Support Our Troops: Stop Bush - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ratbastid · 05-10-2007, 06:15 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/9/23433/90300

Quote:

Protect America, Not George Bush
by mcjoan
Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:22:12 AM PDT

One of the favorite GOP talking points is that Congress shouldn't be making decisions for troops on the ground, that Bush listens to his generals and that they determine the course of action in Iraq. Three retired generals, John Batiste, Paul Eaton, and Wesley Clark, and a veteran of Afghanistan are taking to the airwaves to dispute that claim in a new series of ads sponsored by VoteVets. The ads are intended to force Congress, and particularly GOP members who have continually rubberstamped this war, to do its job and end this war.

The ads will run on broadcast and cable in markets targeting Senators Susan Collins, John Sununu, John Warner, and Norm Coleman, and Representatives Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh, Heather Wilson, Jo Ann Emerson, Tim Johnson, Mike Rogers, Fred Upton, and Mike Castle in their home districts. From the VoteVets press release:

The first in the series of three ads features Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this timeframe, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The division was deployed to north-central Iraq from February 2004 until February 2005 and included 22,000 soldiers from active and reserve component units from throughout the United States. Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican....

"For too long, the President has maintained that he’s just listening to commanders on the ground, which is utterly false. These ads set the record straight, directly from the mouths of those men," said Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran and Chairman and Co-Founder of VoteVets.org. "The President isn’t listening, he hasn’t listened, and he hasn’t shown an interest in listening to commanders on the ground in Iraq. If the President won’t listen to commanders, then Congress must. They must force about a surge in diplomacy, and not allow a war without end."

kurty[B] · 05-10-2007, 07:15 AM

It seems rather vague to me? He never expresses what Generals think should be done, just that Bush isn't listening? Obviously that's the case. This sentence confuses me.

Quote:

"They must force about a surge in diplomacy, and not allow a war without end."

A surge in diplomacy, and war without end? Is that a surge in Congress to vote to bring our troops back, or to vote to surge more troops in there in hopes of neutralizing any retaliation. I'm interested in this ad campaign, but that ad and even the press release for it was extremely open ended. Maybe that's the point, leave it open ended so the Generals still look respectable to both lefties and righties.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 07:40 AM

I find this argument interesting, partly because the left seems to be baffled by the Bush line about listening to the commaders on the ground.

First, Bush selected the commanders on the ground. If they disagree with what he wants, they would be or would have been removed (Another reason why the Patraous hearings and vote, should have been taken serious).

Second, military leaders don't admit that they can not solve a problem. The only hinderence is time and resources. They will change their strategy or tactic, but they will almost never admit a cause is hopeless.

Third, detailed plans and tatics comes from the bottom-up. General goals and strategy goes top-down. One may be effective and the other not, both can be effective or both can be failures.

So, when Bush says he listens to the commanders on the ground, he is being truthful. But it is circular, and the commanders don't set the general strategy and broader goals. So, this ad will go nowhere, because it fails to address the real problem. Bush will parade his top generals in front of Congress and the media and they will say the "right" things, further confusing the public and failing to accomplish anything.

Whoever sponsored this ad should develop a better strategy to communicate their message, this one will fail.

ratbastid · 05-10-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, when Bush says he listens to the commanders on the ground, he is being truthful.

Next you'll be arguing about the definition of "is"!

The point isn't whether, on certain things, he listens to the commanders on the ground. That only became a talking point because it implied that the people who really know and understand the situation approve of the policies of the administration (and so those of us armchair quarterbacks who aren't even in Iraq should just shut up). What we're learning now is, that's not at all the case.

It's just another instance of the truth being warped to sell the public on a failed policy.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 07:45 AM

Also, it's not like every general thinks the same things - there is certainly a wide range and diversity of opinions on the current status of our efforts and on what our future plans ought to be. Just because these guys follow orders and work as a team doesn't mean that they think alike.

It's only natural for Bush to listen to, quote, and promote the generals who happen to have views that are consonant with his own. I would venture to say that this is less dishonest or manipulative than using intelligence selectively.

Still, I think these commercials could be received as quite significant by the public.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 07:52 AM

We have had generals saying what the ad says for at least 2 years and perhaps three or more if you include the former General who ran for President in the democratic primary. You even had McCain saying the tactics on the ground were wrong from close to the begining. Non of that moved the needle, why is this going to? It won't.

This isn't about honesty or dishonesty, it is simple about an easy way to put critics on the defensive. And it has worked. All I want to do is point out why this left argument goes no where.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We have had generals saying what the ad says for at least 2 years and perhaps three or more if you include the former General who ran for President in the democratic primary. You even had McCain saying the tactics on the ground were wrong from close to the begining. Non of that moved the needle, why is this going to? It won't.

This isn't about honesty or dishonesty, it is simple about an easy way to put critics on the defensive. And it has worked. All I want to do is point out why this left argument goes no where.

I believe you are thinking Wesley Clarke, who is one of the generals making a commercial.

Of course, there were also many generals who were critical but are not appearing in commercials. Anthony Zinni comes to mind.

shakran · 05-10-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I find this argument interesting, partly because the left seems to be baffled by the Bush line about listening to the commaders on the ground.

Baffled? Who's baffled? We know he's full of shit. That's obvious. If the administration was interested in listening to the commanders on the ground, then Rumsfeld would not have quipped "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want" in response to troop complaints that they didn't have the protective equipment they needed.

Bush listens to the people that agree with him, and no others.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 09:36 AM

O.k., but I don't think you picked up on what I was saying. I don't know how to say it anyother way.

I do agree that Bush listens to those who agree with him, after all he is the "decider". However, those who don't agree with him are focused on saying stuff that doesn't really matter or doesn't contribute proactively to the general strategy in Iraq. Bush is focused on how we can win this, what has the focus from the left been? Pretty much that Bush is wrong. Kinda like having a nagging wife, after awhile you just tune her out, I had one once and thats what I did.

Bill O'Rights · 05-10-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush is focused on how we can win this, what has the focus from the left been? Pretty much that Bush is wrong. Kinda like having a nagging wife, after awhile you just tune her out, I had one once and thats what I did.

I like that analogy. Not so sure that I agree with it, but I like it nonetheless.

Consider if that same "nagging wife" was nagging about replacing a burnt out light bulb at the top of the stairs. Or, repairing some faulty electrical outlets. Or, perhaps even ensuring that there were adequet smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in the house. Might that "nagging" be justified? It is, after all, relative to the safety and well being of the family and not just a bunch of bitching about stopping off for a drink or two with the boys.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 10:14 AM

Hence the "nagging wife paradox".

Nagging wives need to pick their issues with a bit of wisdom. But, if they did that-they wouldn't be nagging wives.

shakran · 05-10-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush is focused on how we can win this, what has the focus from the left been?

No he's not and I'll tell you why. In the first place, if we want to "win" this (which at this point requires the complete subjugation of everyone in Iraq and the surrounding region) we're gonna need a hell of a lot more troops than 10,000 to do it. More like 300,000 to 400,000. The fact that he's not sending that many tells us he's not trying to win.

But we don't have 400,000 troops, you say. Yeah, I know that, which is why, again if we want to "win" this, we need to reinstate the draft.

But Bush knows that if he does that all of a sudden he's gonna have major problems on his hands, and might even get kicked out of office. Americans aren't nearly pissed off enough about this situation, but if they were handed a rifle and an MRE and were forced to go die for nothing, I bet that would change.

Bush therefore knows at this point that this thing is not winnable. His only goal is to prolong the inevitable until he's out of office so 1) he doesn't have to deal with it and 2) he thinks the blame will fall on whoever's in office when we "lose."

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 10:18 AM

What about the left, what is their focus? What was their focus two years ago?

ratbastid · 05-10-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What about the left, what is their focus? What was their focus two years ago?

This isn't about the left. Stop trying to shift the focus of the discussion. It's a derivative of Shakran's Law. Every piece of political news lately has been met by you with "Oh yeah, well you....". I know that's all you've got, but it's not a winning argument. Your guy is in trouble. Pointing fingers elsewhere won't ever successfully distract from that.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 11:10 AM

All you or anyone has to do to shut me up is to answer my question(s). The conclusion I have come to is that you can't, and it is easier to present an ad hominem argument. I do respect the way you present yours, by saying my question is an ad hominem argument - sweet.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What about the left, what is their focus? What was their focus two years ago?

O.K. Personally speaking, I wish you'd stop referring to "the left" as if it is a thing. Or as if the people you identify as the left think the same thing as each other.

It's a waste of time.

The left isn't monolithic in its opinions any more than the right is, nor does it actually exist any more than the right does. The President's administration, however, is an identifiable group with an identifiable consensus of opinion.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 11:34 AM

There is Bush's message, I hear it and it is clear. There is a non-Bush or anti-Bush message that is unclear and is like white noise to me. I am a man of few words, so help me phrase the question.

ratbastid · 05-10-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There is Bush's message, I hear it and it is clear. There is a non-Bush or anti-Bush message that is unclear and is like white noise to me. I am a man of few words, so help me phrase the question.

Singularity of message should not be confused with correctness. Bush has been wholeheartedly, committedly wrong for at least six years.

One thing the he and his cronies have succeeded at, though, is to devolve American political discourse into "us vs them". That's a gross distortion of reality, but if they can simplify the thinking down to that, then their "us" is monolithic and clear, while everything else gets lumped into "them", and is disjointed and fragmented, and as a result sounds "weak".

Don't let them manipulate your mental space like that, ace.

Bill O'Rights · 05-11-2007, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

One thing the he and his cronies have succeeded at, though, is to devolve American political discourse into "us vs them".

Well...to be fair, the us vs them mentality has been around for a lot longer than Bush and his posse. It's always been sort of a ground fog, hovering around. But, it really started to solidify during the Clinton era. What Bush has done is to hone that "us vs them" mentality into a fine razor's edge. And...he has taken it from American political discourse, and made it into foreign policy. He has effectively removed all wiggle room.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 07:05 AM

When Bush "stole" the election from Gore the tone was already set in Washington before Bush was sworn in. Democrats were not happy at all, and they let everyone know it. To blame the division entirely on Bush is wrong in my opinion.

Perhaps some of our elected officials in Washington should sit down and form a consensus on a unified message regarding Iraq that is an alternative to Bush's plan. People want to be for something, taking pot-shots at Bush's plan is no longer enough. We need to know what is meant by a military withdrawal. We need to know what kind of support will we give Iraq after withdrawal, if any? Where will we maintain our military presence in the ME given the conditions in the ME after withdrawal? Etc? Etc?

shakran · 05-11-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What about the left, what is their focus? What was their focus two years ago?

What's our focus?

Saving the lives of our soldiers, and the innocent Iraqi civilians that our soldiers are being forced to murder by bringing our soldiers back home where they belong.

Protecting our country by actually protecting it, rather than enraging our enemies while not materially hurting them. We were attacked by bin Laden. Those of us who are sane therefore want to fight bin Laden. Committing war crimes in Iraq is a costly, murderous distraction that we should never have gotten into in the first place, and one which we should certainly get out of now.

That focused enough for ya?

host · 05-11-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When Bush "stole" the election from Gore the tone was already set in Washington before Bush was sworn in. Democrats were not happy at all, and they let everyone know it. To blame the division entirely on Bush is wrong in my opinion.

Perhaps some of our elected officials in Washington should sit down and form a consensus on a unified message regarding Iraq that is an alternative to Bush's plan. People want to be for something, taking pot-shots at Bush's plan is no longer enough. We need to know what is meant by a military withdrawal. We need to know what kind of support will we give Iraq after withdrawal, if any? Where will we maintain our military presence in the ME given the conditions in the ME after withdrawal? Etc? Etc?

ace.... you've convinced me that posting a library full of facts has no effect on you, but it is my only recourse....is there any way to reach you ?

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/pacific/mag...poy_court.html
TIME PACIFIC
December 25, 2000 | NO. 51

Can the Court Recover?
Its controversial decision ended the election tangle but brought the high court as low as has been in years
By ADAM COHEN

..Not every wrong has a legal remedy

Americans generally believe that if the law is being violated, the courts can set things right. But Bush v. Gore makes clear that this is not always the case. Even the majority conceded that among the tens of thousands of uncounted "undervotes" and "overvotes" in Florida, there may be valid votes that simply did not register on the machines. It would be hard to hold otherwise, since the machines' designer had testified that the machines are imperfect and that the only way to get a full count is to examine the undervotes by hand.

<b>But the court said that even if there are additional valid votes, it was too late to count them.</b> The Democrats had argued that the counting could continue up to Dec. 18, when the Electoral College meets, leaving enough time to develop a uniform standard and count all the votes. But the U.S. Supreme Court's majority held that the Florida legislature wanted electors chosen by Dec. 12, and since the ruling came down after 10 p.m. on that day, there simply was no more time to count votes. In other words, the court did not find that the certified results in Florida were accurate - only that it was too late to try to make them more accurate..

..Justices are not above the battle

The Supreme Court, like the Wizard of Oz, augments its authority by working its magic out of sight. Toiling away in their neoclassical palace, the nine Justices are perceived as being above the fray and primly cut off from everyday life. (Which is why, reportedly, former Washington Redskins fullback John Riggins once accosted Sandra Day O'Connor at a Washington dinner party and urged, "Come on, Sandy baby, loosen up.") But during this case, it became clear that the Justices are not as insulated as we like to believe. Clarence Thomas' wife draws a paycheck from the conservative Heritage Foundation, where she has been vetting résumés for positions in a Bush Administration - an Administration her husband's vote helped usher in. Mrs. Thomas denies her work is for Bush and says she and her husband don't discuss his cases. But Lisa Lerman, a legal-ethics expert at Catholic University, calls the situation "unseemly."

Justice Scalia, the Bush camp's fiercest defender, has two sons employed by law firms working on the Bush postelection phase. And according to the Wall Street Journal, O'Connor's husband said at an election-night party that his wife, a 70-year-old breast-cancer survivor, would like to retire but that she would be reluctant to leave if a Democrat won the presidency and got to select her successor. Hers was a key swing vote that ensured a Republican victory. A conflict? Says Lerman: "At the very least it creates an appearance problem."

But other experts insist these are not clear-cut violations and that Supreme Court Justices cannot be expected to remain totally aloof from the real world. What's more, recusals come with costs of their own. "The people who are appointed to decide the country's important business take themselves off the case and don't do their duty, then you get a result that can be skewed in the other direction," says Georgetown University law professor Paul Rothstein.

Indeed, by the very fact of the nomination process, all the Justices have links to one political side or the other. Ginsburg and Breyer were nominated to the court during the Clinton Administration and have been strong supporters of Democratic views. O'Connor was vetted for her post by, among others, James Baker, who led Bush's postelection fight. And Clarence Thomas was nominated by George W. Bush's father, who backed him during a heated confirmation battle. On the other hand, court appointees have a long history of defying political expectations and going their independent way. President Bush's first nominee to the court was David Souter, now a stalwart of the court's "liberal" wing. .

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...25&postcount=1

Does anyone else suspect that all of this.....the felon "purge lists" in Florida, the world record incarceration rates in the U.S., the feigned cries of "voting fraud" from republicans and the Bush admin./DOJ "reaction" to it, was all a "lead in", for this?:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=55

....but here are excerpts of two main supporting points:

Quote:

Florida is one of six states that permanently strip voting rights to felons for life unless they petition to have them restored. One election-law expert who usually represents Democrats said the release of the list will rekindle the debate over disenfranchising voters. <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/02/State/Felon_voters_list_mad.shtml">http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/02/State/Felon_voters_list_mad.shtml</a>

Quote:

..More than 50,000 felons were released from Florida prisons last year. About
85 percent must apply to get clemency. A year ago, the court found that about
125,000 inmates who completed their terms between 1992 and 2001 -- out of as
many as 700,000 -- had not been properly notified of their right to clemency.
Gov. Bush can't call the appellate court's ruling judicial activism. The
court didn't make the law; the state did. Here is the wording: "The authorized
agent (of the state) shall assist the offender in completing these forms...
before the offender is discharged from supervision." The court "interpreted"
that to mean the state must "assist the offender." <a href="http://www.freelists.org/archives/lit-ideas/07-2004/msg00472.html">http://www.freelists.org/archives/lit-ideas/07-2004/msg00472.html</a>

..and in 2004, republican Florida "officials" were "at it", again:

Quote:

http://www.wired.com/politics/securi.../2004/07/64071
Florida Told to Open Voter List
Jacob Ogles Email 07.01.04 | 3:23 PM

ORLANDO -- A Florida Circuit Court judge said Thursday that a list of felons to be purged from Florida's voter rolls must be made available to anybody that wants a copy, handing a victory to media organizations that had sought copies from the state but were refused.

The ruling by Judge Nikki Clark came in a lawsuit filed by CNN in May. The news network said it wanted the list in order to verify its accuracy and to prevent the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. Critics suspect many legitimate voters were not allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election because of inaccuracies in these lists.

"The Division of Elections is hereby ordered to immediately open the suspected felons list for public inspection and permit the plaintiff and interveners to copy and photograph the list," Clark wrote in a summary judgment. State officials said they would not appeal the ruling.

Department of State officials previously said anybody in the public could look at the list, but only political entities such as candidates or political parties could obtain a copy, and those who had the list could only use it for campaign purposes. After being denied a list, CNN filed suit and was joined by the First Amendment Foundation, ACLU and numerous Florida media outlets.

The list contains the names of 47,000 felons who are registered to vote, but may not be eligible to have that right. Florida is among seven states where felons released from prison don't automatically have voting rights restored upon completion of sentence. They still must re-register to vote, according to state law.

In the lawsuit, the state cited a 2001 law that protects the state's Central Voter Database from being copied. State lawmakers said the list should not be public because it would violate the state constitution's privacy clause.

But Clark said that law was unconstitutional, and the Florida Legislature illegally passed the 2001 statute without showing any public benefit.

"The court cannot and will not speculate what the public necessity might be, nor can the court construe or imply the public necessity from the language of the statute itself," Clark wrote.

CNN attorney Gregg Thomas said the ruling would make the felon list available to anybody, but was unsure if the rest of the database would be public as well. Secretary of State Glenda Hood said the entire statute, which also protects voter registration information and other election-related materials, may be void because of the ruling.

"We caution all those who view this information that this is a list of potential matches, not a final list," Hood said. "The Department of State has worked closely with the NAACP to develop a redundant and rigorous process to protect the rights of all eligible voters."

Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said it was important the list be made available for verification, especially considering Florida's election history.

"There's a primary election coming up in just two months in Florida, and of course, the general election in November," Neas said. "We want to help every voter in Florida cast a vote that counts this election year."

George Bush won Florida's 25 electoral votes in 2000 by just 537 votes over Democrat Al Gore. That year, then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris hired a private firm to purge felons from voting. Hundreds of voters claimed to have been wrongfully removed from the rolls, possibly altering the outcome of the election.

..just a few days later, we were given this revelation:

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/felons/
Florida scraps list of suspected felons barred from voting

Monday, July 12, 2004 Posted: 3:59 PM EDT (1959 GMT)

(CNN) -- Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood has decided to scrap a list that was intended to keep more than 47,000 suspected felons from voting in November.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush agreed with the decision, his spokesman said Monday.

"The list will not be used," said Jacob DiPietre, a spokesman for Bush, whose state proved key to his brother's victory four years ago.

Hood decided over the weekend to dump the list, which was created by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, after <h3>news stories pointed out that the list included only 61 Hispanic names, DiPietre said.

The state's large Cuban population tends to vote Republican....</h3>

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/now/society/prisons3.html
8.27.04
Society and Community:
Prisons in America
Stats and Facts

Some startling new statistics may bring the issue of America's prison population into the 2004 campaign. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has projected that if current trends continue, one out of every three African American men born in 2001 will go to prison at some point during their lifetime. In addition the Justice Policy Institute has just released a study which shows that prison spending has increased five times as fast as education spending in some battleground states. And, according to the study: <b>"Outside the swing states, states leaning Republican saw their incarceration rates increase at nearly twice the rate of Democrat-leaning states." In addition the Institute estimates, nearly 2 million voters are disenfranchised in swing states because they have felony records.</b> Find out more about Life After Prison on NOW.

Prisons are big in the United States. There are more people behind bars literally, and proportionally, than any time in our history. We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other nation. And, we keep building more prisons, in fact many locales lobby for new prisons as a tool of economic recovery. What are the actual numbers that put American prison populations in historical and international perspective?

In 2001, nearly 6.6 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year end. That number represents 3.1% of all U.S. adult residents or one in every 32 adults.

American Prisons: The Debate
Between 1973 and 2000 the rate of incarceration in the United States more than quadrupled. The International Centre for Prison Studies at Kings College, London now calculates the U.S. rate at 700 people per 100,000. (That number encompasses the most recently available federal, state and local prison population statistics.) There are now more than two million Americans behind bars. Add to that another four and a half million on probation or parole and three million ex-convicts...

Quote:

From the April, 2006 <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2049107&postcount=19">"Karl Rove Replaced By Fake "Protestor" of Miami-Dade Vote Recount in 2000"</a> Thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My reply is telling in that I have no idea what hosts original point was, but I think it had something to do with the 2000 election. I fail to see a problem here, an issue here, or where he is going. Perhaps he is mad that Bush wanted to work with people who supported him rather than against him. He is also wrong because Bush did try to 'reach out' to the democrats after 2000, even letting Teddy write the Education bill, and he saw how far THAT got him, but thats all old news.

Perhaps I was remiss, by making my own statements and the documentation that I provided in this thread's OP, too brief. Possibly, I made statements that I did not thoroughly back up with references in news reporting, linked to published news articles on web pages owned by prominent MSM news departments. Live and learn...my bad!

I'll let Al Kamen of WaPo, help clarify my core point:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ions/kamen.htm
Al Kamen is a reporter on the national news staff of The Washington Post. <b>He writes the "In the Loop" column four times a week.</b>

He joined The Post in 1980 and has covered local and federal courts, the Supreme Court and the state department.

Kamen assisted Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein in writing "The Final Days," and Robert Woodward and Scott Armstrong in writing "The Brethren."

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...1074-2005Jan23
<b>In The Loop
Miami 'Riot' Squad: Where Are They Now?</b>

By Al Kamen
Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A13

As we begin the second Bush administration, let's take a moment to reflect upon one of the most historic episodes of the 2000 battle for the White House -- the now-legendary "Brooks Brothers Riot" at the Miami-Dade County polling headquarters.

<b>This was when dozens of "local protesters," actually mostly Republican House aides from Washington</b>, chanted "Stop the fraud!" and "Let us in!" when the local election board tried to move the re-counting from an open conference room to a smaller space

With help from their GOP colleagues and others, we identified some of these Republican heroes of yore in a photo of the event.

Some of those pictured have gone on to other things, including stints at the White House. For example, <b>Matt Schlapp, No. 6</b>, a former House aide and then a Bush campaign aide, has risen to be White House political director. <b>Garry Malphrus, No. 2 in the photo</b>, a former staff director of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice, is now deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. And <b>Rory Cooper, No. 3</b>, who was at the National Republican Congressional Committee, later worked at the White House Homeland Security Council and was seen last week working for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
<CENTER><CENTER><img src="http://www.washintonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/intheloop_012405.jpg">
Here's what some of the others went on to do:

<b>No. 1. Tom Pyle</b>, who had worked for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), went private sector a few months later, getting a job as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.

<b>No. 7. Roger Morse</b>, another House aide, moved on to the law and lobbying firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. "I was also privileged to lead a team of Republicans to Florida to help in the recount fight," he told a legal trade magazine in a 2003 interview.

<b>No. 8. Duane Gibson</b>, an aide on the House Resources Committee, was a solo lobbyist and formerly with the Greenberg Traurig lobby operation. He is now with the Livingston Group as a consultant.

<b>No. 9. Chuck Royal</b> was and still is a legislative assistant to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a former House member.

<b>No. 10. Layna McConkey Peltier</b>, who had been a Senate and House aide and was at Steelman Health Strategies during the effort, is now at Capital Health Group.

(<b>We couldn't find No. 4, Kevin Smith</b>, a former GOP House aide who later worked with Voter.com, or No. 5, Steven Brophy, a former GOP Senate aide and then at consulting firm KPMG. If you know what they are doing these days, please e-mail shackelford@washpost.comso we can update our records.)

<b>Sources say the "rioters" proudly note their participation on résumés and in interviews.</b> But while the original hardy band of demonstrators numbered barely a couple of dozen, the numbers apparently have grown with the legend.

In the context of the above Al Kamen column and the phoio embellished doucmentation that it offers, consider rereading the report about John Bolton, located in my OP...here's an excerpt........

Quote:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=3Posted Posted on Sat, Jul. 13, 2002

Bush gave plum jobs to supporters who worked recount, paper reports

By CAROL ROSENBERG

Knight Ridder Newspapers

......Bolton, the U.S. diplomat now responsible for arms control issues, said no payoff was promised for his decision to join the post-election fray. He had worked for the first Bush administration and, <h3>finding himself in South Korea on election night, contacted former Secretary of State James Baker in Texas to see how he might lend a hand. The reply: Go to Florida.</h3>

``I think, frankly, most of the people who did it just went down there by instinct,'' Bolton said. He said he received no legal fees, although the campaign paid his hotel bills and other expenses.

Bolton was part of the legal team and a ballot observer in Palm Beach County. Then he rushed to Tallahassee as the recount battle reached higher courts.

It was his role, on a Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, to <b>burst into a library where workers were recounting Miami-Dade ballots to relay news of the U.S. Supreme Court's stay in the on-again, off-again presidential recount. ``I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count,'' he was quoted as saying in news reports at the time....</b>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

All I seem to recall are the Union members the democrats bussed in to 'protest' the inital vote.

I fail to see a point other than you didn't like the outcome of the 2000 election. Next time perhaps the democrats won't try SELECTIVE recounts in democrat controlled areas and instead push for the statewide one.

The news reporting of that time....in mid to late November, 2000 stated conclusively that the Gore campaing tried to win the Florida vote in the courts, and the Bush campaign.....

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...,89419,00.html
.........<b>It looks like Gore is the one doing the disputing and Bush is doing the Gary Cooper thing of being strong and

silent. In fact, of course, it was Bush who first went to the federal courts and first to the U.S. Supreme Court.</b>

For Bush, who has made a mantra of local control, this is like trashing the big bully behind his back and then

enlisting his services when you get in a brawl. You'll notice that the Bush campaign called the Florida Supreme

Court an "instrument of the Democratic party" when it agreed to let the manual count continue, but were silent

about the court's bias when it rejected Gore's emergency appeal to force Miami-Dade to resume its recount. .....

......Right now, there is a vague presumption among Americans that Gore is the down-and-dirty cheater and Bush is the honest cheater. <h3>Bush is using tactics we all are used to, sabre-rattling press conferences and thuggish spokespeople and vague threats to do something really nasty.......</h3>

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/27/po...5ab0cd&ei=5070
November 27, 2000
The Demonstrators: Labor Unions Take to Florida Streets, Rallying for Gore
By SOMINI SENGUPTA

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Nov. 26 � Finally, Al Gore's friends showed up.

<b>After ceding the rallying and protesting to the Republicans for more than two weeks, the vice president's organized labor base gathered its troops today</b>, filling the State Capitol plaza here with more than 200 cheering, chanting demonstrators, signaling a shift in the public relations battle over the presidential race.

<h3>Since the recounting began, Republicans have dominated the rallies on the streets, with their placards and slogans.

And their protests, occasionally unruly, as in Miami last week, have been important to the Republican strategy of

portraying the manual recounts as scenes of confusion and chaos.</h3>

The Democrats had chosen to portray the Florida

recounts as calm, methodical civic rituals.

That changed today, as the recounts wound down for the 5 p.m. deadline. Organized labor turned out its street

soldiers for simultaneous protests this afternoon in Miami, West Palm Beach and here, in the Capitol plaza.

Marilyn P. Lenard, Florida's A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, who called the protests, said she had grown weary of turning

on the television and seeing only all those "Sore-Loserman" placards. Sure, she said, she had considered something

dignified and quiet, like the silent vigil her group had organized on the night of the Florida Supreme Court's

decision last week. But that just got drowned out by the noisemakers from the other side.....

Read the following article, linked in the next quote box. All references to the November, 2000, post election Florida protests and accompanying organizing and support, describes republican activity as party managed and driven. There was apparently no "grass roots" (eminating from the people) protest activity or "voice" from the republican side. All republican participation was financed and managed by the party, and conducted by party officials and party activists, staff members of elected officials, and other "careerist" republicans or wannabees.

Contrast the descriptions of those who supported Gore. Some were organized and bussed by efforts of partisan clergy (Jesse Jackson) and by union organizations (AFL-CIO).....but....none apparently were seeking political payback via an appointed, post election job, they were not staff members of elected officials...

Quote:

http://www.geocities.com/floridavotecount/rallies.html
SPONTANEOUS RALLIES ARE CAREFULLY STAGED
FROM UNIONS TO PARTIES TO JESSE JACKSON, PROTESTS ON CAMERA GOT LOTS OF BACKSTAGE POLISH.
THE ORLANDO SENTINEL
December 6, 2000
Author: Doris Bloodsworth of The Sentinel Staff....

The Bush campaign was first to launch a "protest Op", solely engaged in a disinformation campaign to portray the recount process as "in chaos", attacked and shut down the Miami-Dade recount with the "folks" in the above photo, in which <b>Joel Kaplan</b> was one of their number, and directed John Bolton to rush from South Korea, to Florida, to burst into the room where the Miami-Dade recount has resumed..to order it stopped.

When you add the following to the "mix"....

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=44
it was discovered by the the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the 2004 purge list
HAD ALMOST NO HISPANIC NAMES ON IT, due to a "database error"), and
the way the 2000 Florida 65,000 names voter purge list smelled....since only
seven states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who complete
their sentences, and the accuracy of that list was called into question, and
now because Florida recently was found to have neglected to give a notice,
required by law, to 125,000 inmates, since at least 1993, informing them at
the time of their release, how to apply to the governor for clemency in order
to restore their right to vote. <b>Bush "won Florida" by 537 votes...</b>
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/St...s_felon_.shtml

http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pag...ht_to_vote.htm

This....is the "point".....the 2000 Florida vote contest resulted in the closed thing to coup that resulted in the "installation" of a POTUS who lost the popular, nationwide vote, by 500,000. He promised to be a uniter, not a "divider". He appointed 2000 Fla vote recount "intimidator", John Bolton. last year to an interim UN ambassador job that his own party's senators would not approve Bolton to hold. Now....a revamp of the white house staff is touted.
Fake 2000 "local protestor" in the Miami-Dade vote recount gets appointed to take Karl Rove's principle government job.

At what point is it appropriate to stop protestion against this...and end attempts to educate people as to the history of the 2000 Fla. vote....???
...when Bush stops appointing the thugs who broke the rules to put him in office, there would be nothing new to comment on!

[/quote]

...and now, in the present time:

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation
Posted on Thu, May. 10, 2007

White House sought investigations of voter fraud allegations before elections
By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Only weeks before last year's pivotal midterm elections, the White House urged the Justice Department to pursue voter-fraud allegations against Democrats in three battleground states, a high-ranking Justice official has told congressional investigators.

In two instances in October 2006, President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, or his deputies passed the allegations on to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.

Sampson tapped Gonzales aide Matthew Friedrich, who'd just left his post as chief of staff of the criminal division. In the first case, Friedrich agreed to find out whether Justice officials knew of "rampant" voter fraud or "lax" enforcement in parts of New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and report back.

But Friedrich declined to pursue a related matter from Wisconsin, he told congressional investigators, because an inquiry so close to an election could inappropriately sway voting results. Friedrich decided not to pass the matter on to the criminal division for investigation, even though Sampson gave him a 30-page report prepared by Republican activists that made claims of voting fraud.

Late Thursday night, a Justice Department spokesman disputed McClatchy's characterization, saying that the White House asked for an inquiry, but never ordered an investigation to be opened.

While it was known that Rove and the White House had complained about prosecutors not aggressively investigating voter fraud, Friedrich's testimony suggests that the Justice Department itself was under pressure to open voter fraud cases despite a department policy that discourages such action so close to an election.

The new details from Friedrich's closed-door testimony were provided to McClatchy Newspapers as Gonzales made his third appearance Thursday before Congress to answer questions about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

Congressional investigators are looking into whether the firings were motivated in part by prosecutors' failure to bring voter-fraud charges against Democrats. .

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ngs/?page=full

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 6, 2007
Missouri attorney a focus in firings
<b>Senate bypassed in appointment of Schlozman</b>

...Republicans claimed that ineligible voters were a major problem and pushed for laws to require photo IDs. Democrats said there was no evidence of widespread fraud and that such requirements suppress turnout among legitimate voters who are poor or disabled, and thus less likely to have driver's licenses.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...9c7d0&ei=5088&
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA
Published: April 12, 2007

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.....

The Justice Department's voting rights section referees disputes over the fairness of state election requirements. Under federal civil rights law, the section must sign off on redistricting maps and new voting laws in Southern states to ensure that changes will not reduce minority voting power.

Schlozman stepped into this fray in May 2003, when he was promoted to deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division. He supervised several sections, including voting rights. In the fall 2005, he was promoted to acting head of the division.

Schlozman and his team soon came into conflict with veteran voting rights specialists. Career staff committees recommended rejecting a Texas redistricting map in 2003 and a Georgia photo ID voting law in 2005, saying they would dilute minority voting power. In both cases, the career veterans were overruled. But courts later said the map and the ID law were illegal.

Bob Kengle , a former deputy voting rights chief who left in 2005, said Schlozman also pushed the section to divert more resources into lawsuits forcing states to purge questionable voters from their rolls. One such lawsuit was against Missouri, where he later became US attorney. A court threw the Missouri lawsuit out this year.

Schlozman also moved to take control of hiring for the voting rights section, taking advantage of a new policy that gave political appointees more control. Under Schlozman, the profile of the career attorneys hired by the section underwent a dramatic transformation.

Half of the 14 career lawyers hired under Schlozman were members of the conservative Federalist Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association, up from none among the eight career hires in the previous two years, according to a review of resumes. The average US News & World Report ranking of the law school attended by new career lawyers plunged from 15 to 65.

Critics said candidates were being hired more for their political views than legal credentials. David Becker , a former voting rights division trial attorney, said that Schlozman's hiring of politically driven conservatives to protect minority voting rights created a "wolf guarding the henhouse situation."

Asked to respond on behalf of Schlozman, the Justice Department said it considers job applicants with a wide variety of backgrounds and insisted that politics has played no role in hiring decisions.

After the 2004 election, administration officials quietly began drawing up a list of US attorneys to replace. Considerations included their perceived loyalty to Bush and a desire by White House political adviser Karl Rove to increase voter fraud prosecutions, documents and testimony have shown. Most of the proposed firings were for US attorneys in states with closely divided elections.

Among those later fired was David Iglesias , from the battleground state of New Mexico, where many of his fellow Republicans had demanded more aggressive voter fraud probes. Iglesias has accused his critics of making the "reprehensible" suggestion that law enforcement decisions should be made on political grounds.

Missouri is another closely divided state. According to McClatchy Newspapers, Graves appeared on a January 2006 list of prosecutors who would be given a chance to resign to save face. He abruptly resigned in March 2006. Gonzales quickly installed Schlozman as Grave's replacement, bypassing Senate confirmation under new law that had been slipped into the Patriot Act.

That summer, the liberal activist group ACORN paid workers $8 an hour to sign up new voters in poor neighborhoods around the country. Later, ACORN's Kansas City chapter discovered that several workers filled out registration forms fraudulently instead of finding real people to sign up. ACORN fired the workers and alerted law enforcement.

Schlozman moved fast, so fast that his office got one of the names on the indictments wrong. He announced the indictments of four former ACORN workers on Nov. 1, 2006, warning that "this national investigation is very much ongoing." Missouri Republicans seized on the indictments to blast Democrats in the campaign endgame.

Critics later accused Schlozman of violating the Justice Department's own rules. A 1995 Justice election crime manual says "federal prosecutors . . . should be extremely careful not to conduct overt investigations during the preelection period" to avoid "chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities" and causing "the investigation itself to become a campaign issue."

"In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself," the manual states, adding in underlining that "most, if not all, investigation of alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates."

The department said Schlozman's office got permission from headquarters for the election-eve indictments. <h3>It added that the department interprets the policy as having an unwritten exception for voter registration fraud, because investigators need not interview voters for such cases.</h3>

On Nov. 7, 2006, Missouri voters narrowly elected Democrat McCaskill over the Republican senator, James Talent . The victory proved essential to the Democrats' new one-vote Senate majority.

Last week, McCaskill told NPR that she'd like Schlozman to testify before Congress: "What this all indicates is that more questions need to be asked, and more answers under oath need to be given."

As the controversy over the US attorney firings started building, the Bush administration picked someone else to be western Missouri's US attorney. Unlike with Schlozman, the administration first sent the nominee to the Senate for confirmation.

Quote:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-05-10.html

<b> Republicans give Gonzales more cover this time around</b>
By Susan Crabtree
May 11, 2007
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was in much friendlier territory yesterday during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the U.S. attorneys controversy than he was during a searing all-day session three weeks ago before the panel’s Senate counterpart.

Unlike the Senate Republicans who aggressively grilled Gonzales last month, House Republicans echoed Gonzales’s call for the investigation to end and snapped into action whenever they felt Democrats had maligned the attorney general.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee’s ranking member, argued that the two-month investigation had tried to criminalize politics.

“As we have gone forward, the list of accusations has mushroomed,” Smith said in his opening remarks. “But the evidence of genuine wrongdoing has not.”

Democrats still snarled, bellowed and pounded the table in frustration when they tried to get answers on who recommended the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys, and why they did so.

Gonzales repeatedly took responsibility for the firings. But in several instances, he said he could not answer specific questions because he had not talked to key officials in order to respect the confidentiality of an ongoing internal Justice Department investigation into the matter.

Even before the hearing began, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman, personally told a number of costumed “Code Pink” protesters to leave because he didn’t think the signs and symbols on their garments were dignified. By contrast, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) was much more lenient with protesters who heckled and hissed throughout last month’s hearing.

Lawmakers almost immediately took the pressure off Gonzales and began sparring with each other over the status of Justice Department investigations into the activities of two sitting congressmen.

Just minutes into the hearing, Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) demanded answers from Gonzales about the perceived lack of progress in the FBI probe of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).

“My constituents are asking me when something is going to happen, whether an indictment is going to be returned or whether the Justice Department is going to make an announcement that there’s insufficient evidence to prosecute Representative Jefferson,” Sensenbrenner said.

Gonzales responded that Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the panel, knew that he could not talk about ongoing investigations.

“Well, everybody’s talking about it except you,” Sensenbrenner retorted. “I’m just interested in finding out when this matter is going to be brought to conclusion, because we authorize and appropriate a heck of a lot of money to run your department and people are wondering what the dickens is going on.”

Gonzales answered he “had every confidence” that the prosecutors in the case will follow the evidence and take action at the appropriate time.

Unsatisfied, Sensenbrenner then asked whether Gonzales believed the raid on Jefferson’s office and the legal dispute over the separation of powers that it sparked had slowed a decision on whether to indict Jefferson.
Gonzales said only that he couldn’t comment but would do so at the appropriate time.

Sensenbrenner said angrily: “Well, I would hope that the appropriate time would be pretty soon, because the people’s confidence in your department has been further eroded, separate and apart from the U.S. attorney controversy, because of the delay in dealing with this matter.”

The exchange took place after a dust-up over Rep. Linda Sanchez’s (D-Calif.) comments on an FBI investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), and whether the October 2006 departure of U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang, who was leading the probe, was related to the other prosecutors’ firings in December. Yang resigned her position to take a partnership at a law firm defending Lewis in the probe. Yang, a single mother, has told The Hill that she took the job mainly for financial reasons and that her departure would not affect the case.

Sanchez asked Gonzales whether he was concerned about the conflict of interest that Yang’s new job may have raised. He responded: “We had nothing to do with placing Ms. Yang in that law firm. And as far as I know, nothing about that investigation has been impacted or affected in any way by virtue of her going to work in that firm.”

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) then interjected when Sanchez attempted to place into the hearing record a New York Times article raising questions about Yang’s departure.

Lungren took exception to Sanchez’s statement that Lewis was a “target” of an investigation and argued there was no proof of that.

“We ought to be careful about that before we start besmirching members’ names around,” he said.

Following Sensenbrenner’s comments about the Jefferson probe, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) raised a point of order asking to “take down” Sanchez’s remarks that Lewis was a target, a process of removing the words from the hearing record.

Sanchez apologized if she had referred to him as a target and agreed to strike it from the record.

Gonzales was also asked about Todd Graves, the former U.S. attorney for Kansas City, Mo., and denied that his early 2006 departure had anything to do with the review and ousting of the other eight U.S. attorneys late in the year. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Graves was asked to leave in January 2006, many months before the other firings occurred.

Gonzales had previously testified that just eight U.S. attorneys were fired and repeated that assertion under questioning yesterday.

At the end of the hearing, Conyers said he was still unsatisfied and asked for Gonzales to produce more answers and documents about the White House’s involvement in the firings.

“I am disappointed that you still cannot answer the basic questions of who put the U.S. attorneys on the firing list and why … the bread crumbs that we referred to earlier seem to be leading to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”

Quote:

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/20...es-before.html
Friday, May 11, 2007
Transcript: Gonzales Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee

The chair recognizes the chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, Linda Sanchez.

WATCH IT HERE:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...fused-or-what/

..SANCHEZ: I thank the chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Gonzales.

Mr. Gonzales, you've consistently maintained that only eight U.S. attorneys were forced out of their positions. Yet today's Washington Post states that there was a ninth, Todd Graves.

Are there any more U.S. attorneys that we should know about that were forced out?

GONZALES: Congresswoman, it's always been my understanding that this focus has been on the eight United States attorneys that were asked to resign last December 7th and June 14th, including Bud Cummins.

SANCHEZ: Mr. Attorney General, with all due respect, in page two of your testimony that you've previously given, you stated that there were only eight that were forced out.

GONZALES: As part of this process -- as part of this review process that I asked Mr. Sampson to conduct and which resulted in the culmination in December of '06, these were the individuals that this process identified as where changes should be appropriate.

Now, clearly, throughout my tenure as attorney general and throughout the tenure of my predecessors and other attorney generals, U.S. attorneys have left the department for a number of -- variety of reasons. So that happens.

SANCHEZ: Let's stop there.

Are you familiar with the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Debra Wong Yang?

GONZALES: Yes.

SANCHEZ: And are you aware the she resigned her position in October of 2006 and took a position with a private law firm?

GONZALES: Yes, I am.

SANCHEZ: Do you have information as to whether Ms. Yang's resignation was entirely voluntary?

GONZALES: From what I know, Ms. Yang's resignation was entirely voluntary. She did a wonderful job and...

(CROSSTALK)

<b>SANCHEZ: Now, are you aware that when Ms. Yang went to this firm, she received what has been reported as a $1.5 million bonus for joining the private law firm?</b>

GONZALES: I don't know what she received. But whatever it was, it was a bargain for the firm because she is an outstanding lawyer.

SANCHEZ: Are you aware of any reason why she would have been given such an extraordinary bonus payment to hire an individual like her?

GONZALES: I suspect that given her outstanding qualifications, the fact that she's a woman, an Asian-American, would make her particularly attractive to a private firm.

SANCHEZ: So you think a $1.5 million signing bonus is typical for a situation like that?

GONZALES: Again, that's a decision for that firm to make.

SANCHEZ: OK.

Are you aware -- and this has been reported in the press -- that when she was hired by the firm, Ms. Yang was conducting an active investigation into Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis and his financial dealings with a particular lobbying firm? Were you aware of that?

GONZALES: I may have been aware of that. Sitting here today, I can't say that I was aware of that. But that is very likely.

We have public corruption investigations and prosecutions that are occurring every day all over the country, Congresswoman.

GONZALES: So it would not be unusual that such...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, let me tell you what concerns me.

What concerns me are the reports of the same firm that hired Ms. Yang away from her post as a U.S. attorney, with a large bonus payment, also, coincidentally, happens to be the firm that represents Mr. Lewis in this matter. Does that coincidence trouble you at all?

GONZALES: Not at all, because, again, what we have to remember is that for -- the American people need to understand this -- is that these investigations are not run primarily by the United States attorneys. They're handled by assistant United States attorneys, career prosecutors. And so these...

SANCHEZ: She had no role in the investigation of Mr. Lewis?

GONZALES: ... these investigations, these prosecutions continue, as they should.

This great institution is built to withstand departures of U.S. attorneys and attorneys general.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: So you don't think it's inappropriate for a U.S. attorney to accept a lucrative job offer from a law firm representing the target of one of their active investigations in a position that she held just prior to going to that law firm? You don't think that that's inappropriate?

GONZALES: Again...

SANCHEZ: You don't think that there's perhaps at least an appearance of a conflict of interest...

(CROSSTALK)

GONZALES: Congresswoman Sanchez, I'm presuming -- knowing Deb Yang the way that I do and the people in that firm -- is that she would be recused from anything related to that matter as a member of that firm.

And, again, what's important for the American people to understand is, despite her departure, that case will continue, as it should.

SANCHEZ: So you're not concerned even with the appearance of conflicts of interest. It doesn't trouble you at all...

GONZALES: I'm always concerned about the appearance of a conflict...

SANCHEZ: ... especially at a point when the Justice Department is under scrutiny, the morale is probably the lowest that it's been in decades, and people are questioning the integrity of the DOJ to act in an evenhanded and fair manner.

GONZALES: Of course, as head of the department, I'm always concerned about the appearance and the perception. Of course I am.

But, again, this is more of a perception for the law firm as opposed to the Department of Justice because, as far as I know, we had nothing to do with placing Ms. Yang in that law firm. And as far as I know, nothing about that investigation has been impacted or affected in any way by virtue of her going to work in that firm.

SANCHEZ: What about this: Are you aware that one month before Ms. Yang resigned her post White House Counsel Harriet Miers had asked Kyle Sampson if Ms. Yang planned to keep her post or, as in Mr. Sampson's words to our investigators, quote/unquote, "whether a vacancy could be created there in Los Angeles"? Were you aware of that?

GONZALES: I think I may be aware of that, based on my review. I can't remember now whether or not that's reflected in the document.

Let me just say this, a couple things about that.

<h3>I recall -- Ms. Yang, when I said she left voluntarily, I think she left involuntarily</h3> in that she -- she had to leave for financial reasons. I think if she could have, she would have stayed. But I think she had to leave for financial reasons.

(CROSSTALK)

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace.... you've convinced me that posting a library full of facts has no effect on you, but it is my only recourse....is there any way to reach you..to influence you to doubt what I've quoted from you, above?

.....and we move to the present time:

I have stated that my attension span is pretty short. If you want me to follow your arguments you would lay it out in bite sized chunks and provide a reason to read your links.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

What's our focus?

Saving the lives of our soldiers, and the innocent Iraqi civilians that our soldiers are being forced to murder by bringing our soldiers back home where they belong.

Protecting our country by actually protecting it, rather than enraging our enemies while not materially hurting them. We were attacked by bin Laden. Those of us who are sane therefore want to fight bin Laden. Committing war crimes in Iraq is a costly, murderous distraction that we should never have gotten into in the first place, and one which we should certainly get out of now.

That focused enough for ya?

That is a focus. Not one that I support, but it is something. Thanks.

shakran · 05-11-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have stated that my attension span is pretty short. If you want me to follow your arguments you would lay it out in bite sized chunks and provide a reason to read your links.

That is a focus. Not one that I support, but it is something. Thanks.

You don't have to support it. Just stop acting like Bush is the only one with a focus.

Besides, the Bush opposition doesn't need to be focused on how to fix Iraq. All they need to focus on right now is stopping Bush. We can't fix it until we stop breaking it.

When the house is on fire you don't call the contractor to arrange for repairs while the house is still burning. You put out the fire first, and THEN you worry about how to fix the mess.

Focusing any more specifically than I did on what to do about Iraq is silly - every passing day brings a worse situation in Iraq and therefore the solution for Iraq changes. We need to stop what is causing the problem before we fix the problem.

host · 05-11-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have stated that my attension span is pretty short. If you want me to follow your arguments you would lay it out in bite sized chunks and provide a reason to read your links.

That is a focus. Not one that I support, but it is something. Thanks.

ace....the "reason".....the incentive for you to read what I post....and I post it over and over, because of the reasons that you stated...."short attention span", etc.... is so that you can "know what I know". I can lead you to it, but I cannot make you read it.

Suggestion: Read the last quote box content in my last post....the exchange between Rep. Sanchez and General Gonzales, and the following "background was all posted three weeks ago here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...43&postcount=8

Below are excerpts of what is contained at the preceding link:

I'll summarize my last post:

There is overwhelming evidence that President Bush, and his brother Jeb, and their hand picked associates, manipulated the Florida 2000 election results by an organized campaign to purge and or to prohibit predicted opposition votes from being cast against Bush and other republican candidates, and....that since 2000, republicans, led by Karl Rove, have successfully turned the DOJ into a mechanism to do the same thing.....limit/eliminate predicted opposition votes by any means necessary, legal or illegal.....

Do you think it is simply a coincidence that republican "fixer", and rabidly partisan former US soliciter general. Theodore Olson, who argued for Bush in the 2000 election court battle, and then, as Solicitor General of the US, told the SCOTUS that :

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...9291-2002Mar20

It is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out," the Justice Department's senior trial lawyer said to the justices, who are weighing Jennifer Harbury's claim that she had the right to the truth about the torture and murder of her Guatemalan revolutionary husband by CIA-financed Guatemalan forces in 1993. .......

Quote:

http://www.gibsondunn.com/news/firm/...pubItemId=8231
U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang Joins Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles

October 17, 2006

Los Angeles. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce Debra Wong Yang, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, will join the firm as partner in the Los Angeles office.

At Gibson Dunn, Yang will co-chair the firm’s Crisis Management Practice Group, along with Washington, D.C. partner Theodore B. Olson,
the former Solicitor General of the United States, and New York partner Randy Mastro, the former New York Deputy Mayor of Operations. In addition, Yang will play a central role in the Business Crimes and Investigations Practice Group.

“Debra Wong Yang is one of the most respected U.S. Attorneys in the country.
She has done a remarkable job in leading the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, which handles some of our Nation’s largest and most difficult cases,” said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.....

Quote:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070321/D8O07EA80.html
.....<b>About five months before Yang's departure, her office had opened an investigation into ties between Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and a lobbyist. Gibson Dunn, the firm that hired her, is also the firm where Lewis' legal team works,.....</b>

Quote:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070321/D8O07EA80.html

...<b>Since 1993, Lewis has received $88,252 in contributions from Wilkes and his associates. Only two other legislators received more: Cunningham and Republican Rep. John Doolittle from the Sacramento suburbs, both of whom have admitted steering millions of dollars in contracts to ADCS.</b>

During the same period, ADCS received more than $90 million in federal contracts, most of it through earmarks from the Appropriations Committee.

“From the standpoint of the average American citizen, that smells,” said Ned Wigglesworth, executive director of TheRestofUs.org, a liberal political watchdog group in Sacramento. “It's good to see that federal investigators have broadened the investigation into Lewis. His relationship with Wilkes has many of the same hallmarks that Cunningham's relationship had.”....

ace....if you become more interested after reading the above in the context of the last quote box in my last post....read more in that post, and...if you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them......

ratbastid · 05-13-2007, 05:05 AM

Here's a very interesting editorial I found describing ten ways Bush resembles historic tyrants.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7424

Quote:

Ten Ways Bush Resembles History's Tyrants
by Sherwood Ross | May 12 2007 - 9:48am

As public sentiment begins to build for impeachment, it might be illuminating to examine the many ways President Bush operates in a manner reminiscent of history's tyrants. Here are 10 areas that come readily to mind.

First, tyrants tend to see themselves, as Hitler did, at the head of some kind of "master race." President Bush and his backers would deny it, but their drive for a "New American Century" betrays them. They're world-beaters, and won't sign the global warming treaty or any other cooperative document. Republicans at their last Convention jeered the very mention of the words "United Nations." Those who see it differently get slandered. Recall how Bush's hatchet men impugned Senator Kerry's Vietnam War record. This was reminiscent of Nazi claims Germany's Jewish veterans of the Great War did not deserve their medals. Another manifestation is Neocons would reduce gay and lesbian Americans to second-class citizenship status. Bush's backers are convinced of their superiority at home and globally.

Second, tyrants tend to be congenital, brazen liars. Bush lied about Iraq's threat to America just as Hitler lied when he claimed Poland attacked Germany first in 1939. The UN told Bush there was no WMD in Iraq, yet Bush said there was and made war. He knew better. As many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, 2-million have fled, and a nation is being destroyed before our eyes.

Third, tyrants engage in outright suppression or manipulation of the news. The Bush Administration has paid off newsmen to plug its achievements, sent out video press releases disguised as news stories, banned photographs of coffins returned from Iraq, and even planted a phony journalist in White House press conferences. And it's spending millions to bribe Iraqi journalists.

Fourth, tyrants will use a "crisis" to grab total power. After the massacre of 9/11, President Bush pushed through the Patriot Act. Recall 1933, when Hitler declared a "state of national emergency" after the Reichstag (Parliament) fire, which likely was set by the Nazis. The new law gives Bush the power to arrest any American citizen on his say-so and he has allowed his intelligence agencies to spy illegally on American citizens without a court order.

Fifth, tyrants torture. Of all people, Bush picked Alberto Gonzalez for the top legal position in the nation, the very man who rationalized the torture of captives. Bush also lavishes billions on dictatorships such as Egypt, whose Gestapo obligingly tortures individuals the CIA kidnaps from other countries. Bush has turned back the clock of history to the Spanish Inquisition.

Sixth, tyrants tend to make serial wars. Soviet Russia's Stalin attacked Finland, Poland, and Hungary. Japan struck Korea, Manchuria, China, America, and U.K. One war is never enough for a tyrant. Recall Napoleon invaded nations to liberate them from kings, only to put his relatives on their thrones. Having invaded Afghanistan and setting Iraq ablaze, Bush now threatens Iran --- three countries that are oil-rich or geographically sited for oil transmission lines or both.

Seventh, tyrants are notorious for their closed mindedness. They ignore their critics. Japan walked out of the League of Nations rather than answer for its conduct. Bush doesn't listen to critics, either. The Pope denounced America's war on Iraq as immoral. The UN Secretary-General called it "illegal." Millions the world over protested it. And a majority of Americans call it wrong but Bush ignores them. Polls show 70% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. to get out but Bush refuses.

Eighth, tyrants spend lavishly on the military. In the Thirties, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia devoted a high percentage of their gross national product to their war machines. Today, America spends more on armaments than all other nations combined. And America under Bush is the Number One arms merchant in the world.

Ninth, tyrants don't respect the sovereignty of other nations. Bush rationalized his attack on Iraq as "preventive war" -- a euphemism for "aggression." The Pentagon has already dropped troops secretly into Iran, according to Seymour Hersh in "The New Yorker." The Pentagon operates 700 military bases in 130 countries and refuses to leave Okinawa and Greenland despite protests from their citizens.

Tenth, tyrants have double standards. Bush declares he's for "freedom" but forges alliances with the heads of Saudi Arabia, and former Soviet Asian republics where citizens have zero rights. He warns Iran against making a nuclear bomb while he scraps non-proliferation treaties to make America's nuclear arsenal more lethal. Bush threatens Iran, which spends $4-billion a year on arms, while he spends $500-billion on arms. He warns Iran might make a nuclear bomb while he has 10,000. He accused Saddam Hussein of germ warfare capability while he has been secretly building the greatest germ warfare capability of any nation in history since the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Are these reasons grounds for impeachment? Not if you believe this is the New American Century. Not if you believe Americans are the Master Race. Not if you believe America should rule the world.

ubertuber · 05-13-2007, 10:11 AM

Interesting article ratbastid.

However, I think point 1 is overstated and weakens the force of the other, more valid points. There were reasons not to sign the Kyoto protocols. Now, they're debatable, and different people will end up with different conclusions based on their priorities, but we didn't ignore that merely because it was an international accord. A better example might have been the International Court fiasco. Similarly, equating John Kerry and Vietnam to Jewish veterans of WWI is a reach. One is about alienating a domestic group, the other was about an individual in the context of a heated election campaign. Whatever is going on in the Bush administration, I don't really think it has to do with any sort of "master race" plan.

Point 3 is one of the more compelling here. I was just having a conversation this morning (reflecting my recent thoughts) about the degree to which the news media has been co-opted by the political parties to become actors in their drama. This is partially because many media outlets settle for paraphrasing press releases as reporting, and partially because of the direct actions of administration officials. Either way, the damaged credibility of our media is a very bad thing for this nation.

Point six is something I could have dismissed as paranoia until recently. Dick Cheney's threats towards Iran, issued from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf were, to me, over the top. The Bush administration has spent much time and effort orchestrating/choreographing media events and imagery. I can't believe that they are unaware of the implicit message that comes with the setting and background of that speech - which is that military confrontation with Iran is a foregone conclusion.

The eighth point may be the single thing that worries me more than any other aspect of our culture, and that's a measure of a personal journey for me, as a military dependent. Our culture has come to accept the military and military service in a way that is uncritical and unthinking. The "Support the Troops" meme is just the most glaring example - nobody's perfect, but criticizing the conduct and ability of America's military is the real third rail of politics in America. We are saturated with images and ideas about the military through all forms of media. The importance of our military to our self-image as a nation is truly troubling. When you consider that all of this may even be an outgrowth of the commercial interests of the companies whose sales make us the number one legal arms exporter, this culture is even more chilling. Bush may be a symptom of this syndrome more than the cause, and that is truly frightening.

host · 05-28-2007, 07:25 AM

Why is president Bush committing our troops to even increasingly higher casualty rates in the coming months? Are his reasons related to what is reported here?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/wo...erland&emc=rss
May 28, 2007
As Allies Turn Foe, Disillusion Rises in Some G.I.’s
By MICHAEL KAMBER

BAGHDAD — Staff Sgt. David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.

“In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place,” he said. “There was no sectarian violence, Saddam was gone, we were tracking down the bad guys. It felt awesome.”

But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought: ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness.

A small minority of Delta Company soldiers — the younger, more recent enlistees in particular — seem to still wholeheartedly support the war. Others are ambivalent, torn between fear of losing more friends in battle, longing for their families and a desire to complete their mission.

With few reliable surveys of soldiers’ attitudes, it is impossible to simply extrapolate from the small number of soldiers in the company. But in interviews with more than a dozen soldiers in this 83-man unit over a one-week period, most said they were disillusioned by repeated deployments, by what they saw as the abysmal performance of Iraqi security forces and by a conflict that they considered a civil war, one they had no ability to stop.

They had seen shadowy militia commanders installed as Iraqi Army officers, they said, had come under increasing attack from roadside bombs — planted within sight of Iraqi Army checkpoints — and had fought against Iraqi soldiers whom they thought were their allies.

“In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war,” said Sgt. First Class David Moore, a self-described “conservative Texas Republican” and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. “Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me.”

It is not a question of loyalty, the soldiers insist. Sergeant Safstrom, for example, comes from a thoroughly military family. His mother and father have served in the armed forces, as have his three sisters, one brother and several uncles. One week after the Sept. 11 attacks, he walked into a recruiter’s office and joined the Army.

“You guys want to start a fight in my backyard, I got something for you,” he recalls thinking at the time.

But in Sergeant Safstrom’s view, the American presence is futile. “If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy,” he said. “It would go straight into a civil war. That’s how it feels, like we’re putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here.”

Their many deployments have added to the strain. After spending six months in Iraq, the soldiers of Delta Company had been home for only 24 hours last December when the news came. “Change your plans,” they recall being told. “We’re going back to Iraq.”

Nineteen days later, just after Christmas, Capt. Douglas Rogers and the men of Delta Company were on their way to Kadhimiya, a Shiite enclave of about 300,000 people. As part of the so-called surge of American troops, their primary mission was to maintain stability in the area and prepare the Iraqi Army and the police to take control of the neighborhood.

“I thought it would not be long before we could just stay on our base and act as a quick-reaction force,” said the barrel-chested Captain Rogers of San Antonio. “The Iraqi security forces would step up.”

It has not worked out that way. Still, Captain Rogers says their mission in Kadhimiya has been “an amazing success.”

“We’ve captured 4 of the top 10 most-wanted guys in this area,” he said. And the streets of Kadhimiya are filled with shoppers and the stores are open, he said, a rarity in Baghdad due partly to Delta Company’s patrols.

Captain Rogers acknowledges the skepticism of many of his soldiers. “Our unit has already sent two soldiers home in a box,” he said. “My soldiers don’t see the same level of commitment from the Iraqi Army units they’re partnered with.”

Yet there is, he insists, no crisis of morale: “My guys are all professionals. I tell them to do something, they do it.” His dictum is proved on patrol, where his soldiers walk the streets for hours in the stifling heat, providing cover for one another with crisp efficiency.

On April 29, a Delta Company patrol was responding to a tip at Al Sadr mosque, a short distance from its base. The soldiers saw men in the distance erecting barricades that they set ablaze, and the streets emptied out quickly. Then a militia, believed to be the Mahdi Army, began firing at them from rooftops and windows.

Sgt. Kevin O’Flarity, a squad leader, jumped into his Humvee to join his fellow soldiers, racing through abandoned Iraqi Army and police checkpoints to the battle site.

He and his squad maneuvered their Humvees through alleyways and side streets, firing back at an estimated 60 insurgents during a gun battle that raged for two and a half hours. A rocket-propelled grenade glanced off Sergeant O’Flarity’s Humvee, failing to penetrate.

When the battle was over, Delta Company learned that among the enemy dead were at least two Iraqi Army soldiers that American forces had helped train and arm.

Captain Rogers admits, “The 29th was a watershed moment in a negative sense, because the Iraqi Army would not fight with us,” adding, “Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us.”

The battle changed the attitude among his soldiers toward the war, he said. “Before that fight, there were a few true believers.” Captain Rogers said. “After the 29th, I don’t think you’ll find a true believer in this unit. They’re paratroopers. There’s no question they’ll fulfill their mission. But they’re fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldier and chain of command.”

To Sergeant O’Flarity, the Iraqi security forces are militias beholden to local leaders, not the Iraqi government. “Half of the Iraqi security forces are insurgents,” he said.

As for his views on the war, Sergeant O’Flarity said, “I don’t believe we should be here in the middle of a civil war.”

“We’ve all lost friends over here,” he said. “Most of us don’t know what we’re fighting for anymore. We’re serving our country and friends, but the only reason we go out every day is for each other.”

“I don’t want any more of my guys to get hurt or die,” he continued. “If it was something I felt righteous about, maybe. But for this country and this conflict, no, it’s not worth it.”

Staff Sgt. James Griffin grew up in Troy, N.C., near the Special Operations base at Fort Bragg. His dream was to be a soldier, and growing up, he would skip school and volunteer to play the role of the enemy during Special Operations training exercises. When he was 17, he joined the Army.

Now 22, Sergeant Griffin is a Delta Company section leader. On the night of May 5, as he neared an Iraqi police checkpoint with a convoy of Humvees, Sergeant Griffin spotted what looked like a camouflaged cinderblock and immediately halted the convoy. His vigilance may have saved the lives of several soldiers. Under the camouflage was a massive, six-array, explosively formed penetrator — a deadly roadside bomb that cuts through the Humvees’ armor with ease.

The insurgents quickly set off the device, but the Americans were at a safe distance. An explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to check the area. As the ordnance team rolled back to base, they were attacked with a second roadside bomb near another Iraqi checkpoint. One soldier was killed and two were wounded.

No one has been able to explain why two bombs were found near Iraqi checkpoints, bombs that Iraqi soldiers and the police had either failed to notice or helped to plant.

Sergeant Griffin, too, understands the criticism of the Iraqi forces, but he says they and the war effort must be given more time.

“If we throw this problem to the side, it’s not going to fix itself,” he said. “We’ve created the Iraqi forces. We gave them Humvees and equipment. For however long they say they need us here, maybe we need to stay.”

It's now nearly three years since the following piece, looking more, in hindsight, to me, anyway....since it was written 6 weeks before the 2004 presidential election, like a Bush-Cheney campaign ad, authored by a politically tainted "whore", than it does a serious assessment by an earnest US military commander, was published.

Three years later, the "solution", endorsed by the general who was rewarded by Bush for his support, with his current command in Iraq, is to subject our troops to an escalated level of casualties. The increasing number of our troops killed, will be dead, permanently. What have Bush and Petraeus been so accurate about, that they should be allowed to pursue this strategy.

The fullness of time belies the fact that Petraeus's rosy assessment of Iraq forces training progress and readiness, were bullshit hype. Bush's own record of decision making in Iraq is a much more dismal failure than Petraeus's.

Do Bush and his "yes man", Petraeus, have the right to get even more of our troops killed? ....and for....WHAT?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep25.html
Battling for Iraq

By David H. Petraeus

Sunday, September 26, 2004; Page B07

BAGHDAD -- Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.

Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.

Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight -- so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country. Since Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well.

Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. Two of these battalions, along with the Iraqi commando battalion, the counterterrorist force, two Iraqi National Guard battalions and thousands of policemen recently contributed to successful operations in Najaf. Their readiness to enter and clear the Imam Ali shrine was undoubtedly a key factor in enabling Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to persuade members of the Mahdi militia to lay down their arms and leave the shrine.

In another highly successful operation several days ago, the Iraqi counterterrorist force conducted early-morning raids in Najaf that resulted in the capture of several senior lieutenants and 40 other members of that militia, and the seizure of enough weapons to fill nearly four 7 1/2-ton dump trucks.

<b>Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month.</b>

<h3>host adds: It's now 985 days since Petraeus, wrote his "Within the next 60 days", prediction....and, if progress in training of Iraqi forces was at the level that Petraeus described, then....as he said, just 18 months (450 days...) after the March, 2003, US invasion, how many more US troop deaths will be required to determine that the US "Stand them up, so we can Stand down" "plan" is a total failure? Where are the additional trained Iraqi forces that should have made the "surge" unnecessary?</h3>

Iraqi National Guard battalions have also been active in recent months. Some 40 of the 45 existing battalions -- generally all except those in the Fallujah-Ramadi area -- are conducting operations on a daily basis, most alongside coalition forces, but many independently. Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct.

Iraq's borders are long, stretching more than 2,200 miles. Reducing the flow of extremists and their resources across the borders is critical to success in the counterinsurgency. As a result, with support from the Department of Homeland Security, specialized training for Iraq's border enforcement elements began earlier this month in Jordan.

Regional academies in Iraq have begun training as well, and more will come online soon. In the months ahead, the 16,000-strong border force will expand to 24,000 and then 32,000. In addition, these forces will be provided with modern technology, including vehicle X-ray machines, explosive-detection devices and ground sensors.

Outfitting hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi security forces is difficult and complex, and many of the units are not yet fully equipped. But equipment has begun flowing. Since July 1, for example, more than 39,000 weapons and 22 million rounds of ammunition have been delivered to Iraqi forces, in addition to 42,000 sets of body armor, 4,400 vehicles, 16,000 radios and more than 235,000 uniforms.

Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces. Some $1 billion in construction to support this effort has been completed or is underway, and five Iraqi bases are already occupied by entire infantry brigades.

Numbers alone cannot convey the full story. The human dimension of this effort is crucial. The enemies of Iraq recognize how much is at stake as Iraq reestablishes its security forces. Insurgents and foreign fighters continue to mount barbaric attacks against police stations, recruiting centers and military installations, even though the vast majority of the population deplores such attacks. Yet despite the sensational attacks, there is no shortage of qualified recruits volunteering to join Iraqi security forces. In the past couple of months, more than 7,500 Iraqi men have signed up for the army and are preparing to report for basic training to fill out the final nine battalions of the Iraqi regular army. Some 3,500 new police recruits just reported for training in various locations. And two days after the recent bombing on a street outside a police recruiting location in Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqis were once again lined up inside the force protection walls at another location -- where they were greeted by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

I meet with Iraqi security force leaders every day. Though some have given in to acts of intimidation, many are displaying courage and resilience in the face of repeated threats and attacks on them, their families and their comrades. I have seen their determination and their desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq.

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.

<i>The writer, an Army lieutenant general, commands the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. He previously commanded the 101st Airborne Division, which was deployed in Iraq from March 2003 until February 2004.</i>

Quote:

http://www.vietnamwar.com/johnkerryv...instthewar.htm
Senator John Forbes Kerry
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry
to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971

....Kerry asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20070524.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 24, 2007

Press Conference by the President

...Q Mr. President, dozens of American troops have been killed this month, and sectarian violence appears to be rising again in Iraq. You, yourself, just said that you're expecting more casualties in the weeks and months ahead. How much longer do you believe you can sustain your current policy in Iraq without significant progress on the ground? And how confident are you about finding those missing soldiers?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm confident that the military is doing everything it can to find the missing soldiers. I talked to General Petraeus about this subject and Secretary Gates, and General Petraeus informs him that we're using all the intelligence and all the troops we can to find them. It's a top priority of our people there in Iraq.

Obviously, the loss of life is devastating to families. I fully understand that. But I want to remind you as to why I sent more troops in. It was to help stabilize the capital. You're asking me how much longer; we have yet to even get all our troops in place. General David Petraeus laid out a plan for the Congress, he talked about a strategy all aiming -- all aimed at helping this Iraqi government secure its capital so that they can do the -- some of the political work necessary, the hard work necessary to reconcile.

And as I explained in my opening remarks, all the troops won't be there until mid-June. And one reason you're seeing more fighting is because our troops are going into new areas, along with the Iraqis. And so General Petraeus has said, why don't you give us until September and let me report back, to not only me, but to the United States Congress, about progress.

I would like to see us in a different configuration at some point in time in Iraq. However, it's going to require taking control of the capital. And the best way to do that was to follow the recommendations of General Petraeus. As I have constantly made clear, the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton appeal to me, and that is to be embedded and to train and to guard the territorial integrity of the country, and to have Special Forces to chase down al Qaeda. But I didn't think we could get there unless we increased the troop levels to secure the capital. I was fearful that violence would spiral out of control in Iraq, and that this experience of trying to help this democracy would -- couldn't succeed.

And so, therefore, the decisions I made are all aimed at getting us to a different position, and the timing of which will be decided by the commanders on the ground, not politicians here in Washington.....

.......Q Mr. President, a new Senate report this morning contends that your administration was warned before the war that by invading Iraq you would actually give Iran and al Qaeda a golden opportunity to expand their influence, the kind of influence you were talking about with al Qaeda yesterday, and with Iran this morning. Why did you ignore those warnings, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, going into Iraq we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen. And, obviously, as I made a decision as consequential as that, I weighed the risks and rewards of any decision. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I know the Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I think America is safer without Saddam Hussein in power.

As to al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are. That's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks. They're willing to kill the innocent to achieve their objectives, and they will fight us. And the fundamental question is, will we fight them? I have made the decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terror is to fight them.

And so we're fighting them in Iraq, we're fighting them in Afghanistan, we've helped the Philippines -- Philippine government fight them. We're fighting them. And this notion about how this isn't a war on terror, in my view, is naive. It doesn't -- it doesn't reflect the true nature of the world in which we live.

You know, the lessons of September the 11th are these: we've got to stay on the offense; we've got to bring these people to justice before they hurt again; and at the same time, defeat their ideology with the ideology based upon liberty. And that's what you're seeing, and they're resisting it.

I think it ought to be illustrative to the American people that al Qaeda is trying to stop new democracies from evolving. And what should that tell you? That ought to tell you that we're dealing with people that have an ideology that's opposite of liberty and will take whatever measures are necessary to prevent this young democracy from succeeding.

The danger in this particular theater in the war on terror is that if we were to fail, they'd come and get us. You know, I look at these reports right here in the Oval Office. For people who say that we're not under threat, they simply do not know the world. We are under threat. And it's in our interest to pursue this enemy.

Martha.

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.

Q -- catastrophic, as you've said over and over again?

THE PRESIDENT: I would hope that they would recognize that the results would be catastrophic. This is a sovereign nation, Martha. We are there at their request. And hopefully the Iraqi government would be wise enough to recognize that without coalition troops, the U.S. troops, that they would endanger their very existence. And it's why we work very closely with them, to make sure that the realities are such that they wouldn't make that request -- but if they were to make the request, we wouldn't be there.

David.

Q Mr. President, after the mistakes that have been made in this war, when you do as you did yesterday, where you raised two-year-old intelligence, talking about the threat posed by al Qaeda, it's met with increasing skepticism. The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you're still a credible messenger on the war?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David, and make it abundantly clear in plain terms that if we let up, we'll be attacked. And I firmly believe that.

Look, this has been a long, difficult experience for the American people. I can assure you al Qaeda, who would like to attack us again, have got plenty of patience and persistence. And the question is, will we?

Yes, I talked about intelligence yesterday. I wanted to make sure the intelligence I laid out was credible, so we took our time. Somebody said, well, he's trying to politicize the thing. If I was trying to politicize it, I'd have dropped it out before the 2006 elections. I believe I have an obligation to tell the truth to the American people as to the nature of the enemy. And it's unpleasant for some. I fully recognize that after 9/11, in the calm here at home, relatively speaking, caused some to say, well, maybe we're not at war. I know that's a comfortable position to be in, but that's not the truth.

Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. Al Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, yes, once again, we've driven the great soft America out of a part of the region. It will cause them to be able to recruit more. It will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States.

And I'm going to keep talking about it. That's my job as the President, is to tell people the threats we face and what we're doing about it. And what we've done about it is we've strengthened our homeland defenses, we've got new techniques that we use that enable us to better determine their motives and their plans and plots. We're working with nations around the world to deal with these radicals and extremists. But they're dangerous, and I can't put it any more plainly they're dangerous. And I can't put it any more plainly to the American people and to them, we will stay on the offense.

It's better to fight them there than here. And this concept about, well, maybe let's just kind of just leave them alone and maybe they'll be all right is naive. These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they've been attacking ever since. They are a threat to your children, David, and whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures necessary to protect the American people.

Axelrod.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about the Petraeus report, which as you say, will be in September, and report on the progress. Doesn't setting up the September date give the enemy exactly what you've said you don't want them to have, which is a date to focus on, and doesn't it guarantee a bloody August?

And while I have you, sir, the phrase you just used, "a different configuration in Iraq" that you'd like to see, is that a plan B?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually I would call that a plan recommended by Baker-Hamilton, so that would be a plan BH. I stated -- you didn't like it? (Laughter.)

I've stated this is an idea that I like the concept. The question is, could we get there given the violence last fall, and the answer, in my judgment, was, no, we would never be able to configure our troops that way, in that configuration -- place our troops in that configuration given the violence inside the capital city.

David Petraeus felt like that it was important to tell the White House and tell the Congress that he would come back with an assessment in September. It's his decision to give the assessment, and I respect him and I support him.

Q Do you think --

THE PRESIDENT: It does, precisely. It's going to make -- it could make August a tough month, because you see, what they're going to try to do is kill as many innocent people as they can to try to influence the debate here at home. Don't you find that interesting? I do -- that they recognize that the death of innocent people could shake our will, could undermine David Petraeus's attempt to create a more stable government. They will do anything they can to prevent success. And the reason why is al Qaeda fully understands that if we retreat they, then, are able to have another safe haven, in their mind.

Yesterday, in my speech, I quoted quotes from Osama bin Laden. And the reason I did was, is that I want the American people to hear what he has to say -- not what I say, what he says. And in my judgment, we ought to be taking the words of the enemy seriously.

And so, yes, it could be a bloody -- it could be a very difficult August, and I fully understand --

Q -- Democrats on that in the Senate about --

THE PRESIDENT: David Petraeus, the commander -- look, you want politicians making those decisions, or do you want commanders on the ground making the decisions? My point is, is that I would trust David Petraeus to make an assessment and a recommendation a lot better than people in the United States Congress. And that's precisely the difference.

Michael. .....

.......Q Mr. President, are you surprised by reports today from the Iraqis that sectarian killings are actually on the rise to pre-troop surge levels? And, if I may, yesterday after your speech, Senator Joe Biden said al Qaeda in Iraq is a "Bush-fulfilling prophecy." They weren't there before, now they're there. He said U.S. troops should get out of the middle of a civil war and fight al Qaeda. Can you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. A lot of the spectaculars you're seeing are caused by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda will fight us wherever we are. That's what they do, that's what they've said they want to do. They have objectives. These are ideologues driven by a vision of the world that we must defeat. And you defeat them on the one hand by hunting them down and bringing them to justice, and you defeat them on the other hand by offering a different alternative form of government.

The Middle East looked nice and cozy for awhile. Everything looked fine on the surface, but beneath the surface, there was a lot of resentment, there was a lot of frustration, such that 19 kids got on airplanes and killed 3,000 Americans. It's in the long-term interest of this country to address the root causes of these extremists and radicals exploiting people that cause them to kill themselves and kill Americans and others.

I happen to believe one way to do that is to address the forms of government under which people live. Democracy is really difficult work, but democracy has proven to help change parts of the world from cauldrons of frustration to areas of hope. And we will continue to pursue this form of policy; it's in our national interest we do so.

What other aspect of the question?

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'm -- there's -- certainly, there's been an uptick in violence. It's a snapshot, it's a moment. And David Petraeus will come back with his assessment after his plan has been fully implemented, and give us a report as to what he recommends -- what he sees, and what he recommends, which is, I think, a lot more credible than what members of Congress recommend. We want our commanders making the recommendations, and -- along with Ryan Crocker, our Ambassador there -- I don't want to leave Ryan out.

And so it's a -- you know, to Axelrod's point, it's a -- no question it's the kind of report that the enemy would like to affect because they want us to leave, they want us out of there. And the reason they want us to leave is because they have objectives that they want to accomplish. Al Qaeda -- David Petraeus called al Qaeda public enemy number one in Iraq. I agree with him. And al Qaeda is public enemy number one in America. It seems like to me that if they're public enemy number one here, we want to help defeat them in Iraq.

This is a tough fight, you know? And it's, obviously, it's had an effect on the American people. Americans -- a lot of Americans want to know win -- when are you going to win? Victory is -- victory will come when that country is stable enough to be able to be an ally in the war on terror and to govern itself and defend itself.

One of the things that appealed to me about the Baker-Hamilton is that it will provide a -- kind of a long-term basis for that likely to happen, assuming the Iraqi government invites us to stay there. I believe this is an area where we can find common ground with Democrats and Republicans, by the way. I fully recognize there are a group of Democrats who say, get out of the deal now; it's just not worth it.

One of the areas where I really believe we need more of a national discussion, however, is, what would be the consequences of failure in Iraq? See, people have got to understand that if that government were to fall, the people would tend to divide into kind of sectarian enclaves, much more so than today, that would invite Iranian influence and would invite al Qaeda influence, much more so than in Iraq today. That would then create enormous turmoil, or could end up creating enormous turmoil in the Middle East, which would have a direct effect on the security of the United States.

Failure in Iraq affects the security of this country. It's hard for some Americans to see that, I fully understand it. I see it clearly. I believe this is the great challenge of the beginning of the 21st century -- not just Iraq, but dealing with this radical, ideological movement in a way that secures us in the short term and more likely secures us in the long term.

Jim. You didn't nod off there, did you? (Laughter.) A little hot out here in the Rose Garden for you? (Laughter.)

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, go ahead and take the tie off. I'm halfway done anyway. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, yesterday you discussed Osama bin Laden's plans to turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary. What do you think your own reaction would have been five years ago had you been told that towards the end of your term he would still be at large with that kind of capability, from Iraq, no less, and why -- can you tell the American people -- is he still on the run? Why is he so hard to catch?

THE PRESIDENT: I would say that five years ago, like I said, we're going to pursue him, and we are pursuing him. And he's hiding. He is in a remote region of the world. If I knew precisely where he is, we would take the appropriate action to bring him to justice. He is attempting to establish a base of operations in Iraq. He hasn't established a base in operations. My points yesterday were, here was his intentions, but thankfully, of the three people I named, all of them no longer are a part of his operation.

My point is, is that -- I was making the point, Jim, as I'm sure you recognized, that if we leave, they follow us. And my point was, was that Osama bin Laden was establishing an external cell there, or trying to, and he's been unable to do it. Precisely my point. That's why we've got to stay engaged. Had he been able to establish an internal cell that had safe haven, we would be a lot more in danger today than we are. His organization is a risk. We will continue to pursue as hard as we possibly can. We will do everything we can to bring him and others to justice.

We have had good success in the chief operating officer position of al Qaeda. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi al Rabium -- there's a lot of names, some of whom I mentioned yesterday, that are no longer a threat to the United States. We will continue to work to bring him to justice -- that's exactly what the American people expect us to do -- and in the meantime, use the tools we put in place to protect this homeland.

We are under threat. Some may say, well, he's just saying that to get people to pay attention to him, or try to scare them into -- for some reason -- I would hope our world hadn't become so cynical that they don't take the threats of al Qaeda seriously, because they're real. And it's a danger to the American people. It's a danger to your children, Jim. And it's really important that we do all we can do to bring them to justice.

Q Mr. President, why is he still at large?

THE PRESIDENT: Why is he at large? Because we haven't got him yet, Jim. That's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice. We've brought a lot of his buddies to justice, but not him. That's why he's still at large. He's not out there traipsing around, he's not leading many parades, however. He's not out feeding the hungry. He's isolated, trying to kill people to achieve his objective.

Those are his words -- his objectives are his words, not mine. He has made it clear -- he and Zawahiri, their number two, have made it clear what they want. And in a war against extremists and radicals like these, we ought to be listening carefully to what they say. We ought to take their words seriously. There have been moments in history where others haven't taken the words of people seriously and they suffered. So I'm taking them seriously.

Yes, Jim.

Q Mr. President, moments ago you said that al Qaeda attacked us before we were in Iraq. Since then Iraq has become much less stable; al Qaeda has used it as a recruiting tool, apparently with some success. So what would you say to those who would argue that what we've done in Iraq has simply enhanced al Qaeda and made the situation worse?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, so, in other words, the option would have been just let Saddam Hussein stay there? Your question is, should we not have left Saddam Hussein in power? And the answer is, absolutely not. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States. He'd attacked his neighbors. He was paying Palestinian suicide bombers. He would have been -- if he were to defy -- and by the way, cheating on the U.N. oil for sanctions program -- oil-for-food program. No, I don't buy it. I don't buy that this world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein in power, and particularly if -- and I'm sure the Iraqis would agree with that.

See, that's the kind of attitude -- he says, okay, let's let them live under a tyrant, and I just don't agree. I obviously thought he had weapons, he didn't have weapons; the world thought he had weapons. It was a surprise to me that he didn't have the weapons of mass destruction everybody thought he had, but he had the capacity at some point in time to make weapons. It would have been a really dangerous world if we had the Iranians trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and Saddam Hussein competing for a nuclear weapon. You can imagine what the mentality of the Middle East would have been like.

So the heart of your question is, shouldn't you have left Saddam Hussein in power? And the answer is, no. And now that we've --

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: -- that's really the crux of it. And -- let me finish, please, here. I'm on a roll here. And so now that we have, does it make sense to help this young democracy survive? And the answer is, yes, for a variety of reasons.

One, we want to make sure that this enemy that did attack us doesn't establish a safe haven from which to attack again. Two, the ultimate success in a war against ideologues is to offer a different ideology, one based upon liberty -- by the way, embraced by 12 million people when given the chance. Thirdly, our credibility is at stake in the Middle East. There's a lot of Middle Eastern nations wondering whether the United States of America is willing to push back against radicals and extremists, no matter what their religion base -- religious bases may be.

And so the stakes are high in Iraq. I believe they're absolutely necessary for the security of this country. The consequences of failure are immense.

Yes.

Q So there was no choice -- so there was no choice between the course we took and leaving Saddam Hussein in power? Nothing else that might have worked?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we tried other things. As you might remember back then, we tried the diplomatic route: 1441 was a unanimous vote in the Security Council that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. So the choice was his to make. And he made -- he made a choice that has subsequently left -- subsequently caused him to lose his life under a system that he wouldn't have given his own citizens. We tried diplomacy. As a matter of fact, not only did I try diplomacy; other Presidents tried diplomacy.

Let's see here. John.....

QuasiMondo · 05-29-2007, 05:26 AM

When has the president really listened to the generals? Did he listen when Gen. Shinseki testified before congress that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers to stabilize Iraq and instead only got a couple hundred thousand with a sprinkling of foreign assistance? Did this adminstration listen when there were attempts by military planners to draw up a postwar plan for what to do after the invasion? Did anybody listen when retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, the man who oversaw the "Desert Crossing" war simulation, and one who is considered one of the most knowledgable generals on all things mideast, advised them against the plan they had for invading?

The answer is no. To say that this administration is listening to the commanders on the ground is quite simply wrong. Dissent was not tolerated in the Pentagon, and those who had objections were shown the door.

Unfortunately, these generals' time will ultimately be wasted. The ISG couldn't change things, a monumental turnover in congress coulsn't change things. Public opinion at a low not seen since the Nixon adminstration couldn't change things. We'll just have to wait until 2009, and hope it doesn't turn any worse than it already is.

host · 05-29-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

When has the president really listened to the generals? Did he listen when Gen. Shinseki testified before congress that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers to stabilize Iraq and instead only got a couple hundred thousand with a sprinkling of foreign assistance? Did this adminstration listen when there were attempts by military planners to draw up a postwar plan for what to do after the invasion? Did anybody listen when retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, the man who oversaw the "Desert Crossing" war simulation, and one who is considered one of the most knowledgable generals on all things mideast, advised them against the plan they had for invading?

The answer is no. To say that this administration is listening to the commanders on the ground is quite simply wrong. Dissent was not tolerated in the Pentagon, and those who had objections were shown the door.

Unfortunately, these generals' time will ultimately be wasted. The ISG couldn't change things, a monumental turnover in congress coulsn't change things. Public opinion at a low not seen since the Nixon adminstration couldn't change things. We'll just have to wait until 2009, and hope it doesn't turn any worse than it already is.

QuasiMondo, the problem of the president, the VP, and the civilian, executive branch administration ignoring the advice of military leaders and not tolerating opposing views of some of them, is not my point.

I am saying that the passage of time reveals that Bush appointed Gen. Petreaus as commander in Iraq, after Petraeus wrote an overly optimistic, widely circulated opinion piece for newspaper publication, at a critical time during Bush's reelection campaign.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070424-1.html

.....Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq. I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course. The American people did not vote for failure, and that is precisely what the Democratic leadership's bill would guarantee......

Bush's "troop surge", and Petraeus's Sept., 2004 assessment and predictions of progress in the US military's training of Iraqi security forces, compared to what the NY Times recent interviews with US troops serving in Iraq, reveals to us that the Bush plan for "them (Iraqi security forces) to stand up, so we can stand down", is worse than a failed plan.

It is worse because husbanding it's "progress" is still used as an excuse by Bush and Petraeus, 985 days after Petraeus's rosy predictions haven't matched the actual results of training and equipping the Iraqis, to "take" an escalated number of American casualties in the near term....to "buy the Iraqis time". "Time" to do what?

Who do we trust the lives of our troops with to determine whether the policy of trading even more of their lives in exchange for "more time" for training Iraqi security forces to "stand up", is "justified" by the "progress" that is achieved?

Do we trust the 2004 presidential election, co-campaigners, Bush and Petraeus to determine how many US troops lives can be expended in exchange for "more time"? Why would we, in view of Petraeus's Sept. 2004 opinion piece, and Bush's decision to appoint him as top field commander, for his "surge"...especially now that the troops "on the ground" tell the NY Times that the Iraqis won't ever "stand up" to a degree necessary to replace American security forces to a degree that would even maintain "security" at the current, dismal, level?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1
I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

.....Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it.<b> I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check. It's roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning</b> once he starts pitching next month.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." <b>It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays.</b> It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.

In joining the Army, my son was following in his father's footsteps: Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time. Yet he was the better soldier -- brave and steadfast and irrepressible.

I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.

<i>Andrew J. Bacevich teaches history and international relations at Boston University. His son died May 13 after a suicide bomb explosion in Salah al-Din province.</i>

host · 12-29-2007, 06:36 AM

He doesn't have the balls to sign the veto of the bill because it would delay pay increases for "the troops". So, he makes it up as he goes along, and the bill becomes law, according to Constitutional procedure, but not in the opinion of "Bush World":

Quote:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...1gaXQD8TQMV780
Bush Gives Pocket Veto to Defense Bill

By BEN FELLER – 16 hours ago

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush on Friday headed toward a constitutional confrontation with Congress over his effort to reject a sweeping defense bill.

Bush announced he would scuttle the bill with a "pocket veto" — essentially, letting the bill die without his signature 10 days after he received it, or the end of Dec. 31.

But that can happen only when Congress is not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10 days. <h3></h3> — sometimes only seconds long — meetings every two or three days with only one senator present.

<h3>The White House's view is that Congress has adjourned.</h3>

It was unclear how the executive and legislative branches would determine whether, in fact, Bush's lack of signature would amount to vetoing the bill or turning it into law.

"My withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law," Bush said in a statement of disapproval sent to Congress.

The president said he was sending the bill and his outline of objections to the House clerk "to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval, and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed."

There he goes, again !
Bush vetoes defense spending bill

Quote:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...pending_b.html
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/ne...pending_b.html

by James Oliphant

This is what happens when you read the fine print.

President Bush Friday vetoed the massive Defense Authorization Act that hit his desk earlier this month because of a provision that would allow Iraqis to sue their government in federal court in the United States for damages over injuries suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime. This didn't sit well with the current Iraqi government which, of course, would have to pay the tab.

"The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States," deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said Friday from the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex. The White House says the provision would imperil Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks (and indeed, even perhaps force the Iraqi government to pull those assets out of the country).

The provision, said a senior administration official, "would expose both the assets of the Development Fund for Iraq and assets of the Central Bank of Iraq to prejudgment attachment, potentially tying up billions in core Iraqi assets while lawyers go about arguing the merits of cases and the reasonableness of the actions in courthouses."

The problem is that the bill also contains a pay raise for those serving in the armed forces. And since the president doesn't have the power to veto line items, the entire bill has to be scratched.

Congress can't fix it because its members are scattered for the holidays, so the bill won't be resubmitted to the president until some time in January. That leaves Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to pick up the pieces.

They say that if the White House had just informed them that the president had a problem with the bill, they could have fixed it while members were still in Washington. “Despite the administration’s earlier support for the Department of Defense authorization bill, it appears that President Bush plans to veto this legislation, which is crucial to our armed forces and their families,” Reid and Pelosi said in a joint statement.

The White House says it will work to make the pay raise retroactive to Jan. 1. White House officials said that congressional leaders knew the administration was unhappy with the language in the bill, <h2>but conceded that no veto threat was ever made on the issue.</h2>

Plaintiffs have used the federal courts in the past to sue the governments of Iran and Libya, among others, for state-sponsored terrorism. A key sticking point in the negotiations that restored Libya's diplomatic relationship with the United States was the settlement of lawsuits stemming from the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. But because Iraq is now an ally, it becomes a thornier issue.

(Incidentally, the Senate remains technically in session. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has been banging the gavel and holding seven-second sessions each morning in an empty chamber to prevent the White House from making recess appointments. No word yet whether he shouts "I'm the king of the world!" when he does so.)

Posted by Jim Oliphant on December 28, 2007 2:24 PM

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0071228-5.html

Office of the Press Secretary
December 28, 2007

Memorandum of Disapproval

Fact sheet Fact Sheet: National Defense Authorization Act Section 1083: A Danger to Iraq's Progress
Fact sheet Statement by Deputy Press Secretary Scott Stanzel

I am withholding my approval of H.R. 1585, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008," because it would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts and because it would undermine the foreign policy and commercial interests of the United States. .....

......The adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 1585 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed........

From the president who set a record of the fewest vetoes ever....All it took to reverse his record was the people's choice of electing a democratic majority in the house. Why didn't his legislative liason object to provisions in the important bill before it was passed. Why did provisions in the bill "surprise" them? The conditions discovered at Walter Reed hospital were a "surprise", too. When will supporting the troops become a Bush priority?

Bush is attempting to use this provision to avoid having to actually put his signature to a veto:

Quote:

Article I, section 7, US Constitution:

......If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law........

Two problems with Bush's strategy...ten days had not passed by, and....congress has not adjourned:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...--+Latest+news
Senate to stay in session to thwart Bush

Associated Press Writer / December 19, 2007

WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he would keep Congress in session over the holiday break solely to block President Bush from making recess appointments. It was an apt ending to one of the most bitterly partisan congressional sessions in memory.
more stories like this

"We're going to go into pro forma session so the president can't appoint people that we think objectionable," Reid said on the Senate floor as the chamber prepared to wrap up business for the year.

The Senate must confirm major presidential appointments and judicial nominations, a constant source of confrontation between the White House and Senate Democrats. But when the Senate is off, as it will be for the rest of the month and much of January, the president can make recess appointments that are not subject to confirmation hearings. These appointees can serve until the end of the congressional session, which at this point would be until Bush leaves office.

The move affects congressionally passed legislation as well. The Constitution gives Bush 10 days after passage to sign or veto such bills. <h3>If he does not take action by that deadline during a period when Congress is in session, the legislation becomes law.</h3> In cases when the deadline passes during adjournment, the legislation is "pocket-vetoed.".....

So, what is next with this....dc_dux, any insight? I think that the white house if relying on the idea that it's machinations are too complicated for voters and "the troops" to try to glean. It is a redux of Ustwo's "example" of the republican house members suddenly changing their votes from nay to yea on the issue of sending Kucinich's resolution to impeach Cheney, to committee:

Quote:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...tables-re.html
House tied in knots over resolution to impeach Cheney

.....Update at 4:30 p.m. ET: Perhaps we should pause to explain. When most Republicans unexpectedly -- and on orders of GOP leadership, the AP is reporting -- switched sides and voted against tabling the measure, they essentially forced Democrats to keep talking about it on the floor. Tabling the measure would have killed it.

Debate over Cheney's impeachment is in direct opposition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wishes. She has repeatedly said an impeachment of Cheney or President Bush is off the table. Thus, failing to table this measure is a essentially a jab in Pelosi's ribs.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, told the AP of the impeachment's supporters. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Update at 4:32 p.m. ET: The House just voted, 218-194, to send the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That should end today's debate -- but it does keep the resolution at least technically alive.....

<h3>Let us see if this fascinating political manipulation, at the immediate expense of "the troops", attracts the attention of our TFP forum members and if they are ready or willing to focus on the contradictions and post INFORMED agreement or disagreement that, if, as Bush maintains, congress is adjourned, a pocket veto of this bill must be accompanied by attempts to install Bush's recess appointees...</h3>

Will the house and senate finally face down this asshole?

dc_dux · 12-29-2007, 06:55 AM

Host....I shared your amazement at this latest example of the Bush version of the Constitution. I guess they are basing their interpretation on the fact that the House is not holding pro forma sessions like the Senate.

Its much like the Bush/Cheney view that the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch when it comes to complying with open records laws. I've never seen anything like it...they will twist the Constitution when it suits their needs like no other White House tag team that I can ever recall.

It wont work for "recess" appointments since that is strictly a Senate function and there is absolutely no way to deny that Jim Webb has held, and will continue to hold, Senate sessions every three days until the full return in mid-Jan.

On the DoD bill, I suspect that the Dems will quietly pass a technical amendment and send it to Bush when they get back, rather than fight.

But maybe they are growing some balls over the holidays and will prove me wrong.

host · 12-29-2007, 07:22 AM

Thanks, '_dux...., if you're right, and you offer a great explanation, the block of the recess appointments will hold, and Bush will get his veto without having to sign a document that would delay the pay raise for "the troops".

I appreciate you quick response. As I was doing a final edit of my post, I was keenly aware that I risked being accused of posting "ideological spam"...., but you've allayed my concern.

dc_dux · 12-29-2007, 08:01 AM

Host...it will be interesting to see if Bush uses the same argument on the FOIA reform bill that has been on his desk since Dec 21. He hasnt signed it...he hasnt vetoed it...the WH has been silent on his intent and the clock is ticking.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/12...s-house-senate

This is the first meaningful and bipartisan FOIA reform in years, made even more necessary in part by a Bush executive order in 2005 to "reform" FOIA his way.

05-10-2007, 07:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I find this argument interesting, partly because the left seems to be baffled by the Bush line about listening to the commaders on the ground. First, Bush selected the commanders on the ground. If they disagree with what he wants, they would be or would have been removed (Another reason why the Patraous hearings and vote, should have been taken serious). Second, military leaders don't admit that they can not solve a problem. The only hinderence is time and resources. They will change their strategy or tactic, but they will almost never admit a cause is hopeless. Third, detailed plans and tatics comes from the bottom-up. General goals and strategy goes top-down. One may be effective and the other not, both can be effective or both can be failures. So, when Bush says he listens to the commanders on the ground, he is being truthful. But it is circular, and the commanders don't set the general strategy and broader goals. So, this ad will go nowhere, because it fails to address the real problem. Bush will parade his top generals in front of Congress and the media and they will say the "right" things, further confusing the public and failing to accomplish anything. Whoever sponsored this ad should develop a better strategy to communicate their message, this one will fail. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-10-2007 at 07:42 AM..

05-10-2007, 07:45 AM	#5 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Also, it's not like every general thinks the same things - there is certainly a wide range and diversity of opinions on the current status of our efforts and on what our future plans ought to be. Just because these guys follow orders and work as a team doesn't mean that they think alike. It's only natural for Bush to listen to, quote, and promote the generals who happen to have views that are consonant with his own. I would venture to say that this is less dishonest or manipulative than using intelligence selectively. Still, I think these commercials could be received as quite significant by the public. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-10-2007, 07:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	We have had generals saying what the ad says for at least 2 years and perhaps three or more if you include the former General who ran for President in the democratic primary. You even had McCain saying the tactics on the ground were wrong from close to the begining. Non of that moved the needle, why is this going to? It won't. This isn't about honesty or dishonesty, it is simple about an easy way to put critics on the defensive. And it has worked. All I want to do is point out why this left argument goes no where. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-10-2007, 09:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	O.k., but I don't think you picked up on what I was saying. I don't know how to say it anyother way. I do agree that Bush listens to those who agree with him, after all he is the "decider". However, those who don't agree with him are focused on saying stuff that doesn't really matter or doesn't contribute proactively to the general strategy in Iraq. Bush is focused on how we can win this, what has the focus from the left been? Pretty much that Bush is wrong. Kinda like having a nagging wife, after awhile you just tune her out, I had one once and thats what I did. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-10-2007, 10:14 AM	#11 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Hence the "nagging wife paradox". Nagging wives need to pick their issues with a bit of wisdom. But, if they did that-they wouldn't be nagging wives. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-10-2007, 10:18 AM	#13 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	What about the left, what is their focus? What was their focus two years ago? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-10-2007, 11:10 AM	#15 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	All you or anyone has to do to shut me up is to answer my question(s). The conclusion I have come to is that you can't, and it is easier to present an ad hominem argument. I do respect the way you present yours, by saying my question is an ad hominem argument - sweet. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-10-2007, 11:34 AM	#17 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	There is Bush's message, I hear it and it is clear. There is a non-Bush or anti-Bush message that is unclear and is like white noise to me. I am a man of few words, so help me phrase the question. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-11-2007, 07:05 AM	#20 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	When Bush "stole" the election from Gore the tone was already set in Washington before Bush was sworn in. Democrats were not happy at all, and they let everyone know it. To blame the division entirely on Bush is wrong in my opinion. Perhaps some of our elected officials in Washington should sit down and form a consensus on a unified message regarding Iraq that is an alternative to Bush's plan. People want to be for something, taking pot-shots at Bush's plan is no longer enough. We need to know what is meant by a military withdrawal. We need to know what kind of support will we give Iraq after withdrawal, if any? Where will we maintain our military presence in the ME given the conditions in the ME after withdrawal? Etc? Etc? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-13-2007, 10:11 AM	#27 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Interesting article ratbastid. However, I think point 1 is overstated and weakens the force of the other, more valid points. There were reasons not to sign the Kyoto protocols. Now, they're debatable, and different people will end up with different conclusions based on their priorities, but we didn't ignore that merely because it was an international accord. A better example might have been the International Court fiasco. Similarly, equating John Kerry and Vietnam to Jewish veterans of WWI is a reach. One is about alienating a domestic group, the other was about an individual in the context of a heated election campaign. Whatever is going on in the Bush administration, I don't really think it has to do with any sort of "master race" plan. Point 3 is one of the more compelling here. I was just having a conversation this morning (reflecting my recent thoughts) about the degree to which the news media has been co-opted by the political parties to become actors in their drama. This is partially because many media outlets settle for paraphrasing press releases as reporting, and partially because of the direct actions of administration officials. Either way, the damaged credibility of our media is a very bad thing for this nation. Point six is something I could have dismissed as paranoia until recently. Dick Cheney's threats towards Iran, issued from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf were, to me, over the top. The Bush administration has spent much time and effort orchestrating/choreographing media events and imagery. I can't believe that they are unaware of the implicit message that comes with the setting and background of that speech - which is that military confrontation with Iran is a foregone conclusion. The eighth point may be the single thing that worries me more than any other aspect of our culture, and that's a measure of a personal journey for me, as a military dependent. Our culture has come to accept the military and military service in a way that is uncritical and unthinking. The "Support the Troops" meme is just the most glaring example - nobody's perfect, but criticizing the conduct and ability of America's military is the real third rail of politics in America. We are saturated with images and ideas about the military through all forms of media. The importance of our military to our self-image as a nation is truly troubling. When you consider that all of this may even be an outgrowth of the commercial interests of the companies whose sales make us the number one legal arms exporter, this culture is even more chilling. Bush may be a symptom of this syndrome more than the cause, and that is truly frightening. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-29-2007, 05:26 AM	#29 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	When has the president really listened to the generals? Did he listen when Gen. Shinseki testified before congress that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers to stabilize Iraq and instead only got a couple hundred thousand with a sprinkling of foreign assistance? Did this adminstration listen when there were attempts by military planners to draw up a postwar plan for what to do after the invasion? Did anybody listen when retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, the man who oversaw the "Desert Crossing" war simulation, and one who is considered one of the most knowledgable generals on all things mideast, advised them against the plan they had for invading? The answer is no. To say that this administration is listening to the commanders on the ground is quite simply wrong. Dissent was not tolerated in the Pentagon, and those who had objections were shown the door. Unfortunately, these generals' time will ultimately be wasted. The ISG couldn't change things, a monumental turnover in congress coulsn't change things. Public opinion at a low not seen since the Nixon adminstration couldn't change things. We'll just have to wait until 2009, and hope it doesn't turn any worse than it already is. __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

12-29-2007, 06:55 AM	#32 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Host....I shared your amazement at this latest example of the Bush version of the Constitution. I guess they are basing their interpretation on the fact that the House is not holding pro forma sessions like the Senate. Its much like the Bush/Cheney view that the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch when it comes to complying with open records laws. I've never seen anything like it...they will twist the Constitution when it suits their needs like no other White House tag team that I can ever recall. It wont work for "recess" appointments since that is strictly a Senate function and there is absolutely no way to deny that Jim Webb has held, and will continue to hold, Senate sessions every three days until the full return in mid-Jan. On the DoD bill, I suspect that the Dems will quietly pass a technical amendment and send it to Bush when they get back, rather than fight. But maybe they are growing some balls over the holidays and will prove me wrong. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-29-2007 at 07:02 AM..

12-29-2007, 07:22 AM	#33 (permalink)
host Banned	Thanks, '_dux...., if you're right, and you offer a great explanation, the block of the recess appointments will hold, and Bush will get his veto without having to sign a document that would delay the pay raise for "the troops". I appreciate you quick response. As I was doing a final edit of my post, I was keenly aware that I risked being accused of posting "ideological spam"...., but you've allayed my concern.

12-29-2007, 08:01 AM	#34 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Host...it will be interesting to see if Bush uses the same argument on the FOIA reform bill that has been on his desk since Dec 21. He hasnt signed it...he hasnt vetoed it...the WH has been silent on his intent and the clock is ticking. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/12...s-house-senate This is the first meaningful and bipartisan FOIA reform in years, made even more necessary in part by a Bush executive order in 2005 to "reform" FOIA his way. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire