Future of Politics

[mindido]

The Abramoff scandal is now deeper into the White House:

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...ep_LngFIKDTwQ9vhhx3eY_20070208.html?mod=blogs

A few quotes:

"Mr. Rove has known Mr. Abramoff for about two decades, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Both are former top officials of the College Republicans, many of whose alumni have gone on to national prominence within the party.

Mr. Abramoff was an early backer of the president, having been listed as a co-chairman pledged to raise $25,000 for Mr. Bush at a 1999 Washington reception. He gave money to the president's recount committee in 2000 and was in the elite tier of fund-raisers for the president's 2004 re-election committee. An Abramoff aide, Susan Ralston, later went to work as Mr. Rove's executive assistant at the White House."

"Mr. Abramoff bragged of his "contact" with Mr. Rove when Tyco International Ltd. sought action on tax legislation in 2002, according to Senate testimony by Tim Flanigan, a former Tyco official. "At some point after he joined the engagement team, Mr. Abramoff told me that he intended to contact Mr. Rove directly or indirectly to communicate Tyco's position" on the tax issue, said Mr. Flanigan, who also once worked as Mr. Bush's deputy White House counsel."

Getting closer and closer.

 

[mindido]

Finally found the full article on Rove through a back door:

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm

And just in case it disappears, here's the full article:

Issue Date: February 6-12, 2006, Posted On: 2/6/2006

Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee

The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.

Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.

"It's hardball all the way," a senior GOP congressional aide said.

The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.

Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.

"He's [Rove] lining them up one by one," another congressional source said.

Mr. Rove is leading the White House campaign to help the GOP in November’s congressional elections. The sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president.

Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that list.

So far, only a handful of GOP senators have questioned Mr. Rove's tactics.

Some have raised doubts about Mr. Rove's strategy of painting the Democrats, who have opposed unwarranted surveillance, as being dismissive of the threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists.

"Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican.

 

[cableguy]

see above post for references... 1978, President Carter was in office, and it has survived til present day... nothing new is happening... the only difference is that someone, somewhere, is leaking sensitive and classified information that has national security implications... that someone, regardless of who it is, should be caught and tried for treason, and if found guilty, hanged by the neck until dead... perception is not reality in this case...

 

[mindido]

lumbaugh,

Specifics? Or do you not know what a reference is?

And now to someone that actually knows what they're talking about. Last night on PBS's "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer", Gwen Ifill interviewed two pols (Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee; and Rep. Jane Harman, a California Dem. and one of the eight members of Congress briefed on the program.) that also have serious concerns about Bush's domestic spying program. The entire transcript is here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june06/nsa_02-08.html

A few interesting quotes:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, "The two legal theories being proposed by the administration as to why the courts are not being involved here I have a problem with. I don't believe the force resolution fairly read would allow the administration based on the force resolution alone to basically go around FISA. None of us intended when we authorized the use of force in Afghanistan to eliminate the FISA program.

Secondly, the inherent authority of the president to conduct the war is real. The expressed authority of the Congress to regulate the military and be involved in war decisions is real. So I don't believe the inherent authority of the president is so strong that there's no role for the Congress or the courts in a time of war when the American citizens are involved."

Rep. Jane Harman, "Let me just say, Gwen, I now understand very clearly what happened in 1978 when FISA was passed. I was working in the Carter White House. And Jimmy Carter signed that bill.

In 1978 Dick Cheney was running for Congress so I'm sure he's aware of the situation then too. FISA was passed to correct the abuses of the Nixon period and fill a vacuum that had been clearly identified by the Supreme Court in a recent Supreme Court case called the Keith case.

And FISA was deliberated on a bipartisan basis in Congress. There were numbers of hearings held. The support for FISA was bipartisan. President Carter, as I said, supported it. Former Attorney General Levi from the Ford administration, where Dick Cheney was chief of staff, strongly supported it. And when it passed, it was declared by the Congress and President Carter to be the exclusive way-- not one way-- but the exclusive way to monitor, eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans in America."

 

[endymion]

There was an elephant in my fridge... but he's not there anymore. But he was... really, truly he was.

"Under fire for eavesdropping on Americans, President Bush said Thursday that spy work stretching from the U.S. to Asia helped thwart terrorists plotting to use shoe bombs to hijack an airliner and crash it into the tallest skyscraper on the West Coast."

I'm telling you, there was an elephant in my fridge, but he's gone.

"Some information about the foiled attack was disclosed last year, but Bush offered more details to highlight international cooperation in fighting terrorists. He did not say whether information about the West Coast plot was collected by his administration's program to monitor — without court warrants — some calls and e-mails between people overseas and in the U.S. when links to terrorism are suspected."

The elephant WAS there, we heard him through our eavesdropping. That's how we know he was there, but that's not important right now.

You've gotta be slightly sceptical, when the government releases a story like this at such a time, that may just happen to co-incide with a huge scandal, so the elephant and I are taking it with a grain of salt.

Full Story -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

 

[mindido]

endymion,

I'm sure I saw that elephant in the fridge too!!! Sheesh! I swear this President thinks we're all as dumb as rocks.

And on another interesting front. It appears that Scooter Libby testified before the grand jury that he was authorized to leak Valerie Plames name by his "superiors". And who were his "superiours"? He only had two. G.W. and V.P. Dick Cheney.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/cia.leak/

The reasons for impeaching these clowns keep growing and growing.

 

[endymion]

On a completely bi-paritsan point, if either government was accused of this, it should be the end for them, I don't care who they are:

WASHINGTON - Top White House officials were warned that Hurricane Katrina would be "our worst nightmare" the day the storm roared ashore, former federal disaster chief Michael Brown says.

An assertive Brown told senators Friday that he described levee failures and massive flooding last Aug. 29 to chief of staff Andrew Card, deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin and others in the White House.

He said the Homeland Security Department was among a half-dozen government agencies that received regular briefings that day from him and other officials by way of video conference calls.

Administration officials have said they did not realize the severe damage Katrina had caused until after the storm had passed. But under oath, Brown told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee he could not explain why his appeals failed to produce a faster response.

"I expected them to cut every piece of red tape, do everything they could ... that I didn't want to hear anybody say that we couldn't do everything they humanly could to respond to this," Brown said about a video conference with administration officials — in which President Bush briefly participated — the day before Katrina hit. "Because I knew in my gut this was the bad one."

That shit shouldn't happen no matter who is in charge.

Meanwhile apparently three members of congress, (Republicans, imagine my surprise) are linked to the Abramoff case. It seems Al Franken may be a psychic..... and I like the idea of impeaching Bush two days before his term is over, just to scare Cheney into a few more heart attacks as he takes over as President.

 

[mindido]

Jeez, I can't believe no one else has mentioned this! For those outside the US, your excused.

If you haven't heard, our VP (Dick Cheney) went quail hunting last weekend and wound up shooting a fellow hunter. He hasn't been charged with much of anything yet (although that may change if the guy dies) as the incident has been ruled an accident. But the jokes have been really good! One of my favorite cartoons (Source: Daily Kos):



And a site with a whole bunch of cartoons:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/...u=http://cagle.com/news/CheneyShoots/main.asp

If it wasn't official before, it is now. These clowns really are members of the Gang that couldn't shoot straight!

 

[Cobra]

What about a possible woman president. haha, she'd prolly look like this

 

[endymion]

From a recent news article:

"THE United States' idea of what constitutes torture "is not the same as ours and doesn't appear to coincide with that of most civilised countries", a senior British High Court judge has said."

That's a scary thing to say about a developed nation, particularly the US. With Don ignoring the calls for Gitmo to be closed down, and the rest of the world calling for it to be closed, once again it puts the US at odds with everyone else.

 

[mindido]

OK you G.W. Bush lovers. I'd really, REALLY like to hear how you defend this. The Bush admin. has decided that it is just great if a company based in the United Arab Emirates (and owned by the State) is allowed to operate six of our largest ports (Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia). Since two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE and some of the money to fund 9/11 was funnelled through the country, this sounds like a really STUPID idea to me.

Its my belief that the next attack is most likely to come through our ports (and has been for quite a while) so this acquisition, and the administrations approval of it, seems almost insane to me.

Any takers?

 

[Texan]

On the surface I am opposed to an arab government taking control of the operations of six of our largest ports. However just because they have control of the operations they do not control the security of the port, port security is by the Coast Guard.

I say let KBR give a bid to take control of the ports.

 

[mindido]

On the surface I am opposed to an arab government taking control of the operations of six of our largest ports. However just because they have control of the operations they do not control the security of the port, port security is by the Coast Guard.

I'm sitting here listening to CNBC and they're all over this subject. You are correct in that security will still reside with the Coast Guard but, just intuitively, this seems like a really good loophole for Al Quaeda to take advantage of.

I say let KBR give a bid to take control of the ports.

Back to CNBC's explanation. Apparently, there was an open bidding process for the British company that used to operate the ports but KBR either didn't bid or they're bid wasn't good enough.

 

[Texan]

I am glad to see the Dems finally admiting that we have enemies.

My concern for national security is at our southern border. If the drug cartel can move tons of narcotics across the border why not a nuclear device. Then add the mexican military providing arm escorts for drug runners crossing the border and the situation only goes down hill from there.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

Although I agree that the southern border is a major concern, I don't give it as high a priority as our ports. I think it is pretty clear that it would be much easier to stick a nuke in any container and blow it once the ship is in port. The only type of nuke that is going to walk across our border is a suitcase bomb. Much harder to make or acquire.

 

[mindido]

Well, this Bush administration deal with the UAE has certainly blown up in Bush's face. Even the Republican leaders of the House (Hastert) and Senate (Fritsch) have come out against it. One House member (I believe from Maryland) even sent Bush a one sentence letter saying something to the effect, "Not only no, but HELL NO."

Now, as the deal starts to become a bit clearer, there are some very disturbing clauses in it. One that I found very interesting:

"In approving the purchase, the administration chose not to require Dubai Ports to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223...AcTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Methinks that US security concerns are more of a propaganda tool with this admin. than an actual policy.

 

[mindido]

A new book has come out bashing old G.W. and his policies. Nothing really new about that (there have been too many to remember) except this one is from a very unexpected source. The book is "Imposter" and was written by Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan era official and longtime conservative columnist. I haven't read it yet but I did find a review:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.drum.html

A few interesting quotes:

"Put in plain terms, Bartlett's charge is simple. George W. Bush, he says on page one, is a “pretend conservative.” Philosophically, Bush actually has more in common with liberals than he does with true conservatives."

"Bartlett even has a bone to pick with the most prominent feature of Bush's record that's incontestably conservative, his almost religious dedication to tax cuts. Yes, Bush has cut taxes. Yes, that's generally a good, conservative thing to do. But as Bartlett correctly points out, cutting taxes without cutting spending doesn't do the conservative cause any good. Bush and the modern Republican Party plainly have no interest in cutting federal spending, and the resulting massive deficits will eventually force “the largest tax increase in American history”—one that will be entirely Bush's fault."

One last interesting point. Bartlett was apparently fired for writing this. From the article:

"In fact, until last year—when he was fired for writing this book—he was a senior fellow at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-wing think tank dedicated to flat taxes, Social Security privatization, and a host of other conservative hot buttons."

Sounds like a book worth picking up.

 

[cableguy]

wow!!! anyone who was surprised that a government beaurocracy failed to act immediately should be run out of town on a rail... government beaurocracies are bad at fixing things, the only things they are good at is growing and self perpetuating...

ask 100 people what torture is, and you will get 100 different answers... to me, torture is the UNNECESSARY infliction of pain that results in permnanent PHYSICAL damage to the subject... i am rather certain the popular "international" definition would include things that would better be classified as inconveniences or embarrassments...

having been hunting, i was relatively certain i knew exactly what happened in the whittington incident... follow on reports proved me right... one simply cannot leave a hunting party and return unnanounced... that is a wonderful way to get shot... mr whittington failed to announce himself, and he also failed to yell "no shot" or something similar when VP Cheney swung on a bird... bottom line, something bad happened that is not only common, but is generally not newsworthy... i was disappointed in most of the medias coverage, as some seemed hopeful that mr whittington would die, and very few expressed any concern whatsoever about his condition..

the ports... this one is rather simple for me... my gut reaction was to oppose it, but then i heard the magic words: "all security aspects will remain under US control." end of story, this deal shouldnt be opposed... also, it is worth noting that economics matter in the business world, and there is no reason to flush billions of dollars down the toilet, in addition to ruining any chance of ever holding any sway in the business again, by allowing something bad to happen in your port... period...

mindido, President Bush has never been a good conservative... that is news to no one... if he were, he would have vetoed a vast number of bills that landed on his desk... most of these would have been regarding excess spending... he is right on tax cuts and fighting terrorists abroad, but he is wrong about spending and border security... among other things... he will not ever be listed as a great president...

 

[mindido]

to me, torture is the UNNECESSARY infliction of pain that results in permnanent PHYSICAL damage to the subject...

Jeez Lumbaugh,

With that definition, the rack, thumbscrews and whipping someone within an inch of their lives would still be OK.

having been hunting, i was relatively certain i knew exactly what happened in the whittington incident... follow on reports proved me right... one simply cannot leave a hunting party and return unnanounced... that is a wonderful way to get shot... mr whittington failed to announce himself, and he also failed to yell "no shot" or something similar when VP Cheney swung on a bird... bottom line, something bad happened that is not only common, but is generally not newsworthy... i was disappointed in most of the medias coverage, as some seemed hopeful that mr whittington would die, and very few expressed any concern whatsoever about his condition..

Well, this proves to me that, if you have ever been hunting, you didn't do it very long and weren't well taught (so what else is new). The very FIRST thing I was taught as a child, when my dad gave me my first shotgun, is that you KNOW what you are shooting at, and you KNOW what is behind the shot. IF you don't KNOW, you don't pull the trigger. Period.

I also find it interesting that here you are making excuses for Cheney when Cheney (finally) did the honorable thing and said it was his fault (which it was). For someone that constantly espouses taking responsibility for your own actions, this is more than a little hypocritical.

the ports... this one is rather simple for me... my gut reaction was to oppose it, but then i heard the magic words: "all security aspects will remain under US control." end of story, this deal shouldnt be opposed... also, it is worth noting that economics matter in the business world, and there is no reason to flush billions of dollars down the toilet, in addition to ruining any chance of ever holding any sway in the business again, by allowing something bad to happen in your port... period...

Simple, or simple minded?

Having spent a bit of time trying to figure out the facts of this. There are a few:

1. Ownership. The ports will still be owned (for now) by local units of government; i.e., local port authorities such as the New York Port Authority. But the leases to manage the ports (at least the ports in question) will be "owned" by the UAE. So when you hear some pol saying something about ownership, hopefully this is what they mean.

2. Security. Here is where things get pretty murky but there are a few facts. First, the Coast Guard is responsible for security up to the time that a ship docks, or when it leaves the docks and returns to the open ocean. Second, Customs is responsible for security only briefly. They are responsible for the "contents" of the shipment from the time the ship docks until those "contents" are off loaded. Once the crane lets go of the "contents" on the dock, things get really murky. Depending on the lease arrangements, security could reside with the Port Authority or the lease owner or the local municipality.

So here is the heart of the problem. Whomever owns the lease MUST be a party to all security arrangements and these arrangements are, by necessity, secret. Once the UAE owns the leases (and no matter what Bush says about the 45 day review, the UAE will own the leases on March 2) they will be privy to the ports security arrangements.

So, do we really want a government that was one of only three to support the Taliban, whose sons (Princes) were the reason we aborted a missle attack in 1999 which could have taken out Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and has laundered Al Quaeda funds through their banking system, in on the security arrangements of our ports??? No matter how you spin it (lie), that makes no sense to me.

mindido, President Bush has never been a good conservative... that is news to no one... if he were, he would have vetoed a vast number of bills that landed on his desk... most of these would have been regarding excess spending... he is right on tax cuts and fighting terrorists abroad, but he is wrong about spending and border security... among other things... he will not ever be listed as a great president...

So why in the hell do conservatives support him? It is becoming very clear to me that Bush really only cares about big business. He could care less about any of us. And history will probably judge him to be one of the worst Presidents of all time. And thats saying something, move over James Buchanan.

 

[mindido]

Looks like Jack Abramoff was tied a bit closer to Karl Rove and G.W. than they would like us to believe:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11460885/

And, if your looking for good news from Iraq, well, this isn't it