Conyers calls for Special Prosecutor on Bush Crimes

This is just up from The Public Record by Jason Leopold

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers quietly released the final draft of an extensive report he first unveiled in January documenting the Bush administration’s “unreviewable war powers” and the possible crimes committed in implementing those policies.

In order to determine whether Bush officials broke laws, Conyers has recommended that Attorney General Eric Holder appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal inquiry to investigate, among other things, whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” used against alleged terrorist detainees violated international and federal laws against torture.

It's about TIME!

Following the dismal failure of the Leahy Truth Commission simply because Republicans insisted on covering their ears and eyes to the truth we now - finally -
have a congressional call for the Special Prosecutor.

We know now that the claim "extreme interrogation" of subjects such as Abu Zubaidah - produced ZERO usable or accurate intelligence.

We know now that several high ranking Generals lied to Congress about their knowledge of torture taking place at Gitmo.

On the question of whether the was or wasn't actual torture taking place, that has been settled by the International Red Cross.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The finding that the handling of prisoners detained and interrogated at Guantánamo amounted to torture came after a visit by a Red Cross inspection team that spent most of last June in Guantánamo.

BTW the organization which makes the determination under Geneva as to whether torture has occures - happens to be the International Red Cross.

We have always known - or should have - that the UN Convention Against Torture (signed by Ronald Reagan) leaves NO EXCUSES for the use of use of torture. None.

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.M

Excepted from the Conyers Report.

The Bush Administration’s approach to power is, at its core, little more than a restatement of Mr. Nixon’s famous rationalization of presidential misdeeds: “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Under this view, laws that forbid torturing or degrading prisoners cannot constrain the president because, if the president ordered such acts as Commander in Chief, “that means it’s not illegal.” Under this view, it is not the courts that decide the reach of the law – it is the president – and neither the judiciary nor Congress can constrain him. And where statutory law or the Constitution itself appear to impose obstacles to presidential whim, creative counselors can be relied upon to reach whatever result the president desires.

This dismissive approach to our system of checks and balances was exemplified when the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, David Addington, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on June 26, 2008. As much as any individual in the Bush Administration, David Addington is considered the architect of the concept of unchecked and unreviewable presidential powers known as the “unitary executive” (in a New Yorker profile, a former Pentagon attorney, Richard Schiffrin, said that he left one meeting with Mr. Addington with the impression that he “doesn’t believe there should be co-equal branches”). Yet when I questioned Mr. Addington about the unitary executive theory of government during our Judiciary Committee hearing, he responded, “I frankly, don’t know what you mean by unitary theory of government.”

It's understandable that some in congress, and even President Obama may be reluctant to repeat the Clinton Snipe Hunts of the 90's with something that appears to be a nothing more than "criminalizing policy differences" - but this is far more than just a differences, it really genuinely IS a War Crime and should be handled as such.

Hopefully this will only be the start of the heat turning up on this issue.

Vyan

Update: 6:36 pm: For those who are skeptical of Conyers ability to accomplish this - please remember that HJC has reached a deal to receive sworn depositions from Rove and Harriet Miers in the DOJ Firing Case. The Bolton subpeona is still making it's way through the courts, but it hasn't "gone away" by a long shot.

Click below to sign the Petition on Democrats.com to support a Special Prosecutor for BushCo.

Justifying the Inexcusable

24 - Split Up and Go After The Family


In this scene from Fox's "24" Jack Bauer talks two FBI agents into helping him kidnap and torture an innocent woman and her 10 month-old in order to get information from her Husband, a traitor Secret Service Agent. We're not talking about torturing some killer or terrorist here - they're talking about torturing A BABY!

But the truth, which so many people fail to realize is there are NO EXCUSES for Torture. None. EVER. Regardless of who it is.

Bauer presents a classic false choice - "Follow your conscience or let the 1st Gentleman Die" which is the same as what Senator Cornyn asked Attorney General Eric Holder: "Assume You Have No Option (other than to use Waterboarding)". You always have a choice, and you're always responsible for your actions. In this case they already had phone records and GPS tracking data they could have used to find the President's Husband in time.

There absolutely was a third and even a forth choice - refusing to DO THE RIGHT THING is not a valid reason for doing the wrong thing.

Holder v Leahy


Holder V Cornyn.


The UN Convention Against Torture, Signed by Ronald Reagan says this:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

The is no wiggle room here, there are no valid excuses or justifications available. It's a crime - Period.

During the Randy Rhodes show I just listened to Pat Leahy discuss how we need a "Truth Commission" to at least found out what happened, while John Conyers says - We Need TO PROSECUTE after release a 400 page document on the various abuses of the Bush Administration (that we know about!)

This week, I released "Reining in the Imperial Presidency," a 486-page report detailing the abuses and excesses of the Bush administration and recommending steps to address them. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. popularized the term "imperial presidency" in the 1970s to describe an executive who had assumed more power than the Constitution allows and circumvented the checks and balances fundamental to our three-branch system of government. Until recently, the Nixon administration seemed to represent a singular embodiment of the idea. Unfortunately, it is clear that the threat of the imperial presidency lives on and, indeed, reached new heights under George W. Bush.

As this report documents, there was the administration's contrived drive to a needless war of aggression with Iraq, based on manipulated intelligence and facts that were "fixed around the policy." There was its politicization of the Justice Department; unconscionable and possibly illegal policies on detention, interrogation and extraordinary rendition; warrantless wiretaps of American citizens; the ravaging of our regulatory system and the use of signing statements to override the laws of the land; and the intimidation and silencing of critics and whistle-blowers who dared to tell fellow citizens what was being done in their name. And all of this was hidden behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy and outlandish claims of privilege.

I understand that many feel we should just move on. They worry that addressing these actions by the Bush administration will divert precious energy from the serious challenges facing our nation. I understand the power of that impulse. Indeed, I want to move on as well -- there are so many things that I would rather work on than further review of Bush's presidency. But in my view it would not be responsible to start our journey forward without first knowing exactly where we are.

We can't "Move On" unless we fully understand where we've been and how to make sure we never go back. We can't afford to sweep all of this under a rug, because we know from doing just that after the Nixon Administration - it just sits there and festers!.

Obama doesn't need to address this, Holder doesn't need to address this - we need an Special Counsel to be appointed in order to do a fair and reasonalble analysis of the Bush Administration Crimes. A Top to Bottom Review - there is no other way, and there is no excuse!

If he doesn't fully investigate and prosecute - we'll be right back here in another 30 or 40 years. No More!

Vyan

Surgeon General: Ixnay on the Gup-Tay

John Conyers and Paul Krugman are right. I myself have refrained from jumping up and down over potential Obama nominations (I'm Big Time Pro-Panetta), but Gupta is the wrong guy for what this country needs to fix it's devastated health care system. Yes, the position is largely ceremonial - but it does come with it's own Bully Pulpit and Gupta is the wrong kind of Bully. The pit-bull mean sh*t-for-brains kind.

From Tonights Countdown.


Although Chris Hayes of the Nation argues that "no one wants to expend political capital on this" - this is exactly the place where we really should make the rubber meet the road on healthcare.

The point is, very simply, that in his handling of Moore's movie Gupta displayed himself to be a condescending dickhead - who got his facts tragically wrong, accused Moore of being a liar, and when he was caught could barely bring himself to admit it.

A lot of people don't quite get it, they auto-cheerlead any take-down of Moore, Krugman has had to explain himself and gets right to it.

Update: Many commenters don’t seem to get the point. Gupta didn’t say “Michael Moore is an annoying blowhard”; he didn’t say “We question his interpretation of the evidence”; he said he “fudged the facts”. In other words, he accused Moore of lying. That’s a very strong accusation, which had better be backed by solid evidence. Instead, we had CNN misreading a number from Moore; CNN objecting to Moore using a projected health care spending number for 2007 instead of an actual number for 2005 (and the projection was right, by the way); CNN accusing Moore of not showing a number that was in fact right there in the movie. And Gupta did not apologize, except for the misread number.

I blogged this exchange between Moore vs Gupta, as well as the follow-up which was referreed by CNN's Larry King (Not exactly neutral ground).



Here's the meat of the disagreement as I previous wrote last year

- Gupta's CNN report charged that although Moore complains that America is only ranked 37th in Health Care by the World Health Organization (WHO) - it neglected to point out that Cuba's care which Moore touts is at number 39. Moore points out that this is clearly shown in the film and is even visible in the trailer.

- Gupta's CNN report argues that Moore overestimates the amount spent by America on heath care at 7,000 per person instead of their number which is $6029, and that they underestimate the amount spent by Cuba as being $25 when their number is $229. Moore counters with data from the U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services which states the figures at $7,092 in 2006 and $7,498 in 2007, while the Gupta's data for Cuba is just flat wrong. SiCKO uses a BBC figure of $251, the WHO's figure is $229.

- Gupta's report claimed that Americans live longer than Cuba, Moore points out the the UN says they don't. (77.5 years for the U.S., 77.6 years for Cuba)

- Gupta's report claimed Americans have the highest patient satisfaction rating. Moore points out that this might be because they just don't know what there missing, and that patient satisfaction is just one of the factors included in the WHO report (where we placed 37th) and then again, the people who would have the biggest complaints the 47 Million people who are uninsured aren't being included in those surveys. Ask everyone (including ME and My WIFE who haven't had health insurances since 9-11) and Americas satisfaction rating will plummet I promise you!

- Gupta's report claims that Americans have shorter wait time for elective procedures than Germans, but Moore points out that this claim doesn't cover the average wait times for All Procedures in all six industrialized nations included in the study - of which America ranks next to last at number five, just ahead of Canada. All five of the other countries surveyed (Canada, U.K., Germany, Australia, New Zealand) have nationalized health care except the U.S.

- Gupta's report claims that SiCKO alleges that health care in these other countries is free, when it isn't - it's paid for via taxes and the tax rate in all the countries that rank ahead of us are all higher than ours. Moore counters that he never said it wasn't paid for by taxes. "France is Drowning in Taxes" he says, but also that Americans are going bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills. (And now so is the rest of teh country!) How's that for "drowning?" BTW I've been Bankrupt - it's not fun.

- Gupta's report claims that even after paying all those taxes, people in these countries still aren't satisfied with their care and that 15% still pay for private insurance. Moore counters that this figure is only 11% in the U.K., but that this doesn't replace their access and use of the existing system, it's just a supplement (PDF).

- Gupta claims that SiCKO - "Fudged the facts". Moore (correctly) calls this "Libel"

The key here is the really snotty arrogant attitude the Gupta has when he's shown time and time to be wrong by a mere layman like Moore.

Gupta V Moore on Larry King.


CNN has been Fox-Lite for a long time and this "debate" proves it.

I did a lot of work on this argument, if you really want to read what's going on between the lines in this battle I highly recommend you re-read my previous diary where I broke down each and every one of Moore's and Gupta's claims. Besides being real "facty", it's Snark-o-riffic.

In the process I made a discovery that I think is startling.

Let's get back to that 2003 UN per capita chart - the one Gupta berated Moore for not using - and add to it the percentage of GDP the that top ten nations spend both from private and public sources on health care with France added into the mix just for fun. (PDF Table 6, Page 301)



France just may be "Drowning in Taxes" (as Moore states) but they certainly aren't spending all of that money on their Health care system. The U.S. Pays far more on it's private health care system as an overall percentage of it's GDP than France does on it's Public System. Japan literally spends about half what we do on health care yet Japanese women have the longest average life expectancy in the world. Spin that Sanjay.

The idea that moving more and more our healthcare into a public sphere and out of the private system is going to be "horrifically expensive" is just a load of bunk. It's the private system that is simultaneously bleeding us dry and letting us die. Just like every other nation though, we're always going to have both a public and private system.


There are a lot of things that need to be corrected in our healthcare system, as consumer and customer of it I think the following is the bare-minimum we should accept.

Medicaid and Medicare, our two current "socialized" care systems, shouldn't be limited to this Emergency Only/Triage type of care where people are in the worst shape possible. We should allow anyone, anywhere, anytime to see any doctor as a walk-in for preventative care. If we did people would be far less likely to end up in an Emergency Room with conditions that have become chronic in the first place. In the long run, this would lower costs rather than raise them.

The second step would be to outlaw insurance companies from denying care without consulting a licensed on-staff physician, and to ban care-denial incentive pay. People shouldn't get bonuses for blocking someones access to treatment.

The third step would be to ban the exclusion of care for pre-existing conditions. (This is included in Barack's Plan) Free Marketeers like to present this view that people can simply "shop around" for the best price and quality of health care if they aren't happy with what they have - but that simply isn't true. If you have an ongoing chronic condition, most 80/20 plans won't accept you - so that choice is foreclosed to them. If people really could leave a lousy health care provider, the loss in revenue just might give them some incentive to improve. Right now that isn't the case - as it stands they have no motivation other than maximizing their profits on the backs of the American public and corporations.

Although I've seen reports where Gupta seems to have begun to accept a far more Moore-like position - getting repeatedly punked on national Tv can sometimes do that - what he hasn't shown is the temperment and understanding of the issues that millions of real Americans face day to day to become the nation's top Doctor.

Not even close.

Meanwhile, isn't Dr. Howard Dean looking for a new gig?

Vyan

Torture Hearings : Conyers vs Yoo and Addington

This Youtube clip shows the questions asked off John Yoo and David Addington by Rep John Conyers - and it's not pretty.

Questions asked:

Can the President order that a suspects child be tortured?

Is there anything that the President could not order to be done to a suspect, if he believed it neccesary for national defense?

Can the President order that someone be buried alive?

Was there a Principles meeting to approve interrogations techniques?

Do you believe that the Unitary Executive Theory allows the President to violate the law?

Questions answered:

None.

These guys know they have to dance and dance hard to avoid what might be serious culpability for advising the violation of hundreds of federal laws.

As I've written about previous, it appears based on the reporting of the LA Times that various and sundry Yoo Memo's of infamy, which along with Jay Bybee's memos it was stated that torture isn't "torture" until someone is about die were written after such practices had already been implimented and performed on persons such as Abu Zubaydah.

... Yoo's account of how and why the torture memos were crafted may not hold up. Congress is preparing hearings into the subject, and they have invited Yoo to testify. International law scholar Philippe Sands and other writers have punched holes in Yoo's claims about the facts. It increasingly appears that the Bush interrogation program was already being used before Yoo was asked to write an opinion. He may therefore have provided after-the-fact legal cover. That would help explain why Yoo strained to take so many implausible positions in the memos.

And that is largely why his testimony today made essentially no sense. Now it's clear that John Conyers was being more than a little rough with both Yoo and Addington - but to understand why maybe we need to listen to a bit from Law Professor Phillip Sands.

Sands: From these conversations it became clear to me that the Administration has spun a narrative that is false. It claims that the impetous for the new interrogation techniques came from the "bottom up
". That is not true, the abuse was the result of pressures and actions driven from the very highest levels of the administration. The administration claims that it simply followed the law. My investigation indicated that the administration, driven by ideology, consciously sought legal advice to set aside international constrainst on detainee interroragations. The administration relied on a small number of political appointees, lawyers with no real background on military law, with extreme view on executive power and an overriding contempt for international rules, such as the Geneva Conventions. These are rules that the United States has done more than any other country to promote and put in place.

As a result of these actions War Crimes Were Committed I have no doubt that Common Article III of Geneva was violated, as long as various conventions of the 1984 Convention Prohibiting Torture.

What Sands describes is an Ideological Cabal imbedded deep in the White House intent of bending and twisting definitions of the law to allow for the use of torture and the commission of War Crimes, which - if the subject dies - is punishable by the Death Penalty.

So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, "There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths." ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, "These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations."

It's no wonder that they will now then do everything they can to try and GET AWAY WITH IT.

So far at least 24 detainees - are likely far more - have died in custody as a result of mistreatment and abuse - much of that stemming from interrogation techniques that were legally justified and excused by Yoo and Addington.

They are War Criminals.

And tough hard questioning by Conyers is the least they deserve.

Vyan

Disappointed

So now we've reached the final chapter in the Rev. Wright novella and my overall feeling after the entire sad soap opera is disappointment.

Maybe I expected far too much.

I had hoped that some of the truth behind many of Wright's comments would eventually be examined. I wasn't so naive as to think the media would admit that they got it wrong, but that Barack would find some way to improve the quality of our discourse.

Unfortunately, Rev Wright turned out to be his own worst advocate - and Barack was left with no choice but to toss him under the bus, backup and start doing donuts.

It's really Wright's own fault, the blame has to start with him and his Grandstanding. He got start-struck. He went Hollywood. He was drunk with the power of being in the spotlight and drove his own car into the ditch, with Barack's Presidency strapped into the passenger seat.

I clearly understand that Barack had to cut him loose.

I just wish he didn't have to. I wish he didn't have to confirm all those smug media pundicators who've spent the last month mostly debating just how high the railway bridge needed to be when Barack finally kicked Rev. Wright from the train.

Those lazy ass-clown hacks don't deserve to be vindicated, and I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised. But, I admit I was surprised when Obama himself bought into the spin.

Obama feels that Rev. Wright dissed him when he said that he was a pastor and Obama was politician. Somehow Wright's rather lengthy discussion before the NAACP on how some things can be different but not deficient, was completely missed.

He wasn't insulting Barack by saying he was a "politician" - he is a politician. That's not a dirty word, it's just descriptive.

The problem wasn't that Wright wouldn't repent and renounce his previous statements, it's that in some cases he simply refused to show any sensitivity to those who may disagree or misunderstand him. When he was asked whether Barack was in the pews when he was smack talking he said...

MODERATOR: You just mentioned that Senator Obama hadn’t heard many of your sermons. Does that mean he’s not much of a churchgoer? Or does he doze off in the pews?

WRIGHT: I just wanted to see — that’s your question. That’s your question. He goes to church about as much as you do. What did your pastor preach on last week? You don’t know? OK.

Oh, OUCH! That wasn't pretty.

He also didn't really take anywhere near the proper care he should have when he finally asked the AIDS question.

MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?

WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz’s book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola," whoever wrote that question? Have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You’ve read it?

(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)

WRIGHT: Oh, are you — is that one of the reporters?

MODERATOR: No questions -

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.

In fact, in fact, in fact, one of the — one of the responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a non- question, because all we had to do was check the sales records. We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.

So any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people, and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe we are capable

So in response to the question he refers to a book by a Harvard researcher, but doesn't really bother to explain that quite a few doctors and scientists have been looking at weather polio and other vaccines first tested in Africa may have caused the HIV virus to jump species from monkey's to humans, and whether agencies such as the CDC have stonewalled and blocked attempts to either verify or refute this hypothesis.

I first came upon this idea ten years ago in the New Yorker Magazine, and based on that and some pretty simple research on wiki - there has been a lot of pushback on this and various agencies and medical journals have refused to even entertain the suggestion.

So Wright isn't really wrong here - he's not saying that it happened, he's saying we're fully capable of it and we are - he saying most of us haven't heard the whole story, and we haven't - but telling someone to "just go read the book" isn't all that convincing. It's not going to bring people over to his side of the argument.

Here's another comment I fully agree with, but I understand can't possibly go down well.

What I said about and what I think about and what — again, until I can’t — until racism and slavery are confessed and asked for forgiveness — have we asked the Japanese to forgive us? We have never as a country, the policymakers — in fact, Clinton almost got in trouble because he almost apologized at Gorialan (ph). We have never apologized as a country.

Britain has apologized to Africans, but this country’s leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I’m not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, "Does this hurt? Do you forgive me for stepping on your foot?" if I’m still stepping on your foot.

Understand that? Capiche?

Holeey Crap!

It's almost frustrating that he's absolutely right, America has Not Apologized for Slavery. When Rep John Conyers was circulating a bill to simply study the idea of Reparations a decade ago it was shot down like Gary Powers over Russian.

But no one who experienced or perpetrated Slavery is still alive? Isn't an apology an admission of guilt? It's not my fault, I wasn't there - I didn't do it, why should I be held accountable and who am I supposed to be accountable too?

It was just plain pathetic.

The point is simply that admitting that it was wrong is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen again. How many people even realize that the 13th Amendment doesn't completely abolish slavery or indentured servitude?

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So all you need to become a slave is for a judge and jury to sanction it. And just guess who happens to be crowded into our jails even though the Stats indicate that they don't commit most of the crimes or do most of the drugs?

'

Yeah.

Funny how it still works out this way, even in this day and age. Even in 2008.

The stuff that Wright was discussing is all, to one degree or another, true but you really can't treat people this way when talking about it. You can't come off like a dick!

Understand that? Capiche?

Oy vey!

My greatest regret is that Barack was forced by Wright's own arrogance and lack of caution in how he was speaking to initiate this split. Wright has discredited himself. He's undermined and undercut his own ideas. Now if you even attempt to discuss this kind of thing in the future you're likely to be branded as a "Rev. Wright Wackadoodle".

I think race relations and even the ability to seriously discuss sensitive subjects such as this may have just taken two giant steps backward.
Our great ambitious nation conversation about Race in America is now over. Done. Finito. Stomped into oblivion at least for the time being. (Which is exactly how the Just Get Over it crowd would like it to be.)

Barack could have fixed this, I believe, but it might very well have cost him his Presidency. It would have taken every ounce of energy his campaign had to rehabilitate this mess. He ultimately had no choice. He had to pick the needs of the nation of the needs of Rev. Wright.

I myself have written something of at least a half dozen diaries defending Rev. Wright's right to speak his mind, and I've taken a ton of heat for some of it. This discussion is now dead.

Another sad thing is that this seems as much personal as political for Barack. Obama felt personally disrespected and hurt. This wasn't easy for him. Watching a 20-year friendship crash and burn isn't pretty.

What Church does he go to now? Can he mend fences with the TUCC Congregation and it's current pastor Rev Moss? Which direction do black people go, with Wright or with Obama? Will this hurt his Black Vote and are they likely to go for Hillary who was talking ridiculous smack about Wright weeks ago?

This is a mess.

And it's ironic that Obama, who has long argued that he had the willingness to reach out to people he disagreed with like Ahmadenejad, and Syria, now can't find himself sitting at the same table as Rev. Wright while Louis Farrakhan as at the far end and extreme AIDS theories are on the plate.

He simply can't go there.

And the truth is he's not the only one. America isn't ready to go there either. Not yet. And there's no telling when it will ever be ready to go there and get it all this racial baggage out on the table, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Oddly enough Barack is now turning his back on one of his own primary arguments, that he can work with just about anyone, may just be the final example of his showing some backbone and fight that a lot of Democrats have needed to see for quite a while. Being willing to diss a prominent Black preacher has shown that Barack isn't a slave to Black Orthodoxy, and just might bring a few reluctant White voters his way.

Make no mistake, my support for Obama for President is still strong I just wish he could get this outraged over torture, domestic spying, 4th branch, crony contracting, lead paint on our toys or mercury in our water instead of over Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

That's disappointing.

Vyan

The Toughness Question

Much of DKos and other sites have gone full-on Obama as the level of rancor has reached a fever pitch. With the strike of pro-Clinton kossacks we really aren't hearing much from the other side of the argument and that just might be something we need to hear, and Obama needs to hear.

There actually are some reasons besides sexism and racism that people have been bitterly clinging to their support of Hillary Clinton, and I think it's simply the toughness question.

Does Barack Obama have what it takes to keep fighting and fighting and fighting...?

It doesn't really matter to Hillary supporters that she has continued to shift goal-posts, gone back on previous pledges, uses her fuzzy-math to claim the lead, has helped feed the fake outrage storm over his so-called elitist anti-american-secret-muslim leanings, and has fed the fires of White Wright-Panic and Affirmative Action resentment.

And there's only one reason why.

None of the under-handed dirty tricks and double-talk matters, because Hillary is showing us all something that we haven't seen from Nancy (Impeachment-is-off-the-table) Pelosi and Harry (We-just-can't-make-the-Republicans-Filibuster-the-War-Budget-Again!) Reid.

One word.

Backbone!

I've been a long-time Bill Clinton supporter and still feel he may have been probably the best President of the 20 Century after FDR. I think he did a massively important thing when he stood up to the Republican Congress to prevent them from gutting our budget with tax cuts, and twice shutdown the government.

They thought he would cave - like a typical Democrat - but he didn't.

Whether we Obama supporters like it or not, during this election Hillary Clinton has proven to be the Freaking Energizer Bunny of Politics.

In a way, seeing this side of any democrat is refreshing.

This carefully constructed image of invulnerability - laughing hysterically whenever she's asked a tough question, rather than grimacing and barking out a be-grudging answer or ducking the issue - is working for her precisely because it feeds into a deep seated need for Democrats to feel that someone is willing to be a full-on pit fighter for them.

We've had too many promises broken.

We've seen too many would be champions of the rule of law, such as John Conyers, eventually prove to be ineffective and deflatable. Henry Waxman and Pat Leahy had promised to dog the crimes of the Bush Administration to the ends of the earth, yet one memo from Fred Fielding claiming executive priviledge and their various investigations have crashed into a solid brick wall.

Not zesty.

We won the Congressional majority, but we still haven't stopped the war - or defunded it, in fact we have more soldiers in harms way today than we did when Pelosi and Reid were sworn in.

But Hillary? She keeps Going and Going and Going...

But she's not going to win. She simply doesn't have the numbers and she keeps bleeding supers.

And even if she does win in some magically way, what exactly are we getting?

Yes, it's clear we need Democrats who are willing to take it to the mat and then some, but the other question that needs to be asked and answered is - how much of our integrity, values and common-sense our we willing to give up in the process?

Winning isn't everything if in the process of winning you have to give up what it is your actually fighting for such as fairness, justice, integrity and truth. Do Democrats have to start operating "on the dark side" (as Dick Cheney has put it), and use any available excuse simply to get what they want?

Isn't that kind of "ends justify the means" thinking that has led the Bush Administration completely off the moral precipice with their ridiculous and endless justifications for Torture, Domestic Spying and Unprovoked War?

Here's another point that both Obamans and Clintonistas need to consider. It may be true that Obama has far less Washington experience than Clinton, but we need to consider what she's done with that experience and wonder just when have we ever seen this endless fighting spirit of Clinton's before?

As posted on Democratic Underground: When has Hillary Clinton really fought for anything except herself?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales?

Where was her "fight" during the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito?

Where was her "fight" when she skipped the Senate debate and confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey?

Where was her "fight" against the Military Commissions Act?

Where was her "fight" during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental?

Where was her "fight" during the vote to extend FISA?

Where was her "fight" during the Walter Reid scandal?

Where was her "fight" during the debate on Telecom Immunity?

Where was her "fight" when she SKIPPED the Senate vote to strip TelCo immunity from the FISA bill?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of George Bush?

Where was her "fight" against the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration?

Where was her "fight" when she campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?

Where was her "fight" when she proposed legislation to ban flag burning?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the renewal USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted AGAINST an amendment to prevent the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment?

For some reason, Hillary Clinton only seems to be "a fighter" when she's fighting to feed her own naked ambition. Is that really what we want in a president?

It may be fair to say that we have seen Hillary the head-strong my-way-or-the highway pugilist at least once before: During her ill-fated Universal Health Care project.

What Hillary supposed learned, what she supposed discovered from that experience was how to accommodate, negotiate and reach across the isle. This is why she can now sit down with Richard Mellon Scaife and not involuntarily flinch from the squick factor.

There's another name for this tendency: Blind Bullheaded Ambition.

That kind of ambition and bullheadedness is likely why she voted for the Iraq War (showing she wasn't the typical squishy democrat on defense), and continues to defend that vote to this vary day.

Toughness is important, but so is Judgment.

On a variety of issues they break even. One might argue that Hillary's heath care plan has advantages over Barack's, and that his support of Nuclear Power is troubling considering the lack of a plan for long-term waste disposal.

But Barack has certainly shown better judgment when it comes to numerous issues - particularly Iraq, ethics reform and tracking down lose nukes - while Clinton has become even more Hawkish than the biggest neo-cons with her proposal for a nuclear umbrella over the middle east.

Clinton has clearly shown that she cares more about saying what people want to hear, than saying what they need to hear. This is a trait she shares with George W. Bush.

It's also clear she would be a far better President than George W. Bush could even dream of, but is that good enough? If we can do better, shouldn't we?

We democrats and the nation should realize that we need more than an unrestrained angry rampaging bull in the china shop of our foreign policy, domestic security and financial well-being.

We need a grown-up.

We need someone who can do more than rattle sabers and exploit fear to make cheap political points, but actually knows how to work with, deal with and find common ground with people whom they might otherwise have deep seated differences with. People like, ironically enough, Reverend Wright. People like William Ayers. Barack has said that he'd be willing to sit down and negotiate with those people that we don't like, such as Ahmadenijad as well as those that we do like - that he can bring disparate people together to meet common goals, rather than simply try to crush them, or "obliterate them".

We can do better, we have to.

Shunning and disavowing people we disagree with is not how you bring people together and solve problems, you have to engage them and challenge them - not simply walk away and expect them to come crawling apologetically to your feet.

Barack needs to make the argument that his wide and varied aquiantences are not a detriment, but an asset. He needs to rise to Clinton and the medias ridiculous arguments, all of them, and beat them back to where they belong - in the garbage. And do it with a smile.

Barack has the judgment, he has the rabid support of the people, but what he also needs to show is that he can go toe-to-toe with one of the toughest democratic politicians and political machines of a generation and not just barely survive it, but learn from it.

He needs to use this experience to Toughen Up, but do so without losing his integrity or his argument that he represents a shift away from the "old-time politix".

This is truly a clash of generations, the tried and true vs the new and dynamic. He needs to make that argument, and he needs his surrogates and supporters to continue to support this meme - it's time to put away the dirty tricks, the fear-mongering, the politics of division of the past and move forward with clean - but well worn and hard-working and fully engaged - hands.

Vyan

Contempt fo Congress for ex-White House Aides creeps Forward another notch.

Moving at the lightening pace of a snail backing-up, the House Judiciary Committee has today, four months after their initial commitee vote of approval, finally issued a report to the full House on Contempt Citations against Joshua Bolten and Harriet Miers for failing to honor Congressional Subpeonas to testify on the DOJ Purge.

WASHINGTON - House Democrats threatened Monday to hold President Bush's key confidants in contempt of Congress unless they comply with subpoenas for information on the Justice Department's purge of federal prosecutors last winter.

Naturally the White House was impressed by this bold move by the Democrats to enforce the - what do you call it, oh yeah - the Rule of Law.

The White House shrugged off the ultimatum, saying the information is off-limits under executive privilege and that the aides in question — White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former presidential counselor Harriet Miers — are immune from prosecution.

"It won't go anywhere," predicted White House press secretary Dana Perino.

Or will it?

The White House is naturally quite confident that Miers, Bolten (and Rove who is also threatened by this contempt action) won't be prosecuted because - well, they have the prosecutors under their thumb don't they?

Assuming the full House votes to confirm the contempt citations - isn't it sickening that we have to "Hope" for this? - the issue would then be referred to District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, who like all of those who were placed in the Justice department in lieu of prosecutors who were either too aggressive with Republicans (Carol Lam) or too lenient on Democrats (David Iglesias) for the White House's taste was placed in his position using a loophole in the Patriot Act which by-passed Senate Confirmation.

With this in mind it should be a surprise that the White House sounds pretty smug.

The White House showed no signs of budging, maintaining that the law does not require a U.S. attorney to prosecute someone carrying out a president's invocation of executive privilege.

"This Congress is proving to be the all time champion of investigations," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "If the Judiciary Committee really wanted facts instead of headlines, they should have accepted the president's offer of accommodation to interview current and former advisers."

Although the DOJ has already Officially stated that it will not enforce the law - contempt of congress against White House officals, one thing that might undermine their confidence is the fact that the Patriot Act Loophole has since been closed, which means that Jeffrey A. Taylor's time as the DC USA is coming to a close.

In fact, by my Calender Taylor's last day should have been Oct 12th (120 Days after the repeal was passed) but so far he's still there which is weird and I think quite possibly illegal. So naturally, I'm not surprised - are you?

Anywho, with or without Gonzalez's handpicked stooge lackey Mr. Taylor we still have the Mukasey problem to contend with. The Waterboarding Wonder is about about as likely to enforce the law against his soon to be bosses former aides as he's likely to find and hang-on to the Constitution with both hands covered in super-glue.

Justice sure does get slippery after a thick coating of GOP elbow grease.

This is just one additional step in a long and drawn out political tango. The only real option left for finding out exactly how and why 9 U.S. Attorney's were summarily fired without any cause that anyone in the DOJ can find will be to implement Inherent Contempt. Once Congress votes to hold Miers, Bolten and Rove in Contempt letters will fly back and forth furiously while the Mukasey DOJ (God, it's hurts just to type that) sits on it's hands and spins over the corpse of their constitutional oaths.

Eventually, Congress will be forced to vote again - this time having absolutely no choice - they will find these three scoff-laws guilty of Inherent Contempt of the Congress and have the House Sargent at Arms arrest and detain them in the House's own jail just as previous occured in 1927.

In McGrain v. Daugherty, a recusant witness (the AG's brother) refused to comply with issued subpoenas. The Senate issued a warrant authorizing its sergeant at arms to take custody of the witness and bring him before the bar of the Senate to answer questions. The deputy sergeant at arms went to Cincinnati, Ohio to pick up the uncooperative witness to place him in custody. The witness objected by filing habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court upheld Congressional legal authority to use its own process to compel persons to appear and testify on issues needed to enable Congress to exercise its Constitutional legislative function.

This action by the House would force Rove, Miers and Bolten to - get this - file a writ of Habeaus Corpus or else be indefinately detained until they either they squawk or produce the documents which explain how - in all likelyhood - our Justice Deptartment was nearly hijacked by the RNC!!

This one case has so far been the only situation where the Democratic Congres has shown any true spine. Besides their stand on SCHIP, holding fast on this issue has managed to succeed in forcing half a dozen DOJ Officials out of office including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, otherwise Dems have repeatedly rolled-over on Funding the Iraq War, Illegal Wiretapping, Sabre-rattling at Iran, Granting Immunity to the Telcoms and now the Mukasey nomination. The one thing we can't afford to do is to let our Representatives once again turn gelatinous before this job gets done.

Any Vichy-Crats in the House who fail to fail to uphold the law and hold the Bush Criminals accountable will be getting a personlized Call-Out Action Diary from yours truly. Count on it.

In the meanwhile Rep. John Conyers deserves your praise and support, he's been fighting the good fight - albiet at sub-glacial speeds while dotting every "T" and crossing every "I" - and we should never forget it.

John.Conyers@mail.house.gov

Conyers Blog
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126
(202) 225-0072 Fax

Vyan

House will seek Contempt Charges against Bolten & Miers

According to reports from the Politico, the House could vote on Contempt of Congress Charges against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers as soon as next week.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) are surveying the House Democratic caucus to determine whether it will support holding White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for ducking subpoenas in the continuing investigation into the firing of nine US attorneys.

According to Bresnahan of Politico, Conyers said the contempt motion could be brought "as early as next week," but that Pelosi had not made a final decision on the vote, saying it would be more likely in two weeks.

Democrats believe they have the votes to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt, Bresnahan says. If a criminal contempt resolution passes, it would light new fires in a White House already struggling to stave off additional controversy. The House Judiciary Committee approved a contempt resolution after both failed to show up for a July hearing, but it was not brought to the House floor for a vote.

Although the Justice Dept under Alberto Gonzales has already indicated that they will not seek to prosecute such charges such they be voted on by the Congress there is still the possibility that Congress may persue the option of Inherent Contempt against Bolten and Miers for their refusal to honor congressional subpeona's in the U.S. Attorney Firing matter.

Charges against Bolten and Miers were originally voted on by Conyer's judiciary committee this past July, but since the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the issue has remained on the back-burner. What remains to be learned from Bolten and Miers is exactly how far into the White House did efforts to use the power of the Justice Dept to support Republican electoral success extend. In the process clear violations of the Hatch Act and the Voting Rights Act may have occured. Contrary to claims that these charges are merely a partisan attack by the Democrats, the seriousness of these claims has been underscored by the DOJ's Inspector General who has been reported to be looking into criminal charges against former AG Alberto Gonzales for lying to Congress about his involvement.

At a speech on Friday, ousted U.S. attorney John McKay revealed that the “U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month.”

Vyan

Quick Truths

- Despite claiming he was at Ground Zero “as often, if not more” than 9/11 rescue workers, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s mayoral archive reveals that from Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001, “he was there for a total of 29 hours.” In that same period, “many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.”

- Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote a letter to Bush asking that he provide all documents and other information sought by the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in order to conduct oversight of the implementation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

- The State Department’s “$5 billion construction efforts abroad have come under increasing strain.” In a cable sent this summer, “U.S. diplomats complained of building delays and shoddy workmanship, underscoring problems with State’s one-size-fits-all approach to building.” The IG is now probing the use of sole-source contracts at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

- The “number of coalition military deaths in the war in Iraq has reached 4,000,” with the majority of the fatalities — 3,702 — suffered by U.S. soldiers. Forty-four U.S. troops have died this month.

- “People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.” It was not known whether changes were made by an official representative of an agency or company, a CIA spokesman said, but it was certain the change was made by someone with access to the organization’s network.

- Today, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe dismissed a report by the Washington Post that claimed Bush aides were resisting the open testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. “General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify to the Congress in both open as well as closed sessions prior to the September 15th report,” he said. “That has always been our intention.” Apparently, that message hasn’t been communicated to Congress:

- This morning, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) “asked the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) to investigate potentially false or misleading testimony given by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during his appearances before various congressional committees.” Leahy highlights several contradictory statements made by the Attorney General on the NSA’s spy program, the use of National Security Letters, and his role in the U.S. attorney purge:

Consistent with your jurisdiction, please do not limit your inquiry to whether or not the Attorney General has committed any criminal violations. Rather, I ask that you look into whether the Attorney General, in the course of his testimony, engaged in any misconduct, engaged in conduct inappropriate for a cabinet officer and the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, or violated any duty — including the duty set out in federal regulations for government officials to avoid any conduct which gives the appearance of a violation of law or of ethical standard, regardless of whether there is an actual violation of law.

Read the full release.

- In a July hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller revealed that he took notes of the infamous White House visit to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room because the events were so “out of the ordinary.” Chairman John Conyers wrote to Mueller after the hearing to request access to his notes. Today, Conyers’ office put out a statement explaining that the Judiciary Committee has taken a look at Mueller’s notes, which were “heavily-redacted.” Yet, even from the amount the Committee was able to read, Conyers reported that it is clear there was a craven effort to take advantage of “a sick and heavily-medicated Ashcroft“

- After the recent resignation of Karl Rove, media outlets speculated on what the rest of President Bush’s term will look like without “the Architect.” The President is “fighting lame duck status,” reported the AP. In response, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow shot back: “As the president has said many times, he’s going to sprint to the tape.”

But even Tony Snow doesn’t want to be around for that sprint. In an interview with the conservative Hugh Hewitt show, Snow signaled that he will not stay until the end of the term. He also mentioned that there are “probably a couple” of other high-level resignations “coming up in the next month or so.”

- Yesterday, the LA Times reported that the September progress report on Iraq “would actually be written by the White House,” instead of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The Washington Post echoed the admission in an article today, describing the report as “the Bush administration’s progress report.” But the WaPo’s editorial page is still pushing the myth that “the September report will represent the sole word of Petraeus,” writing that “The general is expected to elaborate on that progress in a report to Congress.”

One million dollars. That’s how much it cost the Defense Department to ship two 19-cent washers after a South Carolina small supplies shipping company exploited an automated shipping system designed to quickly get supplies to American troops. Charlene Corley, the owner of C&D Distributors LLC, pleaded guilty yesterday to wire fraud and money laundering when she and her late sister Darlene Wooten overcharged the government by over $20 million through a loophole in the automated system. (AP)

O'Reilly uses Dennis Miller to rebuild himself after being Destroyed by Dodd

Here's one of my favorite exchanges from Lethal Weapon I

Murtagh: God hates me, that's what it is.

Riggs: Hate him back, works for me.

It is pretty pathetic when you get your head handed to you on your own show as O'Reilly did when he tried to challenge Chris Dodd, but it's even worse that after you lose you have to try and rehabilitate yourself with a 5th rate hack of a comedian like Dennis Miller as your sole cheerleader.



Miller claims for starters that O'Reilly ratings are "8 Times" that of Kos, while the best sources I can find indicate that the Factor has a viewership of 2.1Million while Kos averages about 650,000 visits per day.

So now that we've dispensed with that particular whopper he continues with...

Not only has he not watched "The Factor", he's never read the Dailykos

Sorry, but not only does Chris Dodd read Dailkos -- Chris Dodd writes on Dailykos. He's a contributor just as John Kerry, John Edwards, John Conyers and many other prominent Democrats are. When you say as Michelle Malkin did that "Kos is a sewer from top to bottom" including all diarists with this broad brush you're also saying that about several of our current Presidential Candidates.

Now, I would agree with the premise that Dodd has indeed been savvy to use O'Reilly to increase his own profile in the Democratic primary - franky there isn't a downside for him to point out O'Reilly's incessant lies. (Not a precise transcript)

Miller: He's looking up (in the polls) at Dennis Kucinich's behind. He just wanted to come on here to smack you around so that it would make him a big man at this Kos thing this weekend.

O'Reilly: I agree with you. But don't you think the audience sees through it and knows the game?

Miller: No, I don't think most of you're audience does.

Which for most of O'Reilly's blue-haired audience is clearly a true statement and of course why Miller has temporarily interrupt their chasing the neighborhood kids off their lawn, by doing this little Kubuki theater and explain it to them..

More of Miller's sparkling wit.

That convention is a loser-fest, I mean there are hooker's who've put an embargo on that convention

Yeah, well maybe that's because Democrats simply can't live up to the shining example of republicans like Senator Vitter.

After his segment with Miller, O'Reilly reads some mail where one of his viewers claims that a search turned up 7 thousand mentions of the "F-Word" on Kos, but none of Free Republic.

Well using the Google I did that search and actually found 650,000 mentions of "Fuck" and "DailKos", the first being "Fuck Off Democrats" (Clearly, this was a very old post since these days diaries with the F-Word in the title using get edited to "F*ck" or something equally clever)

The problem here is that this search produced a lot of non-Kos results, so I refined it to "dailykos.com,fuck" which specifically came from the Kos site and the results dropped to a measly 27,000.

I know I may be skewing these results by writing this post, but y'know what - Fuck it!

How'd I do with Free Republic? Well the first simple search (including outside sites) netted about 119,000. Not as many as Kos, but not exactly "zero."

This one from Ornicus I simply couldn't let slip by.

FUCK YOU YA GODDAMN LEFTIST PUKES AND DON'T EVEN THINK OF FUCKING WITH FREE REPUBLIC MOTHERFUCKERS! WE WILL BEAT YOU DOWN IN THE STREETS NEXT FALL! ...

Tsk. Such a potty-mouth.

When that is narrowed specifically to the freerepublic site only the result - ta da - is 557.

But then again, maybe my presumption here is entirely wrong. The letter said the "F-Word" and y'know that could be something besides "Fuck", it could also be Ann Coulter's favorite word - "Faggot"

Redoing the exact same site specific search for Free Republic turned up 1,740 results.

And Kos?

(Drum roll....

651!"

Interestingly most of the mentions on Kos are discussing Ann Coulter and various uses of the word, and while typical use on Freepervile is similar that isn't always the case as exampled from this one post concerning the rape and assault of a gay man in the castro district by two allegedly black assailants...

I’m getting some serious schadenfreude off watching liberal victim groups collide in San Cramcrisco.

Ha! Exactly! Without the evil white heterosexual male to beat up on who do the liberals & MSM root for in this "minority" vs "minority" spectacle?
9 posted on 07/24/2007 1:26:00 PM PDT by Altura Ct.

And

To: AppyPappy
They kept saying 'faggot' over and over again," whispers the 51-year-old owner of a video store in the Castro district. "It went on for what seemed like forever."

Sounds to me that it was only his feelings that got hurt. Those guys are really sensitive you know......

I remember a spanking I gave one of my girlfriends once. I kept calling her the "B" word for what seemed like forever..........she never got mad.
10 posted on 07/24/2007 1:26:26 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco

So yeah, Kossacks do love to use the F-word, but then again they really aren't the type of people to go all schadenfreude when one white male heterosexual viciously another white male heterosexual, like say when George Allen's security team attacked Mike Stark - but I admit we did enjoy watching how the Mark Foley Follies decimated the Republican Congress.

The point though, isn't whose more vicious, mean and hateful - they are, but that's not the point - it's who has the ear of our politicians, whose being more effective at motiving real people to commit to real change in our politics and country and just how deeply does that scare O'Reilly and his ilk?

The winner is clearly Dailykos as reviews from from YK2 clearly indicate.

And most of this online activism is being dominated by the left. Robert Bluey, a conservative blogger for the Heritage Foundation, notes that there isn't anything comparable on the right. While former Sen. Fred Thompson has assembled a talented Net team for his unofficial presidential run and Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have been fairly innovative online, nothing they are doing comes close.

The prominence of the upcoming event, which features 200 speakers and is expected to draw crowds of more than 1,400, may be a wake-up call for the less Internet-savvy organizations and candidates.

"So this is a lesson to the center and a real lesson to the Republican candidates," Cornfield says. "If you want to win elections in the digital age, you have to have a network; you have to have digital grass roots."

The one point that Dodd made repeatedly and BillO never even touched, is the fact that even if we were as polite as church mice - he would still attack us simply because we represent and growing and present threat to the status quo of media elites and the conservative syncophants like himself.

Dailykos is ushering forward the changing of the guard on our democracy and that's what makes Billo so frightened and he should be frightened.

He hates us for who we are, not what we say - but that's ok, most of us are happy to hate him (and everything he stands for) right back.

Vyan

Why O"Reilly will never understand Dkos or Democracy

In the last few weeks Dailykos has become the latest target of serial propogandist Bill O'Reilly who has repeatedly attacked the site as being "vile" and "filled with hate", but his real target has been the Democratic Presidential front-runners who have dared to appear at this weeks YearlyKos Conference.

By smearing Kos, he smears them en masse.

We all understand this, and today Democratic Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd will make this point loud and clear on O'Reilly's own show.

However, there's another less obvious but actually more important reason the Dkos has become the target of O'Reilly - one which no matter how hard they try, BillO and his fans will never truly understand.

Bill O'Reilly doens't understand the first thing about Dkos.

For one thing, the picture he's gotten so hot and bothered about can't even be posted onto the site. It would have to be hosted by an image site such as flickr or photobucket for bandwidth concerns first, which it isn't.

The date the pic was uploaded that this particular directory was July 30th, so how has it supposed been on the site for "a year?" (I'm not saying it hasn't, just that this version hasn't been and can't be shown on the site now)

Secondly, the picture is clearly an editorial cartoon which is clearly protected under frespeach rules as shown unanimous Flynt v Falwell Supreme Court decision.

Someone of us may not like it or agree with it, but it's clearly protected speech.

Anyway...

It's easy to understand that many among us, front-pagers included, have responded to O'Reilly attack with an impressive counter-attack of our own.

We've hit him for being a hypocrit who talks about the "hate" of Kos while sprewing his own special and piping hot brand of venom on others with whom he disagrees with fairly regular abandon.

We've pointed out at length the details of court documents showing that his own behavior with subordinate co-workers has been the very definition of "vile".

We've even had one Kossack - of his own volition - personally visit O'Reilly at his home and challenge him on these very points.

It's been a lively battle with the Yearlykos site losing the JetBlue Logo (but not their support) while O'Reilly's site has lost the support of both Lowe's and Home Depot and gained the attention of the Secret Service, but the battle itself isn't the point.

Dailykos represents and displays something that O'Reilly and his authoritarian ilk simply can't abide.

On most sites, O'Reilly's included, when someone makes a comment or posts an image that is considered "out of bounds" there is a cadre of moderators - officials - who have the specific job of policing the site, deleting the offending content and if required banning the user.

It's a top down heirarchy.

The site owners and managers dictate and everyone else must obey or suffer the consequences. It's a structure that power whores like O'Reilly are comfortable with, but that's not exactly how Dkos works.

When Mike Stark announced his visit to O'Reilly's home in retaliation to his attacks - the Dkos community was not entirely pleased with him. The community rebuked his actions.

Mike Start doesn't speak for me.

Mike Stark is not Micheal Moore.

Although it has to be said that view was far from universal.

Mike Stark did Good.

The point here is that unlike most sites where the moderators are the ones controlling things - we control things ourselves. By the use of the Recommend/Troll system individual users can gain the power to block offensive or objectional material without the invervention of the powers from on high.

Guess what Bill, there's actually stuff on Kos that's much worse than anything you've ever imagined or claimed but you can't see it because we've already taken care of it.

Most of it is simply right-wing partisan talking points and attempts to bait us into a petty arguement such as these.

fisa (0+ / 5-)

I believe congress should be involved with fica as far a information not control. To leave the Attorney General out of the mix is impossible would never happen. With respect to Impeachment of the Attorney General will never happen. Your inherent contempt of Harriett Miers for being contemptuous to Congress is nothing more than what Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter would do.Why are we wasting our time on tying to destroy our President and our Country no laws have been broken.It is disgraceful!

by ryan7777

Or

Why do Liberals hate America? (0+ / 7-)

Why do you hate everything about this Country? You bitch about freedom and yet stand ready to take away my right to speak out against abortion or homosexually or even my right to defend myself.
Your people voted for this war based upon the intell at the time but now it's ok for Hillary to bash the war and Bush. Bush has admitted mistakes where is his rights?

by potassiumnitrate

But every once in a while you get this...

Someone who has to stick their foot in a bucket (0+ / 5-)

5 times a day to preserve their immortal soul is an idiot.

by tigercourse

Or

* [new] How do you people... (0+ / 5-)

manage to butter a slice of bread without cutting your arm off? Do you have government employees there to keep you safe?

by DixonBalzer

If you haven't been on Dkos for a while and become a "trusted user" by gaining the respect of others, you won't even see these comments - but they're there.

On Kos the People literally have the power and that's what genuinely frightens O'Reilly. We have become a media force of our own, we do our own research, we gather our own facts, we submit our own editorial content - without the filtering of the elite overlords such as O'Reilly - but that hasn't made us "all powerful".

Billy likes to claim that the Democratic candidates are the one "running scared" of Kos - but if that were true most of them would have already endorsed the Impeachment of George W. Bush which happens to e a very big subject around here.

If we had the power O'Reilly thinks we have, John Conyers wouldn't have shown Cindy Sheehan the door when she came to his office to insist on that very thing last month. Her ultimatum would have been headed and she wouldn't now be planning to run against Nancy Pelosi.

We are powerful, but not that powerful - not yet.

On the other hand the right-wing has had it's own pseudo-equivelent to Kos and the Netroots for quite some time, and that is Right-wing Radio.

It was Right-Wing Radio that torpedoed the nomination of Harriet Miers to the bench. It was Right-Wing Radio that scuttled the Immigration Bill. A small group of elites, including Limbaugh, Malkin and - Bill O'Reilly - managed to set the agenda by stirring up their loyal synchophants and setting them loss upon the pour unsuspecting Congress people and President.

On DKos - the opposite happens.

THE PEOPLE come together, debate, argue and eventually find consensus to proceed forward on a particular issue. Nobody, sometimes not even Kos, tells us what to do or how to do it. We're figuring that out on our own.

Every once in a while someone like John Conyers or John Kerry, or John Edwards will come here to rally support for a particular issue - but generally, we make our own decisions, we manage our own backyard - we don't take orders or cower to threats from people like Bill O'Reilly.

Y'see if you want to really piss off a Bully - all you have to do is stand up to him, particular if you don't stand alone - right Senator Dodd?

We're standing right here, Bill - the Democratic Candidates, who unlike you all understand the power of personal politics and are standing right besides us - neither we nor they are going anywhere.

Y'know what that burning feeling is at the bottom of your blackened heart, Bill?

It's fear - and frankly, you should be scared. Very scared, because the people here and all over the rest of this country are going to completely transform your world.

Count on it.

Vyan

Hey Congress: It's "Go" Time!

There comes a point where tough talk simply doesn't cut it anymore; where words, threats and promises just aren't enough.

Literally, it's time to either sh*t or get off the fracking pot on two critical fronts.

1. Iraq Prime Minister Maliki says that U.S. Troops can "leave whenever they want." It's time we took him up on his offer.

2. The White House has blatantly defied Congressional Subpoenas, refusing to let Harriet Miers even appear to testify and denying access to documents related to the death of Pat Tillman. It's time that our Congress returned us to a nation of checks and balances by invoking their power of Inherent Contempt.

The ironic thing is that in order to move forward on the first issue, we may have to push the second to it's ultimate conclusion.

BAGHDAD (AP) — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."

Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks — "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

But he said if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.

Despite Maliki's claim that the Iraqi forces can take control of their own country, Sen Lindsey Graham today on Meet the Press wasn't buying it. Surprise, surprise.

The surge is working, we've accomplished things in the last two weeks in Anbar province that we could never do before. Let [our troops] win, don't pull them out now for political reasons.

Sen Jim Webb responded back forcefully.

It's taken a lot longer than two weeks. The President announced [the implementation] of his surge strategy in January. He promised that that all provinces of Iraq would be under Iraqi control by the end of the year, clearly that is not going to happen.

We need to do the hard work of putting together a political solution. The Iraqi Military isn't fighting al-Qaeda - what we've got going on there is "hillbilly" justice. These militia groups are fighting them, they don't like al-Qaeda, they won't like them when we leave.

The difficulty in this situation is oddly that just about everyone is at least particularly right simultaneously. The just released report that the Iraqi government has failed most of it's benchmarks does indicate that more time is needed for them to pull together the political reconciliation that needs to happen, yet at the same time our own troops have been pushed to the brink of their endurance and beyond with stop-loss and repeated deployments.

Time is what the Iraqis need, but time and patience isn't what we have any more of. Certainly not according to the latest polls.

Newsweek 7-11: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

68% Disapprove. 27% Approve

Do you think President Bush's 'surge' plan increasing U.S. troops in Iraq has been a success or a failure?"

All - 22% Success - 64% Failure

(D) - 7% Success - 85% Failure
(R) - 47% Success - 31% Failure

Our Troop Levels in Iraq?

19% Immediate Withdrawal - 24% Out Next Spring - 40% Fall Back to our Bases - 13% Make No Cutbacks

If they are truly a sovereign nation, Iraqis have to come up with the solution to their problems on their own and they have to do it on their own timetable, however we may be able to jump start that process a bit - but not by using our military.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - just as we did with the Dayton Peace Accords and the the Belfast Agreement it's time to put together a Summit Conference between all the major factions and forces vying for control of Iraq. This "Reconciliation Commission" - featuring a relatively small group of diplomatic representatives of the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, even al-Sistani and al-Sadr - needs to come together and hammer out the broad framework that can unite the nation and end the violence.

That is the only way this will work.

The current strategy of using our military forces as cannon fodder buffering an ever escalating civil war while the Iraqi parliament bickers and dithers is simply a recipe for failure, just as it would be if we were waiting for our own congress to take the initiative on any number of issues from immigration to health care while lives hang in the balance.

It's time we changed direction and put away some of our partisan manipulations just as Webb admonished Graham today.

Webb: This is one thing I object to, which is politicians who attempt to put their political views in the mouths of soldiers. The view of military reflect those of the general public. Only 35% of the U.S. Military agrees with the policies of this President.

And here with hit the crux of this problem - the President.

With his Veto of the Iraq Redeployment Bill several weeks ago Bush pretty much showed everyone just whose boss - at least for the moment.

The White House has issued signing statements that rationalize their clear violations of federal law. They've violated FISA, the Hatch Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Geneva Convention, the War Crimes Act and the UN Conventions against torture. Now they've blatantly thumbed their nose at Congressional subpoenas.

Congress has to ACT.

And at this point in time, there is only one viable path left.

Impeachment and Removal, though frankly necessary, is not yet a possibility except as a pointless exercise in vainglory. Just as failed subpoenas have further emboldened the rampant lawlessness of this Presidency, a failed Impeachment Vote or even a failure to Remove in the Senate would make Bush nigh unto a God. All powerful. Unstoppable. That can't happen.

Standard Contempt of Congress continues to have a limited possibility of success with Alberto Gonzales' hand-picked U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor still in place in D.C. until his Patriot Act enabled appointment expires in 3 months.

Only the Congress's power of Inherent Contempt cuts out the middlemen, and gets right to the heart of the issue.

It's time - as Congress John Conyers alluded to in his letter to Harriet Miers attorney George T. Manning upon learning of her intent not to testify - to pull the trigger.

A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

Inherent Contempt allows for the Congress to order the House Sargent at Arms to take the witness - in this case Miers - into custody and hold them in the Capital Jail where only Congress has jurisdiction. It is debatable whether a person held in such a way could be pardoned, my feeling is that they could not be - which means that either Miers cracks and testifies or she rots until the end of this Congressional Session.

It is my firm belief that without direct and damning testimony from Miers tantamount to that provided by former Nixon Counsel John Dean - Nobody is going to be Impeached - except for maybe Abu Gonzales for repeated perjury and obstruction with Monica Goodling, but Commander Guy and Fourthbranch's impenetrable shield of loyal lackeys will have kept them safe until they can slip out the back of Marine One on January 20, 2009.

This can't be allowed to happen.

Congress has to step up. The White House must be put on notice. Their numerous crimes, incompetence, deliberate willful ignorance and stonewalling has to end and it will only happen when Congress realizes - in order to save the legal fabric of our nation from completely unraveling, in order to save what's left of Iraq and finally begin Real Diplomacy, in order to save what's left of our armed forces, in order to get serious about stopping Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan - This is GO Time!

Congress has to Finally Win one of these battles with the White House before they can even begin to deal with the next issue like the obvious obstruction at play in the Libby Commute, or the next such as changing course in Iraq before or even after September. The White House is long overdue for a Congressionally delivered bloody nose.

It's GO NOW, or not at all.

Contact John Conyers and let him know that the time has come to take that next step at:

John.Conyers@mail.house.gov

Conyers Blog
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126
(202) 225-0072 Fax

Vyan