"Right Now, I Could Kill President Bush"

Not the sort of thing you'd normally expect to hear out of the mouth of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but then, these are not normal times :

Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams came from Ireland to Texas to declare that President Bush should be impeached.

In a keynote speech at the International Women's Peace Conference on Wednesday night, Ms. Williams told a crowd of about 1,000 that the Bush administration has been treacherous and wrong and acted unconstitutionally.

"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said at the Adam's Mark Hotel and Conference Center in Dallas. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that."

About half the crowd gave her a standing ovation after she called for Mr. Bush's removal from power.

"The Muslim world right now is suffering beyond belief," she said.

"Unless the president of the United States is held responsible for what he's doing and what he has done, there's no one in the Muslim world who will forgive him."

When an audience member told Ms. Williams that Vice President Dick Cheney would become president if George Bush were impeached, she said, "Can't you impeach them both?"

"It's twisted. It's all wrong," she said. "There are so many lies being told. It's hard to be an American and go out into the world right now."

Interesting. Betty Williams wants to kill the president, but wants to find a non-violent way of accomplishing her goal.

Williams prefaced her speech with a call for everyone in the audience "to huge everyone around them."

Of course she did.

Williams won the Nobel Prize in 1976 after she formed committees that led to the start of peace talks in Northern Ireland.

Winning the Nobel Peace Prize...does that explain her desire to kill the president, without the use of violence?

The Bush Edit On The Free Press



President Bush made a few edits to a recent speech.

A stupid joke about the new media room in the White House gets the big X.

But the more interesting edit is the second one.

With a scrawl of his pen, President Bush decided that a free press is no longer "one of the cornerstones of our democracy."

So now you know.

When Bush Handed Libby A Get Out Of Jail Free Card : The Inside Story

Clearly the following (excerpted) story from Newsweek doesn't tell the full tale of how and why President Bush came to decide to commute the 30 month jail sentence for convicted perjurist, and former chief of staff for the Vice President, 'Scooter' Libby, but it must come close.

There's a fleet of stories, and no doubt more a few pieces of disinformation, bouncing up against each other over this appalling breach by Bush of the trust he should hold with the American people to abide by, and recognise, the laws and sentences handed down by the nation's courts. He usually does. He pardoned all but a handful of Americans facing the death sentence when he was governor of Texas, and he has been positively frugal in commuting the sentences of other criminals during his time as president.

But Libby, of course was an insider, part of the American elite, a committed NeoCon from the late 1990s Project For The New American Century thinktank, and an alleged Mossad agent.

Libby was also part of the gang that harassed CIA desk jockeys when they could find no proof that Saddam Hussein had a viable weapons of mass destruction program back in 2002, and forced them to come up with something, anything, when there was clearly nothing to be found.

Libby had to be spared. If only for his work on making the War On Iraq into a reality.

The members of the king's court do not go to jail like the common folk. No doubt the fact that Libby might have decided to start singing after a few weeks in jail, to get a shorter sentence, about what Cheney instructed him to do when it came to the leaking of the name of a covert CIA agent, must have factored heavily into the decision-making process of Bush's brain. Or the shared Bush-Cheney-Rove brain.

From Newsweek :

As is often the case in the Bush White House, it was a decision made swiftly, and with stealth.

For weeks, allies of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby had aggressively lobbied the president to pardon Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby's powerful supporters—including major GOP fund-raisers like Florida developer Melvin Sembler, the chairman of his legal-defense trust—argued that Libby's conviction in March in the CIA leak case was a miscarriage of justice. Libby's allies pressed their argument with White House aides but got nowhere. George W. Bush's senior staff was under strict instructions: listen politely, but give away nothing about what the president might ultimately do.

Behind the scenes, Bush was intensely focused on the matter, say two White House advisers who were briefed on the deliberations, but who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters.

Bush asked Fred Fielding, his discreet White House counsel, to collect information on the case.

Fielding, anticipating the Libby issue would be on his plate, had been gathering material for some time, including key trial transcripts.

Uncharacteristically, Bush himself delved into the details. He was especially keen to know if there was compelling evidence that might contradict the jury's verdict that Libby had lied to a federal grand jury about when—and from whom—he learned the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, wife of Iraq War critic Joe Wilson.

But Fielding...reluctantly concluded that the jury had reached a reasonable verdict: the evidence was strong that Libby testified falsely about his role in the leak.

The president was conflicted. He hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time. Hanging over his deliberations was Cheney, who had said he was "very disappointed" with the jury's verdict.

Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved had any doubt where he stood.

"I'm not sure Bush had a choice," says one of the advisers. "If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president."

Bush didn't have a choice? So who is the real Decider In Chief then?

Cheney, of course. Bush is allowed to think he s making the decisions for himself, but Cheney and Rove manipulate him, with rare skill. When Bush gets suspicious, or reads for himself that Cheney and Rove are pulling his strings, such suspicions can be written off as nasty disinformation tactics by the Democrats.

But did Bush have a much more sly, Karl Rove-conspired, reason for commuting Libby's jail time, but keeping the conviction?

In part, Bush may have stopped short of a full pardon precisely to keep Libby and other White House aides away from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Investigators in Congress are eager to call Libby to testify about the Plame case and prewar Iraq intel—an invitation Libby can continue to resist by claiming he can't talk as long as his appeal remains alive in the courts.

The White House has used the same line to shield itself from questions about the case.

They sure have.

No doubt Libby's appeals will not be completed, or resolved, after well after President Bush leaves office in January, 2009.

And then, well, the Democrats will be in charge of the White House, and nobody is likely to care all too much about 'Scooter' Libby, or Karl Rove, or President Bush, by then.

The Bush Briefs


President Bush has celebrated his 61st birthday, but few noticed. Bush took in a Chicago Cubs game and caught up with his twin daughters, and some golfer buddies, back at the White House, before heading to Camp David. The 387th day Bush has spent there during his presidency.


Bush is amazed to be 61, "60 is old!" He may have the heart rate and health of an athlete, but he bears the face of a much older man.


Will the president enter the last year of his presidency fronting a trade war against China? A growing number of financial experts and economic analysts think so. The Chinese save their money, the Americans spend all their money and more, thanks to the credit they get from China. But China is starting to sell American debt. It looks bound to get ugly.


Republican Party stalwarts and conservative senators continue to desert President Bush over the Iraq War. Two more have joined the resistance.


Why has President Bush given an obscure government office stunning new powers to control regulation over the environment and worker health and safety? Because he can.


How low can Bush go in the polls? He's now at 30% job approval rating. But he's unlikely to sink much lower. 30% represents the absolute die-hard Republican Party support base. Unless, of course, he really starts to piss all them off as well.


An editorial from the Daily Star argues that President Bush's "duplicitous nature" has reduced the war on terror to a battle between moderate and extremist Muslims. Why did Bush so enthusiastically support democratic elections in Palestine and yet deny the results of democracy when Hamas won the majority vote? Many in the Middle East, and particularly Palestine, are still wondering.


Paul Krugman in the New York Times argues that the 'Bushies' like starting fights, but don't pay any of the costs. In Bush world, says Krugman, it's only the little people who are made to make all the sacrifices. Well, what does Krugman expect, the Bush's are, after all, the closest thing America has to a royal family.


American conservatives were very excited when France elected a right-wing president recently. They might not be so excited to learn that a key official in the Sarkosky cabinet, Christine Boutin, the minister for housing and urban development, has been raising questions about whether the Bush administration were involved, as in involved, in the 9/11 terror attacks.


Has President Bush been abusing his Executive Privilege during his seven years in the White House? But of course. However, the Democratic-heavy Congress is now moving to curtail the president's "campaign to trample all legal and constitutional restraints on his power".


President's Bush Independence Day speech, before US service men and women, has stirred all sorts of controversy, and we'll come back to it in a future post, but this CBS News columnist calls it "incredible"....but not in a good way. Bizarrely, Bush stated in his the Independence Day speech that he actually believes there is still a military victory to be found in the Iraq War. Yes, really.

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

Almost Half Of All Americans Favor Impeachment Of Bush And Cheney

A new poll reveals at least 45 percent of Americans support the impeachment of President Bush. But when it comes to Vice President Cheney, the numbers rises to 54 percent in favor :

The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.

The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote.

Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office.

Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely.

An impeachment resolution is before the House, and has nine co-sponsors, so far. But Democratic leaders, including Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who allowed her grassroots activists to drum up 'unofficial' support for impeachment of the president during last year's mid-term elections, is now opposed to impeachment proceedings going ahead.

Iraq War Like American Revolutionary War, Says Bush

For the third year in a row, President Bush has tried to draw parallels between American forces fighting in Iraq, and the American War of Independence that ended British rule over the then New World colonies.

As with previous years, the spin failed to connect with most Americans, hundreds of whom were openly hostile on radio talk back and online news comment boards about Bush's speech, and took offense at such a rationale for American troops to stay fighting such a deeply unpopular war :

Reading aloud from an article about the first Fourth of July celebration, in Philadelphia in 1777, and its “grand exhibition of fireworks,” Mr. Bush told the audience of Air National Guard members and their families at the base here, “Our first Independence Day celebration took place in a midst of a war — a bloody and difficult struggle that would not end for six more years before America finally secured her freedom.”

Addressing National Guard members with the 167th Airlift Wing who were gathered in a cavernous airplane hangar here, he said, “Like those early patriots, you’re fighting a new and unprecedented war — pledging your lives and honor to defend our freedom and way of life.”

After nearly six years of war, beginning with the war in Afghanistan, such Fourth of July speeches have become routine for Mr. Bush. On Independence Day last year, Mr. Bush went to Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, to argue against Democratic calls to withdraw from Iraq.

Then, with Congress in Republican hands and no real attempts by it to force a withdrawal legislatively, his argument seemed tailored for that year’s Congressional elections above anything else. Now, with Congress under the control of Democrats, many of whom won with promises to force an end to the war, the threat to his plans from Congress is real.

Mr. Bush said if the United States were to leave Iraq now, Al Qaeda “would be able to establish their safe haven from which to do two things: to further spread their ideology and to plan and plot attacks against the United States.”

Victory, he said, “will require more patience, more courage, and more sacrifice.”

As usual, President Bush was unprepared to disclose to Americans how much more patience and sacrifice would be required, now that the Iraq War, which was originally to have ended with the deposing of Saddam Hussein and the securing of the non-existent WMD, has cost the country more than $500 billion and the lives of almost 3600 American service men and women.

There would be no sacrifice on the president's part, however, or on the part of the vast majority of the senators who continue to back continued involvement in the Iraq War. They continue to live in a realm of privilege, luxury and elitism increasingly distant and removed from the vast majority of the American people.

Bush told the audience of service men and women that he was going back to the White House for July 4 celebrations. His wife Laura couldn't be with them all, but she "sends her love - she would be with me, but I told her to fire up the grill."

The silence from the crowd at this line was almost deafening.

Bush Capital Runs Out



After he won the 2004 election, President Bush boasted, credibly, "I have political capital and I intend to spend it."

But what has he spent it on? The Iraq War remains a disaster, sucking up more a billion dollars a day. The US, and NATO, appear to be sinking quickly into the kind of prolonged, demoralising and civilian heavy conflict that helped destroy the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Compassionate conservatism lies rotting in the sun as a political theory, and practicality. His cherished Immigration bill is gone, it being the last grand policy of his presidency. The Bush dream of using democracy to supposedly bring freedom to people crushed by dictatorships, cruel regimes and despots has failed, monumentally, and sadly.

His political capital has all been spent, the US Treasury is growing chillingly bare, and tens of millions of American people are sinking under horrendous levels of personal debt, as they watch the value of their homes, for many their only real asset, blow away like dust on the wind.

It's a shocking state of affairs for the leader of the free world, and even the most optimistic of right wing American columnists and opinion makers see nothing between now and the end of the Bush presidency, that will transform any of these monumental failures back into gold.

Or even capital.

Bush is being steadily, systematically, abandoned by his own party. Bush is the Titanic, but the passengers can see the iceberg, and they're getting off now.

From the New York Times :

After a string of Republican defections this week — on Iraq, immigration and domestic eavesdropping — President Bush enters the final 18 months of his presidency in danger of losing control over a party that once marched in lockstep with him.

First, two prominent Republican senators broke with the president on Iraq. Then, Mr. Bush’s party abandoned him in droves on the immigration bill, sending the measure to its death in the Senate, despite the president’s fervent lobbying for it.

And when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to issue subpoenas to the White House for documents related to its domestic eavesdropping program, three Republicans, including a longtime loyalist, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, joined them, and another three did not take a position.

With the nation turning its attention to who will succeed Mr. Bush — and Republican presidential candidates increasingly distancing themselves from him — even allies say it could become increasingly difficult for the president to assert himself over his party, much less force the Democratic majority in Congress to bend to his will.

...for a president who once had almost absolute control over his own party and a proclivity to employ his power expansively if not audaciously, the last week was a reminder of how much things have changed. Republicans who came to office brimming with optimism just a few short years ago now sound as if they fear a long slog ahead.

....Republican support for Mr. Bush (is) dwindling across the party spectrum. Among moderate and liberal Republicans, 52 percent currently approve of Mr. Bush’s job performance, down from 63 percent in April, he said. Among conservatives, his job approval stood at 74 percent this month, down from 86 percent in April.

With 2008 looking like a tough year for Republicans, Mr. Jillson said lawmakers would look back to their districts, rather than to Washington and the White House, for guidance on how to vote. That was abundantly clear on immigration, when even Mr. Bush’s closest Republican allies — including two Texans, Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison — openly opposed him.

“When John Cornyn defects from the president,” Mr. Jillson said, “you know the president’s mojo is completely gone.”

For Republicans who want to want to keep their seats in Congress, and for those who think they've still got a chance at winning the White House in 2008, pulling as far away from Bush as possible is now seen as a good, and solid, strategy.

Nearly all the Republican presidential candidates in recent debates did not not even mention their president. It was as though they feared that even saying the word "Bush" out loud would cast them immediately into a poll dungeon.

Bush is on his way to becoming the invisible president.


The Policies That Now Lie Buried With Bush

Bush Showing All Of His 61 Years, Despite The Bike Rides

Most Americans See Bush-Cheney Regime As Absolute Disaster

You Go To Jail, Bush Co. Boys Don't

And The President Said, "Be Free"

Bush Commutes Sentence For "The Most Insidious Of Traitors"

Cannot understand why so many Americans are so cynical about Bush Co. and Washington and the laws that govern their nation.

If you're the president and you cannot keep one of your operatives out of jail, then what's the point of being president?

Sure 'Scooter' Libby was an odious fucking traitor, and yes he was sentenced to 30 months jail, but he was once a key member of Dick Cheney's staff, goddammit, and he took a fall to protect the office of the Vice President and the White House. The FBI and a grand jury wanted to get to the truth, and Libby's lies stopped that from happening.

Surely you didn't really think he was going to spend two and a half years in jail for doing what the White House needed him to do?

And yes, it is true, that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans in jail for smoking joints when they had previously been busted a few times before for smoking joints, but this has nothing to do with ordinary people.

Bush Co. looks after its own. And when one of their own takes a fall for Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, well, then they really get looked after.

A short recap :

Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents investigating the leak of the name of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. Mrs. Wilson's husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to investigate a central claim in Mr. Bush's drive to war with Iraq whether Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Mr. Wilson concluded that Iraq had not done that and had the temerity to share those conclusions with the American public.

It seems clear from the record that Vice President Dick Cheney organized a campaign to discredit Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Libby, who was Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, was willing to lie to protect his boss.

'Scooter' Libby obstructed justice. Libby lied to both the FBI and a grand jury to hide the truth, and to protect his bosses. He was sentenced to 30 months jail for his crimes. President Bush has now commuted the sentence, and will surely grant Libby a full pardon in the last weeks of his presidency.

A statement from Bush :

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting…

Be in no doubt about what has happened here. President Bush decided that the sentence was too harsh, and so he got rid of it.

It's almost cliched to say it, but it remains true : there is one rule of law for them, and another rule of law for you. You go to jail for breaking the law, they don't.

Here's what Bush father, George HW Bush thinks of traitors to the nation like Libby :

“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”

To help cope with all the expressions of support from the American people for the Bush decision to override justice, the White House turned off their phone lines.

A statement from the office of the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald :

It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.

More from Crooks And Liars here and here.

A good summary of the events, and Bush's full statement, from Raw Story.

An extremely thorough round-up of comments from American senators from Think Progress.

The New York Times knows exactly what Bush's intervention was for - to stop Libby spilling his guts once he was in jail :

Mr. Bush's assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it's committed by common folk. As governor of Texas, he was infamous for joking about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row. As president, he has repeatedly put himself and his team, especially Mr. Cheney, above the law.

Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

This will be an extremely unpopular decision with the American people. Various polls have shown that 70-80% of Americans believe Libby should serve his full sentence, and not be pardoned.

But what the fuck do they know? They're just the American people.

This is Bush Co. And don't you ever forget it.


Raw Story : Scooter Libby Gets Out Of Jail Free - The Full Statement From Bush

Hilary Clinton : "Cronyism And Ideology Trump Competence And Justice"

More Reactions From American Senators And Presidential Candidates

Americans 3 To 1 Against A Libby Pardon

"Bring Them On" Four Years Later

Bush publicly apologised for inviting Iraqi insurgents to take their best shot against American troops, but his words refuse to die. Out of all the off-message, inciting and repellent things the president has said throughout the years of this war, he has never been able to live this July 2, 2003, quote down :

There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on.

He can't live it down for one good reason. The slaughter of American troops since that invitation has been appalling, more than 3300 in total.

Churchill will be remembered for "We'll fight them on the beaches..." Bush will probably be remembered for "Bring Them On."

(Tip o' the hat to Daily Kos)

Bush And Winston Churchill : The Only Thing They Have In Common Is The 'W'

It's no exaggeration to state that President Bush is all but obsessed with how history will view his presidency, but more importantly, how historians will write him up, in his words, as "a war fighting president."

He admires Winston Churchill, who used the power of a good speech and the then current media monolith that was radio, to rally a nation not only into fighting in Europe in World War 2, but fighting back on the homefront when it seemed, under the onslaught of Hitler's air raids and rocket attacks, that all hope was lost.

Bush did make some good speeches before the Iraq War, and in the first few weeks, as lose with the truth as they were, and he can be credited with rallying the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but the world, and history, is far more cynical today than it was in Churchill's days.

Even if the Iraq War ended tomorrow, with a democratically elected government in place that could provide security for the people and open up the country to global trade and new money,
many historians will pound Bush for dragging the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan, primarily, into such a deeply unpopular, and civilian-death heavy, war.

He will not be remembered as fondly, or as vitally, as his hero. Bush will go down in history as a reckless troublemaker, who ignored the will of the world, at large, and threw hand grenades into the already churning chaos of the Middle East.

A column from the Washington Post argues that the debate and discussion should not be about drawing parallels between Bush and Churchill, but between Bush and Churchill's predecessor as British PM, the now nefariously, notoriously viewed "Hitler appeaser" Neville Chamberlain :

The president admires the wartime British prime minister so much that he keeps what he calls "a stern-looking bust" of Churchill in the Oval Office. "He watches my every move," Bush jokes. These days, Churchill would probably not care for much of what he sees.

I've spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working on my book "Troublesome Young Men," a history of the small group of Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his successor.

...I think Bush's hero would be bemused, to say the least, by the president's wrapping himself in the Churchillian cloak. Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out -- but they're between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.

Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.

In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany -- ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a "Grand Alliance" of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent.

Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone. Throughout the 1930s, while urging Britain to rearm, he also strongly supported using the newborn League of Nations -- the forerunner to today's United Nations -- to provide one-for-all-and-all-for-one security to smaller countries. After the League failed to stop fascism's march, Churchill was adamant that, to beat Hitler, Britain must form a true partnership with France and even reach agreement with the despised Soviet Union, neither of which Chamberlain was willing to do.

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister.

...Churchill almost certainly would look askance at the Bush administration's years-long campaign to shut down public debate over the "war on terror" and the conflict in Iraq -- tactics markedly similar to Chamberlain's attempts to quiet his opponents.

Like Bush and his aides, Chamberlain badgered and intimidated the press, restricted journalists' access to sources and claimed that anyone who dared criticize the government was guilty of disloyalty and damaging the national interest. Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones were tapped by the prime minister's subordinates.

Churchill, by contrast, believed firmly in the sanctity of individual liberties and the need to protect them from government encroachment.

The president no doubt has his own Churchill. "He was resolute," Bush has remarked. "He was tough. He knew what he believed." But Churchill would snort, I believe, at the administration's equation of "Islamofascism," an amorphous, ill-defined movement of killers forced to resort to terrorism by their lack of military might, to Nazi Germany, a global power that had already conquered several countries before Churchill took office in 1940. Still, key members of the Bush administration have compared critics of the wars on terrorism and in Iraq to the appeasers of the 1930s, thus implicitly equating their boss and themselves to Churchill and the "troublesome young men" who helped bring him to power. During bleak days in Iraq, the administration's hawks can be forgiven for hoping that history will show them to be as far-sighted about a gathering storm as Churchill was in the 1930s.

But history has its own ways, and we cannot make the long-dead titans we admire give us their modern blessing. As the world's two most prominent and powerful democracies, the United States and Britain had a responsibility to serve as exemplars of democracy for the rest of the world, Churchill believed. But to be fitting role models, he argued, both countries had to do their best to ensure that the "title deeds of freedom" were strongly safeguarded within their own boundaries. "Let us preach what we practice," he declared in his 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Mo. "But let us also practice what we preach."

Clinton Slams Bush "Culture Of Cronyism, Corruption And Incompetence"

But Then Her Words Go Missing

Hilary Clinton gave a speech yesterday where she cut loose on the Bush administration and told some very harsh truths. She said if she wins the 2008 presidential elections, a"clean sweep" would need to be made of the White House, to get rid of the institutionalised cronyism and corruption :

"After eight years of the Bush administration, we are going to be shocked by what we find," the New York senator and former first lady said. "Somebody said to me the other day if there was ever a time for a woman president it's now because we're going to have to do a lot of cleaning."

The women, many of who brought their daughters to the $100 per plate "Women for Hillary" breakfast, applauded wildly.

"Grab your buckets, grab your brooms," Clinton said. "We're going to have to do a clean sweep because there has been a culture of cronyism, corruption and incompetence."

At least, that's how the Associated Press wire story appeared on the Forbes site.

Somebody at the Huffington Post liked the line "there has been a culture of cronyism, corruption and incompetence" so much they used it as a headline :

Clinton Rails Against Bush "Culture Of Cronyism, Corruption And Incompetence"

But when you clicked the link you were taken to an updated version of the same Associated Press story that did not contain the killer Clinton quotes that appeared in the earlier version posted on the Forbes site. The very quotes that caused her audience to "applaud wildly." But the rest of the AP text remained, virtually unaltered.

Did Hilary say something she wasn't supposed to? Did she cross 'the line'?

Why did AP decide to issue a second version of the story, a few minutes after the first - the one that appeared on the Forbes site - with the Clinton comments cut?

Searching the line "there has been a culture of cronyism, corruption and incompetence" on Google News brings up a link to the Washington Post. But the Post also ran the version of the AP story that had cut the Clinton quotes. As did a number of other media sites carrying the AP story.

By the time you read this, the Washington Post may have already updated their story to the version which includes the Clinton quotes about Bush Co. "cronyism, corruption and incompetence", as the Google News search results says it should be there.

Then again, maybe they won't.

Bush doesn't need to enforce censorship on the media, they are censoring themselves, particularly when someone as high profile as Hilary Clinton gets too close to telling the truth about what has been happening in the White House over the past eight years.

Bush Co. Told To Come Clean On Spying On Americans

Subpoenas Target White House, Cheney

The Democrats have so far failed to deliver on their pre-midterm election promises of bringing US troops home from Iraq.

Which is perhaps one of the key reasons why they're now going after Bush Co. so hard on the still controversial wiretapping and general Spying On Americans programs, covertly launched by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks.

The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday issued subpoenas to Dick Cheney's officer, the Justice Department and the White House. The committee's chairman Patrick J. Leahy said Bush Co.'s refusal to hand over documents as requested was "stonewalling of the worst kind." Obviously not to be confused with "stonewalling of the best kind."

The White House has now invoked "executive privilege", for only the second time, to try and avoid handing over the paper and electronic documents.

Senate Democrats are heading towards a showdown with Bush Co. and it's likely to come within the next three weeks. The deadline to hand over the subpoenaed documents is July 18.

I can already hear the excuses : "Rove ate the papers."

The subpoenas are apparently to access documents that :

...could shed light on the legal basis used by the administration to justify the wiretapping, as well as on disputes within the government over its legality.

In addition, the panel is seeking materials on issues related to the wiretapping, including those concerning the relationship between the Bush administration and several unidentified telecommunications companies that aided the N.S.A. eavesdropping program.

The panel’s action was the most aggressive move yet by lawmakers to investigate the N.S.A. program since the Democrats gained control of Congress this year.

No response yet from Cheney's office, the White House of the Justice Department on whether or not they will co-operate. But Bush's spokesman Tony Snow said it was "unfortunate" that Senate Democrats chose to go for a confrontational approach over this issue.

Well, yeah. Because asking nicely got them absolutely nowhere.

It's hilarious to hear Snow, on behalf of the White House, complaining about politicians acting in a "confrontational" manner. Unlike Vice President Cheney, of course, who is also sweet and mild and is always willing to help judiciaries with their investigations and always says "please" and "thank you" and...oh yeah, "fuck you" and "fuck off."

More on this from the New York Times :

....the White House had largely been able to fend off aggressive oversight of the N.S.A. wiretapping program since it was first disclosed in December 2005. The Republican-controlled Congress held a series of hearings last year, and even considered several legislative proposals to curb the scope of the eavesdropping. But Mr. Cheney repeatedly pressured Republican Congressional leaders to pull back without forcing the administration’s hand.

When the Democrats won the 2006 midterm elections, many political analysts predicted that the N.S.A. program — which a federal judge declared unconstitutional — would be one of the first Bush administration operations to undergo new scrutiny. But in January, administration officials announced that it was placing the program under the legal framework of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a move it had previously refused to consider.

The wiretapping is just one of several legal issues on which Congress and the administration are squaring off. For example, the White House is under pressure to respond to subpoenas issued two weeks ago by the House and Senate judiciary committees for witnesses and documents related to the dismissal of federal prosecutors. Thursday is the deadline for the White House to turn over documents linked to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel and Sara M. Taylor, the former political director.

If the White House fails to produce the material, the House and Senate could begin a process leading to contempt resolutions to force compliance. Meanwhile, Mr. Cheney is in a separate standoff with Congress and the National Archive over his office’s refusal to follow an executive order concerning the handling of classified documents by his office.

The Washington Post claims that lawmakers only want to "understand and reconstruct" the timeline and detail of the ongoing debate within the Bush administration over the legality of the wiretapping and Spying On Americans programs :

The White House offered no word on whether it will turn over the documents by the July 18 deadline. "We're aware of the committee's action, and will respond appropriately," spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."

Bush secretly launched the eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to Bush's eventual public description, the program allowed monitoring without a warrant of telephone calls, e-mails and other communication into or out of the Unitd States when one of the parties was suspected of terrorist ties.

The existence of the classified program was revealed in media reports in December 2005, angering lawmakers who called the program an infringement of civil liberties. The Bush administration has defended it as crucial to protecting the nation from further attacks.

Congressional interest in the program was stoked by testimony last month by former deputy attorney general James B. Comey that in 2004, Gonzales, then White House counsel, tried to pressure then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to recertify a controversial part of the program while Ashcroft was recovering from gallbladder surgery.

Ashcroft refused to abandon his objections, which have not been disclosed, and the White House initially recertified the part of the program at issue without obtaining a routine affirmation of its legality from the Justice Department. Bush backed down, however, when Ashcroft, Comey and other Justice officials threatened to resign, and some changes were made to obtain the Justice Department's approval.

"After we learned from Jim Comey about the late-night hospital visit to John Ashcroft's bedside, it was even more imperative that we find out the who, what, how and why surrounding the wiretapping of Americans without warrants," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

But it's not the Dems who are going for Bush Co.'s collective throat over the deeply unpopular Spying On Americans programs. Republicans are getting in on the action as well :

"The bipartisan support for issuing these subpoenas demonstrates that both Democrats and Republicans are fed up with the misleading statements from the attorney general and the administration about this illegal program," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a member of the committee.

Fun times.


White House Rejects Subpoenas, Invokes Executive Privilege

Bush Told He Must Explain Why Invoking Executive Privilege Is Justified

Bush's New Vision For Iraq : Like Israel, With Less Car Bombings

Bush Reconfigures 'War On Terror' To Be 'War Against Unacceptable Level Of Terror'



Bush told Iraqis, and US, that they better get used to scenes like this in a free and democratic Iraq.

If you want to define success in Iraq, says Bush, think of Israel. But with less car bombings. And less suicide attacks. And less beheadings. And less massacres, and IED attacks, and executions by the double dozen. Not no terror at all, just some terror. You know, like Israel.

I'll just hazard a guess here, but isn't Israel exactly what most Iraqis don't want their newly 'liberated' country to become?

Cue furious and Zionist Conspiracy headlines from the Arab and Muslim media across the planet.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Bush is finding that even die-hard Republican backers of the war from day one are now publicly stating that American troops should begin coming home, within months, not years. Or decades.

From the Associated Press :

President Bush held up Israel as a model for defining success in Iraq, saying Thursday the U.S. goal there is not to eliminate attacks but to enable a democracy that can function despite violence.

With his Iraq policy under increasing criticism from the public and lawmakers in both parties, Bush went to the U.S. Naval War College to declare progress and plead for patience. At the same time, his top national security went to Capitol Hill to hear out Republican critics.

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said this week U.S. troops should start leaving now because Bush's strategy will not have time to work.

The White House thought it had until an expected September assessment by military commanders before facing a showdown on the unpopular war.

But a majority of senators now believes troops should start coming home in the next few months. House Republicans want to revive the independent Iraq Study Group to get new options.

Here's some of Bush's most recent comments on Iraq, and his whole 'Think Israel, With Less Bombings' definition of success.

The president laid out in some of his plainest terms yet how to determine when the U.S. presence in Iraq has achieved its goals. This, Bush said, is "the rise of a government that can protect its people, deliver basic services for all its citizens and function as a democracy even amid violence."

"Our success in Iraq must not be measured by the enemy's ability to get a car bombing in the evening news," he said. "No matter how good the security, terrorists will always be able to explode a bomb on a crowded street."

So much for a safe and secure Iraq for all Iraqis. You're free, what's a few car bombings, in the mornings, and afternoons when you've got democracy?

(Bush) suggested Israel, the frequent target of terrorist attacks and a country in a decades-long, intractable and often violent dispute with Palestinians, as a standard to strive for.

"In places like Israel, terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks," Bush said. "The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it's not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that's a good indicator of success that we're looking for in Iraq."

It was likely to be controversial _ and possibly even explosive _ for Bush to set out Israel as a model for a Muslim Middle Eastern nation.

Aside from Israel's security problems, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such a sensitive issue in the Muslim world that it has become a rallying cry for many and major recruiting tool for Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida.

Wasn't the whole idea of the 'War on Terror' to actually STOP TERRORISM?

Bush is now arguing that Iraqis must accept a certain level of car bombings and suicide attacks as part of their lives for however long into the future.

Should make for some extremely deadly future elections.

Iraq : Another American Massacre, 17 Slaughtered

Bush To God : Please Kill Fidel Castro, Soon

President Bush was asked for his thoughts about Cuban dictator Fidel Castro the other day. He responded that God will take care of him. As in kill him off, in time.

When Castro appeared to be on the brink of death earlier this, the US State Department and the NeoCon media were positively drooling over his imminent demise. However Castro has made, somewhat, of a miraculous recovery, and is set to outlast President Bush. If Castro survives, and remains in power in January, 2009, he will have seen off 10 American presidents.
Castro, who has long accused U.S. leaders of wanting him dead, in an editorial published on Monday accused Bush of "authorizing and ordering" an attempt on his life, but provided no evidence to back up the claim.

Bush said of the Cuban dictator, and God :

"One day the good Lord will take Fidel Castro away...."

Asked whether Bush was wishing Castro dead, White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: "The president was commenting on an inevitable event."

Castro has long been a thorn in the side of U.S. presidents, defying them and outlasting them in office.

Documents released by the CIA this week showed that the spy agency worked with three American mobsters in a botched attempt to assassinate Castro in the early 1960s.

The Imminent Death Of Fidel Castro : A Reason For the US To Invade Yet Another Country?

Immigration Bill Dead - A "Stake Through The Heart"

Bush Suffers Major Policy Defeat

How humiliating is it to be President Bush?

Very. Very, very.

And so it's over. The Senate votes are in and the Bush-pushed Immigration bill, that would have given unofficial amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants, plus his plans to resurrect it by a positive vote on further debate in the Senate, have all been defeated.

The early talk is there is no hope of it being resurrected any time soon, and the 'amnesty' plan is unlikely to see the light of day on Capitol Hill again until well after the next president sets up shop in the West Wing.

From Raw Story :

The bill had represented one of President George W. Bush's last, best hopes for a signature second-term domestic achievement, and its failure will come as another painful blow to a White House besieged with political woes.

Bush is not just a lame duck president now, he is Peking - roasted and toasted.

From the Associated Press :

The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants...

After the stinging political setback, Bush sounded resigned to defeat.

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," he said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."

The bill's Senate supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Some senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

Bush appeared glum as he spoke. His negotiators had expressed optimism the vote would go their way - or, at least be closer.

"Congress really needs to prove to the American people that it can come together on hard issues," Bush said. He turned attention to other his other goals in Congress this year, including energy, health care and balanced-budget initiatives.

Last year a similar immigration effort collapsed in Congress, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.

It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.

But conservatives from Bush's own party led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status.

Update : American democracy in action. So many Americans called their senators on Capitol Hill in opposition to further debate on the immigration bill, that the volume of calls crashed the entire phone system, according to a Senator speaking on the floor. Wow. Here's how USA Today reported the news :

We're having trouble confirming this report because we keep getting a busy signal when we call the switchboard and other offices at the Capitol.

Michelle Malkin, Queen Of The Conservatives, Declares Victory

Amnesty : The Plan To Destroy The USA

Bush Co. Defies Congress Over Release Of Documents For Probe Into Federal Prosecutors Scandal

'War' between the White House and Congress is breaking out over a number of scandals where Bush Co. has decided it can do whatever it wants, and not have to explain its actions, or motives.

The White House has refused to play ball by handing over key documents that the Democrat-controlled House and Senate Judiciary Committees claim will shed further light into how Bush Co. came to decide to fire a number of federal prosecutors it believed held views and opinions that were not in line with how they wanted to run the courts.

The White House clearly intends to go down to the mat with the Democrats over this matter, and seem quite happy to let it go into the federal courts to be sorted out.

As with so many of the White House-related scandals now filling the pages of American newspapers, and swamping the news talk shows, it all comes down to how Bush Co. views the "separations of power" that are supposed to hold it in check, and accountable to the American people.

But the Democrats just don't get it. Bush Co. doesn't care. They will do what they want, when they want, and how they want. And if the Democrats, and a growing number of dissenting Republicans don't like, then to hell with them.

From Raw Story :

The White House, under attack from Congress for allegedly firing federal prosecutors based on political affiliation, asserted executive privilege Thursday and said they could not turn over documents that could shed light on the prosecutors' firings.

In a letter to the chairmen of the the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, President George W. Bush's attorney asserted that White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding wrote. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."

Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents which had been subpoenaed by Congress June 13. The White House also asserted that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed.

If neither side will budge, "the stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers," according to the Associated Press.

Michael Moore Wishes Bush Well

The evisceration of President Bush by film-maker Michael Moore, in his 2003 smash hit documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, was so hardcore, even people who didn't like the president were left shocked by the depth and breadth of Moore's claims of criminal negligence by the Bush White in the months leading up to the September 11 attacks, and the storm of lies and distortions that led up to the War On Iraq.

Of course, watching Fahrenheit 9/11 today you realise that Moore 100% right about White House foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and the way Bush Co. made the case for war, knowing there was little, if any, truth behind most of their claims for why America had to attack Iraq.

It just took a few years for most of the rest of America to see that Moore was telling the truth about the president, and the Cheney-controlled White House.

Moore claims he holds no hard feelings towards President Bush, and why would he? Fahrenheit 9/11 made Moore an extremely wealthy man and sealed his reputation as one of the world's most powerful, and controversial, documentary makers.

Moore's new film, Sicko, is another devastating portrait of Bush's America, this time focusing on a failing health care system that leaves people bankrupt paying for life-saving operations, and sees 9/11 Ground Zero workers forced to go to Cuba to get the specialised help they need to deal with their life-threatening, 9/11 dust induced, lung problems.

When asked about Bush recently, during promotional work for Sicko, Moore said :

"I would wish him well, and ask him to please bring the troops (in Iraq) home."

And yes, that was the longest introduction to a one-line quote we've written so far.

Bush's Secretive White House Refused Investigation Over Leaks In 2005

Classified information has been leaking from the Bush White House almost since the day he first sat down behind the desk inside the West Wing. Usually, the leaked info has been used to disparage or destroy the perceived enemies of the White House, and Vice President Dick Cheney in particular.

Back in 2003, a federal watchdog agency had plans to go inside the executive offices of the West Wing to gather evidence of who was leaking classified information, and why.

As this story from the LA Times details, Bush administration officials not only refused to allow the investigation to go forward, but leaks about the attempts to stop investigations of the leaks came from "security officers" inside the White House, clearly upset about the violations of the law they were either directly witnessing, or being told about by others close to those involved :

The report of the White House's refusal to be inspected comes amid criticism from congressional Democrats of how President Bush signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to submit to independent oversight of their handling of classified information, but did not enforce it for his office or that of Vice President Dick Cheney.

The blocked inspection was described in an April 23 letter to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who provided a copy of the letter to the Los Angeles Times on Monday.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters Monday that the president considered his office and that of the vice president exempt from his directive. The 2003 executive order addressed a system of safeguards for government agencies aimed at ensuring that classified national security information is properly handled so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, that improper leaks of such information are investigated promptly, and that government secrets are properly declassified at the appropriate time.

The Information Security Oversight Office, an agency within the federal National Archives and Records Administration, is in charge of the effort, with broad authorities that include inspections of government agencies to make sure that they are in compliance.

The president's and vice president's offices handle some of the most highly classified national security information.

Waxman said the White House in 2005 denied a similar effort by the oversight agency to inspect the executive offices where the president's top advisors work, known as the West Wing. Waxman said investigators from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform were told of the incident by White House security officers.

It was not clear what prompted the inspection. The oversight agency has not commented on it.

Waxman said the executive order gave the agency "governmentwide authority to conduct on-site inspections of all executive branch offices and agencies to ensure that security programs are effective."

But, he told Card, "the security officers reported that after an initial meeting, a senior White House official intervened and instructed the White House Security Office to block any inspection of the West Wing. The security officers expressed shock that the Information Security Oversight Office was not permitted to conduct an inspection."

Waxman, the chairman of the powerful House oversight committee, told Card that his staff investigators also found numerous problems with the way the White House handled classified information. That investigation was prompted by a March hearing in which the committee examined the leak by White House officials of the identity of now-retired CIA officer Valerie Plame.

At the March hearing, White House Chief Security Officer James Knodell testified that the White House Security Office never conducted an internal investigation to identify the source of the leaks, did not initiate corrective actions to prevent future breaches, and never considered administrative sanctions or reprimands for officials involved.

Waxman said the failure of the White House to take such steps appeared to be a violation of the executive order Bush signed, which establishes minimum requirements for safeguarding classified information and responding to breaches.

Republican Senators Losing Patience With Bush Over Iraq War

GOP Dissent Spreads, Fractures Widen

Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar is by no means the first GOPer to break ranks and announce that he has lost faith in the president's ability to win the Iraq War, but he is expected to be the first of a new wave of dissent on the Hill.

Lugar is no low-ranking rebel, hoping for a moment in the national media spotlight by bagging his boss. He has been one of the most die-hard supporters of Bush, particularly when it came to Iraq and the 'War on Terror'. And Lugar also happens to be the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Lugar's fears that the US is losing the Iraq War, and is indelibly damaging the international reputation and standing of the United States, is reportedly a common belief amongst the majority of GOPers, even though few have said as much, so far.

But Lugar's decision to announce, broadly and boldly, to the national media that he has lost faith in the president, and the Iraq War, is expected to spark a flow of fellow GOPer dissent and direct criticism of Bush and his war-fighting policies. In fact, that flow-on effect is already taking hold in Washington.

The message to Bush from the GOP is clear enough : You've been given plenty of time, and that time is running out. Change course now. Before it really is too late.

From the New York Times :

“In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved,” Mr. Lugar said Monday during a 50-minute speech on the Senate floor, which was delivered after nearly everyone in the Capitol had retired for the evening. “Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.”

In an interview with reporters on Tuesday, Mr. Lugar said President Bush had limited time to change the course of the war because of the 2008 presidential campaign.

“We’re heading into a very partisan era,” he said. “The president has the opportunity now to bring about a bipartisan foreign policy. I don’t think he’ll have that option very long.”

His remarks reverberated through Capitol Hill on Tuesday, picking up support from other Republican senators, even as the White House, which was not alerted about Mr. Lugar’s speech in advance, tried to minimize their significance.

At his daily televised briefing, Tony Snow, Mr. Bush’s press secretary, dismissed the idea that the White House might worry that Mr. Lugar’s statement would encourage fellow Republicans to join him in breaking with the president.

For months, Mr. Lugar has kept his skepticism about the president’s Iraq policy largely to himself, seldom offering anything beyond a hopeful wait-and-see statement. A soft-spoken cardinal of foreign policy, Mr. Lugar is known to his colleagues as anything but a bitter partisan, which made his remarks all the more stinging.

Senator George V. Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who also serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, echoed Mr. Lugar’s message in a letter to the president on Tuesday, a critique whose timing was coordinated to follow on the heels of Mr. Lugar’s.

“I am also concerned that we are running out of time,” Mr. Voinovich wrote in the letter.

Other Republicans also said their patience was waning.

“The one real disappointment is that the Iraqi government has not stepped up and fulfilled what we think is the role that they need to play,” said Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina. “If that doesn’t happen quickly, I’m sure more of us will come to the conclusion that Senator Lugar has.”

The White House and the Pentagon have implored lawmakers for patience until they receive an update in September from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.

Mr. Lugar said he thought it was too late to begin devising an exit strategy. The United States is becoming diplomatically paralyzed in the Middle East and around the world, he said, and by September the presidential campaign would inflame the partisanship battle.

“The administration and Congress must suspend what has become almost knee-jerk political combat over Iraq,” Mr. Lugar said. “Those who offer constructive criticism of the surge strategy are not defeatists, any more than those who warn against a precipitous withdrawal are militarists.”

By the end of the day on Tuesday, the White House also had a letter to contend with from Mr. Voinovich, who called on the administration to develop a comprehensive military withdrawal plan from Iraq.

“My heart has been heavy for a long time,” he said in an interview. “We’re talking $620 billion. We’re talking over 3,500 people killed. I have a picture of one of our marines that’s on my desk so I don’t forget, O.K.?”

Mainstream Media Wakes Up To Dictatorial Bush-Cheney Tag Team



By Darryl Mason

The so-called 'conspiracy' and alternative news sites have been cataloguing for more than four years that President Bush, through a series of signing statements, and fine-tuning of authoritarian fine print, has been removing both himself and Vice President, Dick Cheney, from the circles of accountability that Congress, and the American people, usually demand and expect from those who occupy office space in the White House.

Slowly, almost reluctantly, the mainstream American media has finally gotten around to examining just WTF Bush and Cheney are really up.

Of course, it's too late now for any huge media or public outrage to change the way the president and vice-president, do their business, and hide their secrets, and avoid being held accountable.

But then, isn't that always the way with the mainstream American media of today? We learn the truth, we learn the facts behind the lies and spin, but only when it's too late, when the damage has already been done, when there is no going back. The WMD fiasco that led to the Iraq War being the prime, but not only, example of this 'Too Late' revelatory news hitting the front pages.

Maybe before the 2004 election all this expose stuff about the secret presidency of Bush, and the ultra-secret vice-presidency of Dick Cheney, would have made a difference. But back then, nearly all the talk of Bush and Cheney rewriting the rules to give themselves the defacto powers of a dictatorship was confined to 'wacko' web sites.

Yes, learning it all back then, when it was first happening, perhaps then all these exposes and investigative stories might have changed the course of current American history. For the better.

But not now, of course. Bush and Cheney can do virtually anything they want between tomorrow and late January, 2009, and the media, Congress and the American people can do nothing to stop them, short of staging a military coup, or pouring five million protesters into Washington and driving the Bush regime from the West Wing.

Still, it's nice to see the New York Times, and the excellent (but late) investigation of Cheneystan from the Washington Post, finally telling the American people just how extreme the Bush administration has become when it comes to keeping their secrets, spying on Americans, lying for war and torture, and changing the rules of all the games so they will never have to pay for their crimes.

Here's a few chunks from the lead editorial of the New York Times, a few days ago, venting superbly. I read an almost identical editorial in mid-2004, but that was on a 'wacko' 'conspiracy' site :

President Bush has turned the executive branch into a two-way mirror. They get to see everything Americans do: our telephone calls, e-mail, and all manner of personal information. And we get to see nothing about what they do.

Everyone knows this administration has disdained openness and accountability since its first days. That is about the only thing it does not hide. But recent weeks have produced disturbing disclosures about just how far Mr. Bush’s team is willing to go to keep lawmakers and the public in the dark.

That applies to big issues — like the C.I.A.’s secret prisons — and to things that would seem too small-bore to order up a cover-up.

Vice President Dick Cheney sets the gold standard, placing himself not just above Congress and the courts but above Mr. Bush himself. For the last four years, he has been defying a presidential order requiring executive branch agencies to account for the classified information they handle. When the agency that enforces this rule tried to do its job, Mr. Cheney proposed abolishing the agency.

Since the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Bush has tried to excuse his administration’s obsession with secrecy by saying that dangerous times require greater discretion. He rammed the Patriot Act through Congress with a promise that national security agencies would make sure the new powers were not abused.

Governments have to keep secrets. But this administration has grossly abused that trust, routinely using claims of national security to hide policies that are immoral and almost certainly illegal, to avoid embarrassment, and to pursue Mr. Bush’s dreams of an imperial presidency.

That blood-chilling sound you can hear in the distance is Cheney himself, laughing long and hard and mumbling to himself : "So fucking what? What the fuck are you going to do about any of this? Come on. What are you going to do?"

Do You Want Bush & Cheney, Or Do You Want The Republic? You Can't Have Both

Bush Could Stop Cheney...But Why Would He Want To?

Robert Parry : America's Fragile Republic

Bush's America Becomes The Facsimile Of An Authoritarian State Run By The Mafia