During his recent press conference with Prime Minister Maliki, George Bush said of Iraq "This country has a constitution, which is one of the most modern constitutions ever written in the Middle East."

George Bush thinks Iraq has one of the most "modern" constitutions to ever be written in the Middle East.

Well, let's examine exactly what is in Iraq's constitution that Bushie loves so dearly:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

(Full text of Iraq's constitution at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html)

In other words, Iraq's constution establishes an official state religion and is based on Sharia law.

You call that "modern," Bushie?

Are you sure you don't want to revise your previous remarks?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061130-1.html

 

Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado must have a case of foot-in-mouth disease.  A bad one.

Tancredo called the city of Miami a "third world country."  Speaking with the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, Tancredo commented ''Look what has happened to Miami. It has become a third-world country. You just pick it up and move it someplace. You would never know you're in the United States of America. You would certainly say you're in a third-world country.''

Hmmm...so I guess in Tancredo's sick, twisted mind, he's in a third world country whenever he sees a bunch of people who don't look like him?

Tancredo Calls Miami 'Third-World Country'

Anti-Illegal Immigration Advocate Made Comments To WorldNetDaily.com

Accoring to The Hill, things got a little testy between Idiot Son Bush and Senator-Elect Jim Webb.

Bush asked Webb how Webb's son (serving in Iraq) is doing. Webb said "I just want him home soon" to which Bush responded "I didn't ask you that. I asked how he's doing."

Any President worth their salt might have responded to Webb by saying 'I understand sir. I want your son, and all of our troops, home soon as well.'

Instead, Bush in effect tells Webb he doesn't give a sh*t about him wanting his son back home soon.

Is George Bush even able to comprehend that Jim Webb is not just a politician?

He's also an American parent who wants his brave child serving in Iraq, home soon.

Son also rises in testy Webb-Bush exchange

You might recall that when Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Michigan ruled that Bushie's warrantles domestic spying program was illegal and unconstitutional, the New York Times declared in an editorial that Judge Talyor "reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration." (http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com/2006/08/17/reasserting-the-rule-of-law-over-lawless-administration.html)

Thankfully, Judge Taylor is no longer alone.

Another judge has essentially declared to George Bush that he is not judge and jury.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins of Los Angeles struck down part of a Bush anti-terrorism law that deals with freezing of terrorist assests, because the current law that is in place, buts no limits on the President's power to put people on that list.  In other words, no President should have blind, unlimited authority to put people on some type of list, without any checks and balances.

David Cole of the Center for Constitutional Rights commented that "The court's decision confirms that even in fighting terror, unchecked executive authority and trampling on fundamental freedoms is not a permissible option."

Judge strikes down part of Bush anti-terror order 

We don't want to talk about no stinkin' poverty!!  Us?  Care about poverty? 

The environment? Why should we care about what shape we are leaving this earth in? 

That's the message from the "Christian" Coalition.

Rev. Joel Hunter of Florida was elected President of the Christian Coalition, and was prepared to assume that role this coming January.

However, he has declined the postion.  Rev. Hunter says that he wanted to use his tenure as President of the Christian Coalition to focus on issues such as poverty and the environment. 

However, the powers-that-be at the organization wanted to preclude him from expanding its agenda beyond opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Rev. Hunter said he was told "These issues (povery and the environment) are fine, but they're not our issues, that's not our base."

In other words, the "Christian" Coalition and it's "base" could care less about Matthew 25: 40:  "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (KJV) 

When it comes to issues of poverty, we don't have to wonder "what would Jesus do" because the Word already tells us.  I guess the "Christian" Coalition hasn't received that memo yet.

Christian Coalition pres.-elect leaves

 

 

So as I made my way out the door this morning, I caught the very beginning of NBC's Today Show, and to my surprise, I actually caught the Today Show reporting the news and telling the truth (who knew?)!

At the beginning of the Today Show, Matt Lauer announced that it is now NBC and MSNBC's policy to refer to the conflict in Iraq as a "civil war." NBC and MSNBC believe that the conditions on the ground in Iraq, fit their definition of a civil war.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration (who has an adversion to anything resembling the truth) is continuing to resist the "civil war" label for Iraq.  National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley says that Iraq is just in a "new phase."  (I guess they believe that if you don't say it or talk about it, then it doesn't exist).

For more on NBC and MSNBC's decision:

NBC label of civil war at odds with White House

Pronouncement to increase public dismay over troop presence, analysts say

MSNBC, NBC News Decide To Call Civil War In Iraq ‘A Civil War’

And the view from Bushland:

White House Says Iraq in 'New Phase'

Tell Progressive Minds what you think!  Is Iraq in a civil war?  Take the following poll, and please leave a comment on here to explain your answer.

Well color me surprised here!  I'm just shocked, I tell you!  (NOT!)  Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who ran Abu Ghraib prison until early in 2004, revealed to a Spanish newspaper that Donald Rumsfeld ordered the mistreatment (read: torture) of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Karpinski told the El Pais newspaper that Rummy signed a memorandum that detailed the harsh interrogation tactics, and in the margin of the memo, wrote a note which said "Make sure that this is accomplished."

Rumsfeld okayed abuses says former U.S. general

Actor Michael Richards, who as we all know is under fire for uttering the most disgusting racial slurs while performing at the Laugh Factory last week, has hired a "crisis expert."

For the past 12 years, the GOP slackers in Congress have not gone about doing the business of the American people.  But that will end very soon.

Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already indicated that she has no intentions of letting the next Congress rest on its laurels.

Tradionally, the new congress convenes the first week in January (after returning from break),thus allowing the new members to be sworn in.  Then, they adjourn until the President delivers the annual State of the Union speech.  However, Nancy Pelosi says she will break that tradition.  The House of Representatives will NOT adjourn for those weeks in January.  Rather, they will be busy working on an ethics reform package and other priorities on the Democratic leadership's agenda.

Memo to GOP: Play time is over!

Marc Sandalow: Pelosi to Convene House January 4

What areas of the Bush Administration, do you feel that the new, Democratic-controlled Congress should focus and hold hearings on?

Please take the following poll, and then feel free to leave a comment on here to explain your answer.

A group of Muslim scholars were removed from a US Airways flight this week for apparently no reason.

The Muslim scholars, returning from a conference, said their normal evening prayers in an airport terminal before boarding their plane.  They apparently did nothing but mind their business on the plane, but a fellow passenger passed a note to a flight attendant, stating their concern about the Muslim passengers.

From an Associated Press article:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called Tuesday for an investigation into the behavior of airline staff and airport security in the removal of six Muslim scholars from a US Airways flight a day earlier.

A passenger raised concerns about the imams — three of whom said their normal evening prayers in the airport terminal before boarding the Phoenix-bound plane, according to one — through a note passed to a flight attendant, according to Andrea Rader, a spokeswoman for US Airways.

"We are concerned that crew members, passengers and security personnel may have succumbed to fear and prejudice based on stereotyping of Muslims and Islam," Nihad Awad, the council's executive director, said in a news release.

-snip-

Shahin said Tuesday that three members of the group prayed in the terminal before the six boarded the plane. They entered individually, except for one member who is blind and needed to be guided, Shahin said. Once on the plane, the six did not sit together, he said.

"We did nothing" on the plane, Shahin said.

The six were among passengers who boarded Flight 300, bound for Phoenix, around 6:30 p.m. Monday, airport spokesman Pat Hogan said.

Police were called after the captain and airport security workers asked the men to leave the plane and the men refused, Rader said.

Shahin said no one asked the six to leave until police arrived, when the group complied.

"Unfortunately, this is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time," council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.

Are these supposed to be our democratic values in America now?  Why is it ok to remove people who are minding their business from a plane, simply because they are of a certain race or religion?

And why is it that no one called for the profiling of White men with crew cuts after Tim McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City?

On their way out the door, the Republican-controlled Congress is leaving a mess for the Democrats to clean up when they take control in January. 

GOP leaders in Congress have decided to leave as unfinished business, spending bills that total appromixately a half-trillion-dollars.

And while some Republicans on the Hill say they should finish their work before going home, other GOP lawmakers suggest that the decision to not complete their work is intentional, in the hopes that the Democrats will be so busy cleaning up the mess that the GOP left behind, that they won't have a chance to focus on their own agenda next year.

From an Associated Press article:

Republicans vacating the Capitol are dumping a big spring cleaning job on Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills.

There's also no guarantee that Republicans will pass a multibillion-dollar measure to prevent a cut in fees to doctors treating Medicare patients.

The bulging workload that a Republican-led Congress was supposed to complete this year but is instead punting to 2007 promises to consume time and energy that Democrats had hoped to devote to their own agenda upon taking control of Congress in January for the first time in a dozen years.

The decision to drop so much unfinished work in Democrats' laps demonstrates both division within Republicans ranks and the difficulty in resolving so many knotty questions in so short a time. GOP leaders promised their House and Senate members the December lame duck session would last no more than two weeks, or until Dec. 16 at the latest.

-snip-

"The last thing Republicans need is an end-of-Congress spending spree as our last parting shot as we walk out the door," said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.

Some Republicans also look forward to using unfinished budget work to gum up an early Democratic agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, cutting interest rates on college loans and repealing some tax breaks for oil companies.

"Other stuff may get pushed off the table," said GOP lobbyist Hazen Marshall, a former longtime Capitol Hill aide. "It kills (Democrats') message."

Perhaps if this Republican-controlled Congress had been more concerned with doing the business of the American people, instead of protecting pedophiles and smoozing up to people like Jack Abramoff, then perhaps these spending bills would have been finished.

Is the Bush Administration once again fixing the facts around the policy in order to justify a pre-emptive invasion of another country?

We learned from the Downing Street Memo that in the lead-up to the Iraq war:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Now we learn from author Seymour Hersh that the Bush Administration may be ignoring the information it is receiving from within the intelligence community, relative to Iran.

In an article for The New Yorker magazine, Hersh writes:

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency.  A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it."

White House brushes off CIA draft on Iran: report

Rep. Charlie Rangel, one of the top Democrats in the United States Congress (he will become Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in January) has called for reinstating the draft.

Rangel makes a very good point: that if the President of the United States, and members of Congress, knew that their sons, daughters and other loved ones might be forced to serve in combat, then perhaps they would be less likely to invade a country on highly suspect 'evidence.'

Today, Rep. Rangel stated "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."

Do you agree or disagree with Rep. Rangel's call for reinstating the draft?  Please take the following poll and then leave a comment here to expound!

Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

 

It appears as though the blind loyalists who have been faithful to George W. Bush since 2001, are finally taking the blinders off their eyes.

There's a very interesting article in the Washington Post about some of the true Bush believers who are now waking up to the fact that Bush is not their kind of conservative, and they have finally begun to speak out against this administration's policies.

From the Post:

The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President Cheney's residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the "cakewalk" Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting President Bush and victory. "It was a euphoric moment," Adelman recalled.

Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march, and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that "the president is ultimately responsible" for what Adelman now calls "the debacle that was Iraq."

-snip-

The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war.

Since the Nov. 7 elections, Republicans have pinned their woes on the president.

"People expect a level of performance they are not getting," former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in a speech. Many were livid that Bush waited until after the elections to oust Rumsfeld.

-snip-

On the domestic side, Bush allies in Congress, interest groups and the conservative media broke their solidarity with the White House out of irritation over a number of issues, including federal spending, illegal immigration, the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the response to Hurricane Katrina and the Dubai Ports World deal.

Most striking lately, though, has been the criticism from neoconservatives who provided the intellectual framework for Bush's presidency. Perle, Adelman and others advocated a robust use of U.S. power to advance the ideals of democracy and freedom, targeting Hussein's Iraq as a threat that could be turned into an opportunity.

Embittered insiders turn against Bush

War advocates, other conservatives say president mismanaged their vision

And that, my friends, is the problem with blind loyalty.  That's the problem with following a human being, instead of following where your principles and your sense of right and wrong lead you.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives made a brilliant move today!  It was awesome. 

What did they do that was so special, you might ask?  They did something that many of their GOP counterparts have seemed afraid to do: show their independence.

Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (boy, does that sound great after 12 years of Republican rule) lobbyed for her longtime ally Rep. Jack Murtha to be elected the Number 2 Democrat when the Democrats take control next January.

But in a secret-ballot session today, Democrats instead chose Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

In going against their incoming speaker's wishes, the House Democrats have shown that they are independent thinkers, and won't be afraid to buck Speaker Pelosi should she need reigning in.

Contrast this with how the GOP has run the House of Representatives since 1994.  GOP leaders in the House have frequently used strong-arming tactics such as holding 5 minute votes open for 40 minutes, so they could do some arm twisting and threatening until they got the number of votes they needed from members of their party.

The Democrats today demonstrated that when they assume control next year, they won't allow themselves to be strong-armed.  They will vote their conscience, no matter what their leadership may be telling or asking them to do.

 

 

Previously here on the blog, you've heard me mention the Department of Agriculture's annual report that examines hunger in America.  Specifically, they take a look at the number of families who don't have enough to eat.  (In my last post on this subject, I mentioned that the Bush Administration had delayed the release of this report, until after the mid-term elections).

Well apparently, the Department of Agriculture has adopted a 'if we don't say it, it doesn't exist" approach.  Because they will no longer use the word "hunger" in their annual HUNGER report.  Rather, they are adopting the term "food insecurity."

From a Washington Post article:

The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security."

Every year, the Agriculture Department issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word "hunger" to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table. But not this year.

Mark Nord, the lead author of the report, said "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, "We don't have a measure of that condition."

The USDA said that 12 percent of Americans -- 35 million people -- could not put food on the table at least part of last year. Eleven million of them reported going hungry at times. Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group.

-snip-

Anti-hunger advocates say the new words sugarcoat a national shame. "The proposal to remove the word 'hunger' from our official reports is a huge disservice to the millions of Americans who struggle daily to feed themselves and their families," said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy group. "We . . . cannot hide the reality of hunger among our citizens."

Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck's racist credentials come shining through again.

Keith Ellison, a Democrat, recently became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress.  And he recently made an appearance on Glenn Beck's CNN Headline News Program.

During his appearance, Glenn Beck said to Ellison "...What I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

In other words, because Ellison is a Muslim, Beck automatically wonders whether Ellison might not have the best intentions towards the United States.

We have a name for that, Glenn.  It's called racism.  It's called racial profiling.

CNN's Beck to first-ever Muslim congressman: "[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies' "

So I received the email update that John Conyers sent out today, in which he said that he agreed with Nancy Pelosi that impeachment is "off the table."

I never thought I would be so disappointed in John Conyers.

Their message should not be "impeachment is off the table."

In my opinion, I think the message they should send is "We will go where the facts lead us."

And from what I can tell, they don't have all the facts yet, because they have not had subpoena power, and the ability to get key people under oath.

John Conyers has done a lot of talking about Bush fixing the facts around the policy when it came to Iraq.

But it seems to me that he is doing the same thing here. Their policy is not to impeach Bush, without having all the facts first.

If this is the way the Democrats plan to "lead" as they assume the majority, it confirms for me that I did the right thing by leaving the party and becoming a registered independent.

The Fox (or Faux, as I prefer to call them) News Network likes to label itself as "fair and balanced."

But the folks over at Huffington Post have obtained an internal Fox memo (prepared by its Vice President of News) that shows the network is anything but fair and balanced.

On the day that the Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate, Fox News was on the lookout for any statements from insurgents in Iraq, that would suggest they were happy about the results of the midterm elections.  Specifically, the memo stated "And let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled Congress."

Here is the memo that was obtained by Huffington Post: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html)

 

Whenever George Bush musters up the courage to go before a predominantly African-American audience (which isn't every often), he likes to talk about the "soft bigotry of low expectations."  And if anyone knows about low expectations, it's George Bush.  But I digress.

Bush likes to cite the No Child Left Behind Act as evidence of his alledged commitment to closing the education gap between African-Americans and Caucasian childen.

But a report by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (an organization that studies issues affecting minorities), concludes that the No Child Left Behind Act has actually hurt minority studies.

From an Associated Press article:

Flawed government policies and negative stereotyping of minority men have limited their economic opportunities, a new study says. It urges improved health care and education for minorities and less media consolidation.

The study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a research and policy group that focuses on issues that affect minorities, examined the impact of U.S. policies on men of black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American descent.

It said the media and entertainment industries overrepresent minorities as criminals and whites as victims and law enforcers. Blacks are twice as likely as white defendants to be subject to negative pretrial publicity, it said. For Hispanics, three times as likely.

Meanwhile, federal laws such as the No Child Left Behind Act have hurt minorities by driving good teachers away from high-poverty schools to better-funded ones where whites are more highly represented, the report contends.

Study: Bad Laws, Media Hurt Minorities

Today, ground was broken for the site of the Martin Luther King Memorial, which will be located on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

During the ground-breaking ceremony, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. John Lewis, and Ambassador Andrew Young, who all stood side-by-side Dr. King during the civil rights movement, were overcome with emotion, and rightly so.  These three men worked tirelessly with Dr. King to help create an America that is as good as its promise.

These beautiful pictures from today tell the story:

Caption courtesy of the AP: Rev. Jesse Jackson, top center, and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., leaning on shovel, become emotional as Amb. Andrew Young, top right, speaks about the significance of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the breaking ground for the Martin Luther King Memorial on the National Mall in Washington Monday Nov. 13, 2006. Consoling Rep. Lewis are former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman, center, and fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger, second from left. At lower right, Martin Luther King Jr.'s sister Christine King Farris. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

Caption courtesy of the AP: Rev. Jesse Jackson comforts former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, right, during the ground breaking ceremony for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the National Mall in Washington Monday, Nov. 13, 2006. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)

One of the first priorities of the Democratic-controlled Congress in January, needs to be meaningful legislation that will clean up our electoral process, to restore confidence in our elections.

The things that happened on Election Day 2006, have no place in a so-called democracy.  For example, as I've mentioned before here on blog, calls were made to certain voters in Virginia, threatening them with arrest if they showed up to vote.

Republican Michael Steele of Maryland, who was defeated in his bid for the Maryland Senate seat, also played a part in GOP trickery on election day.  Steele and outgoing Republican Governor of Maryland, Bob Erlich, were part of an effort to distribute misleading fliers in predominantly African-American neighborhoods.  The fliers attempted to mislead voters into believing that Erlich and Steele were the Democratic candidates on the ballot that day.

From the Washington Post:

The six Trailways motorcoaches draped in Ehrlich and Steele campaign banners rumbled down Interstate 95 just before dawn on Election Day.

On board, 300 mostly poor African Americans from Philadelphia ate doughnuts, sipped coffee and prepared to spend the day at the Maryland polls. After an early morning greeting from Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s wife, Kendel, they would fan out in white vans across Prince George's County and inner-city Baltimore, armed with thousands of fliers that appeared to be designed to trick black Democrats into voting for the two Republican candidates.

The glossy fliers bore photos of black Democratic leaders on the front. Under the headline "Democratic Sample Ballot" were boxes checked in red for Ehrlich and Senate candidate Michael S. Steele, who were not identified as Republicans. Their names were followed by a long list of local Democratic candidates.

GOP Fliers Apparently Were Part Of Strategy

Md. Tactics Similar To Ones in 2002

During the general , the campaign of Michael Steele ran some of the worst race-baiting radio ads that I have heard in a long time. I heard these ads daily on my local radio stations.

In making the case for voting for Steele as opposed to Democrat Ben Cardin, they accused the Democratic Party of betraying Kweisi Mfume.

If you hadn't known any better, you would have thought that Michael Steele thought Mfume walked on water. The add went on and on about how Mfume devoted his entire life to the Democratic Party and civil rights.

Then, the ad went on to basically say that the Dems just through Mfume overboard. Everytime I would hear the add, I would cringe. Hello? Democrats in Maryland had a PRIMARY. No one betrayed anyone.

Anyway, I just find it coincidental that the Republicans bypassed Michael Steele for the RNC Chairman post.

You think Steele is looking up the definition of karma right about now?

Anyone else find it very fitting that Bush wants as head of the RNC, the man who helped politicize the Terry Schiavo case?

We should remind the MSM that it was a staffer from Mel Martinez's office who wrote the talking points that ABC News obtained about the Schiavo case, and how they hoped to use it to hurt Bill Nelson in his re-election.

I find it really fitting that Bush reached out to Martinez for the RNC Chairman position.

Bush and his minions do a lot of talking about how they don't pay attention to polls, and how they try not to politicize certain events.

But make no mistake about it. This is perhaps the most political White House I've seen in my lifetime. They never seem to make a decision without calculating their political viability into the equation.

Are outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others in the Bush Administration about to get their comeuppance?

According to Time magazine, a lawsuit is being filed in Germany to seek the prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and others, for the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib prison, as well as the atrocities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

From Time magazine:

Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Read the rest at:

Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse

Finally!  This unlawful, constitution-hating Administration will have some oversight.

There are a couple of wonderful articles today about the oversight that the new Democratic-controlled Congress plans to exercise over the Bush Administration; oversight that has been lacking from the day Bush walked into the White House.

Rep. Henry Waxman, who is set to become Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, said that there are so many areas of potential wrongdoing by the Bush Administration, that his toughest job will be to determine which areas to pursue.

From an Associated Press article:

There's the response to Hurricane Katrina, government contracting in Iraq and on homeland security, political interference in regulatory decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and allegations of war profiteering, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

"I'm going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything," Waxman said Friday, three days after his party's capture of Congress put him in line to chair the panel. "The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose."

Waxman set to probe areas of Bush gov't

While reading an article on Robert Gates, Bush's nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld at the Defense Department, this particular section stuck out for me like a sore thumb.  Gates was accused of politicizing Cold War-era intelligence on Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and the Soviet Union.

From an Associated Press article:

Gates' resume as a government policymaker is not untarnished. Critics dredged up his 1991 confirmation hearings to be CIA director as evidence he is the wrong man for the job. Then, he was criticized for missing clues about the impending fall of the Soviet Union and for politicizing Cold War intelligence. Those two complaints _ misreading intelligence and using it selectively _ have also dogged the Bush administration in its Iraq policy.

-snip-

Melvin Goodman, a former CIA division chief for Soviet affairs, testified that Gates politicized the intelligence on Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. "Gates' role in this activity was to corrupt the process and the ethics of intelligence on all of these issues," Goodman said.

Politicizing intelligence?  We've been down that road in more recent times as well.  As we learned from the Downing Street Memo, the Bush Administration fixed the facts around the policy in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Instead of letting the intelligence guide their policy on Iraq, they fixed the intelligence around their policy (invasion and regime change).

Sadly, the Republican-controlled Congress wasn't too interested in providing oversight of a Republican administration, so they never bothered to hold hearings on this issue.

It will be incumbent upon the new Democratic-controlled Congress to begin exercising this badly needed oversight.  And that includes asking the tough questions of Robert Gates during his confirmation hearings to be Defense Secretary.  The Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee will be duty-bound to learn exactly how Gates handled the Cold-war era intelligence he received, and to determine what that says about how he might handle any information the Bush Administration receives on Iran or North Korea.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=78&pid=&sid=969245&page=1

As we all know now, Donald Rumsfeld is being shown the door.  Now, it's a shame that it took the Republican Party getting their clocks cleaned yesterday, to make George Bush understand what a miserable failure his Secretary of Defense is.  But if that's what it took, fine by me!

Even after being given his walking papers, Rummy's arrogance was appearance.  He says we just don't "understand" the Iraq war!   He said during his remarks today: "It is not well-known, It was not well-understood. It is complex for people to comprehend, and I know with certainty that over time the contributions you've made will be recorded by history."

WE don't understand the Iraq war, Rummy?  Tell that to our men and women serving there.  Tell it to the families who have lost loved ones there.  Tell it to the Iraqi civilians with permanent injuries, or who have also lost loved ones.

We understand just fine that you threatened to fire anyone who mentioned the need for an exit strategy.  I think we understand that the Administration in which you served, fixed the facts around the policy. 

It is YOU, Rummy, that doesn't understand the Iraq war; the one who can't comprehend it.  And that is why you are out of a job.

Rumsfeld: Iraq war 'little understood'

Here's hoping that the executive branch of the U.S. government will now have some oversight.

The Democrats will take control of both houses of Congress in January.  Last night, of course, we learned that they had control of the House of Representatives.   And today, we learned that they will indeed take the Senate, thanks to Jim Webb's victory over George Allen.

Democrats take control of the Senate

One word for you to remember as you enter the voting booth tomorrow: OVERSIGHT!  As in, this Administration hasn't had any for the past 6 years!  As in, we need a United States Congress that understands they have an oversight function to perform on the executive branch.

OVERSIGHT!

 

This is for all Michigan voters.

If you are FOR affirmative action, it is important that you vote NO on the affirmative action initiative that will be on the ballot tomorrow.

I was listening to the Tom Joyner Morning Show today, and they said that the way the initiative is worded on the ballot, it makes it look like it is a pro-civil rights initiative. And so the view is that people will see how it is worded, and think that if they vote YES, they will be voting to protect affirmative action in Michigan. That is NOT the case. The initiative is to END affirmative action, so you want to vote NO.

Ward Connelly is supporting this initiative, and so is the Klu Klux Klan. So that gives you some idea of how you should vote if you care about protecting affirmative action.

So, if you are FOR affirmative action, please vote NO on tomorrow.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/election06/connerly116

A must read today, on voter suppression tactics in the state of Virginia.  No commentary necessary. This article says it all.

Threats of Incarceration, Changed Polling Locations, and Fliers to “Skip the Election.”

Over the past several days, voters throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia have filed complaints of incidents aimed at suppressing voter turn out in heavily Democratic and African American neighborhoods. Today, the Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean Jensen concluded that the incidents appear widespread and deliberate.

“There are now credible reports from multiple jurisdictions around the Commonwealth that establish a pattern of dirty tricks being employed to confuse and frustrate Virginia's voters from exercising their right to vote tomorrow. In addition to reports that have been received by the Democratic Party of Virginia, these local election officials have been receiving reports from concerned voters,” said Jack Young, co-chair of Promote the Vote.

Jay Myerson, General Counsel of the Democratic Party of Virginia noted the irony that our troops are fighting to create democracy in Iraq at a time when those very rights are being tested here at home. Myerson and Young urged voters to recognize that voting precincts are not changed by telephone calls and called upon the U.S. Department of Justice to vigorously investigate these matters.

The entire article is here: Sec. of Virginia State Board of Elections Finds Widespread Incidents of Voter Suppression

Very interesting article in the Charlotte Observer.

Many Iraqis don't believe the U.S. has their best interest at heart.  From the Observer:

No matter the politics of the respondent, recent interviews with 19 Iraqis, both Shiite and Sunni Muslims, found almost no one who thought the Americans were fighting for them. Only ethnic Kurds, who have established a largely autonomous region in Iraq's north, were willing to say that American troops serve their interests.

Public opinion surveys over the years have shown growing Iraqi discontent with the American presence. The most recent, released in September by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a group affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, found that seven of 10 Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to withdraw within a year. In the same survey, 78 percent said the U.S. presence provokes more conflict than it prevents; 84 percent said they had little or no confidence in the U.S military.

But the unwillingness of Iraqis to say that the Americans were fighting specifically for them underscores how confusing U.S. policy has become in Iraq's complicated political environment of competing sects, ethnic groups, tribes, militias, interest groups and leaders.

Iraqis think few U.S. troops are fighting for them

Well color me surprised here.  ABC News has uncovered footage of Army recruiters blatantly lying to students, including telling them the Iraq was is over, and that there's a "slim to none" they would be sent overseas.

From ABC News:

ABC News and New York affiliate WABC equipped students with hidden video cameras before they visited 10 Army recruitment offices in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

"Nobody is going over to Iraq anymore?" one student asks a recruiter.

"No, we're bringing people back," he replies.

"We're not at war. War ended a long time ago," another recruiter says.

Last year, the Army suspended recruiting nationwide to retrain recruiters following hundreds of allegations of improprieties.

One Colorado student taped a recruiting session posing as a drug-addicted dropout.

"You mean I'm not going to get in trouble?" the student asked.

The recruiters told him no, and helped him cheat to sign up.

During the ABC News sessions, some recruiters told our students if they enlisted, there would be little chance they'd to go Iraq.

Just wanted to talk for a minute, with my fellow African-American voters in particular.

I was really struck this evening, as I watched the local evening news and they showed Sen. Barrack Obama coming into Virginia to campaign for Jim Webb. Speficially, Obama was brought in to help galvanize the African-American vote. They noted that since Webb is a former Republican who served in the Reagan administration, there is some skepticism from African-Americans in VA. Is he sincere?

The news report noted that it will be the African-American vote that can help carry Webb to victory in Virginia, and so they will be looking to see what the turnout among African-Americans will be.

As I was watching, I thought about something that Tavis Smiley says ad nauseum. He is always reminding us that we cannot afford to lose elections becasue of the "margin of our absence at the polls."

In other words, when we show up, it is often our votes that make the difference.

So my personal hope is that we all get out there and vote next week. I hope that we vote our own best interests and remember that just because someone looks like you (say for example, Michael Steele) doesn't mean they share your values.

Halloween has just passed, but that doesn't mean the tricks are over; specifically, election trickery.

There are a couple of stories in the news today, about some election shenanigans.  And it's might curious that the center of these stories is the state of Maryland, where Democrat Ben Cardin and Republican Michael Steele are locked in a close battle for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

In the city of Baltimore, Maryland, several election judges have reported that they received mysterious anonymous phone calls telling them that their polling assignment had been changed. Two of the election judges who received the calls, said they attempted to call back the number that was on their caller ID, to see who had made this call to them.  But the number was out of service.

The calls made to the judges are blatantly false, as officials have assured them that any legitimate changes to the polling assignments of election judges, won't be made until early next week.

Also, the Washington Post reports that in Maryland, GOP officials have created a handbook that encourages Republican poll watchers to "challenge" voters who they suspect are fraudulent.  In other words, the GOP appears to be instructing their surrogates to participate in voter suppression.  What are the GOP's guidelines for suspecting that someone is a fraudulent voter?  If I walk into my polling site to cast my vote, and a Republican poll watcher does not know me from Adam, as the old saying goes, then who are they to know whether or not I'm a legitimate voter?  It's also interesting that the GOP is claiming to do this, in order to prevent voter fraud.  As I've recently reported here on the blog, voter fraud is basically a non-issue in this country.  Last month, USA Today reported that a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission "has found little evidence" of voter fraud. 

Election Judges Report Getting Mysterious Calls

Md. Dems Slam GOP Voter-Credential Guide

POLL WATCHERS

Md. Democrats Say GOP Plans to Block Voters

Report refutes fraud at poll sites

Is the Bush Administration playing politics with the Department of Agriculter's annual hunger report?

Normally, the hunger report (prepared by the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service), is released in October, one month after the Census Bureau releases its annual poverty figures).  It examines the number of people with "food insecurity," meaning they dont' have enough money or other resources to obtain food. But the Administration has decided to delay the release of the hunger report, until after the November elections.

Since George Bush has been in office, the hunger report has shown a consistently steady increase in the number of "food insecure" Americans, from 31 million in 1999, to 38 million in 2004. 

The poverty report by the Census Bureau is usually a good indication of what the hunger report will look like.  For example, an increase in the poverty numbers usually means an increase in the number of food insecure Americans.  The most recent poverty numbers show that the poverty rate is has not increased nor decreased; but remained the same.  Last year, there were 37 million Americans living in poverty; about the same as in 2004.  So it's quite possible that the number of food insecure Americans will hold steady as well.

Regardless of what the numbers show, the American people have a right to this information from their government.  And the release of such information, should not be tied to political events.  But for the Bush Administration, everything is about politics (specifically, their political viability).  It's worth noting that in 2004, just before the Presidential election, they delayed the release of the annual hunger report until after voters went to the polls.

Democrats Say Hunger Report Stalled