplemental Bill, the one without timelines and with only optional benchmarks I repeat these words to my fellow Democrats and fellow Americans with emphasis.
This is the way it had to be - for now. Because right now - We don't have the votes.
But buck up - this ride only goes until September. Then we reset and ride again, only next time - we'll have more vote than this time. I promise.
Let me begin with a sports metaphor. Although this may be the 4th Quarter of Bush's Presidency, all he got was possesion of the ball. We were at 4th and 20 - so we punted. We had to. Sure, it's his ball now, but that doesn't mean the game is over, it just means that now we go on defense for a little while, and most people in sports know that good defense makes for great offense.
Also - We didn't have the Votes
Let me just say that I for one love the Keith Olbermann, he's been a great cheerleader through the last couple quarters of this game - but somebody needs to remind him, this shit ain't over yet.
I know a lot of us are bitter. Many of us feel betrayed, and are enraged. I get that.
But - Don't Panic!
You see, the one thing we need to end this war we simply don't have yet -- psst, I'll let you know what it is.
(We Need Republican Votes!)
Now is not the time for us to be eating our young new Congress after roasting them on a spit. To paraphrase Patton, we need to make those poor sons-a-bitches eat their no-account dim-bulb decider-er President alive - for their country.
You see, I've long felt and said that neo-conism is a disease much like other compulsive-addictive disorders. Like an alcoholic or other addict, they've got to hit bottom - hard - before they begin to look up and realize it's time to put down the shovel and stop digging. A lot of us on this side of the aisle bottomed-out on Bush's bullshit a long time ago.
Maybe it was after he sat there paralyzed for 7 minutes staring at "My Pet Goat" while the Towers I and II burned.
Maybe it was when he decided to pull resources out of Afghanistan, allowing bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with us.
Maybe it was after the cheesy flight-suit with the cod-piece and the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Maybe it was after Abu Ghraib.
Maybe it was after Katrina and the video of Bush being specifically told about the danger to the levees.
Maybe it was after the number of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq surpassed the number of dead U.S. citizens on 9/11.
Maybe it was after Walter Reed, where we saw just how our wounded we're being supported by this Administration.
Dems are at 88% dispproval for Bush and 93% disapproval for this war, and I'm pretty sure Congress knows that. Our numbers can't go much higher unless Joe Liebermann finally returns from the Cheney Side of the force.
The problem though is that although this war remains at a 23% approval rating overall, it's still remains at 54% approval among Republicans. Let that sink in for a bit, the slim majority of Republicans still support this fracking disaster.
However the trend line is what's important, and it shows that this approval has been gradually going down bit by bit. This past January 60% of Republicans supported Bush's then proposed "Surge". Last May the percentage of Republicans who thought invading Iraq was "right" was 75%.
The President's support for this War, even though he still retains a majority of Republicans - is soft. It's weakening. Next time we address this question, and that won't be very long from now, it'll be even weaker still.
It's only a matter of time before a majority of Republicans are against the war, and that Veto overrides start to look possible. But not now.
Although we might not be at that point by September, we might have enough Republican support by then to make the Benchmarks "Real", and that's progress. Step by step. Inch by Inch - we'll get there.
Just Don't Panic!
I know that we voted in November to end this war, and send a message to the President. Yeah well, we all should know damn well that he's not a reader by now. The ones who need to receive the message are Republicans who continue to support this President. But here's the thing, even we had done has Sen. Edwards suggested and sent the exact same bill with timelines back to the Bush again and again - it doesn't mean that he would have to stop the war.
Y'see - back in 1993 when the Republican Congress tried to shove a bunch of budget-busting tax cuts down the throat of President Clinton he vetoed them. He even vetoed the Defense Appropriations Bill. From Clinton's "My Life" page #690
After breaking for Christmas, I vetoed one more budget bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. This one was tough because the legislation included a miltary pay increase and a larger military housing allowance, both of which I strongly supported. Neverthelesss, I felt I had to do it because the bill also mandated the complete deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003, well before a workable system could be developed or would be needed moreover, such action would violate our commitments under the ABM Treaty and jeopardize Russian's implementation of STARTI and it's ratification of START II. The bill also restricted the President's ability to commit troops in emergencies and interfered too much with important management prerogatives of the Defense Department, including its actions to redress the threat of weapons of mass destruction under the Nunn-Lugar program. No responsible President, Republican or Democrat, could have allowed that defense bill to become law.
At this point the Government had been almost completely shut-down. Nothing on but the emergency lights. But here's the thing, look what Clinton did almost immediately after Vetoing the Defense Bill.
During the last three days of the year our forces deployed to Bosnia....
Somehow, somewhere - thanks to some very creative financing by the Treasury department - he got the money to do what he needed to do. I have little doubt that Bush in a similar situation, would do exactly the same thing.
So Democrats who worked out this deal with Republicans and the President have not capitulated, they have not caved, they have not cut-and-run out on us. They've simply reset the game clock.
As it stands now, time is on our side. Although Gen. Petreaus says they won't know anything definitive about how badly the surge is failing by September - I think we'll have a pretty good idea.
Brit Hume thinks all this September talk is just giving the enemy (whoever that is) a chance to setup a "Tet Offensive" Brit (can I call you Brit?) I think you saying that probably has more to do with them getting that idea than John The "Town-Cryer" Bone-er saying
"By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B."
There is no "Plan B" John. It's just Plan A: Add Softener, Rinse and Repeat. or in other words to simply use our troops as Cannon-Fodder until the Insurgents and the Militias and the Death-Squads get tired of killing them over there, so they don't have to bother coming over here - or something.
The only good plan is for our troops to leave by transitioning the peace-keeping role over to the Iraqis themselves. It's their Civil War - let them fight it out. Iraqi troops should be moving to the front-lines while ours move to the rear. We can still provide air-support for when they have a legitimate al-Qaeda target, we can supply some troops to support that mission, but our primary mission IS DONE.
And if the Saudi's want to get involved and prevent a Sunni Genocide - Let 'em. That's just one fresh new member to the coalition of the willing which has been bleedings constituents for years now.
I actually agree with Hume, and other Conservative who claim that the enemy can "wait us out" or whatever if we give them a specific time-table, but - big but - all we have to do before that point is ensure that whether our troops are there or not Iraq can defend itself. That should be our sole mission in the region, and you know what - chances are once we are finally leave - so will most of the violence.
All we need are the Votes - and there's only one place to get them from.
So don't call your Democratic Representative or your Senator and bitch them out for cutting this deal -- call the Republicans and tell them Every Additional Soldier that Dies between Now and September is ON THEIR HEADS because they failed to support the Veto Override.
Make those S.O.B's do the sweating - our team did good folks, we didn't get a touchdown, but we picked up some yardage - let 'em hit the showers until next round.
Wednesday, May 23
During her opening statement of her congressional testimony Monica Goodling let slip a little nugget that might go unnoticed but shouldn't.
Tim Griffin was allegedly involved in Voter Caging during the 2004 Elections.
During her questioning Rep Linda Sanchez, who was unfamiliar with the term asked - "What is Voter Caging?"
It has to do with direct mailing...
As a matter of fact, it has to do with far, far more than just sending out a few postcards.
Caging is a term of art in the direct mail industry. After a mailing is sent, caging is when information is processed that can be learned from the returns. A caging list is the compiled information that is transferred to the organization that hired the direct mail firm, in order for them to update their mailing lists and databases.
Ok, so what?
Caging has also been used as a form of voter suppression. A political party challenges the validity of a voter's registration; for the voter's ballot to be counted, the voter must prove that their registration is valid.
Voters targeted by caging are often the most vulnerable: those who are unfamiliar with their rights under the law, and those who cannot spare the time, effort, and expense of proving that their registration is valid. Ultimately, caging works by dissuading a voter from casting a ballot, or by ensuring that they cast a provisional ballot, which is less likely to be counted.
With one type of caging, a political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable - because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn't present for delivery, or the voter is homeless - the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent. It is this use of direct mail caging techniques to target voters which probably resulted in the application of the name to the political tactic.
And why does this matter? Because it's a direct violation of the Federal Voting Rights Act.
On the day of the election, when the voter arrives at the poll and requests a ballot, an operative of the party challenges the validity of their registration.
While the challenge process is prescribed by law, the use of broad, partisan challenges is controversial. For example, in the United States Presidential Election of 2004, the Republican Party employed this process to challenge the validity of tens of thousands of voter registrations in contested states like Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Hey don't those particular states sound familiar. What could it be.. hmm what - oh yeah, I know.
Fired U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden - Nevada.
Fired U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic - Wisconsin.
Temporarily included on the Firing List - U.S. Attorney Gregory Miller - Florida.
As noted by Josh Marshall, U.S. Attorney's were fired from seven out of Nine "Battleground States" as identified by Karl Rove's Office, which as it turns out happened to employ Tim Griffin following the 2004 Election.
And by the way - let me repeat - Caging is Illegal.
The Republican Party argued that the challenges were necessary to combat widespread voter fraud. The Democratic Party countered that the challenges were tantamount to voter suppression, and further argued that the Republican Party had targeted voter registrations on the basis of the race of the voter, in violation of federal law.
It's one thing to simply send out mail and request that a voter who have not cast a vote in the last two Presidential elections verify that their registration is still valid. This is one method of helping ensure for example that the old Chicago tactic of having dead people vote, can be avoided. It's another to specifically target Democrats without doing to same thing to Republicans and then subsequently removed them from the rolls so that their votes won't be counted.
Here's more from Greg Palast at Truthout on how this strategy was used against African-American Servicemen serving in Iraq.
Here's how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, "Do not forward", to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as "undeliverable."
The lists of soldiers of "undeliverable" letters were transmitted from state headquarters, in this case Florida, to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters' registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballot being counted.
Over one million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 race were never counted; over half a million absentee ballots were also rejected. The extraordinary rise in the number of rejected ballots was the result of the widespread multi-state voter challenge campaign by the Republican Party. The operation, of which the purge of Black soldiers was a small part, was the first mass challenge to voting America had seen in two decades.
How exactly was Tim Griffin involved in all this?
Well, it seems he only ran the entire operation.
Voting rights attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for prison time for the new US Attorney for Arkansas, Timothy Griffin and investigation of Griffin’s former boss, Karl Rove, chief political advisor to President Bush.
“Timothy Griffin,” said Kennedy,”who is the new US attorney in Arkansas, was actually the mastermind behind the voter fraud efforts by the Bush Administration to disenfranchise over a million voters through ‘caging’ techniques - which are illegal.”
Ok, here's something really interesting in the Palast article - you want to know how Monica (who used to be Tim's assistant at the RNC in 2000) knew about the Caging allegations against Griffin? Griffin sent her quotes from Palast's Book and bragged that "U.S. Media hasn't picked the story up".
Palast first reported on the caging list operation for BBC Television’s premier current affairs show, Newsnight, in 2004. In a February 7, 2007 email obtained by subpoena from Rove’s office, Griffin boasted that, “No [US] national media picked up” the BBC story. Griffin attached an excerpt of Armed Madhouse.
Griffin sent his remarks to Monica Goodling, Senior Counsel to Attorney General Gonzales, who has since resigned and invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer Congressional questions.
Well, she's answering questions now. But one question we don't have to ask her - thanks again to Josh Marshall - is why she's so chummy with Tim Griffin? Well, you see - she used to work for Griffin doing opposition research for the RNC.
Under questioning by my own representative Maxine Waters, Goodling revealed that she did in fact use her "oppo research skills" to help torpedo and/or delay prospective appointees and career DOJ officials who she thought were "too Liberal".
But it was under questioning by Rep. Bobby Scott that the ramifications of this were made crystal clear when she was asked "Did you break the law [when you used a political litmus test within DOJ hiring]"
Goodling: that’s not a conclusion for me to make. But I do know I crossed the line.
Scott: Which Line?
Goodling: I crossed the line of the civil service rules.
Scott: Rules? Laws! You crossed the line on civil service laws, is that right?
Goodling: I didn't mean to... I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime
Yeah, well you did babycakes.
The Justice Department is investigating whether its former White House liaison used political affiliation in deciding who to hire as entry-level prosecutors in U.S. attorneys' offices around the country, The Associated Press has learned.
Doing so is a violation of federal law.
Isn't it beyond galling that someone who worked as an assistant to Alberto Gonzales, a person who was charged with overseeing the hiring of not just the political appointees, but the career employees also - doesn't know the Fracking LAW!.
Just like her comments about Tim Griffin and caging.
Goodling: I don't believe he intended to do anything wrong...
It was illegal as all hell, but gee - it wasn't wrong.
Maybe, just maybe - the fact that Griffin was known to be involved in an effort to violate Federal Voting Laws was why the Attorney General specifically avoided Senate Confirmation for his appointment to Arkansas?
I'm just saying...
Also posted yesterday following the hearings, Chairman John Conyers posted his own summary of Goodling's testimony and found at least five more trouble spots for the Bush Administration. According to Conyers Goodling revealed that:
- Paul McNulty lied to the Senate regarding the role of Sen. Pete Dominici and the firing of David Iglesias. (Perjury)
- Alberto Gonzales attempted to "coach" her as a Witness. (Witness Tampering)
- The White House was intimately involved in the firings and signed off on all of them. (Possible Obstruction of Justice)
- Goodling admited to violating the laws regarding political discrimination in the DOJ.
- Todd Graves was the Ninth Attorney fired.
Conyers also pointed at that so far no one in Justice seems to know exactly who decided to put anyone on the list. Goodling doesn't know. Sampson doesn't know (although he should since he made the list). McNulty doesn't know and Gonzales doesn't know, therefore the process of elimination indicates that someone outside of Justice was directing things, most likely from the White House.
Tuesday, May 22
Robert Greenwald, director of Uncovered, Outfoxed and Iraq For Sale has produced a video which calls for the Impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales based on his false House and Senate Testimony on the phantom firings of possibly as many as dozen U.S. Attorneys.
It's about time...
The video recounts that on 03/12/07 Alberto Gonzales Stated that...
"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
Following that statement Kyle Sampson testified to whether Gonzales had "been involved in any discussions."
"So he (Gonzales) was involved in discussions in contrast to his statement" this month? Specter asked.
"Yes." Sampson replied.
Sen. Charles Schumer then asked about Gonzales also claiming that he saw no documents on this matter.
Sampson replied: "I don't think it's entirely accurate."
Schumer: "There was repeated discussions??
Sampson: "Yes...at least five."
Gonzales later testified to the Senate that...
I made the decision
Even though he also said...
I don't remember making the decision
As a result of his testimony many Senator, even Republicans, were not amused.
Arlen Specter. (R-PA)
The Pennsylvania Republican said Gonzales' description was "significantly if not totally at variance with the facts."
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Mr. Attorney General, it’s my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. It was handled incompetently, the communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent. It’s generous to say that there was misstatements, that’s a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.
"Putting this behind us" shouldn't be the goal, finding the truth and upholding the law should be. The fact is that there have been multiple Federal crimes which need to be looked at in this firing situation, some of which were laid out Adam Cohen in the New York Times.
There's Lying to Congress.
Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to "impede" it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.
As it turns out, McNulty was lied to about the involvement of the White House - by Karl Rove. This leads us to our next crime, Witness Tampering.
Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.
If these calls from McNulty's chief were made under the direction of either McNulty or Gonzales - both should be deep trouble. And lastly there's Obstruction of Justice.
As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so," including U.S. attorney investigations.
David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney, says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, called him and asked whether he intended to bring indictments in a corruption case against Democrats before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he "felt pressured" by the call. If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.
This also would apply to Gonzales, if he fired any of these Attorney's simply because they did persue legitimate investigation or didn't persue illigitimate ones.
Such as whether or not to implement a bogus investigation to the Washington State Governor's Race.
"Fired U.S. Attorney John McKay said Sunday he believes the Justice Department is covering up the real reason for his ouster. ... ‘I still don’t know if the 2004 governor’s election was the principal reason I was asked to step down,’ McKay said in a speech. ... ‘If it was, I think it is an entirely improper and perhaps illegal reason for my termination," said McKay.’"
Hmm.. ya think?
Here's what NY Governor and Hero State AG Elliot Spitzer thinks.
I think it is a blight upon the Department of Justice that Alberto Gonzales is still the attorney general," said New York state Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D), who was also previously the state’s Attorney General. "We are brought back to the days, the dark days of the Nixon era, where the tentacles of politics reach into the Department of Justice and threaten our core notions of what justice means."
Democrats say they're serious about holding the no-confidence vote, but it's not clear they will be able to make it happen. The Senate has a full plate this week, with the debate over immigration, and wrangling over the Iraq spending bill. In addition, Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., indicated he'd be unlikely to let a simple no-confidence vote proceed.
"In the Senate, nobody gets a clear shot," he said.
Ain't that the truth?
At any rate it remains clear that the Fredo isn't going to resign, and the President isn't going to ask him too - Bush can't afford to let Gonzales go since with him in place the White House can play rope-a-dope with all the Congressional Subpoena's they want.
"In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding Monday, Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) expressed their ‘extreme disappointment’ in the White House’s unwillingness to cooperate in their investigation into the firings of U.S. attorneys and threatened a ‘compulsory process’ if the White House continues to be unresponsive." Conyers and Sanchez note that despite the central role that White House officials appear to play in this scandal, they have yet to turn over a single document or conduct a single interview.
President Bush says a Senate vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be "pure political theater." Bush added, "He has got my confidence. He has done nothing wrong. ... I stand by Al Gonzales, and I would hope that people would...get the job done of passing legislation, as opposed to figuring how to be actors on the political theater stage."
The only real option left, is to Impeachment Gonzales - Which will probably start to become a serious topic once Monica Goodling finally testifies tomorrow and let's us know what Gonzales really knew, and when he knew it about the Attorney Firings.
Even without Goodling there's still the various issues of attempting to strong-Arm his predeccesor into implementing an illegal wire-tap program, The Voter Suppression, the War Crimes and the Torture.
So in the meantime - for those who really don't need the Goodling shoe to drop, or want to have their foot already on the accelerator when it does - you can visit ImpeachGonzales.Org and sign the official petition to have this human boil forcibly removed from the Ass of American Justice system.
I figure a couple million signees just might turn some heads in Congress.
Vyan(Just for the record the petition counter was 36,194 when I first posted this)
Monday, May 21
Former vice president Al Gore insists that he's "not a candidate," even though his new book The Assault On Reason is attracting headlines for it's "two-fisted" attacks on the Bush Administration.
"I'm not a candidate and this is not a political book, this is not a candidate book," Gore said on Good Morning America Monday. "It's about that there are cracks in the foundation of American democracy that have to be fixed."
ABC's Jake Tapper notes that Gore "doesn't assail any Democrats by name."
"Bush, however, he names," Tapper continues. "Over and over."
Tapper adds, "'President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years,' Gore charges, regarding the warrantless surveillance program. He argues that the president does not need the enhanced domestic surveillance powers he has sought and received, often in secret, but that the competent use of the information already available would have been sufficient. Such as, for instance, the fact that Sept. 11 terrorists Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar were already on a State Department/INS watch list."
The following video is from ABC's Good Morning America
Excerpts from ABC article on Gore's book:
In the book, Gore is accusatory, passionate, and angry. He begins discussing the president by accusing him of sharing President Richard Nixon's unprincipled hunger for power -- and the book proceeds to get less complimentary from there. While Gore stops short of flatly calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, he certainly gives the impression that in his view such a move would be well deserved. He calls the president a lawbreaker, a liar and a man with the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands.