Attention Fine Print Readers!

I don't want to throw anyone under the bus...
except maybe my keyboard.

[UPDATE 9-28-07: As Passed some improvements have been made. But the tactic of terminology on "terrorist organizations" (see Webb) in the context of continued stonewalling of investigations into the administrations tactics: "use of intelligence", "use of funds", "use of politics", not to mention any one's sovereignty.]

But I have read this on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and only found this on the evidence against.

Earlier I read this on Pelosi/centrist/Iraq
and only glanced at this on congress, foreign policy and our allies.

This about "feed and forage" and the war powers represents and requires a little more "hard work" and I don't know if it matters. I agree with the bottom line:

What is clear is that all this legal tap dancing gets us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.

But to the Progressive Majority, or what ever number there are, it should be put in black and white:

THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT AUTHORIZATION FOR WAR PERIOD,
Let alone AS A FOREIGN POLICY

Unless there is something that makes this perfectly clear, this is a political football with a hair trigger, playing out on the world field, while making it clear would likely make it pointless. I hope that someone can sort out these play signals, but Do not punt congressional responsibility, and hopefully there will be 41 votes to take this ball away.

[TALKING POINTS MEMO Takes a little steam out of this but not necessarily my concern that there is something that can be read between the lines without having real dots to connect.]

[NEXT DAY UPDATE: The best spin on this? It was not a vote for war. but further reading is needed. ]

[10-9-07: "Kyle-Lieberman amendment passed" these words have now been spell checked and corrected]

Surge Report.

Can anyone believe this?
Re: THIS:
Would you believe...
Not to mention.

MoveOn!

There is hope that things are about to turn. They could not get worse than the week that was. Well really they always can, but we can hope. There are hints that there will be some feet put down. It only takes 41 Senators to hold up a "heckuva" lot. And now that it has been acceptable to admonish a group for what they say, a real hard look should be taken at Bush.

Search Leahy and Pelosi as I will add links here.[The next day;]
[ Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos] ]
[ On the Table! See A. & B.]
[ What's going on? ]
[The point is that the Democrats are getting the message and contrary to the do-nothing plan that the Republicans have, Democrats should be moving on with subpoenas and may switch to "do-nothing" without a timetable for withdrawal. It only takes 41 votes to not vote on a bill. It only takes 41 votes to hold things up until something gets done, even if it is only a sense of the Senate.]

MoveOn sense of senate.

MoveOn.org was noted in a "sense of Senate" resolution passed today.
(if this is the current version)

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

The "troops" were noted four times in that ad

"...last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress."

"We may hear a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops."

"But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops."

"General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years."

Plus noted "...more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there."

I don't know if this was removed from final passage. But if MoveOn was not mentioned...

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

My point is, it is nonsense if not disgusting to connect criticism of a politicized General with any disrespect for the troops. Or is that too personal? It does more harm to the troops to categorize MoveOn.org as liberal for wanting congress to do their jobs. Misleading some to think that they are not the majority and others to miss that only 2 out of 10 (00337 to 00346)legislative actions in the Senate passed all week! Rejected were the Levin, Feingold, Boxer, McCain, and Webb amendments INCLUDING two cloture votes on habeus corpus and D.C. voting rights.

Five troop related actions were rejected this week, two of which were only "sense of the Senate". How does that compare to the MoveOn.org ad?

[The above was an analysis of the Senate MoveOn.org stunt week, but for a coulda shoulda strategic preemption that could still have some merit.]

To Democrats in the Senate:

CAP THE FILIBUSTER!

First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:

Why are Republicans not required to hold the floor if they are filibustering?

I would suggest that a cap be put first on cloture votes and keep them talking to show who is stalling.

What is the number of cloture votes taken versus successful legislation passed? (1 in 6 as of July.)
It would seem that things are already mucked up quite a bit, with cloture vote on top of cloture vote, just how would they carry on all this filibustering at the same time?

It seems difficult to right this course, and the Democrats are at the helm.

The Democrats had a period of success and "hard work" at the start of the session, I think it is time they put their foot down, and start forcing filibusters. There are only so many hours to congress. Is there not a time limit for each and are there enough hours left?

The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.

The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.

If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.

May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.

"Another good speech."

The quotation marks above are facitious, as one would gester with one's fingers in an expression of skepticism, but it regards my comment.

THE SPEECH I refer to, has also been referenced here is from September 20th, 2001.

At the time I had "cherry-picked" what I chose to run on:

We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.

But recently, portions of his speech have been rerun:

Freedom and fear are at war.

But this is more than just conflicting apples and oranges. Pitting freedom and fear against each other is like comparing elephants and peanuts.

The President's speech. In regards...

to the extent I had read it at the time of the last post, I must make a correction. I had the link to the prepared text, and had read the 1st three paragraphs rather than just what I thought was one as I claimed. That would be the equivalent of two paragraphs in the White House text.

Having now read the complete text I must comment more fully. It was actually a very good speech, that makes a lot of sense. That is also the opinion of a friend of mine whose experiences and credentials in intelligence are well beyond mine. But that was just the first part of a sentence, which I finished for him in my mind as he was making this comment. Paraphrased: His speech made a lot of sense... except for the facts.

Back to my first read, the paragraph in question has questionable references to "Iraq, an ally" and "terrorists and extremists who are...seeking to topple Iraq's government". These are at odds with the wishes reported that Iraq would like us to leave and some of the administrations allies wishes for a new government in Iraq.

In a related matter, Bush has said he prefers to listen to the generals on the ground rather than Washington politicians. Well how does that play when Petraeus wrote [*] in support of the administration before the last election and has plans for politics already?

[*] [Battling for Iraq September 26th 2004 Washington Post added here 9-21-07: also His Political Hopes and more and Krugman calls him out. and Political Animal Drum(s) him out. ]

Can anyone believe this?

The President's speech.
There are questions?
Either/or...
I have read one paragraph each
and wonder and then remember
and pre-emptively review.

Links from the above posts.
Sharpening Questions? MSNBC
Time for Us to Go Washington Monthly

Now I will read "the rest of the story", as Paul Harvey would say.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[Miscellaneous to read even later.]
Sept. 6th 2006 The White House -- speech.
A day in the life Free Republic
Speeches? Huffington Post
Comments? (AP) KLS
LINK ONE ABOVE
LINK TWO (The Caucus) NYT
As Long as He Links It. September11news.com
Sept. 20th, 2001 The White House -- speech. [ [Ctrl f] => PRINCIPLES]

[NOTE: LABELS,
Hit and Run refers to "them" and this post.]

McCain is Right, But Wrong!

Everything is political!

"If you can't stand the heat..." don't cook the books.
The MoveOn.org ad.
The back-up.

Common sense has Left the Right.

9/11 Shade of the Bush

General Douglas MacArthur quoted an old military ballad:
"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

Now it seems that:
Good Generals never lie * , they just shade away.

My point is clear. Generals have a job to do. They take orders. Congress has a job to do. They declare war and fund government. If the General gives testimony, is he not sworn in? Apparently not. (This expert was ejected for suggesting it yesterday.) This does not mean that General Petreus lies or betrays us, he is only apparently doing his job. Will congress? **

And on my earlier point: The surge has worked. That is easy for them to say, when they have not said what working means, and only count "hard work". It was supposed to be political and the report was to measure it's success. There has been little political success ***, unless you count changing the subject from exit to drawdown. So it has been so successful, will we stay the course **** till next summer?

And we are quibbling over words and the honor of a general? Tough! If he can't stand the heat... Not to mention, the attention that MoveOn must generate, if people will read the lines, that the general has generated, one need not even read between the lines.

* & ** embedded recommended reads
*** this link notes 2006 as "Year of Transition".
**** speaking of time

War On/Or Terrorism ?

[Anachronic Memorial to the victims of September 11th, 2001]


* * * * * *
CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.
[Petitions were presented to each U.S. Senator on August 28th, 2002 against the Iraq War Resolution.]
* * * * * *

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]

[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Betray US Report

I know it is a little hard to put the CON TEXT in context, let alone my own writing. The surge has worked.

No quotations on that, but my summary was that it would be maybe nuanced. I apparently write so nuanced that I find it hard to search my point that a troop surge would be political. The point I may have missed but had in mind, is that while I called it an escalation, it now is a surge. Petraeus hopes to be back down to pre-surge numbers by summer. The irony is that the solution in Iraq must be political while the surge over here was just political as well. Well maybe that sorts it out, or maybe I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, but the timing is all to drag things out for political gain, or minimizing political loss, and it is impossible to detach the politics.
MoveOn.org draws the line, the troops should not be in the crossfire and the General should not just tow the line.

[1:35 PM If he is really presenting "his" testimony, it does not mean he is not still straddling a very careful line. 1:55 PM a few bold/links added]

A New Democratic Agenda

Norman Goldman has a list of issues he presented on The Ed Shultz Show on Friday, and today I posted a reply (#8) in Norm's Nook.

Attention to the Right!

Note recent rearrangement of the
"not beating around he Bush? see these links"
and maybe a move to the left for it.

From The Daily Grist Consider...

And earlier associations: People for the American Way
ACLU Patriot Act

New association here: Grist

Will the Press fail again?

On Iraq? Editor and Publisher
On Iran?
On Impeachment?

Well this is a train that may have left the station.
Will they ever learn?

See "Straw Elephant"
Top link, thanks to Rachel Maddow.

Bush comes to shove?

Big Eddie wants to know how to handle an unruly Republican. I would suggest letting management deal with it. Is that the kind of establishment they want to run?
And now there is another matter that he can deal with. The journalist who had no witnesses? The newspaper with no journalist. The paper with no advertisers?

Oddly, in a google of Fargo Forum, the Mondo Times had a poll and drew some conclusions from some reporting.(OK, the links could be misplaced)

Here's to holding them accountable, even if I am hard to.

[Further accountability: Fred Thompson wants to discuss the decisions needed to preserve America's strength, prosperity and unity.]

Voting Counts...

and must be accountable and recountable.

Please see my comments at my blog at 11TH HOUR ACTION or just follow up below.

I urge support for the following True Majority Action.

Take the first step to fixing our voting system.

Voting machine maker warned of 'issue'

Election Problem Log - 2006 and 2007

Opening, Closing, Bookending: "The Family Jewels"

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Hardball regarding "release of secret documents" sparked the following google, which I have not read, but will not refrain from commenting on. [Not exactly Breaking.]

The CIA's Family Jewels National Security Archives
CIA to Air Decades of Its Dirty Laundry Washington Post
A glimpse into the CIA's 'family jewels' International Herald Times
Some Fear CIA 'Family Jewels' Could Hurt Agency NPR

New Intelligence?

Which commission? "Skeletons file" thirty-two years in the making? [Likely still broken?]
[Actially that is the link: "What's going on?" Dirty tricks and passing the buck.]

Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos]

Sorry for the disrepect but Senator Leahy, Chair of the Judiciary Committee plans to withhold confirmation of replacement Attorney General until questions are answered about the last AG. He will know when he has enough answers when he knows what questions to ask the nominee about "what's going on". (5:48 into clip) This merits respect for the Senator for his mission to stop the disrespect to the constitution and congress. As I put it just after the '06 election pull up the chairs. For shadowing "What's Going On?" In my post May 9th '07, If you investigate... I found a major typo/misstatement in not using the word "suing", I was so much supporting, of Speaker Pelosi.

[9:40 AM More signs of a steady course or KUDOS TO CONGRESS. Bush Success Rating at Historic Low House Democrats "stongest opposition from either party" in 54 year Congressional Quarterly record.]

Happy Labor Day!

Not wanting to dwell on the topic of labor, I still have some ahead of me, but a major project of mine has turned a corner and the day off is needed. But I could not go jump in the lake yet. The previous link has a Labor Day message and news on American "productivity".

My recent blogging has been at 11thHourAction.
The link there is Thom Hartmann interviewed on Ring of Fire . Radio
[Thanks to them for GoLeft.TV]
Also "dis" Context versus Con Text... piece.
And on the Point of Power and Laws
and the base of what we need.

Smoking Gun? Flipped Election?

Siegelman case of...

44 AG request

Rove named... Time *
Thanks to Thom Hartmann.

Justice (documents) not delivered.

[10:30 PM As often is the case, I have not fully read the above links, but now add one I did read: U.S. Attorney Scandal -- Birmingham cont'd Harpers
found in link below]

[08-31-07 7:20 AM
PLUS an additional resource for this and other scandals -
TPMmuckraker.com]

* This is a quick summary of the Alabama controversy

THE HOPE IS YOU! ( * )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

THE 11TH HOUR
By Leonardo DiCaprio

Inspired by Thom Hartmann

"Tag, you're it!" **

Words can't do justice to this very inspiring work. Only the true cynic will not be encouraged by the "hard work" being done by so many.

* from THE 11TH HOUR trailer.
** tag line for Thom Hartmann

Bush Retreat / Fox Attack

Gonzales Departure Won't End Probes
Huffington Post

Fox News: "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda" Media Matters

WRONG! What is this a competition, between Bush and Gibbons for the most ridiculous statements. Bush on "the mud" Gonzalez suffered, and Gibbons the "deal" he sees with Al Qaeda. For Gonzales there will be more mud, for Gibbons: hopefully not more signals. Let's hope he is not signalling that Hillary is not a threat to Al Queda and therefore should not deter Al Qaeda from attacking the U.S. sooner rather than later. This is the flip-flop of his flip-flop which makes more sense. But his take is a take that shifts the blame from the current administration's responsibility for failure, as usual.

[9:28 AM Thanks to Thom Hartmann for guest Marjorie Cohn: Bush's Killing Fields Counterpunch
and The Gonzales Indictment truthout.org
for even scarier discussions.

If pursuit of war crimes is not threatening enough to the administration, what about pursuit of Liebermann for Attorney General for the country? This may highlite the caution that has haunted the Democrats.]

[Former H.W. Bush justice appointee ‘looking very good.’
Think Progress Terwilliger makes Bush sense, in that he was a leader in the Florida election recount, and only cronies need apply. ]

Attorney General Gonzalez Retreats.

Congratulations Congressman Inslee.

The people have prevailed and more thanks to Daily KOS early on.

The New York Times was of help and the other Dems.
technical difficulties and other work keeps this brief
= = = = = = = =

Did Hillary Shoot Dems in the Foot?
In snooze mode this AM I heard something about a False Flag charge on the Stephanie Miller Show> Could it be this on the politics of fear? The political calculus is the fear at Rock the Truth as well.
On the strength of the comments from Democratic candidates they rate in the following order.
Kucinich: no comment. Already tough enough, already standing up.
Richardson
Edwards
Dodd
Obama: no comment?
Clinton
Standing up for what? Impeachment is the only way.
Standing up now is the way to tell who will stand up as President or is political calculus just using ones toes?

OK! This brief ramble is just about not falling for the Republican meme. Getting the message out that Democrats are not the problem and any problems will be the Republicans. Of course even in retreat, Bush blames the Democrats. See first story. Hence the need to pursue continued investigations and not let anyone off the hook.

The Big Tent vs. The Mess Tent in the Bush Bubble Error (err Era)

= = = = = = = =

Bush History Flip-FLop:
Vietnam, Korea or Japan

= = = = = = = =

What has happened.

Vietnam Flip-Flop

It is bad enough that Bush has not used the original lessons he learned about Vietnam, but now has rewritten them.

Bush's selective lessons of Vietnam. Guardian Unlimited

Even worse is any comparison to Korea. Has anyone heard of "Exit Strategy"?

There is so much to google on this, but I will risk it and list the commonly heard three lessons. 1. a defined mission 2. overwhelming force 3. having an exit strategy. So now Bush not only wants to teach US how to win Vietnam, but apparently will fix [or work on] Korea? What next, China or Saudi Arabia? [politically]

(Having consulted an expert, some doubt is cast on these lessons and any parallel, but then to him, having an exit strategy was to win the war, and in Korea [it still is to] sign a peace treaty. So I guess Bush may be working on Korea and China. [economically] I don't know if that is good news or bad news, but there may be no parallel to either or Saudi Arabia. [Note: italics bracketed provide clarity from this consultation.])

Later Reading: (no comments)

Bush draws Vietnam parallel in warning over Iraq withdrawal
Bush told he has drawn wrong lesson
Lesson of the Vietnam War
Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam

Historians Question Bush's Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq

"Lessons of Vietnam" by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,

[8:46 AM Out of all these links, I have read only a few pages into the last one*. In it, Kissinger himself gives a nuanced lesson which flip flops a bit in passing credit and blame. A few comments came to mind which I hope to revisit, but one note that it "prevented Indonesia from falling to the Communism and probably preserved American presence in Asia." Oh the irony, that Indonesia is now a leading Muslim nation and there is possibly more to parallel or learn.]

* [ 9:06 Further note that the piece was only a few pages.]

CIA Inspector General Report

Internal Report Faults Ex-CIA Director's Counterterrorism Efforts
Voice of America by Gary Thomas

CIA inspector's report on September 11 faults leaders Reuters
Then, to top it off, Bush ignored the Al Qaeda warning
Prairie Weather (newly googled)

The Report cia.gov

My earlier reference to The 9-11 Commission.
Set Up? Walled Excuse. The Liaison Report April 16, 2004
HISTORY A GUIDE TO LOOKING AHEAD, NOT A DISTRACTION
The Liaison Report May 4, 2004

URL ADDED: GORELICK MEMO
USDOJ.gov
PDF Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General

Flip-Flopper in Chief:
Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout CNN.com

Earlier Flip Flop reference.

Comment: Who writes his stuff?
Another tangent: If it is Rove and we need an Unrove,
my nomination is for Brent Budowsky.

Still Buried?

THE BUSH BUBBLE!

The Bush Bubble must be popped,

BUT WITH CAUTION!

The bottom line is that the people are.

Still buried in the previous post.

I want to pull out some important pieces from the previous post.

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Consortium News
by Brent Budowsky
[ NOTE: the bold italics are sources for and serve to note the important items I pulled up]

One of the points also buried is that several talk shows are not broadcast live and hence the effect ("While I was lost...) that simultaneous work is corresponding even if I am not following them at the time. Hence the airing of Brent Budowsky as a guest on The Ed Shultz Show guest hosted by Tony Trupiano. The connection is in earlier writing of both of us, as well as the effort to get Democrats and Independents on the same page, in the most Unrovian way.

The War As We Saw It. NYT

I will tie in a few more buried pieces here as well as a new link to old matters.

"The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" versus "The Liberal Media" could be another major thread. But I did stumble on a meme that may go down in history to describe our times and the Republican follies, if I may write it. The Bush Bubble.
(was that a segue?)

[paused to post and now insert links]

When the Issue Is War, Take Nothing for Granted. NYT
(see Unrovian - link above).

Under "Hardwork" I must google "Truth boating" with caution. (see versus link above.)
[result Billionaire Speculator... found ] in The Raw Story

But now the new links:FEC Complaint filed against Fred Thompson
The old matter?
Rove -> Hillary -> Media Job -> Political violations -> Justice -> Fred Thompson ->
Comment? The timing is interesting and Rovian.
The "hard work" is to follow this at all.
The job is to:
Help provide oversight
Is there any hope?
Cheney has wiretap documents.
Special thanks to News For The Left

While I Was Lost in the Last Post

someone else was going my way.

Tony Trupiono was hosting The Ed Shultz Show
with guest, Brent Budowsky.
Where? The Republican Party being the culprit.

OK!
So he [Brent Budowsky] was already there, as that was an older post of his, which I had not run into before.

But I had been here before, and probably have linked it somewhere before.
Or so I thought, maybe not.
[8-21-07:That evening Randi Rhodes rebroadcast an interview with Brend Budowsky, possibly where I ran into it before.]

But he (Tony) talks of frustration: and as I noted as a recent picnic, this blog, The Liaison Report may be about being between Encouragement and Discouragement.

dem Brains

Bush's Brain has left the building...
Well not yet, but make sure he does not leave the country.

Think Progress
U.S. Attorney Iglesias filed complaint in April. TP
Political briefings disclosed the same month. WaPo
Mother Jones / Waxman follow up. MJ
Associated Content reports AC

THIS MONTH
McClatchy/Truth to Power Bush V. Hatch ACT!
Thanks to clipmarks CM
Rove departure GovExec
Thanks ToDay White Collar Crime Prof WCCPB
WaPo Follow Up

OTHER FRONTS
Iraq - Iran Not Pressed "informed speculation - useful for readers to know." (control F, pg.2 pressed ) NYT
More Informed Sources from the front NYT

CONNECTING THE DOTS
"who sent you there..." ?
"the George Bush empire". DigitalJournal DJ

Who got us here? (I ask)
"you forget", so says Former Republican Chair Ken Mehlman DJ
[Note the taken liberty with words.]

[Post continues, wanted to post it before I lost it.]
connecting the dots . . .
Speaking of New Fronts: all from DJ
Rove's (Evil) Twin.
(Note: Evil and Twin are redundant.)
"Rove's Good Twin" would be oxymoronic or is it Bush?
Old Front
New Front

Good News/Bad News - No Front WaPo

More links:
href="http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=%22open+source%22">Open Source
Earliest Dots
ReP Brains
Bi-Cameral Brain

[Now who's gone too far? 10:18 closing post]
[10:27 AM- Just a hint... of remorse at a poor pun imbedded above.]

{11:30 This pause was to dig deeper and update some archives: In all this cutting and posting, my search was for a meme or talking point or some counter to Rove, the irony is that I may have found it in my own search under "ironic". Something to get the choir on the same page. Note the tent shape and who may not be in it, but the people are the base not just dots.]

Hard Work!

[* * * WARNING! THE FIRST LINK BELOW
AND ANY SO FLAGGED, MAY POSE DIFFICULTIES
FOR YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION
AND WHO KNOWS WHAT FUNNY BUSINESS * * *
* * * 8-20-07 CLICK IT AT YOUR OWN RISK * * * ]

Wake Up America!
* * * NOT! * * *

This is the least I can do to retract my impression which I did not really hang much on anyway.

Nevertheless, the "hard work" may need to be done but it seems that any [* * * SAME WARNING CLICK AT OWN RISK! "Truthboating" * * * ]of Hillary is a job that we must face, as well as Hillary with the truth. I am sure there is a lot in here, but then it may be part of the "vast Right Wing conspiracy", not that there is not one, nor is it any excuse.

Hitting Snooze Button

Meme or and um.

Just a little stepping back on the previous post of mine. First: it is always in the words that you find what you Google. Second: then they must still be filtered.

[ 8-20-07 * * * SEE PREVIOUS WARNING: CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * * Wake Up America * * * ] caught my interest, and hit some spots that were familiar and where I often go.

The particular page on Rove and Hillary along with the new filter as I note above, Meme or and um , spells it all out. But I still have a ways to go, and it is not that clear where it is coming from. All I can say is that it is a filter. What it fertilizes is still up to the "hard work" of the people. Which is something I need to get back to... later.

[Heck: Oh and I did not even read the reference to language [8-20-07 * * * CLICK AT OWN RISK (in comments to Wake Up America) * * * ]
and ended mine on vocabulary,
but "there I go again". [[11:08 AM Re: Bill Clinton as a cuss word versus Cheney a pardon for such, is just a hint at a difference in perspectives, which I had missed earlier. "Pardon my Cheney" as in "Pardon my French."]]
Here I will preemptively hit the nail on the head.
Mother Jones, you see hints at the point in the title. Alleged White House-Petraeus Arm Wrestling Over September Report a Ruse? At least that is my point. And TYT. From other source or my general filtering, Patraeus is dancing around "the turd blossoms" of information and politics. Now I will read the report.-
Now that I have, it comports with my opinion and the facts. One thing that must be remembered, there is no obligation to tell the truth to anyone in the media. Even the media has the right to lie. And apparently in this case there may be two stories ** both in public and behind closed doors. And this goes directly back to troop involvement with the facts and whether their opinions matter, whether they are in or out of the military.]

[10:37 AM - My initial impression needs to be filtered, as now I see that Wake Up America has a perspective that still needs more sorting...]

** This is already being denied.

Borrowed Comment!

* * *
[CAUTION NOTED 8-20-07: The first link below (Wake Up America) appears to cause my internet connection to experience difficulties when visiting it. So proceed to that link at your own risk! This is not a self-serving literary ploy. ]
* * * [The orginal post will not be touched,
See comments for anything more. 8-20-07]
* * *

* * * Wake Up America! CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * *


Coming across this blogger, by doing a Google on Military Support Bush or Military Poll to find that Karl Rove is right, there are no links to (at least easily found) showing lack of military support for Bush. * But I did not find Rove's outlandish quote that "the troops get what they want and need". It seems that justifies what the administration says if they have the same sources and carefully navigate the intelligence.

On the other hand, I found some preemptive comments that may have played a role or seen the Rove role change coming or cause it. The latter first: Take it to Karl The former earlier: Karen Hughes: Karl Rove’s Kryptonite Oops, two years too early. Seen what coming or caused?

Bush should have been awoken much earlier, and we tried. Seriously, the guest comment, not that she is aware of my blog, hit a few points, Rove, the trooops/ Iraq, and Hillary with a few good links that I have yet to read, and will save comment for later. Suffice to say that it takes some filtering of the filter and there is more than fertilizer in them there hills, or links.

Oh heck I will touch on a few: Rove is a heck of a filter of fertilizer and the media as well. His comments on the troops, and his comment on Hillary, navigate though or pile on the fertilizer to some reality. And on "the surge", another cautious step through the piles of it.

* [posted and paused to continue: granted a little more search will find more, and in fact with my sources and rambling will probably stumble on me, but the point that I was going to make before I did undue diligence and tried to find some facts, is that polling the military may give a biased result based on two aspects, the filtering of their information and their freedom. Heck, I just threw in the Google as it was really a hit.

Pardon my vocabulary, but no more from the administration. Enough!

[11:19 AM my initial intrigue with the top link was due to my own spin on Rove, Hillary and Iraq/Troop intelligence, which I wove into my commentary but which may require more "hard work" either by the viewer or as my own reviewer. * * * CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK ! hehe * * * (now that is a hint)]]

Carry On Comment!

Borrowed from an AM1090 caller to one of the afternoon talk shows, the interesting dilemma of Karl Rove is his confessing apparently...

that he has no diary or record of his work with the administration.

This with his apparent plan to write a book, means...

either he has a very good memory or it will be in the fiction section.

Actually I just rearranged the caller's comment to my own taste in my usual way.

His point was that it takes "I don't recall" and all it's variations "off the table" when it comes to congressional investigations.
I would add
the only alternative
is straight to "the pen".

More lines of investigation on Rove history
For later read, not that I have read the above.
"...who know what"
Democrats vow...
political fighter
Picking Bush's Brain ?
...avoid Capitol Hill
WaPo editorial

[pause]
Clinton, Rove's candidate in '08
U.S. Attorneys
First Read
Divider

[Having just read the last one first, it is a reminder that his nickname "turd blossom" is something that survives in a field of fertilizer.]

[Second thoughts on First Thoughts from First Read: There should NEVER be another Karl Rove. It is a cheap shot and a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to promulgate such a character [italics and link added 8-15-07]by looking for the next one.

At least they admitted that "they" (the media) create them (the turd blossoms), but of course there will be, on the Right, as several of his (Rove's) proteges are distributed amongst the Republican candidates. But on The Left there is too much distribution of brains to get away with anything like what the administration has so far distributed. Genius should be about what works, and nothing much has, with this administration, except accumulation of ruin and power. * [it.a.l.a. 8-15-07]
Shame on MSNBC for such work. There is some good news on the new Hillary ad, but to follow with a piece on Rove? And while running the bottom line, "the next Karl Rove" under "her inner Bill".]

* [8-15-07 Re: David Frum link "and power", reminiscent of Lakoff where he points out that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former run to govern, and the latter govern to run. That may say as much about governing as running, and as much about the left as the right, but rather than looking for a third way in the middle of any political spectrum, maybe the perspective [way to see it] is from above the plane, while a plane requires a third perspective that is not in line.]

[ bold italics added 3-12-08]

Note to Special Interests

Re: endorsements

Why not go with the candidate that best represents your views?
Second guessing the chances of one's priorities only adds to the air of inevitability of getting second best or worse.

Try separating the primary process from the general.

On the other hand, maybe it is not so "special interest" to consider the overall picture or candidate.

[8-14-07 Buried in comment: "the common good"]

Air of Inevitability?

I do not wish to imply that it SHOULD BE, Clinton versus Thompson.
Only that if it is, that it BE a rehash of Watergate.
They both have their baggage from that era.
Thompson just noted
Hillary here:
TimesOnLine
TheStar.com

[Posted at the listed time, but continued immediately with the noted pause below]
GuardianUnlimited

TheVastRightWingCon

I am just trying to be "fair and balanced", so I must note that I have not digested all of these sources, and should warn of the potential for food poisoning on the last item. But just [the teaser] of the just prior one is intriguing (paused to read that piece):
Hillary brought to book Watergate veteran Carl Bernstein talks to James Silver about the Clintons, George Bush, and the state of the American press
Having now read it, it is recommended highly.

Just what is the difference between the "vast right wing conspiracy" and the so-called "liberal press"? Only the label. Just what is the difference between trying to rewrite the rules of impeachment and the constitution? Apparently the party and getting away with it.

[Finally concluding approximately 1 hour from original post time: normally I do not note when a post is developed in this manner.(in a sitting) But I also now proceed and borrow from the top link that:

The 2008 Race could not only rehash accountability but the media's role

I would change that to SHOULD!]

[Updated Presidential Profile: 9:20 AM - Noting that I have not put much attention to the ratings of the candidates, I now update without comment, but with an aversion to inevitability.

Kucinich
Edwards
Obama
Clark
Richardson
Clinton, Dodd, Biden
Gravel]

Pap Attack on Thompson

"He really should be the GOP's pick for president..."
"almost a true reflection of Cheney, Bush and Rove and all the other thugs..."

See my earlier link, below.
[8-12-07: OK... too embedded in that last link, "Tangents from Angler" somewhere is the implication
that the 2008 race WILL BE, Clinton versus Thompson.
Even more buried is any link to information in that regard.
Here they are.
Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson's Watergate role
from The Boson Globe
Fred Thompson, Nixon's Mole
from The Stump AOL News Elections Blog
The 2008 Race could not only rehash accountability but the media's role:
Also found at - (Nixon's mole)
Media Matters
No Quarter
Raw Story
Related USA Today ]
-
Labels? NOT!

[The Colbert Report: The Word
The Daily Show: The president in his own words.
ifilm from SPIKE TV]

Democrats Fold / Congress Breaks

In Two.
See Eating Their Own?
Only a few words into The Daily Left News, I hit pause to make (or reprise) the above commentary.
[1:49 into it: The Democrats pass a new law on wire tapping with shared powers assigned to National Intelligence Director and Attorney General *,
but investigations are still on the table after the August break.]

[Meanwhile on The Daily Show. RFK Jr. and what ABC could show...]

[Meanwhile progress was actually made by congress.]

[8-7-07: Update - -
FISA changes accountability of sorts to be limited & reviewed
Censures at least a start
Good Questions from Jeff Cohen
* Corrected on shared powers. ]

Top To Bottom

Top of the News, Bottom of the Barrel.
What ABC could air but won't?
Greg Palast
Where you can find it.
In particular
...
Bottom Line?
U.S. Attorneys
The Point?
The Unraveling?
A Thread?
The Recount II.

On the political front. [4-3-07: #2 of 4]
Media Whores * [4-11-07: #1 of 2]

Go Left...period

GO LEFT TV
There is a progressive majority.
There are progressive candidates.
And then there are Cons.

Campaign for America's Future
On the plot to bury progress.
"No Pro-gress in Con-gress." thanks to YouTube

Take Back America A video review of how Right Media views the Left. As well as links to more, including candidate appearances.

Filter of Sorts

Consortium News
Thanks to Peter Werbe
Thanks to Nova M radio

My earlier filtering: A control F for filter.

post-Preview

This just out of my email, from Truthout.org:

Spectre on Gonzalez: "Bombshell" from The Hill.
THIS SHOULD WARRANT INVESTIGATION.

It depends on what your definition of "execute" is:
from The Washington Post.

Consumption: the mean meal deal? or to execute the laws.

Someone recently used a meal metaphor* but it depends on what your definition of "disagreement" is, or was it "serious"? The "administration" or was it "Justice" had a "program" we will call "Meal TSP". There was no "serious disagreement" of the meal being called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" there was only a disagreement over the recipe, which of course is not for public or even congressional consumption, only a recipe for consumption.


* Someone on one of these "programs" where you get the real meal deal,(non-fasting?) for real.

Post Review

Search Spying

ABA RENEWS CALL FOR FULL SENATE INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE,BEFORE MOVING LEGISLATION

Investigations and Impeachment
Truth Blocks
Speaking of... stick

Just a little look back at what may be coming down.

Bupkis or Zilch?

Thank You Randy Rhodes.
And Senator Leahy, and The Washington Post

TSP? Terrorist Surveillance Program or something else?
Thanks Think Progress
The Swamp. Just about says it all, without reading at all. Thanks Chicago Tribune

My original google of "bupkis": beans
Googled without Snow.

With Snow:
Thank you Editor and Publisher

Old Beans.
For Tony Snow, bupkis is nothing new.

NOW...
[I was originally concerned with the usage of bupkis as Randi had noted as being Yiddish for "goat droppings". Not exactly what she said but it is not nothing. I thought maybe I didn't know beans about it, but thought it meant zilch.
Here I have closed a loop,
but had not made my point yet.

ATTENTION POWER BROKERS AND BRAKERS!
Congress MUST clarify the difference between what Tony Snow is dropping and what the Administration means by providing funding of zilch for such propaganda.

Meaning? All funding for press related offices should be cut, until the administration addresses congress's questions.]

[The only way that may happen anyway is by the process of impeachment, and several from the right are well ahead of too many that should be left.
Thom Hartmann has had three guests in the last week or so that believe it is not only the proper tool of inquiry, but the judgement if facts merit.
See MP3s here:
Bruce Fein Getting Ahead
Paul Craig Roberts Another Righty!* Bob Barr ]

*Impeach Now

Eating Their Own?

Perfect Presidents, or Perfect Politicians?
The Forum Part A, and Part B.
To be broadcast on the Seattle Channel.

It has been complained that Democrats have a problem of eating their own, meaning beating each other up in the political races, but compared to Mike Malloy who sometimes wants to eat his own arm, it is all relative. I call it dialogue and debate and impassioned perspectives, and just what politics needs. Not that anyone should be eating anyone, for Republicans who view things as "Us and Them", there is probably no problem with eating others. But if one just looks at the Democrats and the amount of "dialogue", who needs Republicans? [One always needs loyal opposition, but loyal followers? That was just answering a rhetorical with a rhetorical.]

Another Righty!

Now the reputed father of Reagonomics calls for Impeachment.

Paul Craig Roberts claims that Democrats are not following through for the potential landslide that will result in '08, but...

Again. Thanks to Thom Hartmann for his guest.

Getting Ahead

I previously noted the chance that Republicans may get ahead of the Democrats on the front of impeachment. Now another conservative, Bruce Fein has proposed the only remedy to check the administration is impeachment. (Interviewed by Thom Hartmann)
Anyone who considers impeachment off the table, has put the constitution off the table. Democrats and independents alike can wonder, if an administration is not held accountable by opposition, how will it hold it's own accountable?

www.bcimpeach.com
links to Bill Moyers Tough Talk on Impeachment

Divided Government!

Accountability:
Rachell Maddow on Olbermann

Olbermann Redux? GoLeftTV

What is divided government? The Constitution. The three branches of government; the legislative, the executive and the judicial.

"We the people..." begins the preamble.

The first amendment notes the press and a fine example here of the press

Perfect Presidents or Perfect Politicians?

Perfect Hosts?
No such thing, they might agree.
The host of this panel of talk show hosts aside, the rest are the closest to what this country needs and were all at Seattle Town Hall this last evening. (This is a flip-flopped if not awkward complement to the host.)

As introduced:
The Young Turks
Mike Malloy
Ed Schultz
Stephanie Miller
And the moderator/host Thom Hartmann

One thing it reminded me of, is that with all the ideas and great personalities, not to mention candidates, who needs Republicans. That is especially represented in the sometimes heated discussions. Seriously, who needs Republicans?

Especially when it comes to leadership and unity, who needs Republicans? The American voter should remember that as well as the so-called base of either party. The idea of divided government is not about pitting parties against each other, but each branch doing its job. But if congress is not going to do its job, it may be best to have divided Democrats. And still, who needs Republicans.

OK, this was just a quick rant, to make a point. One I am not sure hit its mark. I think it's that Congress should do its job, and Democrats will get elected. And if there are some Democrats that upset some of the people, who needs Republicans?

Well I will close with this. It was a really hot show.

What Is The Point?

Prosecutions!
It should be remembered that impeachment as a political tool is too political. If wrongs have been done they must be pursued. The process is political, of course. But if the political process is not utilized, what is the alternative? To let wrong stand, or for wrong to walk? Or the choice between anarchy and tyranny?

Impeachment is a tool that must be used. Politics is a tool that must be used. But either may be used for good as well as wrong.

Well... I was going to head for a different point. That being the starting point, or at least the start of the latest falling apart. Well... maybe not the latest, but the point that congress is focusing. U.S. Attorneys... who are in charge of prosecutions. The underlying crimes? Caging. Election Fraud. And the lack of prosecutions.

Warnings On Al-Qaeda

Over There? and
Over Here?
Gut-coded.

I hope to review these later, but it does not seem to be a good sign for the "so-called" war on terror. If it is political hype it contributes to the fear, if it is a reliable fear, then...

After struggling for ways to express the concern in a proper non-partisan manner, it then struck me. Maybe there will be the terrorist attack that is all we need *for nay sayer to come around on Bush.

* see facetious, more important see irony of Link "all we need". More than the non-partisan attempt I was making was the untwisting of the irony in the coming around.

On The Table!

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table", I am sorry if I do not have the exact wording, but I had the feeling that it was said calculated to get a response to put the people on the table.

Stephanie Miller has Cindy Sheehan discussing impeachment, and giving her two weeks or she will file to compete for her seat.

As I indicated earlier, for Pelosi impeachment may not be on the table but investigations are now on the table of many committees. And reliable sources, if I may filter through progressive talk radio, say two things. A. What is going on now is what would be going on, if impeachment were on the table. B. That Pelosi has gotten the message. No more funds for Iraq, that do not also withdraw the troops.

One progressive host has interpreted this pressure as a negotiation to keep the administration in line, much as a bargaining chip to further other issues. That does not seem to be in the spirit of actually holding criminals accountable.

Breaking News: Republicans filibuster Webb/Hagel support for troops. Republicans vote to not put issue up to vote, meaning not enough votes to end debate. I hope the debate continues.

Bring 'em On!

Guests like Michael Moore that is!
As reported on THE STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW(not yet a link there), Michael Moore made quite a scene on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer over the "track record" of mainstream media, in particular CNN. To his credit, Wolf Blitzer maintains his cool under a blistering but righteous attack by Michael Moore, and promised to tape a segment to be aired unedited today. [see Crooks and Liars]

Having seen Sicko this weekend, I highly recommend it, along with remembering that this is his fourth docudrama. Roger and Me. Bowling for Columbine. Farenheit 911. and now Sicko. Now that is a track record. As for Dr. Sanjay Gupta, his bias as a journalist has been apparent to me, and now his accuracy has been questioned. In particular he points to a $7000 per person for health care in the U.S. in the movie countered by actually $6096, while pointing at Moore's $25 per person in Cuba should be $229. But I recall and Moore confirms that the movie used the figure $251, not $25.

So "bring 'em on". Along with the likes of Stephanie Miller and the rest progressive crowd.

More Belated Commentary

By Keith Olbermann
BUSH AND CHENEY SHOULD RESIGN

Updated:
Congress
v.
Bush / Cheney

[In labels below I have added Olbermann*, and here is a "Best of" of recently edited, though not brought up to date.]
* don't forget the convenience of search blog which now alleves me of needing to add it to the others.

Belated News/ and Breaking.

From The Hill, Congressman calls for Cheney to resign or face impeachment.
- -
If one continues to read a bit further of the previous post's first link:

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

That is the first of the "the causes which impel them".

IT MUST BE ASKED: With the early defense plans for Scooter Libby to call the Vice President, and the subsequent reversal, and with no one held accountable for the leak of a CIA agent and other assets, is it appropriate that the administration interfere with justice in this matter?

To Congress: Tag You're It.

[Post portion added later in the day]Simultaneously (tape delayed show] wegoted.com guest host Tony has CAP representative on. [OK... the links are not to the rep but representative of "hard work".]

But previously Ed Schultz writes on the Libby commutation and had Ambassador Wilson on the subject.

When in the course...

of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed,...(
continues the declaration.)
Bold added, but the rest is worth a read.

But it must be remembered on this Independence Day that the country did not have a foundation until "We the people..."

Commuted Sentence

Obstruction of Justice and Perjury Convictions for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
"hardly a slap on the wrist"

Law and Order?
Two Stars. The DA and the EDA
One in support of leniency.The other in support of Unity.
Thompson and Waterston, that is.
The Special Victims Unit?
William and Valerie Wilson Support dot org

Tangents from Angler

From the Now-disclosed Bunker Branch lead link.
Authorization For Use of Military Force
Military Commissions PO
Terrorists Not POW

"Pushing the Envelope" Chapter II
War Crimes Act
Memorandum on Standards... "prohibits only the worst".
Tortured Memo
Warner Administration Policies

Gonzalez Memorandum to the President

This was a little deeper and less sorted than I intended, but I must move on.

But Echoes of Watergate:
What did the president know and when did he know it?

But I would ask: What did the president not know and when did he let Cheney know he did not want to know it?
There is more embedded history or future here. [*] The fact that Hillary was a lawyer advising during Watergate as was Fred Thompson.

If the 2004 election was a rehashing of Vietnam, then the 2008 rehash may be about Watergate, if it is Clinton v. Thompson.

[8-11-07: link below added]

[*] [8-12-07: foward link below and more added there, I must note that what tipped me to this loop is lost or found by further review, but possible just luck or making sense or trying to dig into what someone said, quite likely on, given the time of the original post... The Stephanie Miller Show, but I further note that the recent additions of links were just found and dated in the days following my original post. ] Today 9:55 AM]
[Note: Throughout this blog any [] bracketed material is usually an indication and dated such of an amendment to a link, and no other temporal funny business or editing of posts occur, except minor grammar and spelling. 8-12-07]
[What I am saying above is that I would love to know where the Nixon mole story leaked into my filter. Now 10:03 AM]

Catching Up.

I am still on a semi-sabbatical. Meaning: attending other issues closer to home. But the point of this post is that others are catching up.
Raw Story subpoenas
Wired blog network subpoenas
2 political junkies suubpoenas
Bloomberg subpoenas

Old News from Centor for Democracy and Technology on subpoenas

OK, I've not caught up. The old news is off target but goes back to the 2003 changes on wire taps, but the prior two are more recent and comprehensive. I hope to catch up...
later.