What Goes Around Comes Around

How priceless is it that Ronnie Earle is now pulling a DeLay tactic and has said that the new "Republican" Judge, B. B. Schraub chosen to appoint a new judge to preside over DeLay's conspiracy and money laundering trial has contributed over $5,000 to the RNC and to the campaigns of Rep. Gov. Rick Perry and George W. Bush calling into question his ability to be impartial. OMG, I love it!

Second Judge Out for DeLay Trial

By APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press Writer Thu Nov 3, 1:40 PM ET

AUSTIN, Texas - Two days after U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay won a fight to get a new judge in his case, prosecutors on Thursday succeeded in ousting the Republican jurist responsible for selecting the new judge.

Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub recused himself after District Attorney Ronnie Earle filed a motion asking for his removal from the case.

Schraub said he will ask the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court name a judge to preside over DeLay's conspiracy and money laundering trial.

State district Judge Bob Perkins, a Democrat, was removed from DeLay's case Tuesday after
DeLay's legal team cast doubt on Perkins' ability to judge the case fairly because of more than $5,000 in contributions he's made to Democrats.

Earle said in his motion filed Thursday that Schraub has made more than $5,000 in contributions to Republican candidates, including to Gov. Rick Perry, a DeLay ally, which calls into question Schraub's impartiality in the case.

Prosecutors had asked for Schraub to recuse himself or appoint another judge to take his place.

The motion said that Schraub could ask Perry to appoint the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to assign a judge to conduct a hearing on the motion.

DeLay, 58, and two associates have been accused of funneling corporate donations from a DeLay-founded political committee in Texas to the Republican National Committee, which sent the money back to GOP legislative candidates in Texas. Texas law forbids the direct use of corporate money for campaigning.

The alleged scheme was part of a plan DeLay helped set in motion in 2001 to help Republicans win control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections. The Republican Legislature then adopted a new congressional voting district map that DeLay crafted to put more Republicans in Congress in 2004.

In coordination with DeLay, Perry called lawmakers back for three special sessions to tackle the contentious redistricting map, despite vehement opposition from Democrats, who staged two out-of-state walkouts to halt progress.

In the end, it was DeLay who brokered a redistricting agreement, visiting the state Capitol and shuttling back and forth between the House, Senate and Perry's office.

"Governor Perry was a major figure in the redistricting effort that the (DeLay) successfully argued," Earle said in his motion. "Because Judge Schraub has donated to Governor Perry, he has disclosed through this free speech that he agrees in principle with Perry's agenda regarding Tom DeLay's redistricting map."

Prosecutors also suggest an appearance of Schraub's political indebtedness to Perry, who appointed him as administrative judge and has authority to reappoint him again in January.

Still, Earle wrote that prosecutors believe Schraub to be "completely fair and impartial, with a sterling reputation of honesty and integrity. [Libby's .02 cents: This is almost exactly what DeLay's lawyers said about Judge Bob Perkins, that it was nothing personal...yeah right.]

"However, as the recusal of Judge Perkins reflected, such is unfortunately no longer the standard in our state for the judiciary," he said.

Schraub, 76, also has contributed money to the Republican campaigns of George W. Bush for Texas governor and president. He has more than 40 years of judicial experience, including the last 15 as administrative judge. He also spent 20 years as state district judge for the region.

Something To Think About...Avian Flu Hoax?

I mean seriously folks it seems here lately Bush can't win for losing. If I didn't despise him I'd almost feel sorry for him. heh heh

If you goggle search Avian Flu Hoax you'll come up with a whole host of websites talking about it. Here is an article I think you'll enjoy reading...

Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax?

By F. William Engdahl
October 30, 2005

No sooner are indictments being handed down to Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United States for lies and coverup of information used deliberately to suppress the fact the Bush Administration had no ‘smoking gun’ to prove Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear arsenal, but a new scandal is surfacing every bit as outrageous and ultimately, likely also criminal.

Against all scientific prudence and normal public health procedure, the world population is being whipped up into a fear frenzy by irresponsible public health officials from the US Administration to WHO to the United States Centers for Disease Control. They all warn about the imminent danger that a malicious viral strain might spread from infected birds, primarily in Vietnam and other Asian centers, to contaminate the entire human species in pandemic proportions. Often the flu pandemic of 1918 which is said to have killed 18 million worldwide, is cited as an example of what ‘might’ lie in store for us.

On November 1, appropriately enough the day after Halloween, President Bush is scheduled to visit the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda Maryland to announce his Administration’s strategy of how it will prepare for the next flu epidemic, whether from Bird Flu or some other strain. The plan has been a year in the making. On October 28 the Senate passed an $8 billion emergency funding bill to address the growing Avian Flu panic. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a moment of candor during the debate on the Senate bill told the press, ‘If it isn’t the current H5N1 virus that leads to an influenza pandemic, at some point in our nation’s future, another virus will.’ In the meantime taxpayer billions will have gone to a handful of pharmaceutical giants positioned to profit. None stands to reap more lucre than the Swiss-US pharmaceutical giant Roche Holdings of Basle.

The only medicine we are told which reduce the symptoms of general or seasonal influenza and ‘possibly’ might reduce symptoms also of Avian Flu, is a drug called Tamiflu. Today the giant Swiss pharmaceutical firm, Roche, holds the sole license to manufacture Tamiflu. Due to the media panic, the order books at Roche today are filled to overflowing. Roche recently refused a request from the US Congress to lift its exclusive patent rights to allow other drug manug´facturers to produce Tamiflu with the improbable excuse that it was in effect, too complex for others to rapidly produce.

However, the real point of interest is the company in California who developed Tamiflu and gave the marketing rights to its patented discovery to Roche.

‘Rummy Flu’

Tamiflu was developed and patented in 1996 by a California biotech firm, Gilead Sciences Inc. Gilead is a NASDAQ (GILD) listed stock company which prefers to maintain a low profile in the current rush to Tamiflu. That might be because of who is tied to Gilead. In 1997, before he became US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld was named Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, where he remained until early 2001 when he became Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld had been on the board of Gilead since 1988 according to a January 3 1997 company press release.

An as-yet-unconfirmed report is that Rumsfeld while Secretary of Defense also purchased an additional stock in his former company, Gilead Sciences Inc., worth $18 million, making him one of its largest if not the largest stock owners today.

The Secretary of Defense, the man who allegedly supported the use of contrived intelligence to justify the war on Iraq, is now poised to reap huge gains for a flu panic his Administration has done everything it can to promote. It would be useful to know whether the Pentagon’s successor to Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans developed the strategy of biowarfare behind the current Avian Flu panic. Perhaps some enterprising Congressional committee might look into the entire subject of plausible conflicts of interest regarding Secretary Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld stands to make a fortune on royalties as a panicked world population scrambles to buy a drug worthless in curing effects of alleged Avian Flu. The model suggests the parallel to the brazen corruption of Halliburton Corporation whose former CEO is Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney’s company has so far gotten billions worth of US construction contracts in Iraq and elsewhere. Coincidence that Cheney’s closest political friend is Defense Secretary and Avian Flu beneficiary Don Rumsfeld? It is another example of what someone has called the principle of modern US corrupt special interest politics: ‘Concentrate the benefits; diffuse the costs’ President Bush has ordered the US Government to buy $2 billion worth of Gilead Science’s
Tamilflu.

GMO Chickens come home to roost

But Tamiflu conflicts are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg of the Avian Flu story. There is high-level biological research underway in Britain and presumably also the United States to develop a genetic engineering method to make chickens and other birds ‘resistant’ to Avian Flu viruses.

British scientists are reportedly genetically engineering chickens to produce birds resistant to the lethal strains of the H5N1 virus devastating poultry in the Far East. Laurence Tiley, Professor of Microular Virology at Cambridge University and Helen Sang of the Roslin Institute in Scotland are involved in developing ‘transgenic chickens’ which would have small pieces of genetic material inserted into chicken eggs to allegedly make the chickens H5N1 resistant.

Tiley told the Times of London on October 29, ‘Once we have regulatory approval, we believe it will only take between four and five years to breed enough chickens to replace the entire world (chicken) population.’ The real question in this dubious undertaking is which GMO giants are underwriting the research and development of GMO chickens and who will control their products. It is increasingly clear that the entire saga of Avian Flu is one whose dimensions are only slowly coming to light. What we can see so far is not at all pretty.

Global Research Contributing Editor William Engdahl is author of ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press and the soon-to-be released book, ‘Seeds of Destruction: The Geopolitics of Gene-ocide’. He can be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

Bravo! U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Democrats: It's the War By U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked. It is counterproductive, strengthening al-Qaeda and weakening the moral authority of the United States. It is deadly: Many Americans, and many, many more Iraqis, have been killed or injured as a result of the fighting. And it is costly: Well over $250 billion in taxpayer funds have already been spent, with no end in sight.It is also increasingly unpopular. For all these reasons, plus the increased spotlight that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita put on how much the war is draining resources desperately needed at home, Democrats should clearly call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If Democrats do not make this the centerpiece of their campaign in 2006, they risk repeating recent history, in which they failed to recover seats in the House and Senate.

National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to ignore the war, and it didn’t work politically. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side—the president’s party always loses seats in the mid-term election—the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the president to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. “Let no light show” between Democrats and President Bush on foreign policy was the leadership’s strategy, and it yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a president increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.Then, in 2004, with the president vulnerable on the war, the Democratic Party again sacrificed the opportunity to distinguish itself from Bush. Members avoided the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the Party platform, omitted it from campaign speeches and deleted it from the national convention.Why is it an unconscionable political blunder to sweep the war and occupation of Iraq under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity all over the country.President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to kill Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. Bush’s war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our 9/11 losses. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. Instead, we are mired in an occupation which has already cost over 2,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis."

National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to ignore the war, and it didn’t work politically. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side—the president’s party always loses seats in the mid-term election—the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the president to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. “Let no light show” between Democrats and President Bush on foreign policy was the leadership’s strategy, and it yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a president increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.Then, in 2004, with the president vulnerable on the war, the Democratic Party again sacrificed the opportunity to distinguish itself from Bush.

Members avoided the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the Party platform, omitted it from campaign speeches and deleted it from the national convention.Why is it an unconscionable political blunder to sweep the war and occupation of Iraq under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity all over the country.President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to kill Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. Bush’s war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our 9/11 losses. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. Instead, we are mired in an occupation which has already cost over 2,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis.

The issue of the war clearly distinguishes what is wrong with Republican rule. Republicans in Congress won’t extricate the United States from the quagmire the president has gotten us into. They have refused to investigate what role the White House played in manipulating pre-war intelligence. They refused to investigate the Downing Street memo. Democrats, on the other hand, mostly voted against the war: Two-thirds of House Democrats and half of Senate Democrats opposed the war in Iraq. Democrats can draw no clearer distinction with the president and the Republican Congress than over this war.Every major poll confirms that the war is a loser for the president and his party. Consider one of the most prominent: The ABC/Washington Post poll, which has surveyed public opinion on the war regularly since March 2003. Responses to all pertinent key questions clearly show eroding support for the war. Support for the president’s handling of Iraq has steadily fallen; belief that the war was worth fighting has fallen; belief that the number of U.S. casualties are an acceptable cost of the war has steadily fallen; belief that the war has contributed to U.S. long-term security has steadily fallen, and support for keeping forces in Iraq has steadily fallen. There are no exceptions to this trend.Right is on our side, and public opinion is trending our way. In 2006, Democrats must break from the past and run on the issue of quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. The stakes are high: Unless Democrats stand for ending the war in Iraq, this country will not leave Iraq, and Democrats their minority status in Washington, for a long time to come.Of course, no party can win votes on the strength of one issue. Ending the war in Iraq must be at the centerpiece of a campaign that includes standing for national health care and preserving Social Security. This is the constellation of issues with which Democrats can take back the country."

The issue of the war clearly distinguishes what is wrong with Republican rule. Republicans in Congress won’t extricate the United States from the quagmire the president has gotten us into. They have refused to investigate what role the White House played in manipulating pre-war intelligence. They refused to investigate the Downing Street memo. Democrats, on the other hand, mostly voted against the war: Two-thirds of House Democrats and half of Senate Democrats opposed the war in Iraq. Democrats can draw no clearer distinction with the president and the Republican Congress than over this war.Every major poll confirms that the war is a loser for the president and his party. Consider one of the most prominent: The ABC/Washington Post poll, which has surveyed public opinion on the war regularly since March 2003. Responses to all pertinent key questions clearly show eroding support for the war. Support for the president’s handling of Iraq has steadily fallen; belief that the war was worth fighting has fallen; belief that the number of U.S. casualties are an acceptable cost of the war has steadily fallen; belief that the war has contributed to U.S. long-term security has steadily fallen, and support for keeping forces in Iraq has steadily fallen. There are no exceptions to this trend.Right is on our side, and public opinion is trending our way. In 2006, Democrats must break from the past and run on the issue of quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. The stakes are high: Unless Democrats stand for ending the war in Iraq, this country will not leave Iraq, and Democrats their minority status in Washington, for a long time to come.Of course, no party can win votes on the strength of one issue. Ending the war in Iraq must be at the centerpiece of a campaign that includes standing for national health care and preserving Social Security. This is the constellation of issues with which Democrats can take back the country.

Thanks to David Sirota for sending me this article.

DeLay Continues To Break The Rules

The Republicans are even finding it hard to swallow DeLay's heavy handed tactics. Though he has supposedly stepped down from his leadership position he refuses to hand over the reins to anyone else except in name only. Many Republicans are calling for his resignation due to his being indicted for money laundering and his unethical behavior.

Don't kid yourself folks DeLay didn't get where he is by following the rules and playing nice nice. Remember, he wasn't indicted for nothing.

DeLay Loath to Doff His Leadership Hat

Active Role Divides House Republicans

By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 2, 2005;

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay's efforts to retain power despite his indictment have angered some rank-and-file Republicans, many of whom say his ethical problems and uncertain status are staining them and destabilizing GOP unity.

Although he was forced to relinquish his leadership post Sept. 28, after the first of two indictments for alleged involvement in money laundering related to the 2002 Texas election, DeLay continues to use an office in the leadership suite, occasionally presides over private meetings with committee chairmen and lobbies members during key floor votes.

Also, the Texas Republican's staff continues to maintain the House schedule and dash off memos to lawmakers, ostensibly as employees of a majority leader's office without a full-fledged majority leader. And on his trips to the sheriff's office for an Oct. 20 booking in Houston and a court appearance in Austin on Oct. 21, DeLay was accompanied by three bodyguards from the Capitol Hill police force, just as he was when he was majority leader.

"My issue is having an indicted former leader hanging around the leadership offices," said one House Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of DeLay's remaining authority. "This guy did so much good work getting us into the majority. Why does he want to stick around? He's not helping us."

"Tom DeLay should not be in a position of authority," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who called for DeLay's resignation from the House leadership even before he was indicted.

"He should not be calling the shots or driving the agenda, and if he is, that would be unfortunate."

Countering those are DeLay's ardent House supporters, dozens of whom now sport hammer-shaped lapel pins evoking DeLay's nickname, "The Hammer," to proclaim their allegiance.
They say much of the discord is due to DeLay's departure from the leadership, not his continuing influence.

"This can't go on this way indefinitely," said Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), a leader of House Republican moderates who wants an election in January to fill DeLay's slot. "We need to get this leadership issue behind us."

A series of faction meetings and private discussions last week could culminate in a face-off today, when House Republicans gather for a half-day retreat at the Library of Congress to air their grievances. DeLay appeared in court in Texas yesterday as his legal team succeeded in getting the presiding judge replaced in the case alleging fundraising improprieties. He planned to fly back last night for the conference today.

The indictment Friday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has heightened concerns among some Republican lawmakers that they are approaching the 2006 midterm election under an ethical cloud. A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by 42 percent of the population, while 49 percent view the GOP unfavorably, an imbalance not seen since the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

And some House members say they are bracing for Democratic mailings to their constituents with the mug shots of DeLay, Libby and former White House procurement chief David Safavian.

Moreover, White House adviser Karl Rove remains under investigation by the special counsel probing the CIA leak.

"Ethics is everything," Shays said. "If you don't have a strong moral standing, if you don't have an ethical foundation, you just crumble."

DeLay's presence at a series of delicate talks on budget cutting last month with committee chairmen left some senior lawmakers dumbfounded, confused and even angry that a demand as sensitive as billions of dollars in spending cuts would come from a member without a leadership post or even a senior committee position.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has temporarily assumed the post of majority leader. But with DeLay actively engaged in leadership business, the chain of command is confusing at best.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and other leaders remain publicly in DeLay's camp.

House Republican Vice Chairman Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) distributed a glossy "member profile" of DeLay last week, gushing about DeLay's role in foster parenting, his run-in with an errant quail hunter, his love of jazz and his affections for his bichons friss , Baily and Taylor, and his miniature dachshund, Scooter.

Most importantly, DeLay remains intimately involved in setting legislative strategy, especially as the House drives to cut federal spending to help pay for a surge of hurricane relief. And he has continued his well-honed practice of rounding up votes on controversial measures that otherwise might not win House approval.

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said DeLay has maintained those roles at the request of Hastert and other House leaders -- with the blessing of most rank-and-file members.

"It's not lost on anybody that Mr. DeLay has a unique understanding of the issues and a record of success," Madden said. "He's going to continue to play a role as long as members encourage him to do so."

With difficult votes coming, especially on a massive budget bill cutting $50 billion in spending over five years and a $70 billion tax cut to follow, some Republicans say DeLay needs more authority, not less.

"DeLay knows how to get votes; he knows how to work the floor; he knows how to talk to chairmen, because he's been doing it for years," said one House leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because internal leadership matters are considered confidential. "I know some members have concerns, but the flip side is, if he wasn't involved and we ran into problems, people would say: 'Well, DeLay knows how to get things done. Why isn't he being used?' "

Regardless of how members feel about DeLay, Republicans across the ideological spectrum say the current unstable structure of the leadership is inviting discord. DeLay has asked Republicans to leave his post vacant until the charges against him are resolved, and supporters say the case could be tossed out or beaten by January.

But for now, the majority leader's office is "a staff without a head," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.).

"Who's responsible for what? Who do you call if you have a problem?" Bass asked.

Already, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) has said he would like to run for a leadership post. Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, an increasingly influential faction of fiscal conservatives, has signaled to members that he is exploring a run. And many expect Rep. John A. Boehner (Ohio), a leadership member since the 1994 Republican House takeover, to make a bid.

All that has helped fragment the House Republican Conference as members jostle for advantage.

"There's a power vacuum," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "If we don't get some unity and sense of purpose soon, people will start looking after themselves."

DeLay has tried to shore up his position by lining up with conservatives, especially on the drive for budget cuts, where he once played the role of conciliator. And that has created other problems, as the Republican Study Committee gains power at the expense of other factions.

"You can't have a part of the conference wagging the whole body," Davis said. "The conservatives say it's all about keeping the party base, keeping the party base. But you hold the majority by holding your marginal districts."

Best Protest Slogan...Ever

"WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE HIM A BLOWJOB SO WE CAN HAVE HIM IMPEACHED?"

Thanks to Bradblog for posting this.

My Letter To Senator Reid

Dearest Senator Reid,

I want to commend you on standing up for Americans yesterday [11/1/2005] by demanding accountability for the reasons/lies Bush used for going to war.

I realize you are the Senator from Nevada but as minority leader of the Senate you also represent me [a Texan]. Though I have complete faith in your ability to ask the pertinent questions regarding the misinformation given by Bush for the reasons he gave for the Iraq war, I would like to give you a list of the questions I want answers to. As an American, I feel I have the right to have my voice heard. Actually these questions come from David Sirota but they also speak for me.

QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush say in 2002 that “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" when two critical reports – an IAEA one from 1997 and a CIA one from 2001 – made clear that there was absolutely no evidence of that claim? And why in 2003, did both Condoleezza Rice ignore these intelligence documents and insist that Bush's nuclear claim was "absolutely supportable" when in fact it was not?

QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in his 2003 State of the Union address did President Bush claim that aluminum tubes Iraq purchased were for uranium enrichment, when the White House received intelligence in 2002 that such a claim was untrue? And why did Condoleezza Rice in July of 2003 claim that the intelligence community's "consensus view" was that the tubes were being used for nuclear weapons, when in fact a March 2003 IAEA report specifically said that wasn't true?

QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in late 2002 did President Bush say definitively that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes" and that Iraq definitely "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" when, in fact, Bush's own Defense Intelligence Agency said it had no proof to support these claims?

QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush and Vice President Cheney repeatedly claim that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had an operational relationship, and why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim there was "bulletproof" evidence of such a relationship, when intelligence and foreign government sources repeatedly told the White House that wasn't true?

In closing, Senator Reid, I would like to say that up until yesterday I had lost faith in the Democratic Party/leadership in this once fine country and had decided to never vote again but by your brave actions, demanding accountability of the Bush administration for taking us into an unnecessary war, killing thousands of Americans and Iraqi, a spark of hope has once again been ignited in my breast.

Please, Please do not fail US/me. Please remain brave and strong in the face of this corrupt administration and it's unholy supporters.

Best regards and blessings.

THANK YOU

Libby, a Liberal Texan

I Cancelled My Subscription To The NYT

Yes, I finally cancelled my subscription to the New York Times. What better way to remind them of who they really work for and serve. Not...a corrupt administration who took the US to war on known lies and because of such thousands have died senseless deaths [over 2,000 of America's finest and over 30,000 innocent Iraqi]. Not...corrupt reporters who try to prevent an Independent Counsel from doing his job and who supported and covered up an administration's corruption.

In my opinion, it is past time for real patriotic Americans to stand up and make their voices heard, whether it is a corrupt news source or a corrupt administration.

Wake up, people!

Robert Scheer reminds me of why I hope every patriotic American also cancells their subscription to the NYT and why I hope Judith never works again as a reporter. Maybe she could be an aide for Cheney or Bush, that's what she seems to do best.

What Judy Forgot: Your Right to Know

By Robert Scheer, AlterNet. Posted November 1, 2005.

Judith Miller was an eyewitness to the scene of a crime; and as a reporter she betrayed her first duty by not telling the public.

The most intriguing revelation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's news conference last week was his assertion that he would have presented his indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a year ago if not for the intransigence of reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury. He said that without that delay, "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Had that been the case, John Kerry probably would be president of the United States today.
Surely a sufficient number of swing voters in the very tight race would have been outraged to learn weeks before the 2004 election that, according to this indictment, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff -- a key member of the White House team that made the fraudulent case for invading Iraq -- "did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice."

It is deeply disturbing that the public was left uninformed about such key information because of the posturing of news organizations that claimed to be upholding the free-press guarantee of the 1st Amendment. As Fitzgerald rightly pointed out, "I was not looking for a 1st Amendment showdown." Nor was one necessary, if reporters had fulfilled their obligation to inform the public, as well as the grand jury, as to what they knew of a possible crime by a government official.

How odd for the press to invoke the Constitution's prohibition against governmental abridgement of the rights of a free press in a situation in which a top White House official exploited reporters in an attempt to abridge an individual's right to free speech.

The spirit of a law is more important than the letter, but the reporters who fought to avoid testifying to the grand jury in the investigation that snared Libby upheld neither. They were acting as knowing accomplices to a top White House official's attempt to discredit a whistle-blower.

As the indictment makes clear, this was a case in which the reporters had direct knowledge relevant to the commission of a crime perpetrated by at least one top administration aide. "They're the eyewitness to the crime," Fitzgerald said.

In particular, the indictment makes a farce of the theatrics of New York Times reporter Judith Miller. She knew early on that Libby was using the media to punish former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV for exposing President Bush's false claim that Iraq sought nuclear material from the African nation of Niger. According to the indictment, at a June 23, 2003, meeting with Miller, "Libby was critical of the CIA and disparaged what he termed 'selective leaking' by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, Libby informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA."

That paragraph from the indictment is key to this entire sordid affair. Wilson at that time was beginning to talk to reporters about one of the more egregious distortions in the president's State of the Union speech justifying the Iraq invasion -- the 16-word fabrication about Saddam Hussein's nuclear intentions.

Libby, who had been a source for Miller's erroneous hyping in the New York Times of Iraq's WMD threat, was now attempting to shift blame to the Central Intelligence Agency by impugning Wilson's motives for stepping forth as a critic of the war.
Instead of confronting Libby for trying to mislead reporters, Miller did nothing to expose his efforts to smear a former ambassador for raising such questions. At the very least, she should have written a story stating that a White House official was planting information to disparage a critic of its war policy. Miller couldn't do that because she had acceded to Libby's demand that his White House connection be concealed in any articles she wrote, by identifying him as a "former [Capitol] Hill staffer."

This case was never about protecting government sources who risk their careers by telling the truth, but rather about punishing those like Wilson who do. That Miller cared far more about protecting someone who abused his power as the vice president's chief of staff than about protecting the right of Wilson to speak truth to power says volumes about her priorities.

That the New York Times again editorialized last week in defense of its knee-jerk support of Miller, even after knowing she deceived her editors, is a startling indication that even some of our most respected media leaders still are missing the point.

The 1st Amendment protection is not a license for mischief on the part of journalists eager to do the government's bidding. To the contrary, it was conceived by the founders to prevent government from subverting the free press in an effort to misinform the public. Unfortunately, that is precisely what occurred here.

Reid 'em The Riot Act!

Hum, Senator Frist doesn't look all that happy.

Thank God for Senator Reid

What wonderful news, we find out that maybe, just maybe the Democrats have finally grew some cajones and are going to call the Repukes on their lies and corruption concerning the Iraq war. Better late than never I always say.

A very good friend of mine, Shirley had this to say about Frist and I found it to be spot on...

"That was one hissy fit Frist threw, wasn't it? I gagged when Frist talked about the lack of principals and the use of "fear tactics". This administration and their lemings have used that tactic for the past four years. Frist under investigation for insider trading and he has the audacity to talk about PRINCIPALS? He talks about observing the rules of the senate when he, as majority leader, defied long standing practices of the senate and campaigned in Tom Daschle's home state against him and he pretends to present himself as offended. HOGWASH!!!!"

• Senate 'hijacked,' say Republicans Nov. 1: NBC's Chip Reid reports on the unusual closed session in the Senate forced by the Democrats who are questioning the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.


• Democrats claim victoryNov. 1: Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid talks about the Senate Intelligence Committee agreement to continue an investigation into prewar intelligence.

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 6:01 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - Democrats claimed “victory for the American people” Tuesday after the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to continue an investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the Republicans, the Senate minority leader said.

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session for more than two hours Tuesday, accusing Republicans of ignoring intelligence that President Bush used before invading Iraq.

A phase-by-phase investigation will resume, Reid announced after the secret session. It will be the second stage of a probe that Democrats have been pressing for for a year.

An appointed six-member task force — three members from each party — will review the committee’s progress and report back to their respective caucuses by Nov. 14.
Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating information.

“They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why,” Reid said.

Taken by surprise, furious Republicans derided the unexpected closed Senate session as a political stunt.

“The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist during the tense hours on Capitol Hill. “They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas.”

In a speech on the Senate floor, Reid said the American people and U.S. troops deserved to know the details of how the United States became engaged in the war, particularly in light of the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

“Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has been trying for a year to get the intelligence committee to keep its promise and investigate the misuse of intelligence information,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said shortly before the session ended. “We just thought we couldn't wait any longer for them to keep giving excuses. This is very serious.”

When the closed session started, the public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, senators filed to their seats on the floor and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

Provoked by Libby indictmentLibby was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration’s Iraq policy.

Libby resigned Friday after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in an investigation by a special prosecutor into the unauthorized leak of a CIA agent’s identity.

Reid accused Republicans of playing upon post-9/11 fears as grounds for going to war.
“Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate,” he said. “But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., produced a 511-page report last summer on flaws of an Iraq intelligence estimate assembled by the country’s top analysts in October 2002, and he promised a second phase would look at issues that couldn’t be finalized in the first year of work.The committee had started the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not been completed. He said he had intended all along to work on the second phase beginning next week.

Democrats challenging war justificationDemocrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration’s contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House’s justification for going to war.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making “some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak.”

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session is appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons — the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid’s move violated the Senate’s tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid’s effort. [Courtesy and consent? OMG, what a joke coming from a republican]

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid’s criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.

The Senate had been considering a budget bill when it went into closed session.

Something I Find Heartbreakingly Sad

This morning I went to the military blog, American Soldier just to see what the soldiers in Iraq are saying. What I found, was the blogs not speaking about the War in glowing terms were not updated but the ones speaking against the Left/Liberals and whooping it up about the war were right on date. So much for free speech.

WTF is wrong with this country? How can so many Americans be so blind and support such a lying cowardly piece of shit like Bush?

I responded to one of the blogs that was complaining about the Muslim religion thinking it was the only true religion. It just appalls me the hypocricy of these so called Christians who are guilty of the exact same thing as the Muslim faith. At this point let me say certain Muslim and Christian groups, not all.

Anyhoo, I blasted these so called war mongering Christians, who are the furtherest thing from Christ, but then I deleted it because my SO threw a fit and told me bush and the white supremacist were going to look us up and kill us. So, I guess we know where my SO stands in fighting for truth, "just stfu," that's his answer.

I decided to come over to "my" blog and let off steam, so fuck him and fuck them! Let them come and take me away, at least I'm fighting for truth.

Here is a list of the MilBlogs I was looking at this morning, see what you think?

Milblogs
2Slick
A Day in Iraq
A Line In The Sand
A Soldier's Blog
Argghhh
Blackfive
Citizen Smash
Doc In The Box
Froggy Ruminations
Major K
My War
Pass the brass
Sgt. Lizzie
Sgt. Stryker
TCOveride

Samuel Alito...Scalito?

Our good buddies at AlterNet:Blogs:Peek gives us plenty of information about the newest nominee for the SCOTUS.

Bush nominates 'scAlito'
Posted by Evan Derkacz at 5:34 AM on October 31, 2005.

Happy Halloween.

From Wikipedia via TalkLeft: "His ideological likeness to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has earned him the nickname 'Scalito.'"

According to Harry Reid, Bush refused to consult with the Democrats, opting to throw red meat to his base. Or perhaps I should say "male white meat" as Reid also points out that Bush declined to choose either a woman or a Hispanic...

John Aravosis writes: "If you're a woman, you better get permission from your husband before you take off your burka." Aravosis also asks whether Alito isn't another in a long line of ethically-challenged Bush nominees...

The Carpetbagger writes:

"With the Harriet Miers debacle behind him, the president had a choice. He could pick a consensus candidate that "unite" both sides of the aisle during these trying and divisive times, or he could touch off a bitter partisan conflict by picking a hard-line conservative that makes his far-right base happy." [Libby's .02 cents worth: this is after all Bush's plan, he chose someone he knows the Democrats will not want in the SCOTUS. It's time to turn the focus back on those nasty old LIBERAL Democrats.]

ThinkProgress notes that George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley told Katie Couric: "...There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court. This is a pretty hardcore fellow on abortion issues." And they list some high points:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS

All about Alito on the Scotusblog.

We Can Only Hope

Hopefully old "TURD BLOSSOM" will eventually be frog marched out of the White House as is befitting a criminal.

We can only hope that the reporting by Dana Milbank and Carol Leonnig will turn out to be correct.

Two legal sources intimately familiar with Fitzgerald's tactics in this inquiry said they believe Rove remains in significant danger. They described Fitzgerald as being relentlessly thorough but also conservative throughout this prosecution — and his willingness to consider Rove's eleventh-hour pleading of a memory lapse is merely a sign of Fitzgerald's caution.

....Another warning sign for Rove was in the phrasing of Friday's indictment of Libby. Fitzgerald referred to Rove in those charging papers as a senior White House official and dubbed him "Official A." In prosecutorial parlance, this kind of awkward pseudonym is often used for individuals who have not been indicted in a case but still face a significant chance of being charged.

I was directed to this article by Kevin Drum in his column, Political Animal in the Washington Monthly.

Katie Couric Interviews Joseph Wilson

To see the video of the interview go here:

I would like to recommend everyone watch the interview of Couric with Wilson on this mornings NBC The Today Show. Every Republican I've heard speak on the indictment of Scooter Libby has done nothing but tell out and out lies [such as, Wilson claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger. Wilson in fact never said that.] about Joesph Wilson and they instead try to put all of the focus on Wilson. This interview clears up many of the lies being told by Republicans about Wilson and is a must see.