Group Sues to Get White House Logs

By MARK SHERMAN,
Associated Press Writer


A public-interest group has sued the Secret Service for access to White House visitor logs that the group says would show how often lobbyist Jack Abramoff met with President Bush and his staff.
Judicial Watch filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington under the federal Freedom of Information Act, claiming that the Secret Service failed to meet a Feb. 21 deadline for releasing the records or indicating how much more time it would need.
Secret Service spokesman Tom Mazur said Tuesday that the agency was unaware of the lawsuit. He had no other comment.
Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and pledged to cooperate with investigators.
The White House has refused to say how many times Abramoff, who raised $100,000 for Bush's re-election, has been to see the president or his aides. Bush's spokesman has said Abramoff was admitted to the White House complex for "a few staff-level meetings" and Hanukkah receptions in 2001 and 2002.
The president has said he does not know Abramoff personally.
The White House logs would answer a basic question about the extent of Abramoff's ties to the White House, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said. The records "may show 30 visits by Jack Abramoff to the White House, or they may show three visits."
"The point is we need to get all of the facts on the table about this admitted felon's contacts with White House officials," Finton said. The lawsuit was filed last week.
One photograph has been made public, its authenticity acknowledged by the White House, that shows Bush and Abramoff. In the 2001 photo, Bush is shaking hands with the leader of an Indian tribe that was an Abramoff client. The lobbyist is in the background.
In an e-mail Abramoff sent to a magazine editor, he said he had brief conversations with Bush almost a dozen times and the president knew him well enough to make joking references to Abramoff's family.
Lobbying records obtained by the AP show his lobbying team met nearly 200 times with administration officials during the first 10 months of Bush's presidency on behalf of one of his clients, the Northern Mariana Islands.
The contacts between Abramoff's team and the administration included meetings with Attorney General John Ashcroft and policy advisers to Vice President Dick Cheney, the AP reported last year.
Three former Abramoff associates also have told The Associated Press that the lobbyist frequently told them he had strong ties to the White House through presidential confidant Karl Rove.
Rove has described Abramoff as a "casual acquaintance" since Bush took office in 2001, White House spokeswoman Erin Healy has said.

Folk Songs of the Far Right Wing

Folk Songs of the Far Right Wing Click Here

QAEDA CLAIM WE INFILTRATED UAE GOV'T

By NILES LATHEM


— Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port deal, who fear the Dubai-based firm could be used by terrorists to sneak money and personnel into the United States.
Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message.
"You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned," the message said.
"Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing . . . policies which do not serve your interest and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens.
"Your homeland is exposed to us. There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decided to harm them."
The document was among a batch of internal al Qaeda communications captured by U.S. forces in the war on terror.
They were declassified and released earlier this month by the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point.
"If it's real, the document shows that the UAE really is trying to cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, because they were being threatened by al Qaeda," said terrorism expert Lorenzo Vidino.
"But it also reveals that even though they [the UAE] are our friends, al Qaeda seems to have people on the inside in the UAE, just as it has in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Kuwait."
niles.lathem@nypost.com

Unlearned Lessons

KATRINA The Unlearned Lessons



Yesterday, the White House released a 228-page report on the "lessons learned" from the response to Hurricane Katrina. Despite its length, the report fails to address the most important issues. According to the New York Times, it "reads more like a recitation of history, than a critical overview of what went wrong with the response. Other times, the report appears to be attempting to offer rationales for mistakes -- like the failure to recognize on the day the storm hit that major sections of the levees in New Orleans had been breached -- instead of explaining exactly why they occurred." The whole White House effort stands in sharp contrast to more critical non-partisan reports from the House of Representatives and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as the priorities outlined in the President's budget. NO PAIN, NO GAIN: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described writing the report as "deep, difficult and even painful." Homeland Security officials "have engaged in their own soul searching" during the process, he said. But yesterday's report "takes pains not to cast blame," and the report goes on for 228 pages "without singling out any individual for blame." While a close examination of the structural problems at Homeland Security and FEMA are necessary, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) points out, "Only a full understanding of what went wrong and who was responsible will enable us to correct our path for the future." Chertoff, who was singled out by the House and given "principle blame" by the GAO, gets off with barely a scratch from the White House report. In fact, Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend went out of her way to say Chertoff still "enjoys the confidence of the President" and remains a "tremendous partner." Townsend also defended Bush's leadership. "Those of us in government must take the lead," she said, "and President Bush made clear he is doing just that." Both the House and GAO reports found Bush did not properly take the lead during Katrina. The House report found Bush "could have spurred a faster response," and the GAO Comptroller said designating a point-person during the disaster was "up to the President of the United States." SHOW US THE MONEY: "We need to work with our state and local partners about preparing America's communities," Townsend said yesterday. The working relationship got off to a rocky start earlier this year when President Bush's budget cut "funds for state and local programs by nearly 10 percent." State and local companies are also being shortchanged in the critically important debris removal process thanks to mismanagement by the federal government. The budget also slashed first responder programs, including a 45 percent cut in federal firefighter assistance. The New Orleans levees remain dangerously underfunded, and the administration's promise to "make sure that the levees in New Orleans were stronger and better than before Katrina hit" has rung hollow. "A 34 percent cut on the construction budget for the Army Corps of Engineers" and a 13 percent cut to flood prevention will make rebuilding the levees more difficult. Meanwhile, "widespread armoring of levees and floodwalls likely won't get started until 2007," and "work hasn't been scheduled and can't possibly come in time for this year's storm season." FURTHER STRETCHING THE NATIONAL GUARD: One of the report's main recommendations is to give America's reserve forces a more active role in national emergencies. "Reserve components historically have focused on military and war fighting missions, which will continue," the report says. "However, we should recognize that the Reserve components are too valuable a skilled and available resource at home not to be ready to incorporate them in any Federal response planning and effort." U.S. law already defines this is as one of their duties. Title 10, Section 10102 of the U.S. code says "the purpose of each reserve component is to provide trained units and qualified persons available for active duty in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency." In fact, the rapid deployment of the National Guard to the Gulf Coast was one of the few bright spots in the federal disaster response. Yet the Guard remains stretched from long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, where around 60,000 citizen soldiers are still stationed. The administration's budget dealt a setback to its goal of making "maximum use of the state National Guards" by cutting the National Guard "from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls" because of recruitment problems. The authorized number of Army Reservists would also shrink from 205,000 to 188,000 under Bush's budget plan. CAN THE PLAN? The White House report places blame on the National Response Plan, saying it "didn't measure up" and "came up short." Townsend said the administration would "rewrite the National Response Plan so it is workable and it is clear." While the plan is long and full of technical jargon, both the House and GAO criticized the plan's implementation rather than its substance. The House report took "Chertoff to task for waiting until two days after the storm hit to activate a national response plan." The GAO report said Chertoff waited too long declare Katrina an "incident of national significance" that would have triggered parts of the National Response Plan. SHUFFLING CHAIRS ON A LEAKY SHIP OF STATE: Townsend correctly noted that bureaucratic "red tape" slowed the federal response, and a "better structure at the White House" is needed to make split-second decisions effectively. President Bush once said about homeland security, "We do not need rules and bureaucracy to entangle us in the job you want us to do." But the White House report would create another level of bureaucracy called the "Disaster Response Group." It is doubtful the group would stop the kind of infighting that occurred between Chertoff and Mike Brown. Former Homeland Security inspector general Kent Ervin took a dim view of the bureaucratic reshuffling. "There seems to be this tendency to reinvent the wheel and then reinvent it again," he said. "If you are going to have a Department of Homeland Security, then we need to figure out whatever is inhibiting its effectiveness and provide what it lacks, not simply parcel out responsibilities from various agencies where they came from."

Stories You Might Have Missed

Bush Visits Energy Companies, Restores Funding (AP via Boston Globe) Snowe Holds Katrina Bill Out For More Home Heating Aid (Boston Globe) Red Hot Chili Peppers Headline Lollopalooza 2006 (Chicago Tribune) Chamber of Commerce Endorses DeLay (Houston Chronicle) Democrats Seek To Increase Voting Among Unmarried Women (Knight Ridder) Bush To Fight For Port Deal (Los Angeles Times) Man Pleas Not Guilty In Diebold Voting Machine Case (Los Angeles Times) Alito Could Swing Clean Water Act Cases (Los Angeles Times) Walmart Profit 13% In 2005 (Los Angeles Times) Bush’s Lab Visit Generates a Reprieve (LA Times) Eli J. Segal, 63, Clinton Aide Who Led Major Initiatives, Dies (New York Times) Force Feeding At Guantanamo Acknowledged By ilitary (New York Times)

Are Ports the last Straw

Are Ports the last Straw?

Asks Jack Cafferty on CNN
Jack gets into the administration over the UAE's port take over. Dennis Hastert and many other Republicans have come out against this plan.

Video-WMP Video-QT

Jack Cafferty:

"Wolf, this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell control of six US ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. There are now actually Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors telling the White House "you're not gonna do this." And it's about time. No one has said "no" to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well this matters. It matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get.
A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at six critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks that the terrorists, in time, won't figure out how to exploit that, then we're all done. Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads - which way will we choose?Here's the question: What should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company to run US Ports?

WRAP UP

The administration is now facing what clearly is shaping up as bipartisan opposition to an Arab company controlling some major U.S. ports as opposition grows in Congress, talk shows publicize and blast it, and weblogs cover and expand the controversy.There seem to be several aspects of it
The security aspect. Is it possible or easier for an Al Qaeda member to infiltrate into the staff of a company based in Dubai? It so, how? If not, why not (the latter may have to be answered in closed session in Congress).
The sovereignty aspect: There isn't an American company that can do it? Or several companies?
The political aspect: So Republicans are going to go into election year 2006 as their party's bigwigs on Pennsylvania Avenue turn over control of U.S. ports to a company based in an Arab country? In terms of the Hollywood "high concept" (easily recognizable imagery), this move will take the administration's national security imagery down a few notches since many Republicans oppose the move. After years of warnings voiced in many quarters that the ports are dangerously insecure, this won't be something for GOPers to point to in their campaigns to say "See? We fixed the problem! We're letting an Arab country's company take care of security for us!!"News reports show opposition snowballing, right down the line:The New York Times notes that some key Republican governors are opposing the move:
The Republican governors of New York and Maryland on Monday joined the growing chorus of criticism of an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports. Both raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore."I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," Gov. George E. Pataki of New York said in a statement.Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland told reporters that he had "a lot of discretion" and was considering his options, including voiding the contract.The company is defending itself:
Pushing back, officials of Dubai Ports World defended the federal government's speedy approval of its takeover, arguing that both the newly acquired North American division running the terminals and its new Arab parent company had worked closely with United States security officials for decades.The unit, P & O Ports, "has long worked with the U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States," said Michael J. S. Seymour, the unit's president.The Bush administration — so far, at least — is handling this uproar like it has handled many of its policies that were not well-received or lacked consensus: its saying its decision is final, although the sale doesn't close until March 2.Fox News reports resistance growing within the GOP in Congress as well:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly-minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates."We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security," one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: "Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction."EVEN WORSE is this report from Knight Ridder newspapers — which says that the approval of the plan was literally shoved through by the Department of Homeland Security — without seeking the approval of "senior analysts" in that department, who do NOT like it:
The Bush administration gave control of six crucial ports to a Sept. 11-linked Arab nation after a flimsy investigation and with weak guarantees the company in charge can stop Osama bin Laden from infiltrating, the House homeland security chairman said."There are conditions, which shows they had concerns, but it's all procedural and relies entirely on good faith," Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., told the New York Daily News. "There's nothing those conditions ... nothing that assures us they're not hiring someone with bin Laden."The firm, Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirate of Dubai, cut a $6.8 billion deal last week to buy control of the ports - including Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark, N.J.'s, giant container port - from a British firm.A source with knowledge of the purchase echoed the chairman, telling The News that while Department of Homeland Security administrators rubber-stamped it, senior analysts at the agency were never told, and they don't like it now. News of the sale, approved by a secretive multi-agency panel headed by the Treasury Department, has sparked a growing outcry from both political parties."It's unbelievably tone-deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, (which) vows to destroy Israel," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "Fox News Sunday."Hearings on the deal have been called for this week in Congress, and Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y, and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., have proposed a law to ban such takeovers.Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded that President Bush personally intervene.And what if Bush intervenes?It would indicate once again that there is shockingly lax management in this administration — that the President had to jump in and nix something self-evidently controversial in its mechanics due to the location of the company and disastrous in terms of political imagery for an administration that argues security will be tightened up relentlessly on its watch. This policy decision was "rubber stamped?" A national security issue? In the Department of Homeland Security?And what if the decision isn't reversed? Will the GOPers and talk show hosts still upset about it remain upset or will some of them quickly change their view once it's clear the White House is sticking by it and then go after critics who still raising the issue?But is this an actual REAL potential security threat? That's the lingering question — and Time Magazine concludes that the answer is "no":
Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey plan to hold hearings on the issue next week, and are seeking legislation banning companies controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port facilities. Menendez alleged that the UAE has a "serious and dubious history… as a transit point for terrorism." And in response to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff's insistence that the administration made a rigorous check — without disclosing details — of the security implications of the deal, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said "It's ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's okay for a nation that has ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations."But to call the United Arab Emirates a country "tied to 9/11" by virtue of the fact that one of the hijackers was born there and others transited through it is akin to attaching the same label to Britain (where shoe-bomber Richard Reid was born) or Germany (where a number of the 9/11 conspirators were based for a time). Dubai's port has a reputation for being one of the best run in the Middle East, says Stephen Flynn, a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. And Dubai Ports World, which is a relatively new venture launched by the government of Dubai in 1999, has a number of Americans well known in the shipping industry in its senior leadership.Time notes that the company operates ports all over the world and that Dubai has been at the forefront of port security issues:
"It's [the company's] not exactly a shadow organization for al-Qaeda," says Flynn. Dubai, in fact, was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, which places U.S. customs agents in overseas ports to begin the screening process from a U.S.-bound cargo's point of departure.Time further notes that 80 percent of the terminals in the port of Los Angeles are run by foreign owned companies. It also points out that DPW would inherit old contracts, not get new ones, and now "own" the ports. The magazine concludes:
Dubai Ports World's acquisition of P&O is unlikely to affect the security situation at the six U.S. ports in question. As Flynn points out, the relevant question is not who owns the port, but what security arrangements are in place to prevent it being used as a point of entry for hostile elements. And right now on that front, U.S. ports across the board could use some work.Bottom line: By not bringing Congress into the decision or at least reaching out to senior members of its own party and the opposition, the administration has stirred up a hornet's nest of bipartisan opposition. Security is at issue here but also the consequences of a self-defeating, non-consensual political style.What you see is "hubris" at work - on automatic pilot.UPDATE: The Financial Times says the "paranoia" about the Dubai ports is needless and says more about the U.S. and U.S. politics than anything else:
The current furore in Washington about the takeover of P&O, the UK-based ports operator, by Dubai Ports World says more about the United States Congress than the United Arab Emirates. The bluster about national security conceals one of the uglier faces of US protectionism - the one with the slightly racist tinge...First, the deal has been vetted by an inter-agency committee. And ports, in any case, are in one of the most highly regulated sectors in the US. What matters is how they are managed, not who owns them.Second, leading Dubai companies such as DP World bring with them certain advantages. They habitually: spend money to make money; headhunt the best professionals (in DP World that includes top Americans); and produce high rates of growth. The ambitious new $15bn aerospace enterprise Dubai announced this week will be built around that formula.Third, the honourable senators might get this purchase in perspective by pondering the extent to which the Gulf allies they so distrust already own vast quantities of US assets, as well as dollar assets held offshore. For Abu Dhabi alone, a 1 percentage point move in US interest rates now means more than a $10 per barrel swing in the price of oil. Do the math.UPDATE II: Senate Majority Leader is urging that this decision be placed on hold "for more extensive review." (We assume he means on hold for a decision BEFORE the 2006 Congressional elections...). Our bet: that argument probably won't work. Those who are criticizing it clearly are asking for the deal to be nixed.A CROSS SECTION OF VARYING







VIEWS:Michelle Malkin, The Heretik, PC540, Pam's House Blend, Marc Rust, Americablog (in a short but very blunt post), Blogs of War, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Sundries Shack, The Glittering Eye, Sister Toldjah, Firedog Lake, The Astute Blogger, Michigan Conservative, Shakespeare's sister here and here, The Tao of Politics, The Strata-sphere (urges people to take a deep breath), The Democratic Daily Blog, The RCP Blog, Just To The Left, The SoCo, Middle Earth Journal (which says "follow the money), Intoxination, The War In Context, Daily Kos, La Shawn Barber, Pundit Guy, Centerfield

Bias Against Minority Voters

Unfair tactics and confusing rules still make it tough for many minorities to cast election ballots, and the barriers are so common that the federal safeguards for voters must be renewed, a detailed new report from a civil rights group says.
"Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act, 1982-2005" pulls together research and testimony from voters around the country to urge lawmakers to renew the parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that will expire in August 2007.
"The past and the present look a whole lot alike in the prevalence of racial discrimination in voting," said Barbara Arnwine, director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which spearheaded the project. "It was shocking to ... not only see the continuing reality of racial discrimination in voting but to see how pervasive these problems are nationwide."
The report will be put into the congressional record to be used during debate over reauthorization. President Bush has said he would urge Congress to renew the act.
The 125-page report was to be released at a Wahington, D.C. news conference on Tuesday. Among its findings:
_Polling places and voting hours in minority neighborhoods are routinely changed shortly before elections.
_Election officials were found to have illegally purged voter lists and refused to translate election materials for citizens who are not fluent in English.
_Voters and advocates complained to federal officials about unfair election practices more often between 1982 and 2004 than between 1965 and 1982, data compiled from Department of Justice records show.
"You would expect a drop every year in the level of discrimination, but the facts show there was no drop after '82," said Bill Lann Lee, chair of the National Committee on the Voting Rights Act, a group created by the Lawyers' Committee to work on the report. "Extending the act in '82 was a good idea, this shows. And there's still a need."
The ranks of minority elected officials have grown dramatically, the report says, mostly because the act has protected majority-minority voting districts. In 1970, there were 1,469 black elected officials in the country, a number that grew to more than 9,000 by 2004. There are about 5,200 Latino elected officials and 350 Asian- American elected officials today.
Critics say this is precisely why the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed.
"There are essentially hundreds, if not thousands, more officials in the black belt where Jim Crow had its heyday," said Ralph Conner of the Heartland Institute in Chicago. "You just don't have the same need for the law as you had back then."
Congress first passed the law in August 1965, months after black protesters trying to secure voting rights in Selma, Ala., were attacked by whites on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Before then, it was common for jurisdictions _ especially in the South _ to make black voters take literacy tests and pay poll taxes before voting.
Key sections set to expire give federal officials unusual authority to oversee elections in states that have historically had problems with racial bias. They can send in election monitors, force states to translate voting materials or require states to get Department of Justice approval before changing election procedures.
To justify these "extraordinary remedies," Lee said, Congress ordered that provisions be routinely re-examined to confirm that they're still necessary. The last reauthorization was in 1982.
Although barriers to minority voters are more subtle today, the report says, they are not gone _ and they are no longer concentrated in the South.
"This is kind of the untold story, the story doesn't grab national headlines," Lee said. "But if you look at what's happening in community after community, you see that when the numbers in minority communities reach a certain point and when they start to be interested in voting and politics, there's often resistance _ and that resistance takes forms that violate the law."
___
On the Net:
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act:

DNC Controversy Round-Up

DNC Controversy Round-Up
The decision to eliminate the "Director of GLBT Outreach" position at the DNC continues to make news. Bay Windows, New England's largest LGBT Newspaper, has this article (you have to page down a little). Gay City News, a NYC paper, has this article.
But the real discussion on the GLBT Blogosphere. Check out Page OneQ and Pam's House Blend.

Posted At : Out For Democracy

More Abu Ghraib Abuses

VIDEO - Australian TV Exposes More Abu Ghraib Abuses
Moving Video, Images, More Graphic, Disturbing than Still Photos Reprinted Elsewhere

Guest blogged by David Edwards on BradBlog.com

WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES AND NUDITY THAT SOME MAY FIND OFFENSIVE OR DISTRESSING

Guest blogged by David Edwards


WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES AND NUDITY THAT SOME MAY FIND OFFENSIVE OR


Australia's SBS Dateline aired the following report containing new graphic images and videos of abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The report, which contains full motion video documenting mistreatment of prisoners, is more disturbing even than the various still photographs which have been posted elsewhere on the web.

Video in Streaming Flash format...

Bush may be replacing Cheney

PEGGY NOONAN


Dick Cheney shooting incident will, in a way, go away. And, in a way, not--ever. Some things stick. Gerry Ford had physically stumbled only once or twice in public when he became, officially, The Stumbler. Mr. Ford's stumbles seemed to underscore a certain lack of sure-footedness in his early policies and other decisions. The same with Jimmy Carter and the Killer Rabbit. At the time Mr. Carter told the story of a wild rabbit attacking his boat he had already come to be seen by half the country as weak and unlucky. Even bunnies took him on.
Same with Dick Cheney. He's been painted as the dark force of the administration, and now there's a mental picture to go with the reputation. Pull! Sorry, Harry! Pull!
Can media bias be detected in the endless coverage? Sure, always. But it's also a great story. A vice president of the United States shot a guy in a hunting accident, and no one on his staff told the press. That's a story.
But as a scandal I'm not sure it has a big future. The vice president yesterday offered the facts as he observed and experienced them. "I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry" is a pretty direct statement. His recounting of the decision on how to handle it in the press seemed to reflect only incompetence, not malevolence.
Right now in the White House they're discussing how to help the vice president get through his problem. They've already tried the wearing of orange ties, an attempt to take the sting out of the incident by showing they don't feel the sting. Duck! Ha ha!

But what are they thinking that they're not saying? Here's a hunch, based not on any inside knowledge but only on what I know of people who practice politics, and those who practice it within the Bush White House.
I suspect what they're thinking and not saying is, If Dick Cheney weren't vice president, who'd be a good vice president? They're thinking, At some time down the road we may wind up thinking about a new plan. And one night over drinks at a barbecue in McLean one top guy will turn to another top guy and say, "Under the never permeable and never porous Dome of Silence, tell me . . . wouldn't you like to replace Cheney?"
Why would they be thinking about this? It's not the shooting incident itself, it's that Dick Cheney has been the administration's hate magnet for five years now. Halliburton, energy meetings, Libby, Plamegate. This was not all bad for the White House: Mr. Cheney took the heat that would otherwise have been turned solely on George Bush. So he had utility, and he's experienced and talented and organized, and Mr. Bush admires and respects him. But, at a certain point a hate magnet can draw so much hate you don't want to hold it in your hand anymore, you want to drop it, and pick up something else. Is this fair? Nah. But fair has nothing to do with it.
This is a White House that likes to hit refresh when the screen freezes. Right now the screen is stuck, with poll numbers in the low 40s, or high 30s.
The key thing is Iraq. George Bush cares deeply about Iraq and knows his legacy will be decided there. It has surely dawned on the White House that "Iraq" will not be "over" in the next two years. Iraq is a long story. What Dick Armitage or Colin Powell said about the Pottery Barn rule was true: If you break it, you own it, at the very least for the next few years.
George Bush, and so the men and women around him, will want the next Republican presidential nominee to continue the U.S. effort in, and commitment to, Iraq. To be a candidate who will continue his policy, and not pull the plug, and burrow through.
This person will not be Dick Cheney, who has already said he doesn't plan to run. So Mr. Bush may feel in time that he has reason to want to put in a new vice president in order to pick a successor who'll presumably have an edge in the primaries--he's the sitting vice president, and Republicans still respect primogeniture. They will tend to make the common-sense assumption that a guy who's been vice president for, say, a year and a half, is a guy who already knows the top job. Anyway, the new guy will get a honeymoon, which means he won't be fully hated by the time the 2008 primaries begin.
This new vice president would, however, have to be very popular in the party, or the party wouldn't buy it. Replacing Mr. Cheney would be chancy. The new veep would have to get through the Senate, which has at this point at least three likely contenders for the nomination, at least two of whom who would not, presumably, be amused.
Plus there's more quiet anti-administration feeling in the party than is generally acknowledged, and the president's men know it. A lot of people would find such a move too cute by half. The contenders already in line--and their supporters, donors, fans, staff and friends in the press--would resent it. Big time.
People wouldn't like it . . . unless they liked it. How could they be persuaded to like it?
It would have to be a man wildly popular in the party and the press. And it would have to be a decision made by Dick Cheney. If he didn't want to do it he wouldn't have to. If he were pressed--Dick, we gotta put the next guy in here or we're going to lose in '08 and see all our efforts undone--he might make the decision himself. He'd have to step down on his own. He's just been through a trauma, and he can't be liking his job as much now as he did three years ago. No one on the downside of a second term does, hate magnet or not.

Of course, all this is exactly like the sort of thing people blue-skied about in 1992, when George H.W. Bush was in trouble and a lot of people urged him to hit refresh by dumping Dan Quayle. He didn't. George W. Bush loves to do what his father didn't.
Who would it be? Someone who's a strong supporter of Iraq, and, presumably, the Bush doctrine.
Who would that be? That's what I suspect the president's men are asking themselves. But silently.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," (Penguin, 2005

Republicans Block Investigation of Domestic Spying Program

Republicans Block Investigation of Domestic Spying Program
By Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (Cross-posted at DailyKos)
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=Republicans_Block_Investigation

You may recall that a few weeks ago I introduced a resolution of
inquiry
to obtain Justice Department documents about the President's domestic
spying program. Many of you are no doubt familiar with the procedure
for
resolutions of inquiry; however, for those who are not, a brief
explanation. A resolution of inquiry requests information or documents
from the Executive Branch. The Committee to which it is referred must
vote on it within a specified period of time or the full House must
consider it. As a practical matter, if the Republicans want to dodge an
issue, they refer the bill to Committee and then "adversely report" it,
which kills it, stopping the request for documents and protecting every
non-Committee Republican from having to vote on it.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee considered my resolution of
inquiry
on the domestic spying program. The Resolution was rejected 16 to 21,
with all Democrats and one Republican (Congressman Hostetler) voting
for
it. A few quick impressions: first, I was surprised at how half hearted
the Republican defense of the program was. I would even go further --
while some offered a full throated defense of the program, many of my
Republican colleagues seemed almost sheepish about it, and many did not
speak about it at all.

Second, Republicans repeatedly asserted that the documents were not
needed because Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner has unilaterally
submitted 51 questions (pdf) to the Attorney General, and that the
Attorney General would testify at a general oversight hearing at some
undetermined point in the future. I and the other Democratic Members
responded that this was wholly inadequate, and that to fulfill their
constitutional oversight role the Committee needed to obtain documents
from the Administration and hold separate hearings on the NSA issue.
[continued]

Complete article:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=Republicans_Block_Investigation

For News And Commentary:

http://www.RonMills.us

 

For Florida Election News See:

http://www.ChangeInTallahassee.com

 

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

http://politalk1.blogspot.com/

Election Reform 2000-2006

 

NOTE: On February 9, electionline.org released its latest annual report, What's Changed, What Hasn't and Why: Election Reform 2000-2006. The report can be obtained online here; to request a paper copy, e-mail publications@electionline.org.

 

 

http://www.electionline.org/Portals/1/Publications/Final.2006.Annual.report.pdf

For News And Commentary:

http://www.RonMills.us

 

For Florida Election News See:

http://www.ChangeInTallahassee.com

 

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

http://politalk1.blogspot.com/

Sunday shows really do lean right

If It's Sunday, It's Conservative
The Sunday morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where policy makers state their case, the conventional wisdom takes shape, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground. Both sides have their say and face probing questions. Or so you would think. In fact, as this study reveals, conservative voices significantly
Click here to read the full report

Meet the Press responds to the report


Media Matters responds to Meet the Press

CBS's Public Eye on Media Matters study


Read From Washinton Monthly By Paul Waldman

Cheney Shoots Man In Back

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.



Harry Whittington, 78, was "alert and doing fine" after Cheney sprayed him with shotgun pellets on Saturday while the two were hunting at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.
Armstrong said Whittington was mostly injured on his right side, with the pellets hitting his cheek, neck and chest, and was taken to the hospital by ambulance.
Whittington was in stable condition Sunday, said Yvonne Wheeler, spokeswoman for the Christus Spohn Health System.
Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said the vice president was with Whittington, a lawyer from Austin, Texas, and his wife at the hospital on Sunday afternoon.
Armstrong said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shot at a covey of quail late afternoon on Saturday.
Whittington shot a bird and went to look for it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and found a second covey.
Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong told the Associated Press in an interview.
"The vice president didn't see him," she continued. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."
The shooting was first reported by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.
She said Whittington was bleeding but not very seriously injured, and Cheney was very apologetic.
"It broke the skin," she said. "It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were open. It didn't get in his eyes or anything like that."
She said emergency personnel traveling with Cheney tended to Whittington, holding his face and cleaning up the blood.
"Fortunately, the vice president has got a lot of medical people around him and so they were right there and probably more cautious than we would have been," she said. "The vice president has got an ambulance on call, so the ambulance came."
Armstrong said Cheney is a longtime friend who comes to the ranch to hunt about once a year. She said Whittington is a regular, too, but she thought it was the first time the two men hunted together.
"This is something that happens from time to time. You now, I've been peppered pretty well myself," said Armstrong.

MEDIA STILL GETTING IT WRONG

MEDIA STILL GETTING IT WRONG

My letter to Jim Brady

WAPO Blog editor

Jim,

Even in your lame whining piece YOU ARE STILL GETTING IT WRONG

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021100840.html

"As it was, things got pretty ugly, and it's worth figuring out why. In her Jan. 15 column, Howell erred in saying that Abramoff gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but he had donated his own p ersonal funds only to Republicans"

see: http://ronnmills.blogspot.com/2006/01/dems-dont-know-jack.html

and:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924

When IN FACT a study shows Clients gave LESS to any Democrats after they dealing with Abramoff

Yet you still try to make it a Republican/Democrat Scandal

You MSN news types just lay around on the couch and wait for the fax from Rove

before stenographer your news to your readers

You are no lon ger newsmen you are just lazy stenographers

Ron Mills

For News And Commentary:

http://www.ronmills.us/

For Florida Election News See:

http://www.ChangeInTallahassee.com

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

http://politalk1.blogspot.com/

Under The Radar

Nurse Investigated for 'Sedition' After Writing Letter to Editor
NEW YORK Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has asked Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson for a thorough inquiry of his agency's investigation into whether a V.A. nurse's letter to the editor criticizing the Bush administration amounted to "sedition."Merely opposing government policies and expressing a desire to change course "does not provide reason to believe that a person is involved in illegal subversive activity," he said. Bingaman said such investigations raise "a very real possibility of chilling legitimate political speech."Laura Berg, a clinical nurse specialist for 15 years, wrote a letter in September to a weekly Albuquerque newspaper criticizing how the administration handled Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq Wwr. She urged people to "act forcefully" by bring criminal charges against top administration officials, including the president, to remove them from power because they played games of "vicious deceit." She added: "This country needs to get out of Iraq now and return to our original vision and priorities of caring for land and people and resources rather than killing for oil....Otherwise, many more of us will be facing living hell in these times."The agency seized her computer and launched an investigation. Berg is not talking to the press, but reportedly fears losing her job.Bingaman wrote: "In a democracy, expressing disagreement with the government's actions does not amount to sedition or insurrection. It is, and must remain, protected speech. Although it may be permissible to implement restrictions regarding a government employee's political activities during work hours or on government premises, such employees do not surrender their right to freedom of speech when they enlist in government service."He said he wants the matter investigated so V.A. officials will have guidance about handling similar situations in the future.Berg signed the letter as a private citizen, and the V.A. had no reason to suspect she used government resources to write it, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, which last week asked the government to apologize to Berg for seizing her computer and investigating her.V.A. human resources chief Mel Hooker had said in a Nov. 9 letter that his agency was obligated to investigate "any act which potentially represents sedition," the ACLU said.Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU of New Mexico, told The Progressive magazine: "We were shocked to see the word 'sedition' used. Sedition? That's like something out of the history books."In a press release, Simonson also said: "Is this government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of 'sedition'?"

Confirms Talks Lobbyist With Reid's Office

From: dailykos.com
They just won't give up.
Today we have Confirms Talks Lobbyist With Reid's Office. And what does that lobbyist say?

Ronald Platt, a lobbyist who worked with Abramoff at the Greenberg Traurig firm between 2001 and 2004, said he contacted Reid's office in 2001, as the billing records show, about the timing of minimum wage legislation affecting one of Abramoff's clients, the Northern Mariana Islands.
"When Abramoff first arrived at Greenberg Traurig, I did a new colleague a favor by simply asking Reid staffers about when the minimum wage legislation affecting the Mariana Islands would be voted upon by the Senate. I communicated this to Abramoff," Platt said in a statement e-mailed Friday evening to The Associated Press.
...
In his statement, Platt sought to minimize the extent of his lobbying of Reid's office on behalf of Abramoff, saying he never considered himself "part of Team Abramoff." Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a fraud and bribery case.
"These contacts were incidental, insofar as I simply bumped into Reid staffers at Democratic Party functions or occurred incidental to discussions regarding my clients, not Abramoff's," Platt said. "Any contacts that I may have had in regard to Abramoff's tribal clients would have been similarly incidental."
...
Platt acknowledged he input his own time entries into his firm's billing system and that "any time billed to the Northern Marianas was to simply monitor the progress of the legislation." He said any help he provided with Abramoff's client ended in late 2001.
As AP continues to obsess on tying Reid to Abramoff on the Marianas minimum wage issue, they continue to leave out the key part of the story. So let's spell it out for them, again.
Abramoff was lobbying against legislation sponsored by Senator Kennedy seeking to increase the minimum wage in the Marianas Islands.
Senator Reid supported Kennedy's legislation. He was a cosponsor of it, and spoke in favor of the legislation on the Senate floor. Senator Reid was not asked to intervene to block the legislation.
Conclusion, by any reasonable person, there was no quid pro quo by Reid on this issue. But has AP contacted Senator Reid's office to find out his position on this legislation? Have they looked at his floor statements on it, easily available in the Congressional Record? If they have, they're leaving that key information out.
Is this hard to understand? When investigating an influence peddling and bribery scandal, it's kind of critical to actually look at the results of those efforts. You might have quid, but in this case no quo.
Meanwhile, three more members of Congress have been linked to Abramoff. And guess what? They are all Republicans.
Update [2006-2-11 13:50:11 by mcjoan]:: I mistakenly left out the best little snarky goodness by AP's crack reporters.
In his statement, Platt sought to minimize the extent of his lobbying of Reid's office on behalf of Abramoff, saying he never considered himself "part of Team Abramoff." Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a fraud and bribery case.
Maybe he was actually seeking to set the record straight? Because maybe his lobbying of Reid's office was actually minimal?
::

Business as usual

John Boehner is just another Tom DeLay
A insiders look

The Rant .
By DOUG THOMPSON
Rep. John Boehner came to Washington after the 1990 elections claiming to be a great reformer. In reality, he is just another politician on the take, out to milk the system for all he can.
I met Boehner at a reception for new members of Congress in December 1990. At the time, I was Vice President for Political Programs for the giant National Association of Realtors and controlled the largest political action committee (PAC) in town. Boehner had his hand out to every PAC, mine included, and made it clear he would vote the right way in exchange for maximum campaign contributions.
“I know your issues,” he said, “and I can support. I trust you can see your way clear to support me?”
Boehner made his name as a member of the “Gang of Seven,” a group of Congressional “reformers” who took on the House Bank that allowed members to overdraw their checking accounts at will and without penalty and helped expose Democratic powerhouse Dan Rostenkowski’s “cash for stamps” scam that cost him his seat in Congress and sent him to jail.
But while Boehner campaigned as the great reformer, he worked the system behind the scenes, scamming it for campaign cash and favors, cozying up to the same lobbyists and dealmakers as fellow Republican Tom DeLay. In 1992, he argued publicly for the elimination of PACs because they gave most of their money to the Democrats who controlled Congress. After Republicans took control in 1994, Boehner changed his tune and became a leading advocate of PACs and the money they could dump into the coffers of the new GOP leadership.
Boehner joined with DeLay and other Republican leaders in browbeating lobbying firms into hiring more Republicans and threatened PACs with exclusion from GOP briefings and events if they did not donate more to GOP candidates and causes.
His style was smoother than DeLay, the GOP pit bull who openly bullied and once told me “fuck the law. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the law.” Boehner would smile and talk in diplomatic terms but the smile masked a ruthlessness that said “play ball our way or you don’t play in our ballpark.”
“Make no mistake about it,” he told me in 1991. “We will remember those who helped us and those who did not will find themselves outside looking in. That’s the way the game is played.”
Boehner quickly learned how the game is played in Washington. Since 2000, he has allowed special interest groups to finance 41 trips for he and his family to Rome, Venice, Paris and Edinburgh, as well as domestic resort spots like Boca Raton, Fla., and Pebble Beach, Calif.
He often goes on the floor of the House of Representatives to praise the liquor industry for what he calls their “untiring efforts” to fight underage drinking and drunk driving. The industry bought these paid advertisements from Boehner with more than $200,000 in campaign contributions.
He is a big booster of Sallie Mae, the federal agency that provides government-backed student loans. His daughter works for Sallie Mae’s collection agency and employees of Sallie Mae have kicked in $120,000 to Boehner’s campaign PAC since 1989,
Boehner heads up efforts on the hill to limit lawsuits against the health care industry. In return, insurance companies for health care groups have contributed $2 million to Boehner.
And, yes, Boehner accepted $30,000 in campaign contributions from corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s tribal clients in the two election cycles. Unlike other members of Congress, Boehner has refused to return the tainted money.
Boehner rents his $1,600 a month Capitol Hill apartment from veteran lobbyist John Milne, who just happens to represent clients who have benefited from legislation Boehner sponsored as chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee.
And Boehner’s former chief of staff, now an aide to White House political guru Karl Rove, helped plan a congressional junket to the Mariana Islands with Abramoff.
With all this baggage, the GOP picked John Boehner to replace the corrupt Tom DeLay as the number two Republican in the House.
And they “punished” Tom DeLay by giving him a highly-coveted seat on the House Appropriations Committee along with a spot on the subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department – the same Justice Department currently investigating DeLay for his many wrongdoings.
Republicans call this “reform.” I call it business as usual.

Iraq War Draws Veterans into Politics

Iraq War Draws Veterans into Politics
The Associated Press

Colorado Springs, CO - After 20 years in the Air Force and Bronze Star service during the 1991 Gulf War, Democrat Jay Fawcett decided to come home and run for Congress, largely out of disgust with the way American troops were being used in Iraq.
"I think it's just gotten to the point where a significant number of us who've served are looking at this administration particularly - and Congress doesn't get off the hook - and saying, `What're you doing? What's the plan?"' he said.
Fawcett is part of a large and possibly unprecedented number of former soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines running for Congress this year.
About 40 of the candidates are Republicans, while at least 55 are Democrats. By one count, at least 11 veterans of the Iraq war or Afghanistan are hoping to get elected to the House or Senate, all but one of them Democrats.
The fighting Democrats, as some call themselves, say their military experience could give them the credibility to criticize the war without being dismissed out of hand by the GOP as naive and weak on defense, as the Bush administration has often done.
"One of the things I think is behind this movement is, we're not stupid in the military. We know when we've been used and misused," Navy veteran Bill Winter, a Democrat who hopes to challenge GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo in the Republican suburbs of Denver.
Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost both legs and an arm while serving in Vietnam, said the Iraq war veterans running as Democrats will offer "a direct rebuttal" to the administration on the Iraq war.
"This administration, come April, will be going into the fourth year of this war after the president said three weeks into it `Major combat over, mission accomplished, bring them on,"' Cleland said. "You tell me who's out of touch. It's not these Iraqi veterans that are coming back and saying, `This is not the way it was on the ground there, and I'm going to do something to change this."'
Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Democrats are trying "to manufacture momentum wherever they can find it."
"The sad reality is that most of those people the (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is promoting are in districts they can't possibly win," Forti said. "It doesn't make much sense to me."
Fawcett, who spent years as a defense contractor after leaving the Air Force, wants to take on Republican Rep. Joel Hefley in a Colorado Springs-area district that has one of the country's biggest concentrations of veterans. It includes the Air Force Academy, two Air Force bases, a major Army installation and NORAD, the air defense command. The district has been represented by a Republican since the seat was created more than three decades ago.
The roster of Democratic veterans includes engineers, teachers, lawyers, business owners and a pastor. Their stands on the war range from calling for immediate withdrawal to demanding a clearer timetable and a way out. Fawcett, for example, says that pulling out now would be a mistake, but that the Bush administration has failed to clearly state its goals and an exit strategy.
Among other veterans running for office:
Marine reservist Paul Hackett, who served in Iraq and is running for the Senate in Ohio. The Democrat narrowly lost a special House election last year in a district where President Bush won 64 percent of the vote in 2004.
Former Army Maj. L. Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who lost her legs in a grenade attack in Iraq. She is running as a Democrat for the Illinois congressional seat of retiring Republican Rep. Henry Hyde. She said she privately disagreed with Bush's decision to invade Iraq but still volunteered to serve. "We should have been fighting the enemies that attacked us at home on 9/11," she said in December. "We should have been out there trying to catch Osama bin Laden."
Democrat Eric Massa, a 24-year Navy officer challenging freshman Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl in western New York.
Elections after the end of World War II and the Vietnam War also saw large numbers of veterans running for Congress.
Republicans this time around could have a difficult time countering opposition to the administration's war plan - or the war itself - from veteran-Democrats, said Gary Jacobson, a congressional scholar at the University of California at San Diego.
"Popular sentiment is not terribly pro-war now, and there's lots of doubts about the administration's honesty and the purposes of the war," he said. "So if you have a veteran come back and start trashing the war, that's a problem for Republicans."
Still, a veteran cannot count on a win, said Ed Patru, another spokesman for the Republican congressional committee.
"Being a veteran, it's great to have that on your resume," he said. "People appreciate veterans, but if you're wrong on taxes and the economy, the bread-and-butter, kitchen-tabletop kind of issues, being a veteran is not going to save you."
-------
On the Net:
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC: http://www.iavapac.org
Band of Brothers: http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org

The GOP's Pre-owned New Leader

The GOP's Pre-owned New Leader
Robert L. Borosage


Robert L. Borosage is co-director of the Campaign For America's Future.

Jittery House Republicans have chosen Ohio Rep. John Boehner over Rep. Roy Blunt as their new majority leader. Boehner will replace Tom “the Hammer” DeLay, now facing trial for money laundering and other charges in Texas. The party’s chorus is cued up to celebrate Boehner as a new start — a clean contrast to the foul odor of corruption that pervades this Congress.
Good luck. Boehner, lauded by supporters as a “bridge” across Republican factions, has paved that bridge with the cold cash of special interest money. Boehner — a leader of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 takeover of the House — is renowned in Washington for maintaining a perpetual tan from Florida jaunts, liberally hopping on corporate jets dispensed by lobbyists, and raising tons of cash from K Street. His lavish beach parties for rich donors are his notorious signature. And he first came to public attention by giddily dispensing checks from tobacco executives on the House floor a decade ago.
Boehner touts change with a wink of the eye. "Yes, I am cozy with lobbyists,” The Washington Post reports he told his colleagues, while assuring them that he would not overreact to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal by curtailing the lavish travel and spending habits they have come to enjoy. For a Republican caucus that can barely summon a majority to pass a ban on former members-turned-lobbyists using the House gym, while grousing about anything approaching real reform, Boehner is the perfect choice.
And for the rest of us, Boehner personifies how the cost of corruption in Washington gets passed on to ordinary Americans. As chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, he is known as the “representative from Sallie Mae.” Sallie Mae is the leading provider of loans to college students and their parents, and Boehner has consolidated his leadership by dispensing big bucks raised from lenders in campaign and party contributions. In fact, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that Sallie Mae is the biggest donor to Boehner's political action committee, called Freedom Project.
In return, he protects their interest. Most recently, he helped develop and push through legislation that may weaken the loan industry’s competition — the Direct Student Loan program, where students bypass Sallie Mae and others and borrow directly from the government. While taking it to their competition, Boehner openly reassured bankers that they would not be harmed greatly by this legislation — as reported in the Chronicle of Education — he informed a group of bankers that they could rest easy in his “trusted hands.”
College tuition is soaring, and grant levels aren’t keeping up. Under Boehner’s leadership, Congress has refused to raise the top level of Pell grants, despite repeated campaign pledges by George W. Bush to do so. As a result, more and more students have to work part time, while taking on ever greater levels of debt to pay for college. Already, hundreds of thousands are having college priced out of reach; thousands more drop out, unable to sustain the burden of classes and work and debt. And those that do make it will find the difficult burden of paying of those loans just got harder.
The new pre-owned leader of the Republicans in Congress is rewarding the bankers that contribute to his campaigns by protecting their profits and threatening their competition. And in this most corrupt Congress, he’s portrayed as the reformer. When the stench gets this thick, it is no wonder that people start talking about cleaning the stables.

Cindy Sheehan Arrest

Cindy Sheehan Released After Arrest for Wearing Shirt

Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2006-02-01 01:44. Cindy Sheehan

By David Swanson

Note: Going on no sleep, Cindy plans to speak this morning on Good Morning America and the Today Show about the experience of being arrested for wearing a shirt.

The shirt Cindy was arrested for wearing. This photo was taken earlier in the day at the People's State of the Union with Congress Members Conyers and Woolsey.

Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Bu sh's war. Tonight she accepted an invitation from Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey to attend Bush's State of the Union speech. She had told me earlier that she didn't want to go. But she ended up going. All day she had been wearing a t-shirt and a sweat shirt. When she unzipped the sweat shirt, revealing that the t-shirt displayed a count of US soldiers killed in Iraq, the Capitol Police lifted her out of her seat and hauled her off to jail. She was released over 3 hours later, charged with unlawful conduct, which carries a fine of $45. She did not see the speech and was not able to speak at the rally outside the Capitol or the viewing party at Bus Boys and Poets restaurant, as she had planned. This was completely unexpected and not planned for. Cindy is clearly tired and frustrated by the experience.

Protesters from the World-Can't-Wait event marched from the Capitol Reflecting Pool to the jail where Cindy was first taken. Both on the way there and after reaching the jail, they encountered abusive and unnecessary force from the police. One young woman was kicked in the head, and was treated in an ambulance and released.

The jail was on D Street, NE, near the Senate office buildings. The police told us they were taking Cindy to central processing at Judiciary Square and would bring her back and release her. Then they said she'd be released over there, but when we got there, they said she'd be released at a jail at 415 4th Street SW, so we headed over there, and she was in fact released. Television cameras followed the whole way. Cindy was too tired and fed-up to make a lengthy statement. She has invitations for the morning from the Today Show, Good Morning America, and others.

The Impeach Bush truck drove around the Capitol today.

Pacifica radio covered the State of the Union from Bus Boys and Poets restaurant.

A line of police faced a crowd of protesters outside the jail where Cindy was first taken.

Cindy's sister Dede Miller spoke with the police and then with the media.

Democrats.com REPORT

BradBlog REPORT

PHOTO ALBUM

Also: C-Span has posted the video (two and a half hours) of a forum on impeachment from yesterday. Go to www.c-span.org and click on "Bush Administration" in the upper left.

HERE IS CINDY'S OWN REPORT:

As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.

I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.

There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:

This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 22 45 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shrit that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

There have already been many wild stories out there.

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wear ing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred of protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.

Love and peace soon,
Cindy

______________________

For News And Commentary:

http://www.RonMills.us

 

For Florida Election News See:

http://www.ChangeInTallahassee.com

 

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

http://politalk1.blogspot.com/