LIAR PARADOX: July 2005


Whatever Bush says is a lie? That MUST be a truth!

Sunday, July 31, 2005


Below is a letter I wrote to my congressman regarding impeaching Bush and his administration. Only the House of Representatives can impeach these guys, and it will only be done with pressure that we put on our representatives in the house.

I hope that you all find a way to contact your own Representatives and urge them to commence impeachment proceedings against these anti-american inhabitants of our White House.

To the Honorable Harold E. Ford Jr.:
As one of your constituents, I urge you to join with others in the House of Representatives that are moving for the impeachment of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.
As the investigation of the Plame leak unfolds, we citizens are finding that George Bush and his administration were involved in a sinister plot to declare war on Iraq based on lies.

It is no wonder why the Bush Administration did not sign up the United States of America to be a part of the World Criminal Court, because if it did, George Bush and his Administration would definitely be tried and convicted for war crimes.

We taxpayers have wasted over $180 Billion on the war in Iraq. Iraq is a mess, and terrorism has grown exponentially as a result, despite George Bush and his Adminstration's claims that we have declared a "war on terror."

In fact, I believe that George Bush wants and needs more terrorism in this world to accomplish his goals of invading sovereign nations, destroying the lives and the environment of people living in those countries, and all done on our dime.

The Republicans did not hesitate one bit to move for the impeachment of President Clinton over a frivolous issue that did not result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians or our troops. We the people of this country that witnessed the decimation of Democracy in November of 2000 deserve to see impeachment proceedings against Bush and his adminstration as liars, traitors, tyrants, and war criminals.

I understand that you are running for the U.S. Senate against Ed Bryant, and that it requires you to take a moderate stance on many issues so that you can have a chance of winning the votes of conservative and moderate Christians in East Tennessee, however, I do hope that you find a way to at least work in the background on the issue of impeaching the tyrant that is occupying our White House.

Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Roberts v Consumer: Arbitration and Corporate America

Many consumers don't realize that when we enter into a contract with corporations for services, from cable television to credit card services, pest control services, telephone services and even hospitals, we have waived our right to trial when we have signed those contracts. Many big employers require their employees to sign contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses to protect those businesses from being sued by its employees for unfair labor practices! Law firms such as Hogan and Hartson, the one that Roberts worked at in D.C., lead the way in advising their corporate clients as to the benefits of arbitration under consumer protection law.

Most arbitrators get the bulk of their business from repeat customers, the corporations themselves, and therefore favor the corporate interests during the arbitration process. Therefore the arbitrators browbeat the consumers into relenting.

Guess what? You never have an opportunity to litigate your issue before the courts. And when you leave the arbitration proceeding unsatisfied, you will never have the opportunity to appeal your case to higher courts.

Arbitration advocates argue that this is a less costly way of settling disputes. They are half right. It is less costly to resolve the disputes in arbitration for the corporations, but arbitration can cost up to 5000 times what it would cost a consumer or working class American to seek relief before our courts!

Most arbitrators cost around $400 per litigant per hour for arbitration. The attorney representing you before the arbitrator could cost around $200 per hour. So if the arbitration proceeding takes four hours, you will have to pay $2,400 in arbitration and attorney fees. And you probably will leave the process with a sour taste in your mouth and with a feeling of betrayal.

On the other hand, to bring a matter before our courts, the litigant pays a filing fee, anwhere from $12 to $150, depending on the state, county and type of claim you are bringing, along with approximately $200 per hour for your attorney. But guess what? If the consumer or worker wins in court, he can likely be awarded statutory attorneys' fees and punitive damages (punitive meaning punishment of the corporation for wrongdoing), and the losing corporation will be stuck with paying the court cost, including that filing fee I mentioned above.

Now under arbitration, win or lose, both parties are stuck with paying $400 an hour to the arbitrator, and on top of that are stuck with paying an hourly fee to their attorney for attorney's fees, so you're looking at at least $600 an hour for abritator and attorney fees, and as I mentioned, the arbitrators are basically extensions of the corporations themselves, and more than likely will rule in their favor over the consumer.

I'm not saying that abritration is inherently bad. Arbitration does serve its purpose between two parties of equal bargaining power, but a consumer does not have the same power as the corporation, and arbitration does not fit in consumer rights matters. It leaves too much room for conflicts of interest between arbitrators and corporations and deprives future consumers and workers of their rights to be treated fairly by corporations during day to day business transactions.

Arbitration between corporations and consumers further encourages less oversight and regulation by legislators because they are being done under the radar, taking advantage of a class of Americans out there that do not understand that they would have a better opportunity to equal justice in our court systems rather than under the hegemonic gavel of the corporation's arbitrator.

It's a corrupt deprivation of our constitutional rights, it's been going on for some time now, and Roberts' attorney experience reveals that he favors the arbitration process over our constitutional rights to trial.

In his capacity as attorney, Roberts has worked hard for corporations and against us little guys as consumers, workers, and inhabitants of Planet Earth. In Bragg v. West Virginia Coal, Roberts worked as a Private Attorney when he argued on behalf of National Coal for mountain top removal of coal, an extremely environmentally destructive method of removing coal from the Appalachian mountains, which has resulted in severe pollution of waters in the region, and which has caused serious asthma problems, sickness and death of the inhabitants of the Southeastern United States.

He has worked hard to erode the Americans with Disabilities Act, Affirmative Action, and other labor issues, he has worked to reduce federal spending on abortion clinics, and as Deputy Solicitor General, he filed an amicus brief on behalf of us, the American people, for harassment by anti-abortion activists of women at abortion clinics (see: BRAY V ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC) and other right wing issues before the Supreme Court!

Click here for podcast of Roberts arguing on behalf of the anti-abortion activists in the name of the "People of the United States!!" before the Supreme Court. In this podcast you hear Roberts argue that harassment by anti-abortion activists is not an attack consisting of invidious discriminatory deprivation of women's rights. Note: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roberts' violent mob of anti-abortion activists.

I just wonder if Roberts would file an amicus brief on behalf of anti-war activists who were thrown in jail for criminal trespass for merely trying to talk to their U.S. Senator about his stance on the war in Iraq?

One could easily argue that anti-abortion activists should be classified as terrorists, seeing how several of them have bombed clinics, Olympic events and nightclubs. So if you want to argue like Karl Rove, you could claim that Roberts is a judicial activist that supports terrorist groups, merely by his vigorous support of the anti-abortion activists and their interference of women to get abortions, the issue which is the subject of the Bray Supreme Court Case.

Quoted in Legal Times, Roberts says, "private litigants in the Supreme Court gain significant advantage when the United States supports their position as Amicus Curiae."

Yep, Roberts just has a face of innocence but underneath that innocent cute little baby face is the sinister workings of a cog in the big business/religious right's steamroll over Middle America.

***sidenote: I talked with a U of Illinois law professor about the arbitration fiasco and consumers rights and he told me what the consumers should do to prevent waiving their rights to trial: Before signing a contract that has an arbitration clause in it, scratch out the arbitration clause and write "I do not agree to waive my rights to trial via arbitration should a dispute arise." MAKE A COPY OF THAT CONTRACT AND KEEP IT FOR YOUR RECORDS.

Hopefully, in my lifetime, someone will argue the Constitutionality of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts before the Supreme Court. With justices like John Roberts, Jr. and Clarence Thomas, I just don't see how that Supreme Court will rule in our favor, on this, an issue which affects the very nature of American Constitutional rights to trial for redress of grievances.

For more information about arbitration clauses and consumer rights, please check out The National Consumer Law Center

And the American Constitution Society

See also:

Wednesday, July 20, 2005


From Talking Points Memo: "Today a group of 11 former intelligence officers delivered a letter to the Republican and Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate on the Plame case. See it here in PDF format."

See Related CNN story


Well, I guess people didn't take the bait when on Sunday it was announced that the first charges were being brought against Saddam Hussein.

All you heard on Monday was Karl Rove...Karl Rove...Karl Rove.... and I praise the media for not taking the White House's diversion bait of Saddam Hussein. Finally the media and me are on the same page. It's a bigger issue to contend with our own war criminals (Bush, Rummy, Rove, Libby, Cheney, et al) than with someone else's.

So what does Bush do on Tuesday when the people didn't take his Saddam bait? He goes and announces his Supreme Court justice nominee, a man who has Hardly Any experience as a judge, who is not very seasoned, and who Bush evidently owes a favor; because John G. Roberts, Jr. advised the Bush campaign on the November 2000 elections.

Well, now we have to contend with two major issues at once:

1. Keeping in the spotlight Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and the other White House officials involved in the conspiracy of leaking Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative; and

2. Contending with finding out just who this guy is that George Bush threw in our face last night when he nominated Roberts as a Supreme Court justice. George couldn't have picked a better candidate to distract America from the Rove scandal, by picking such a young person whose legal philosphy is virtually unknwon. Now instead of focusing on the White House conspiracy of the Plame leak, the liberals, independents and conservatives will be occupying their time trying to figure out just who this mystery man is that Bush nominated for Supreme Court justice.


I was reading Newsweek's articles about Karl Rove, and I learned something about Karl Rove: a psychologist would have a field day with this man.

Maybe when he is fired from his posh little White House job he can make money being a psychologist's guinea pig.

No really, here are some interesting facts about Karl Rove.

1. He is an illegitimate child: the man who he thought was his father turned out not to be, and Karl Rove doesn't know who his real father is.

2. When he was a teenager Karl Rove's "father" abandoned the family.

3. Eleven years after his "father" abandoned them, Karl Rove's mother committed suicide.

Now I'm starting to understand how and why Karl Rove is the antisocial asshole that he is. He's got some serious issues. And most of us would if this was the type of family that we grew up in.

As I continued to read Fineman's article on Karl Rove, I started thinking of all those dittoheads out there. Yes, the average right wing followers of the Right Wing's pied pipers. Just who are these people who absolutely refuse to admit that Karl Rove betrayed America when he leaked Valerie Plame's name?

Just WHO are these people who absolutely refuse to admit that the American public was lied to about Saddam's "terror" threat? Hell, even the Bush Administration apologized for the lies they told us about the Africa-Saddam uranium connection!

I'll tell you who these people are. These people are the children and grandchildren of those who resisted integration of public schools, who supported the Ku Klux Klan, who did nothing while black people were trying to get their voting rights in the 1960s, who preach "What Would Jesus Do" while advocating the fire-bombings of black churches in the 60s and the abortion clinics of today.

So we can't completely blame Karl Rove for the ills that have been wreaked on this country with the advent of the Bush Admin's agenda in November 2000.

Those right wing, Bible thumping wingnuts WANT to believe the lies that Karl Rove and George Bush tell. They resist the truth when it's slapping them in the face. They are to blame.

And that is a scary thing. We can oust Rove from office, but can we oust hate, ignorance, and prejudice from our country?

Folks have been trying for at least 50 years, but they are still here.


  • My #1 result for the selector, Supreme Court Justices, is Stephen Breyer: biographical information
  • Saturday, July 16, 2005


    "How many people have been in a position like Karl's?" said [Pie-In-the-Face] William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, a neoconservative magazine. The standard of proof, he said, is much higher than it would be for the average staffer, who could be dismissed just for bringing negative publicity to the administration. See: New York Times Article

    No no, Kristol. You are wrong. All law students learn in their first year of law school that the more "official" your status, the higher the STANDARD of Conduct you are held to, and therefore, the LOWER THE STANDARD OF PROOF NEEDED to find that you stepped out of line.

    Therefore, where an average staffer might have leaked Plame's name to the media, one would have a higher burden of proving that the average staffer had the pernicious intent to harm the CIA, whereas, Karl Rove could just leak the name in passing without even knowing that Plame's status was a covert CIA operative, and be found by the White House to have violated his nondisclosure agreement (click here to get to a PDF copy of it) and therefore should resign. Because of his high ranking status, he is held to a higher standard of conduct and therefore the burden of proving that he violated this standard is lower than if he was just an average staffer.

    Why? What's the policy reason? There are many reasons. I'll give two of the most important reasons.

    1. One policy reason for requiring those officials with a "higher status" to abide by a higher standard of conduct which requires a lower standard of proof, is because the higher your status the more of an EXAMPLE you are to set to those "beneath" you, in this case, "the average staffer." If Karl Rove is not found guilty of violating the law, particularly the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, then the precedent this sets is that it's ok to leak identities of covert CIA operatives, compromising our National Security.
    Future violators of this statute will argue as a defense, "Hey! If Karl Rove can do it, I can do it!"

    2. As has been shown, a high ranking White House official's conduct reflects poorly on the Bush Administration as a whole. Rove's poor judgment in leaking Plame's name to the press is a bad reflection on the Bush Administration and confirms what many on the left have been arguing for a long time: That George Bush should be impeached from office.

    So Kristol, you have it backwards. There is a higher standard of proof for the average staffer and a lower standard of proof for Karl Rove. Rove knows what he did is wrong. In fact, Rove probably has an easier time keeping up with his ethical conduct than he does with his bad-faith, unethical conduct, seeing how in his career dating back to college, he so very rarely acts ethically.

    I am sick and tired of these right wingers spewing to the media misinformation about legal analyses of this whole Rove scandal. What REALLY IRKS ME is that the media laps up whatever these right wingers say and takes it as gospel without questioning them one bit!

    Haven't they learned yet that the right wing neocons are nothing but a bunch of scheming, devious LIARS!?!

    They are WRONG about the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, when they say that Rove had to "know" that Plame was covert in order for Rove to be guilty of violating the Act; and Kristol is wrong about the standard of proof for Rove. I am guessing he is talking about the standard of proof to the public or the Bush Administration, because the only standard of proof for criminal trials is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."

    Neo-con pioneer Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol:
    "The notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."


    How convenient for the Bush Administration that Iraq has brought its first charges against Saddam Hussein today while Bush insiders are on the hot seat.

    Well if they think that this is going to divert us from getting to the bottom of the Plame leak, they have another think coming.

    I say, let the Iraqis worry about their own war criminals and we will worry about ours!


    Reading Talking Points Memo this morning got me to thinking about whether Karl Rove can be guilty of six different counts of violation of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act.

    According to The Washington Post, Karl Rove leaked to six different journalists. (I speculate that they are Novak, Cooper, Miller, Russert, Pincus, and Kessler).

    Does that mean that he can be charged with six counts of violation of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act? If so that could mean that his maximum punishment would be a $300,000 fine and 60 years in prison for violation of the Identities Protection Act Alone! Not to mention the punishment he would receive if charged with Conspiracy too!

    Well I can't wait for the investigation to be over so that we can see how the indictment pans out.

    Forget Rove-Gate, Get Ready for Cheney-Gate

    I stumbled across this post from, and it is a really great anlalysis of just who leaked to the leakers.

    It goes way over my head to even try to summarize it, so I will just highlight some of the article here that I find the most enlightening and you can read the whole thing if you click here.

    In the article, Mr. Raimondo answers questions such as:

    "Why did Novak's original column, which started all this brouhaha, identify Valerie Plame by her maiden name? After all, most married women – even in this era of Women's Liberation – defer to the tradition of taking their husband's name, but I have to admit that, even after wondering about it for a brief moment, I shrugged and moved on. As it turns out, however, this is an important detail, because now we have Rove's lawyer saying that he at no time gave out Valerie Plame's name: but if Rove identified her as Joe Wilson's wife, what the heck is the difference?"

    "If Rove leaked to Novak, and half a dozen Washington reporters, then who leaked to the leakers?"

    "You (Joseph Wilson) mention two other names: John Hannah, who works in the Office of the Vice President, and David Wurmser, who is a special assistant to John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and national security. Last Wednesday, their names both appeared on a chart that accompanied an article in the
    New York Times about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and the war cabal within the Bush administration. Did these people run an intelligence operation against you?"

    "Who in the administration would've had access to the specific information regarding Plame-Wilson's role in a deep-cover CIA operation involving nuclear proliferation? "

    "And then there is the question of the Niger uranium forgeries themselves: who forged the documents that fooled a president? "

    "Forging "evidence" that helped get us into a war – what are the penalties for that?"

    Friday, July 15, 2005


    With evidence like this popping up, it appears that the two White House officials that leaked the name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame should be indicted for conspiracy charges on top of violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act!

    On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it."

    Many speculate that Lewis Libby is the first source and that Karl Rove is the second source.

    Watergate's John Dean on the CIA leak probe


    Thursday, July 14, 2005


    The Right Wing is arguing that Rove did not know that Valerie Plame was a covert agent and is therefore not guilty. They are arguing that Rove does not have the requisite intent under the statute to be culpable for committing the crime of releasing the name of a covert agent, because he did not know that Plame was a covert agent.

    But the plain meaning of the statute shows that this line of argument does not matter.

    The statute does not require Rove to have known that Plame was a covert agent.
    All that the statute requires is that Rove intended to reveal the identity of the person who happens to be covert.

    It is to Rove's misfortune that the person he intentionally named happened to be a covert agent.
    I Repeat: Nowhere in the statute does it require that Rove knew that Plame was covert.

    The issue is not one about Rove's intent, he clearly intended to leak the name of a CIA employee when he told Matt Cooper that "it was Wilson's wife who works at the Agency."
    The issue is instead whether Plame's employment status at the CIA was "covert."
    Evidently it was.

    Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since claimed that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative—the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not a crime. Critics contend that after decades as a Washington reporter Novak was well aware of the difference and would be unlikely to make such a mistake. Indeed, a search of the Nexis database for the terms 'CIA operative' and 'agency operative' shows Novak correctly used them to describe covert CIA employees every single time they appear in his articles. Including the Plame article.

    Here is the language of the statute:

    Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    As you can see, the language of the statute says, "intentionally discloses any information identifying."
    Nowhere in the statute does it require that Rove KNOW that the person he identified was covert.

    Therefore, this statute is part specific intent and part strict liability.

    It does require the specific intent of "intentional disclosure," and "knowledge that such disclosure identifies the covert agent," however, it does not specifically require that Rove know that the person he identifies is covert. The "knowledge" language in the statute is referring to knowledge of the disclosure of the identity of the agent, NOT knowledge of the status of the person whose identity was disclosed. And of course status meaning whether the person is a covert agent.

    If the legislators that passed this law intended that the person know that the person he was revealing was a covert agent, then the statute would look like this, with the words in green being the different language which would satisfy the type of intent the right wing is arguing the statute says.

    Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE COVERT STATUS OF THE AGENT intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent, to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and KNOWING that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    Therefore, if Plame was not a covert agent, then Rove would not be guilty under the statute.
    Unfortunately for Rove, whether he knew that Plame was covert or not, it was to his misfortune that she was a covert agent. Rove and his right wing friends can argue all day long that Rove did not know that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative. He is still guilty under the statute.

    Take a statute for statutory rape for example. This is a classic Strict Liability statute that all law students study when they take criminal law.

    "A person is guilty for statutory rape where he intends to have sex with a child under the age of 18."

    This statute merely requires that the accused INTEND to have sex. It wouldn't matter whether the accused KNEW the victim was under 18. He can argue all day long that he did not know the victim was under 18. In every criminal court in the United States, this man would be guilty of statutory rape if the person he had sex with was under 18.

    Just as the statutory rape statute does not require that the accused know that the victim was under 18, the Identities Protection statute does not require that Rove know that Plame was a covert agent.

    Therefore, Rove is guilty!!


    As you know they're voting on Amendment 1222 to the Homeland Security Bill today, where the amendment wil require anyone leaking names of covert operatives have their security clearance removed.

    I live in Tennessee and called Senator Frist's office today asking him to support the amendment.

    Now Senator Alexander's office was a lot more receptive, and friendly. Frist is an ass.

    It was a waste of my time but it was fun speaking to his aide just to remind them that the people are watching.

    Everyone should call their senators right now because they are voting on the bill today and hope to have it passed by this evening.

    here is a link to the senators website where you can get their numbers.

    Roll Call Votes

    "Karl Rove and the RNC accusing Joe Wilson of playing politics is like Homer Simpson telling Lance Armstrong he's out of shape." Sen. Schumer, NY

    Bill Frist, on the Senate Floor today, argued that those in support of Amendment 1222 are playing politics.

    How is it politics to preserve the anonymity of our CIA agents? Even George Bush Sr. says that anyone revealing the name of our CIA agents is the most insidious of traitors.

    Wednesday, July 13, 2005


    The investigation of the Valerie Plame leak and the lies that Plame's husband exposed regarding Saddam seeking uranium from Africa are relevant to Downing Street.

    We all know that the Bush Administration had plans to go to war against Iraq before 9-11. The lies that Plame's husband revealed created serious wrinkles in the Bush Administration's plans to deceive the American public into going to war in Iraq.

    Once the person(s) responsible for leaking Plame's name are brought to justice the people will realize that some of those Republican insiders do not work for the interests of the American people, but instead work for their own interests in controlling this country for their own selfish reasons (profits from oil, corporate tax breaks, etc.).

    Once the person(s) responsible for the Plame leak are brought to justice, the credibility of the right wing will be further weakened. Once this happens, we on the left need to hammer Downing Street Memo and link the two issues together and see to it that the media does its job in making Downing Street an issue.

    The whole WMD lie was the basis for Bush's justification for going to war, and is tied to Downing Street. It's what convinced 65% of America that war against Iraq was a necessity.


    Wilson called Bush on his lies, and now his wife is out of a job and the work our CIA has done on protecting us from rogue nations with WMDs has been compromised.
    Regardless of the right wing arguing that Valerie Plame was not "covert" at the time of the leak, the leakers broke the law by leaking her name.

    Plame was a covert CIA operative at some point in her career. As a result of the leak of Plame's name, the work of the CIA on protecting the world from rogue nations with WMDs has been compromised, because those countries can go back and retrace Plame's steps, who she worked with, who she had meetings with, her telephone conversations, mail, etc.

    And the Republicans aren't getting anywhere arguing about whether Cheney sent Joe Wilson to Africa. This is another diversion tactic by the right wing, sidestepping the issue that the work our CIA was doing to protect us from terrorists was compromised by Republican insiders. The fact is, Wilson went to Africa and found that none of the lies Bush told to us during his January 2003 State of the Union Address were true.

    And there's no need in denying that the Democrats going after Rove is about politics. Of course it's about politics!! It became an issue of politics when George Bush decided to declare war on a country based on lies!


    1. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Rove did not disclose Valerie Plame's name.

    This argument is flawed. It does not matter that Rove did not specifically name Valerie Plame. How many wives are you allowed to have in America? One. So by Rove saying that it was Joe Wilson's wife, he broke the law by revealing the identity of a CIA agent.

    ``The fact that he didn't give her name, but identified the ambassador's wife ... doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who that is,'' Sen. Joseph Biden said on CNN's ``Inside Politics.'' ``If that occurred, at a minimum, that was incredibly bad judgment, warranting him being asked to leave.''

    1. Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman said Rove was the victim of partisan political attacks by Democrats.

    Again, another weak argument. Who are the Republicans to whine about partisan political attacks? Excuse me, but which incident is more threatening to America's national security warranting investigations and partisan political attacks?

      1. Having sexual relations with your mistress in the White House; OR
      2. Revealing the name of a covert CIA operative whose job involved investigating whether countries pose a national security threat with their WMD programs?

    3. Revealing Valerie Plame's name did not compromise national security; heck at the time her name was leaked, she had a desk job in Virginia!

    It does compromise national security. Why do you think the CIA is so furious as a result of this? Every country she visited is now retracing her steps; what phone calls she made, the people she talked to, any meetings she had. Therefore, even though she only had a desk job at the time her cover was blown, it IS A GENUINE NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE. The fact that she was on the cover of Vanity Fair has nothing to do with the ripple effect that Karl Rove and Robert Novak feloniously and treasonously caused.

    4. On the issue of Rove’s email to Cooper, the RNC chairman said Rove ``was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise.''

    Whatever that means. Who are the Republicans to talk about false premises? We went to WAR based on false premises! George Bush spoke of Saddam Hussein's uranium connection with Niger. Valerie Plame's job at the CIA involved investigating WMD programs in other nations! Joe Wilson, her husband, a former Ambassador, was sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate Bush's claims. Is it Wilson's fault that he uncovered the truth on his trip to Niger?

    ****The Democrats aren’t arguing that this isn’t partisan politics, it is. But it goes deeper than that. This investigation into Rove’s criminal acts is significantly more relevant to the people of America than Bill Clinton’s blow jobs, isn’t it? Karl Rove betrayed the integrity of the CIA when he broke the law by revealing Plame’s name to Cooper, Novak and probably Judith Miller.

    Finally, the Democrats didn’t ask for this investigation, the CIA asked for this investigation. But you don't see the Republicans crying about that issue!

    A group of former CIA agents testified before a Senate Democratic Policy Committee on the outing of their colleague. The agents, Larry Johnson, Michael Grimaldi and Brent Cavan, all of whom are Republicans, pulled no punches in their shared statement:

    "We also want to send a clear message to the political “operatives” responsible for “outing” Mrs. Wilson. Such action was treacherous, if not treasonous. ... Such action has allowed the less attractive aspects of politics to supersede the Government's responsibility to protect the citizens of this nation and the individuals who serve in difficult, dangerous covert capacities. This has set a sickening precedent. The “senior Administration officials” who did this have warned all U.S. intelligence officers and the intelligence community that any one individual may be compromised if providing information or factual analysis the White House does not like."

    Bill O'Reilly on the Rove leak: "Obviously, if Karl Rove broke the law, or even violated the ethics of this very powerful position as deputy chief of staff to the president, he has to resign. Rove should also clear the air as soon as possible. He can say anything he wants while Fitzgerald's investigating."

    Waging Bull
    Will Karl Rove Be Caught With His Pants Down?

    Tuesday, July 12, 2005


    I was reading this military recruitment flyer from the United States Immigration office. In this flyer, the government announces that it has made changes to American immigration law, granting citizenship posthumously to immigrants who fight for the U.S. military and die in its wars. It further states that it will give "special consideration" to the immigrant veterans and their families for citizenship, once they have served this country in times of war.


    But is recruitment of non-Americans a good idea? What are they fighting for? I'm not a xenophobe or anything, but has anyone asked those Americans fighting in the military how they feel fighting next to non-Americans that might not even be able to speak English very well? Furthermore, what is the country saying to gay Americans? That they would rather have non-Americans fight for this country than someone who grew up here? Doesn't this immigrant recruitment tactic open the doors to non-citizens who might only appear to be on our side in the "war on terror," only to take all that they learn during their experience in the military and use it against us some years down the line?


    If a country offered me, "special consideration" for citizenship for fighting in their war, a war based on lies, I wouldn't sign up. I mean, the government cannot even GUARANTEE citizenship to these immigrants willing to put their lives on the line for a country they don't belong to.

    Is it really that bad in Mexico and other countries that you would risk exposure to depleted uranium, losing your limbs, suffering traumatic shock, birth defects to your children from exposure to depleted uranium, just to be given "special consideration" of becoming a full-fledged citizen by the US immigration office once you returned from war?

    Monday, July 11, 2005

    White House is Running Scared

    I'm feeling lazy today, so I'm just going to repost an interview between the media and Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

    Notice how when it's his guys that are in the hot seat, McClellan doesn't want to answer any questions.

    Press Batters McClellan on Rove/Plame Link

    By E&P Staff

    Published: July 11, 2005 3:30 PM ET
    NEW YORK At numerous press briefings last week, not a single reporter asked White House Press Secretary about emerging allegations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was a source, or the source, for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case. On Sunday, Newsweek revealed a Cooper e-mail from July 2003 that showed that Rove indeed had talked to him about Plame and her CIA employment, although he apparently did not mention that she worked under cover.

    This development apparently freed the journalists to hit McClellan hard at this afternoon's briefing. Here is a partial rush transcript.

    Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

    MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

    Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

    MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

    Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

    MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

    Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

    MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

    Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.
    You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

    MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

    Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

    MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

    QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

    Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

    MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

    We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

    And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

    I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

    Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

    MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

    Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

    MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

    Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

    MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

    Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

    MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

    Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

    MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

    Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

    MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

    Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

    MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

    Q: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

    MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)...

    Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

    MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

    Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

    MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

    Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

    MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

    E&P Staff (

    Sunday, July 10, 2005



    Whoa man, I cannot believe that I don't agree on something with the folks at the World Socialist Website. They are calling on the entire left wing to rise up and demand the release of Judith Miller by stating, "....the persecution of Miller is aimed at silencing any critical media coverage of the government—whether it relates to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the practice of torture, kidnapping and illegal detention, the massive expansion of domestic spying, or official cover-ups of corporate criminality."

    Surely they understand that it was Judith Miller's 'investigative reporting' that created Anthrax scares, WMD scares,ultimately convincing the average American out there that war in Iraq was a necessity... a kind of act of self-defense.

    Now we realize that we were betrayed.

    It appears that the WSWS has fallen into Karl Rove's and the right wing's trap. People need to realize that you cannot protect people whose sources are under criminal investigation. If a journalist reported that Osama Bin Laden's right hand man at Al-Qaeda telephoned her and told her where he was, do you think that it would be in the public's interest to protect the journalist and stand behind her if the court held her in contempt for not revealing her sources to the government?

    Whoever revealed Valerie Plame's name to the media is an enemy of democracy, and is a cog in the wheel of the right wing conspiracy that got us into this Iraq mess.


    Now what is up with those folks up there at the Cleveland Plain Dealer? A couple of days ago, they published an article about how they have these sources who have given them all kinds of information that would be of super great interest to the American people, however, they are not going to publish the story(ies) because the documents were "illegally leaked" and the newspaper doesn't want to go to jail or breach its confidentiality with the sources that provided them with the illegally leaked documents.

    I smell a rat. What perfrect timing for the Cleveland Plain Dealer to publish a story about how it has a story, but it refuses to tell us what it is. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is dong just what Karl Rove and the Right Wing conspirators want the media to do: punish the public for Judith Miller's jail sentence. Keep everyone quibbling over First Amendment issues, so that they won't focus on the real issue at hand: finding out who broke the law by revealing the name of a CIA agent specializing in national security and WMD investigations.

    Without really knowing much more than the fact that the Plain Dealer has some "illegally leaked" documents, I cannot opine as to what the legal ramifications would be if they published this story.

    If someone at the newspaper stole those documents then yes, they could be punished for publishing the story. But if someone gave them the documents, I don't see how they would be forced to reveal their source, unless the source the Plain Dealer is protecting stole the documents.

    Either way, to publish the story in the manner that the Plain Dealer published it, is to slap democracy in the face.

    I have not been a fan of the mainstream media for a very long time. Everyone knows that the mainstream media is owned by the major corporations that stand to profit from wars, exploitation of people, environmental destruction. The mainstream media does not often tell the truth. For the majority of the time, it lies to us...brainwashes us.

    The mainstream media gets us to believe what they want us to believe so that it is easier for them to bomb innocent people or destroy our air and water, and to not demand that Bush do a damned thing about global warming. Judith Miller is guilty of printing stories about terrorism and WMDs that just weren't true. I wouldn't defend McDonald's for destroying rain forests and I can't defend journalists that work for the corporate machine's agenda. I am shocked that the WSWS does.

    Saturday, July 09, 2005


    I can understand how journalists like to stick together.

    And although there is a strong argument that the jailing of Judy Miller might create a domino effect for jailing other journalists, I cannot stand by a person who will not reveal their sources on an issue that is the root of revenge against Valerie Plame by the right wing.

    I see Judy MIller as a sacrificial lamb. It's dirty politics by Rove and the Right Wing, but whenever has the right wing not played dirty politics?

    I will stand by journalists when they are on trial for revealing things that benefit the public, but just who is it that Judy Miller is protecting?

    Many Americans distrust the American media, because it has become more of a propaganda machine for the right, and Judy Miller's track record does indicate that she is an instrument of the right wing propaganda machine.

    This is a criminal investigation. The buzz is that Karl Rove might be one of those sources that the journalists are protecting.
    America's laws, especially the Constitution, should be utilized for the public's benefit. Don't you think that revealing these sources proves a greater public benefit than protecting them?

    The right wing exacted revenge on Wilson and Plame, when Wilson revealed Bush's lies about uranium in Africa. This issue is at the heart of the betrayal of America's trust and the people of Iraq.

    Someone needs to be punished for these lies, and the best way to do that is to punish the Bush officials that revealed Plame's name to the media.
    The First Amendment doesn't absolutely protect the press under all circumstances. In fact, if George Bush was subpoenaed by the grand jury regarding any information he might have about the Plame leak, he would have to answer. Why should a journalist be held to a greater privilege than the President?

    This whole Judy Miller debacle is a right wing diversion tactic, to get everyone in the media paranoid, and to get all the left wing Americans to cry foul about First Amendment violations. We need to call them on their bluff and demand that Judy Miller answer the grand jury.

    Everyone knows that Karl Rove is a very smart man, and he's so smart, that he has everyone crying foul right where he wants them.

    Friday, July 08, 2005


    Journalist Judith Miller broke the law when she refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena to reveal her confidential sources regarding exposing Valerie Plame's name to the public. Valerie Plame lost her job after senior White House officials revealed to right wing journalist, Robert Novak, that she was a CIA official whose husband went to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein requested uranium for nuclear weapons manufacturing. Robert Novak, Republican insider reporter, claims that it was no secret that Valerie Plame was a CIA official. But does that mean that Robert Novak and the other White House officials, one of them allegedly Karl Rove, can disclose this information to the public?

    Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, was instrumental in revealing the "Yellowcake Forgery" which was the basis for George Bush’s argument for war in Iraq.

    George Bush was able to convince many Americans that war in Iraq was a must, when he announced in his January 2003 State of the Union Address “that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa....for nuclear weapons production.” This lie was a blatant betrayal to the Iraqi and the American people.

    With this statement, many Americans decided that Saddam Hussein must be defeated and a war in Iraq would be necessary to achieve this end.

    Then Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson, exposed George Bush’s lies about the forged documents from Niger regarding the uranium that Saddam Hussein never sought. At this point it was too late. Bush was given his green light to go to war, and there was no stopping him. But still, questions kept popping up in America and more and more people began wondering why in the hell we were in Iraq. No WMDs were found, and Bush had no answers.

    Of course the right wing could not sit back and let this exposure of their lies happen without some sort of revenge. So the right wing conspirators revealed Valerie Plame’s name to the media.

    Whoever revealed Valerie Plame's name must answer to the American people and to the world. I'm not saying that we shouldn't protect our press, but we should protect those sources that are in the higher echelons of intelligence like Deep Throat and Valerie Plame, too. And we have federal laws that require protecting their anonymity.

    Whoever revealed Valerie Plame's name is in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a felony, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. The act applies itself to a person who, as a result of having "authorized access to classified information," learns the "identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." The statute also applies to persons who expose the identities of such agents "in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States." source

    What is deeply disconcerting is the fact that the journalist who is ultimately responsible for leaking Valerie Plame's name to the public, Robert Novak, is facing no heat whatsoever from this Justice Department Investigation. Robert Novak is a Republican insider. In fact, his son was the marketing director for "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

    Judith Miller does appear to be Novak's scapegoat, however,
    Judith Miller is not cooperating, but not for our benefit or for any viable purpose that deserves protection under the U.S. Constitution. Some argue that Judith Miller does not actually know who revealed Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak, but she should still reveal her own sources of investigation when subpoenaed by the government for a criminal investigation. If she knows the name of the person who revealed Valerie Plame's name and the grand jury subpoenas her to reveal that name, she must reveal it.

    This is not a free press, 1st Amendment issue. This is an issue of betraying the American people and invading a country based on a lie, and these right-wing journalists, along with the person that revealed Valerie Plame's name, are criminals for not cooperating with the investigation.

    Some speculate that Karl Rove is the mastermind behind revealing Valerie Plame's name, which cost Plame her job. My only hope is that if we do find out Karl Rove was the source that Judith Miller so “gallantly” protects, that justice be served against him for covering up lies that formed the basis of Bush's war crimes.

    Thursday, July 07, 2005


    Ha ha ha!!
    Now we can ignore global warming, AIDS in Africa, Global Poverty.

    yippeee!! Terrorism abounds from one end of the planet to the other. yipppee!!

    See folks? I told you Iraq was behind 9-11.

    No! Bin Laden's televised appearance all across America just before the November 2004 elections was just a coincidence!! I promise I didn't pay him to do that.

    Oh, no! It's no coincidence that the Egyptian diplomat held hostage by insurgents in Iraq died on the same day as the London attacks!!

    I told you that I don't lie!! I never lie!! I"m George Bin Laden! Ask my friend Tony Bliar! He will vouch for me!

    Yahoo!! Now my approval rating will rise from its all-time low!!
    Now people will again support my war in Iraq!!!

    It's a great day for celebration of terror and fear in the hearts of freedom loving people. Ooops, I guess I'm so filled with glee that I have pissed myself!!

    Well, gotta go!! Me and cousin Osama are going to run off to the Saudi bank together, I owe him some serious cheese from those bets we made last week. have I said too much?

    heee heee hee heee.

    Whoaa. Looks like Bush hijacked my Blog just like he hijacked my country. Anyway, here is an observation of the London bombings by my husband, a Brit.

    Escapism and Goat Books

    Another terrorist attack. This time in London. Al Qaeda has taken the blame. But I thought we were winning a war against terrorism in Iraq?

    Wasn't it Saddam Hussein that was behind 9-11? That's what Bush said. Oh yea. When Bush tells you something with that look of conviction in his eyes, he's telling you the truth. Right... we're caught in another Liar Paradox.

    No seriously, I bet that George will tell us that Iran is behind the attacks this time. That it's that new guy they elected that did it. Right, one week after Iranian elections they were able to attack London.

    I just wonder what Bush will say about this? How will he SPIN this one. What web of a liar paradox will he trap the people into this time? I saw him on the news this morning, standing behind Tony Blair, and I could see what he was thinking.........."goshdarnit. Where is my Goat book? It always helps me so, to get through these terrorist attacks...if only I had my Goat book."

    Whenever there's a terrorist attack and Al Qaeda is behind it, I recall what I read in the news right after 9-11 regarding Bin Laden. The one piece of news that has stuck with me for all this time since 9-11 was:

    "Two weeks before 9-11 Vladimir Putin informed the United States that he knew Osama Bin Laden's exact location." GEORGE BUSH DID NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH. ZIP. I guess he was busy reading his little Goat Book.


    Many people feel that the Muslims should apologize for the acts of terrorists. How many of these people who are Christians apologize for the acts of Eric Rudolph? How many have even condemned Eric Rudolph for his terrorist attacks on Atlanta during the Olympics, on nightclubs and abortion clinics?


    I love how certain Saudi Arabians try to shift the blame from extreme Muslim terrorists to environmental activists. Here is a quote from the president and CEO of Saudi Public Relations Company (SPRC), Khaled al-Maeena.

    "Whoever did it, whether al Qaeda or the animal liberation front, they are animals," said Khaled al-Maeena, editor of Saudi Arabia's English-language Arab News daily." Reuters Story

    It's statements like this that enforce my reasons for buying gas from Citgo, a Venezuelan-owned company. F*** Saudi Arabia.