My letter to the Frontpage author Jamie Glazov, on Plame.


Your article:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=40D51D3F-4F22-447C-BE3D-7D4EED87FF0A

quotes Mr. Rowan Scarborough as saying:

“Plame recommends her husband for a trip to Niger”

If you read the decision by Judge John Bates, now used by Plame-bashers to laugh at her, he corroborated the story that she DID NOT send Wilson.

From Bates decision:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

“19(e) At about the same time, Libby spoke with a senior officer at the CIA, who told Libby that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was thought (ERRONEOUSLY) to have been responsible for Wilson’s trip.”

Walter Pincus:

“the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918_pf.html

And more curious for you to determine is why Tom Davis was just told by the Intel Committee that in fact, Plame’s testimony to the House did NOT conflict with earlier testimony to investigators, despite the vain attempts to portray it otherwise.

Writers like Byron Yorke parse information to continue this story as Plame sent Wilson, and uses Kit Bond as his validation. Any logic student can identify the “appeal to Bond” fallacy here, because if Bond is wrong, then the assertion falls apart.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

“officials told CNN Tuesday she had nothing to do with the decision. "She did not recommend him. It was not her idea to send him," said one official.”

But here’s the key part:

In the memo released in an attempt to prove Plame sent Wilson, Byron Yorke and Kit Bond failed to see the middle paragraph they printed for all of us which clearly reads:

“As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter].

So, which is it, was it the “redacted” officer who started the suggestion of Wilson, or Plame? Upstream from Plame’s comments that her husband “may be in a position to assist” indicate she was working based on the earlier recommendation, not one that started with Plame herself. And if all parties simply wish to emphasis her, then they are committing logical fallacy of weighing her comments heavier than those of other comments in the same record that indicate it was not Plame that sent Wilson. She also clearly stated she didn’t have the authority to send Wilson, which is the long howled cry of their critics.

I’ve read every document publically published, and what was clear is that someone mentioned Joe Wilson at CIA meeting on Niger matter, because he had gone before at their request.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. But you are prolonging a fabrication of view here by publishing, without critical examination of Scarborough’s comments, falsehoods that undermine Mr. Scarborough’s Enemies at the CIA theories.

I have no comment on the remaining assertions he makes about the CIA. Only that the records support Plame’s testimony.

In close, Novak interviewed Tom Davis, and clearly published that Davis received feedback from the House Intel Committee that refuted his assertion she perjured herself. Why not get Bond to do the same thing, if he feels she committed perjury?

Novak writes:

“When it (house intel committee) responded she had been consistent in denying that she suggested her husband's mission, Davis was baffled in view of contradictory evidence”

. Baffled indeed, because there is no contradiction and he can’t catch up with the facts.

Please do a better job at your fact checking.

The Edwards-Kucinich polarity on Reparations


In the 'YouTube Debate' for the Democrats the other night, a man posed a question asking whether the candidates supported Reparations.

Only three candidates answered the question, leaving us to ask Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Lopez-Richardson, and ....some old guy who didn't get to answer very much and then grumbled when they did let him open his mouth....i digress.

John Edwards was the first up to bat:

I'm not for reparations. I can answer that questions (sic). But I think there are other things we can do to create some equality that doesn't exist in this country today.

Today there was a report that, right here in Charleston, African Americans are paying more than their white counterparts for mortgages than any other place in America, any other place in the United States of America.

And here's an example. What is the conceivable explanation for this, that black people are paying more for their mortgage?

And, by the way, it's not just low-income African Americans; it's high-income African-Americans. There's absolutely no explanation for this. It goes to the basic question that I raised just a few minutes ago.

To have a president that's going to -- is going to fight for equality, fight for real change, big change, bold change, we're going to have to somebody -- we can't trade our insiders for their insiders. That doesn't work.

What we need is somebody who will take these people on, these big banks, these mortgage companies, big insurance companies, big drug companies. That's the only way we're going to bring about change. And I will do that as president.

Then Senator Barack Obama answered:

I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools. I did a...

(APPLAUSE)

I did a town hall meeting in Florence, South Carolina, in an area called the corridor of shame. They've got buildings that students are trying to learn in that were built right after the Civil War. And we've got teachers who are not trained to teach the subjects they're teaching and high dropout rates.

We've got to understand that there are corridors of shame all across the country. And if we make the investments and understand that those are our children, that's the kind of reparations that are really going to make a difference in America right now.

and then Kucinich:

I am.

The Bible says we shall be and must be repairers of the breach. And a breach has occurred.

We have to acknowledge that. It's a breach that has resulted in inequality in opportunities for education, for health care, for housing, for employment. And so, we must be mindful of that.

But it's also a breach that has affected a lot of poor whites as well.

We need to have a country which recognizes that there is an inequality of opportunity and a president who's ready to challenge the interest groups -- be they insurance companies or mortgage companies or defense contractors who are taking the money away from the people who need it.

Yes, I am for repairing the breach. Yes, I am for reparations.

what are reparations?

I cannot state with any authority that I fully understand the reparations movement as a whole. There are many views within the voices I've listened to over the years about what this would mean for not only the black community, but also to first nations people that were subjected to genocide by Europeans who now have dominance over the nation in a way that culture doesn't cut through. Special acknowledgement should be paid to the imperialist expansion over Hawaii and other island nations, so we can arrive at whether we have arrived passed the expansionist ways of the European ancestors.

In asking myself what do I support and what resonates, I look to sources of justice and simplicity of language.

First, I meditate on the word itself...Reparations (the action of repairing)

To look at US history over 231 years, several events and shifts indicate that The People can shift to ground that is not only more equal but that repairs painful tears in the fabric of the nation. In my sight are moments that overwhelm the ugly history of chattel slavery, jim crow laws and segregation. In my life time the melting of boundaries seems more apparent than just one generation back to my baby boomer parents.

Now I can't say Edward's isn't for reparations even though he said it because he described reparing actions that one might believe will rebalance the losses.

And Obama too described a necessary and system deep and then softly attributed it to reparations. He did demonstrate that he knows the actions of repairing schools and "corridors of shame" were important.

But to me, Kucinich hit it right on with stating the overall principle at hand with his quote from the 2nd Book of Kings, chapt 12,v5 with:

"we shall be and must be repairers of the breach." And a breach has occurred.

In determining a course for a nation why is it that the clarity of Kucinich's comments and his already founded courage to file a bill to Impeach Cheney, his opposition to this war, and his belief that we should also have a Department of Peace can go so ignored?

What is it that people are looking at when they can still support a candidate like John Edwards as a "champion of the poor" and that he along with Obama and Clinton are the 'fore runners' in this race?

I have a good friend who used to eliminate candidates, including Kucinich on what she called the "sexy factor" and that no matter how tuned into the process I may be that Americans choose their candidates on a "sexy factor."

Is this true? Do we simply resonate with some base level meme that tells us..."uh..different" and we move like Lemmings towards a new cliff of the same gorge.

I'm trying so hard to see any of these people meeting with foreign leaders, informing us about what new path the US will take, and who will respect the 2 other branches of government.

Will I be frightened by Clinton telling me she's decided to carpet bomb Sudan like her husband did a decade ago?

Will Edwards fall into the unthinking role of middle ground good guy who smiles well, has anti-gravity hair and story of poverty to overpaid lawyer to lend to good guy credibility?

I don't feel him. Maybe he's being like Gore. After he quits running for office he'll be real and let his hair down.

Obama has a voice closer to my generation and that is where I feel pretty comfortable. The fact that he has become wealthy won't be an auto-distraction for the anti-capitalist in me, but his squeaky clean image so far shows me some promise. I'd love to hear substantive criticism if its available. So far I just know about he smoked or his campaign contributions are typical of all campaigns.

He has a chance to become a shift in the dominance of European ancestry at a time when the US could use a shift in paradigm.

But what about the little guy on the end, who still got more time than that old white haired guy who didn't get much time and when he did, he grumbled and groaned about his time.

Kucinich really reflects what so many "leftists", "progressives", "liberals" and "anti-war" types have asked for. But why isn't he resonating with the masses?

When I turn to the other channels outside news, he isn't mentioned or is only mentioned for his physical stature. My parter tells me "he's cute", and she isn't the first time I've heard that. His message speaks to the flower power in each of us.

Why aren't we going to be going that way?

Then I turn back to the "news" channel hydra CNNFOXMSNBC to watch HardballFactorSituationDMorrisFOX aka Lords of Illusions they have already picked their favorite Fantasy Politician League players and are ready to bet to the finish line which candidate will make them the most ratings.

You'd think Giulliani saved Jesus at the Battle of New Orleans with his best girl by his side.

You'd think that actor guy, who is uglier than sin and so full of shit that he still thinks Libby is innocent, would be the next Ronald Reagan (blessed be his name before all others in the heavily book of Rove)

Then there’s the fake candidate Mitt Romney and his "just chill out" reaction to a recent citizen who asked him to justify previous comments, and his pathetic attack on Obama's call to consider responsible discussion on sex in schools.

Many of these candidates for both the GOP and DEMs are frauds and full of themselves to think they should preside over a nation. I call into question most of their motivations and almost all their political actions.

What use is our system if the candidates are only going to be some of the glibbest and shameless people who can stand up and say, "I'll be the light" for you to follow?

I kind of like Ron Paul. He's from our neck of the woods and represents a smaller government like I believe in. Could you see the GOP nominating a man who says that the US was a victim of its own policies?

California says yes to Ron Paul right now in the polls, but barely a blip elsewhere it seems.

Back to Reparations

I support the full action of our Federal government to open a full discussion and official statement acknowledgment of responsibility and remorse from the United States and founding colonists to the First Nation people's that were the victims of genocide. I want the same proclamation to resound remorse for the devastation to our border area in the South due to an ongoing war with Mexico and an agreement to work out remaining struggles in the best interests of the locals in those areas today.

I demand the Federal Government fully acknowledge the violation of the toppling of the Hawaiian monarchy and imperialist invasion of Hawaii and other island nations.

I support the full action of our Federal Government to open a full discussion on the inner workings of chattel slavery, jim crow laws, and segregation and the needed systematic changes that would reflect a society that would have existed had African slaves been able to settle here as free people, never having been slave to no man and able to reach an equal status from the start instead of being explicitly valued as 3/5ths a human being.

I support whatever reassessment of revenue from the taxes of known survivors of slavery and their progeny for a period across at least 3 generations, tax breaks for businesses in impoverished communities regardless of race, and forward reaching legislation that encourages the Federal government to balance investment in communities in a fashion that balances the nation as a whole and establishes or restores stability to needed communities.

Most important though, I support the open dialogue about the travesty of slavery, jim crow laws and segregation outside the white guilt paradigm, and without the 'why do I have to write a check' mentality. I want to see our leaders willingly, thru goodwill and love for our future, start talking about how such a painful history can be redeemed thru actions of current and future generations.

or at least...

Let me have a candidate who doesn't say, "I don't support reparations" then describes reparations.

Let me have a candidate who isn't talking about race as a way to get elected but is tired of the underlying racism, classism, and sexism, that runs this system.

February 24, 2007, Virginia became the first state of the US to acknowledge involvement and wrong doing in slavery. When will the others step forward and do the same? When will the Federal Government do the same?

What do you think?

La mort de Le Tour de France


I'm not a sports junkie. I've spent too many hours emploring my city to spend the big stadium money on local community building needs and ideas. Even when a mega-church took over our old basketball/hockey/concert facility, I asked why we couldn't turn it into a sports facility for kids to have sports like soccer, basketball and others. So, all the sports channels and magazines going on and on about sports seems quite a distraction from my primary concerns.

Save one.

I have loved Le Tour De France since I was a teen. I have the knowledge of its inner history like baseball junkies can quote Ty Cobb's record and the value of tobacco cards. With some near mythic legends in the race like Eddie Merckx, Fausto Coppi, Jacques Anquetil, and Bernard Hinault, and anectdotes galore, the Tour is no normal sports event. It is like having a Superbowl every day in a different city for 23 days. I watched the tour while it was under the guidance of Jacques Goddet and Félix Lévitan (1962 to 1986) Jean-François Naquet-Radiguet (1987 to 1988) Jean-Pierre Courcol (1988 to 1989) Jean-Marie Leblanc (1989 to 2005). Maybe their influence has something to notice like NFL commissioners and the like in our big leagues.

This race did a few things for me that one might not see elsewhere, except maybe World Cup, if you're into that.

1.) gave me distinctions of the European cultures and senses of nationalism.

2.) taught me about Basque nationalism.

3.) reminded me yearly of Bastille Day

4.) provided some connection to study Bernard Tapie and his Murdochesque desire to be everywhere and in control of so much. la vie claire

But most interesting to me were the 'russians' in the race and how they were the fastest track riders we'd ever seen, great at sprinting, and yet so unknown outside Olmypic circles. It was a key indicator of how things were changing related to the Soviet meltdown.

Then came the American dominance of the tour with Lance Armstrong. Now, I don't know Lance personally at all, and couldn't tell you while swearing on...well...something sacred to me,...whether he's a corrupt person and has a good public smile. I could however tell you that my grandmother really looked to him for hope related to her cancer and at least knew someone had beat the damned disease that gets 1 of 2 men and 2 of 3 women. And I knew he could easily have had an inner determination that a person who had not beaten cancer might not have.

And from 2002 on, I was watching the "freedom fries" garbage mix with an adulation of the great rugged Armstrong figure dominate that little whimpy snooty France. (that's how it was presented anyway)

Their last great champion was Bernard Hinault, unless you recognize Laurent Fignon as a champion figure (i dig him). The Americans, and of course The Spaniard, dominating your race in conjunction with their dominance of Iraq, Afghanistan, and influence around the world wouldn't seem too favorable to me if I were French.

But what is on my mind now is...I'm Not Watching This Year.

I know that so far, 3 people have been booted and several teams have pulled out as a result. And the same method to announce the test results is being called in question. The same lab is being used, and it is the same tour organizer, Christiane Prudhomme.

I'm tuned in on it for a different reason though. Its because I truly believe in habeaus corpus. I have been told, and don't care if its true outside of symbol, that I'm descended from King John, who signed the Magna Carta, and many of the barons who were rebelling who made him sign it. The principle of the document established a person's right to some justice.

"we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."

Accusations take seconds to make and if false never quit their ringing. And accusations that are true often get mitigated by the frequency of 'WOLF!' by others while the witness or victims of wrongs go ignored.

Comes forth Floyd Landis

Last year I was already beginning my tune out, so my little "protest" over the conduct this year isn't really isolated. I sort of tuned in, but wasn't video taping all the stages like i've done for almost 20 years. As fate has it, I taped 3 stages...the first, the last, and...the fateful stage 17 where Landis came from a big bonk the day before and recaptured his win for the Tour.

As many know, he was accused of doping as seen in raised testosterone. Then I must be clear, I don't care what the lab says at this point because my primary background related to their results isn't in biochemical studies, but process of evidence...I know a little bit more about that.

So as we see these new stories of riders being immediately disqualified by a lab that follows no info release procedure that would match how we view our rights before a grand jury.

If an athlete dopes, cheats, and it can be proven, you've got my support. But with the denials mixed with bad disclosure procedures confuse it to the point that I don't tune in now.

Maybe this is the year that is needed to have a full meltdown. Maybe in a week we'll have 3 teams left and they will be only the little domestiques who are abused and ignored in the long and short of it.

And Landis still has hearings coming to conclude his innocence or guilt. I'd honestly love to see a proclaimation of innocence. I'd be none too surprised to hear guilt at this point.

Bright side

There are more germaine issues I'm focused on these days, and the tour is the tour. Maybe it will work itself out, but I will be less tied up in the TV race I've tuned into with mothlike attraction. This could give time to complete a degree or two from a good school. It could lead to more summer time with my children riding our bikes.

Ok, back to reading more impeachment opinions, looking for solutions to greater problems than French bio labs. CSPAN2 will also be airing the Judiciary committee preparing contempt charges.

I don't want to turn this into a pathetic Chris Matthews sports view either. Congress better get its act together and have some accountability. And last, I won't be writing on sports again...well at least not until after next July 14th when I might have another view on la mort de Le Tour De France.

How much farther can they erode my confidence?


Ok, now I'm really pissed. Just how many times will our government betray us? We are taught from grade school to respect the "authority" of our government and yet time and time again that same entity either fails or betrays us.

Today, Judge John D. Bates dismissed the Valerie Plame case against the WH administration officials who leaked her name to the lump of seditious crap known as Robert Novak. But why would you be surprised at this?

Judge John D. Bates also dismissed the lawsuit seeking to find who met with Cheney and now that we know he met with the big oil companies and their names, why would Bates suddenly want to uphold the law? His decisions to dismiss cases where clearly there is a public interest raise the question, Where do you go to get justice?

As it is now, the judge sits on the same court that rubber stamps Bush's searches of your inner most records, allows them to even ignore his FISA court, and yet when we seek to know who met with Cheney, or when Valerie Plame seeks restitution for the damage done to her career, he decides he has no juristiction and that nothing was proven.

I don't care what college he went to, or even who appointed him. This decision has really destroyed any further faith I have that our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Instead we have a government for the powerful, by the powerful, and for the explicit purpose to use, betray, and deny the citizens of the United States.

I don't know what appeal process follows his current decision, but I hope CREW and the Wilson's continue to fight to out all the traitors.

Even to this day, Robert Novak says he'd publish the information again. So please explain to me,...How in the hell is he not a traitor?

al-Maliki calls it quits for US


Newsflash:

The Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that American troops can leave "any time they want" this week.

wait a minute...isn't that when they said we'd leave, "when they ask us to leave, we'll leave. its as simple as that"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070524.html

Martha. (presumably Martha Radditz)

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave."

JUST THINK OF THE SAVINGS

WOW, al-Maliki has just saved American troops lives by saying that BushCo LLP. can go ahead and go now. But will the administration that said it would leave when asked, do so?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6780195,00.html

I don't speak enough Arabic to translate what al-Maliki said about, "any time they want." But it is clear what was said by the rest of the context. This government has been repeatedly insulted by our leaders as incompetent and impotent.

We've already heard al-Maliki state he wasn't George Bush's boy, and yet the arrogance from BushCo LLP. has topped itself time and again. The interesting thing will be to watch over the coming days how the Bushies will respond.

Will they say:

a.) Ok, sure, we'll go, when we want

b.) Ok, sure, we'll go, when we have assurances that we can do business in Iraq as we wish.

c.) Mission Accomplished

d.) Here's a reparations check for the damages.

e.) Wait a minute buddy, not so fast, you aren't mature enough.

f.) Wait a minute buddy, not so hasty, you're not able to protect yourself and us from Al-Qaida.

g.) No, we aren't ready to leave just yet. We have to make sure OUR INTERESTS are secured.

This war was started on a general pretense that it was in our National Interest to invade Iraq. On March 19th, BushCo LLP invaded with consent from Congress, without Congress declaring war, and had convinced enough people in the US that it was in their Interest.

Who is collecting on that interest?

The robbery may be complete. The vast sums of money needed to sit back and be fat have already been taken, and the loans have YOUR children's names on them. The debt incurred during this robbery of the United States by the hawks of this war will be owed for generations. It will not be isolated to money, but more generations in conflict, more bloodshed, and more devastation.

Those who profitted of this war, CACI, Titan, Bechtel, Aegis Defense Services, Custer Battles, General Dynamics, Nour USA Ltd., Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips ExxonMobil, and of course our friends at Halliburton, are now swimming your dough.

I'll be tuned in to see the developments, but so far, these geniuses have only been able to create more and more malady and death than democracy and order.

I'm sorry it took me to get so in line, but I guess I'm rooting for al-Maliki's government to hold the fort and let our girls and boys and energy companies come home. Let the contractors leave, and pay the people of Iraq to rebuild.

We'll see.

The Gore/Nader conflict all over again, but this time its inside the DemParty


In 2000, I was quite aware that BushCo. LLP, would be bad for the US. He'd ruined our state of Texas as governor and now suddenly after one term as Gov. he wanted crack at the White House, er...I mean,...a crack at the White House. The two viable options on the table were of course Al Gore, and his...enemy?...Ralph Nader.

Now, I am so aware of what Bush did after 2000 that I look back and ask myself, would I have voted any different? Answer...still...Nope. I voted for Ralph Nader. And there was a clear reason why I voted for him.

I was in Texas when lost its mind years ago and I knew, and it was shown in the results, even if you added Nader's votes on top of Gore, Gore lost Texas anyway. This is what caused many to use the "vote trading" system where people who were in states that were definitely red, would vote for Nader and not endanger shifty states or blue states. This showed some conciousness on their part. Even then the Gore camp focused more on Nader than Bush.

The fact that the Gore supporters attacked Nader instead of Bush is why I didn't vote for Gore. Their efforts were completely anti-democratic. He didn't know who his real enemy was, and had he campaigned differently he could have succeeded at TWO victories: One for president, One for a new party.

But that isn't what happened. In the months before the Nov 2000 coup de etat from CheneyCo. LLP., the Gore camp launched repeated attacks on Ralph Nader instead of George Bush. It was this that forced me to make a decision about the future of democracy as I saw it: a two party system leaving nobody of alternative when the two fail you.

What was often missed by the Gore supporters is that Nader was singing the populous tune and resonating with the cynicism against American politicians by the public.

And frankly, when I was young, I used to watch Nader's raiders TV show where I could learn how different corporations where swindling me thru various forms of deception about their products and services. That's how I learned how to become an active citizen about issues in my community and with my small buying power.

So what about it.

Well, now we have the story breaking about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards talking on-mic about weeding out their competition. It sounds like they are ready for their own VH1 celebrity elimination show instead of leading the US. They are very quick to try to eliminate, FOR US, other options with a bullshit nobility that they think they own.

My personal choices for candidate are so limited that I don't want to have these two work to weed me out of the political process a year and 4 months until election day. My candidate of choice is one who was bold enough to call for Impeachment with HR 333. His name is Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. Kucinich has been very quick to respond to these comments by Clinton and Edwards, and I was quick to call both campaigns and encourage them to rethink their comments. These comments are steaks in front of hungry poodles at FauxNews, CNN, MSNBC, and of course the pulp wasting NYT, WSJ, National Review, FrontPage, and so forth. They were stupid enough to say these things with their mics on, and I'm thankful.

There is virtually no way I'm voting for John Edwards after watching, yet again on CSPAN this week, him get owned by arch villain Dick Cheney. Edwards looked ill-prepared to attack this monger.

The politically flaky Hillary would be an ironic punch in the gut of the right-wing juggernuts, but at what risk? Would she also be willing to carpet bomb Kosovo? Would she be willing to carpet bomb anyone who was easy pickins to make her look tough?

Biden and Dodd come off as blowhards, though Dodd comes out on top between the two, Bill Lopez Richardson loves to show his credits, but hasn't convinced me of his readiness to be president. Obama is fresh and young, which keeps him in my pool of possibilities, but with a short trackrecord....where's the experience?

That leaves the apparent looney Mike Gravel. He seems to be campaigning as if he's got nothing to lose but future generations. He seems to be hearing the reaper and wants to do his last best effort to confront our nations legacy and current path. This makes him one of the most honest candidates there, and I think its him that Clinton/Edwards want to refer to when they say, "not serious" candidate.

We'll be seeing in the next few weeks if this story has legs, but right now, it isn't a light matter to have presumptive candidates deciding that we shouldn't be seeing the others. I'll side with keeping the whole lot of them up there in UNION with each other focused on one target, this administration and their buddies.

Maybe my bets will pay off


I'm not really a gamblin man. As a very financially reserved person, giving away money to hunches and luck isn't my style. But just as November 2004 came and went i vowed to many close to me that Bush would be impeached before 2008 and its even more likely that they'll get wise and impeach Cheney as well if not before.

Now, I read of a man in Ireland who placed a bet that Al Gore, JR. that is...would be the next highest official in the US to get jailed. Not sure what his reasoning was, but he honorably lost the best the other day when Al Gore III got jailed instead of his father. He coughed up some good dough to those he bet.

But it seems now I will get my wish and maybe if I'm lucky someone will remember my bets. As I type the papers are blooming with stories of impeachement in a way that has not reached this furvor thus far in this ludicrous game of cat and mouse with Dems and GOP.

Cheney is clearly a criminal on so many levels, but if nobody prosecutes whats it worth to call him that. Pelosi has been clear about this too many times that she will now have to stand up and say, "times up, impeachment is on the table." If we are organized she won't have much of a choice.

What I noticed in my calls last week was that of the entirety of the Democrats I called on the Judiciary committee, all who answered said they had been receiving higher than normal requests for Cheney's impeachment, brought on even more from the Libby commutation.

A good thing to ask when calling congress is, "have you been getting a lot of calls on this?" so you can see how much you are not alone. They usually are quick to tell you how busy they are. One staffer punk even said, "look, I don't need your shpeel (sp) on why we should impeach Cheney" and drew back a nub. He must not have heard my opening comment, "I'm recording this conversation".

I'll post audio shortly for these calls, but they are very informative about what is drawing attention about this administration and the rising support for impeachment.

The newest poll numbers show half of US citizens polled approve of impeaching Bush and more than that on impeaching Cheney. Activists aren't going to be too surprised at this, but they should seize the opportunity to do some radical organizing before interest turns to apathy.

One idea lobbied around our house was to set up "lemonade" impeachment stands in places where a person would be allowed to sit in public, especially high traffic areas near movies, etc. Put "Petition for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney" on the front of a table and then inform people and have them sign. Then pass these on to both your congressional rep and to your Senator's office.

I live in Texas, so the idea of getting John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Huchinson to vote for impeachment may be out of our reach in some eyes, but that isn't stopping us from putting a petition forth so History will know we had a support in Texas to impeach and these Senators were bound by their conflicts of interest in serving us.

The same is true for the countless numbers of citizens I know in one of the local districts that is controlled by John Culberson. If we sat in some of his areas and had petitions, we'd swamp his office easily with support for impeachment. He would balk, because he's a card carrying lifer of the GOP talking points crowd.

Then we have the argument that the Senate must have enough votes to remove the president and that may not come because of the 2/3rds split needed and the 50/50 or so tie in party line votes now. I pointed out to staffers that it is likely if you put this vote before the house, the population will do the rest in being fired up. Without it on the table polls show half, on the table, I bet it will really divide the group more along a 70/30 split.

If I were a bettin man, I'd be bettin for impeachment as inevitable. But even as a non-betting man, I have one general wager out there, and even if I never see a dime, the original wish and confidence is that the people might see what is happening for what it is, corruption unparalleled in our time taken down by their arrogance, willful disregard for law, justice, and common descency.

house.gov

look up your rep, and the reps on the judiciary committee. call each Democrat and demand opposition to Bush's policies and violations, and ask them to sign House Res. 333. Remind them of their constitutional oath. Further if your representative isn't on the Judiciary or Oversight committee, remind the staffer that you need representation on that committee, and could the colleague please take care of our needs.

then call the democratic caucus, and the leadership offices of Pelosi, Hoyer, and Conyers and be firm in your desire for impeachment hearings.

The Irony of Recent Posts about Libby Commutation (aka Obstruction of Justice)


This morning I am reading from one of the many online opinion sections from supposedly reputable TV stations. I come across someone who referred to a WSJ article claiming that Fitzgerald has a grudge against Libby for an earlier court encounter where Fitzgerald was going after Marc Rich and Libby was defending Rich. Its the classic, "So...we meet again!" scenario.

Now as it would be, I got lucky a few months ago watching CSPAN3 when they aired a Libbyathon if you will, and one of the things aired was the testimony of Libby before the house on the pardon of Marc Rich. Of course as usual, I taped it.

When asked

Paul Kanjorski asked, "Did you represent a crook who stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?"

"No, sir," Libby responded. "There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns."

So, is Libby an incompetent lawyer who didn't know if Marc Rich's evidence showed innocence, or are the rightwing nuts suddenly picking the exact wrong case to use to attack Clinton again?

The man of the hour, Scooter Libby, sorry Paris move over, is on the record as saying the example A, Marc Rich, is innocent of tax evasion, though calling him a traitor for his business choices, and now the supporters of Libby's commutation, pardon, and damn near sainthood, are saying this terrible guy Marc Rich was just another example of how terrible Clinton was.

Perhaps has come the time for the rabid right wing to bite its own head off by the gnashing of its own teeth. Its like the old Shel Silverstein poem of Hungry Mungry, who ate up everything, "till nuthing was nuthing was nuthing was left to eat".

Amen.

Call CSPAN and ask them to air the Libby testimony about Marc Rich again...enjoy

Then call your Congress and tell your representative what you want them to do, on Cheney and CO. LLPFWCAP.

A transformation from passive to active


I first became politically active in the anti-Apartheid movement around Houston as a teen. It led me to the anti-death penalty case with Clarence Brandley. I still owe many thanks to a man named Mike and my family friend Linda for taking me to meetings and the various satellite topics on race, poor struggle, and housing issues.

But after the release of Mandela, Sisulu, Clarence Brandley and the beginning of a young man's life, I went to sleep as a citizen only occassionally standing up to my boss, and being a regular person with my own chutes and ladders to deal with.

I grew up with all the American images in my life from Rambo on the big screen, duck and cover, Rocky beating the Russian, fall of communism. I grew up reading Soldier of Fortune, Stephen K Hayes ninja books, Pistolero, and other very military oriented books on aircraft, Sun-tzu, and of course James Bond was always available.

Since my father passed away when I was 13, I didn't have a very strong father figure to get me through transformative years from boy to man, I had to find them in the culture and from the few who I would be around. Even then, my father wasn't a military man, nor were his family members. My mothers side had military members though and

Visions of flying helicopters led me to recruiters at 17, and stability for my family led me back at 25. I didn't enlist either time after I realized I was being lied to about what was to be given to me or my family in return for service. But outside of that, I was the demographic, young caucasian man who was a retail manager for stores and had good credit.

Then the governor of Texas ran for the White House. As a parent who already didn't like the condition of Texas after his governorship, I certainly was worried about his assent to the highest office.

The furvor from the right wing of America was so inconsistent with the George Bush I knew anything about. For one, as a musician in Houston, my friends included a lot of older musicians who had gone to drug or alcohol rehab and among a couple of of them, there was a certainty that Bush had gone to a program like the Palmer Drug Abuse Program (PDAP). Because I didn't know the centres I just took it as a possibility at best, not evidentiary in substance.

Alarm number one, Cheney picks himself as candidate for VP. WHAAA?!? How in the hell does that happen? And more clearly the next question was, how can you trust the person next to him who says, "Sounds good to me!"

Now, I based some of my view on my background as a manager where I had to hire or was in the process and we looked at candidates for management and services. Here was a Presidential candidate, Bush, who was already suspect in my mind picking Dick Cheney, who frankly I didn't know much about. But it wasn't the "left wing" media that convinced me this was about to go awry.

On July 27, 2000, I was at the hospital days before my maternal foundation, my grandmother, and so was my retired Master Chief uncle. When candidate Bush came on TV, he said, "That's my President!" in a room full of family, and she said,...and I'm ironically glad to quote, "Over my dead body!"

I will never share fully how much she meant to me, and that her death transformed me, but those words were Liberty. She spoke with a strength that defied her cancer riddled body. And this was from someone who never acted very political in front of me before. She was also his mother, and as they say, "Honor thy mother and thy father."

His rationale was that Bush understands what it means to be afloat on a ship built by the lowest bidder. I was shocked to hear him say this until I considered what he did in my life time, which was sit in an office and chaperone new recruits to our home to eat a good meal from time to time. We were in Houston and he was south of Dallas. Isn't Dallas pretty far from water for a navy boy?...I digress.

But that notion of spending money at a high level means you are getting good product and what it is worth. Further, I was often hearing about very advanced technology and defense spending and it was already fathoms above the next closest nation. Then I remembered how this same man stood by when my grandmother's abusive boyfriend hit me as a 14yr old and his warrior soul took a siesta on that day.

So here was a man who had clearly shown he wasn't able to defend much of anything talking about spending defense money and backing an AWOL governor who was running with a deferment king, and I'm supposed to think I'm getting protection? Please explain this theory to my wushu teachers.

In time I'll go into details about a skip from then to now, other than the primary shift needed to complete this tale for now. After doing radio related to KPFT in Houston, I was exposed to activists from many walks again and was focused on key issues of FCC ownership, death penalty, environmental, and of course, the anti-war crowd.

I started to videotape the news and events on a regular occasion before 2000, but with 9/11, I started a collection of video tapes of news, I'll never fully be able to watch fully, but I can skip around and go back to see how news presented events at the time, and now match up articles I certainly missed while being a stupid primate who watches the finger pointing at the moon, while missing the moon.

I have been fortunate to capture all the 9/11 commission hearings aired on CSPAN, other offical testimony, MeetthePressfacenationthisweekonfoxnewsunday60minutes...you know..the circuit. And it was the one story bubbling along the way that I locked on to and have been most intently focused on for almost 2 years now. The Outing of Valerie Plame was the case that woke me up.

Why is this case such an indicator of what is wrong with this administration and its almost hydra like behavior? Here was a servant of the people who even in the memo released seems more focused on finding WMD than being a politico. And since when did her political affiliation have to be called into question as if an Enemy of the State?

What news wasn't I getting about the Niger documents, and certain lead-up facts that further inform me about context of this War on Iraq. I didn't know about Rocco Martino, Nicolo Pollari, Elizabeth Burba, and about the breakin at the Niger embassy, much less about uranium mines in Niger. I knew about diamonds, water rights, nationalist infighting, and Lamumba, Charles Taylor...does that count?

So I dug, and I dug, through the internet and the congressional staff, and became more focused on what this was all about. I would find lead after lead into areas that are still not exhausting themselves with deadends or with resolutions.

Then I realized that I was mainly digging out the manure pile that has been lumped on us by Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Cheney, and of course the right wing media not limited to FoxNews, National Review, NewsMax, and Washington Times, but including the abomination of Robert Novak and others who were still spinning "facts" that no longer matched my sources.

What were my sources? Well, for instance, I took the time to download the Senate Intel report that supposedly confirmed Valerie Plame sent Joe Wilson and that he was some sort of liar. Its a massive document for someone who doesn't read this sort of stuff on a regular basis, but with a cup of coffee and video processing on my main computer, I chose to read the document bits at a time.

Because I had now read this document, each time Brit Hume ran his mouth on TV, I knew where he had read the document and where he had cherry picked portions to justify a continued mitigation of the actions of this administration, and the smear of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson.

Because I was now reading the the Libby case documents, I knew testimony that was being reguritated on TV, I could still see where there were authors who were not updating their accounts. I don't know their motivations, but my guess is they are a combination of lazy, bought in, not objective at all, and in some cases, willfully obtuse.

I'm going to work on demonstrating aspects of this case, and closely related topics, for the coming years. I want to examine how we hear stories now, compared to the very details at the early stages that are glossed over later.

1. Why was Alberto Gonzales waiting 12 hours?

2. Did Andy Card notify those who were involved?

3. What was the VP campaign's full scope in leaks?

4. How were advocates of Libby and Cheney using their editorial spaces to distort the facts?

5. Who are the players and what are their records in other scandals or important events?

I can only hope that it will useful in at least helping me focus on what is important to follow and to not be had again.

A court jester once said, 'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again'.

I'd hate to think I'll spend the next few years being fooled by Fmr. Amb. Joseph Wilson and his wife because I was not able to resolve the vast inconsistencies between the majority of the most credible sources and the squawking of the mouthpieces like Brit Hume, Byron York, Fred Thompson, Gulliani, Tony Snow, and the Libby Defense Fund.

END OF OPENING TOME

FOOTNOTES: Call congress and tell them to uphold their oath to defend the constitution and this nation against threats Foreign and Domestic. I'll be typing away and collecting more articles.

csampson

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address