Comments (95)

Punchy wrote on May 4, 2007 1:08 PM:

Wait a sec here. Lemmie see if I have this straight:

Wax subpeonas Rice. She's so off-the-res that she thinks she can ignore it; in effect, it's not a "valid" subpeona.

Then they turn right around and claim this Rice subpeona is the grounds by which they will not allow anyone else to speak with them? Huh? On what legal tenet are they balancing on to claim that a (announced-to-be-ignored) subpoena for Person A automatically prevents Person B from talking?

Summary: A subpoena for Rice to testify necessarily disallows all others from testifying, and, oh yeah, by the way, Rice aint testifying either? My head hurts.

me wrote on May 4, 2007 1:11 PM:

That sounds about right Punchy. And now I too need aspirin...

Security Code: Rice, as in Condi has it for brains.

CC wrote on May 4, 2007 1:12 PM:

"And Waxman has politely asked Secretary Rice to impede the committee's investigation of her."

That's the text for the link here from TPM. I'm fairly sure that's not how you wanted it to read.

ExBrit wrote on May 4, 2007 1:13 PM:

That's right. You've got it. In Bushworld congressional oversight, subpoenas, etc., have no authority. There is no authority higher than the commander guy, see.

parrot wrote on May 4, 2007 1:14 PM:

I need an impeachment.

Michael wrote on May 4, 2007 1:16 PM:

I am really confused. The following is posted on the TPM homepage.

"And Waxman has politely asked Secretary Rice to impede the committee's investigation of her."

The above means that Waxman asked Rice to hinder the congressional commitee's investigation?

That would be significant news, Waxman asking Rice to continue the stomewalling from the State Dept.

Please clarify.

jonno wrote on May 4, 2007 1:17 PM:

I'm allergic to aspirin...

These guys have had thin rational for quite a while. Can they string it out another year and a half? another month and a half? Time will tell.

modmom wrote on May 4, 2007 1:20 PM:

Can you say... obstruction of justice?

chartreuse dog wrote on May 4, 2007 1:21 PM:

Don't you think it's a typo? Maybe with the word "not" left out?

Kathleen wrote on May 4, 2007 1:24 PM:

Waxman should be telling Rice to "step forward". Rice continues to give our constitution and Waxman the finger. Put her in an orange suit!

Or with the rest of the Bush administration piled high butt assed naked in Baghdad. These folks are psychopaths gone wild!

Kenji wrote on May 4, 2007 1:25 PM:

Rove only has Plan As. Plan B never consists of more than stonewalling. Good thing the adults are in charge!

Glenn wrote on May 4, 2007 1:26 PM:

Look, Rice might have a claim of exec privilege with respect to her role as NSA, although I think she's got to make the case better than anything I've heard so far. But a State Dep't analyst? Not a chance. Unless all executive department deliberations are now privileged -- unitary executive, and all that, y'know. (I'm sure we'll see that trotted out before long.)

Sec Code: snake, as in she sure is.

goldberry wrote on May 4, 2007 1:31 PM:

He has such a way with words. He is certainly more diplomatic than Rice is.
Apparently, the Iranian foreign minister refused to attend a concert where she was in attendance because a female violinist was dressed inappropriately, to which Rice replied:
"You can ask him why he didn't make an effort," Rice told reporters Friday. "I'm not given to chasing anyone."
Madeline Albright she's not.
Funny how she seems to be taking a lot more trips out of the country just as Henry Waxman would like to become better acquainted....

paul wrote on May 4, 2007 1:31 PM:

I think what we're coming up against is the Goodling Doctrine: "We Don't Have to Testify Because You're a Bunch of Meanies."

PrahaPartizan wrote on May 4, 2007 1:36 PM:

Glenn, Rice might be able to claim executive privilege for the stuff she said as NSA, but she also testified about this stuff during her confirmation hearing before the Senate. It goes without saying that she lied during those confirmation hearings and that Waxman has every right to explore further. Impeachment starts in the House after all and Ms. Rice has given every reason to impeach - impertinence, incontinence and incompetence. I prefer my impeachment on the rocks, with a twist.

dominiccjr wrote on May 4, 2007 1:37 PM:

"...Rice, as in Condi has it for brains."

Nope, I will not be so charitable towards her to attribute her willful, Constitution-ignoring malfeasance as stupidity. In this mess of willfully evil traitors I believe only GWB himself is both stupid and a willful traitor.

osage wrote on May 4, 2007 1:39 PM:

With a Democratic controlled White House and Congress in 2009, where is Condeleezza Rice and all the other Bush administration crooks going to hide? Don't they realize it's just a matter of time before they will be forced to pay the piper. Their future jobs better be high paying ones to cover their lawyers fees. Many Republicans are going to jail.

darling blather wrote on May 4, 2007 1:47 PM:

I can only imagine (for now) what kind of revenge plots these neoCON pigs will be scheming up while pacing their 10x10 cells. For those of us who want our country back, these recent days have been pretty excruciating to watch as the deniers, transparent liars and propagandists (check out Krauthammers' latest p.o.s. in todays' WaPo) fight and spit and lie through their teeth, clinging to their political lives and the remaining shreds of their professional integrity while skating thru the few remaining days of their lives out here in the free world. At least it appears there's progress being made! Orange jumpers and manacles for ALL THESE PIGS!

bobh wrote on May 4, 2007 1:50 PM:

Perhaps they think they ahve gamed the system enough to gain the presidency again in 2008. Shudder at the thought.

I'm positive they NEVER planned for this position (as in bent over a rail) and NEVER dreamed they'd loes both houses in 2006.

B W wrote on May 4, 2007 1:53 PM:

On the subject of the niger forgeries. Tonight on PBS:

Bill Moyer's Journal "Forged Intelligence Documents"
Airdate: Friday, May 4, 2007 at 9:00 p.m. EDT on PBS.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050307U.shtml
(Check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/moyers.)

"Italy's foremost investigative reporter, Carlo Bonini, takes viewers on the trail of forged intelligence documents that the Bush administration used to help make a case for war."

This ought to be really good.

Hank Essay wrote on May 4, 2007 1:53 PM:

Oversight is a bitch, ain't it, Condi?

-

Toxophilite wrote on May 4, 2007 1:53 PM:

When Rice finally makes her appearance before the committee, they need to change the time-keeping rules to suit her style: stop the clock when she starts talking and start it again when she actually starts responding to the question or at least something in the general ballpark. She is better than anyone else at running out the clock without having said a single responsive word. She appears to able to keep it up for hours on end. You have to admit, this is a gift for someone in her position.

Heh! wrote on May 4, 2007 2:09 PM:

on last Sunday's Face the Nation, Rice was asked about that subpoena and she said she answered Waxman through countless letters, in essense saying she has nothing to say to him, huh?

Code: stall, stall, stall, as in this our secretive government not yours.

leftbehind wrote on May 4, 2007 2:13 PM:

Nothing here that a grand jury couldn't fix. If she doesn't want to cooperate with the US Constitution, make a case for obstruction of justice and go from there. She and others have become criminals in their job performances. Take the gloves off and throw the book at them.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 2:13 PM:

Just for spite, Can we impeach every cabinet member, Bush & Cheney (did I miss anyone), and kick them out, even if it happens on the last day of their administration on January 19, 2009 (if they don't try and pull a fast one).

If Bush is impeached, does he lose the pension and post-presidential padding for life? That guy getting a pension for life is the real kick in the groin for the american tax payer.

neo1 wrote on May 4, 2007 2:34 PM:

Here's hoping the only 'pension' he gets will be at the state pen.

Security code 'door' as in slam it shut and throw away the key

RW wrote on May 4, 2007 2:41 PM:

Not going to fly, they attempted a stall or block but the block was ill conceived. This Niger forgery is coming out and they will do all they can to derail it but I suspect that the more they delay it the closer it gets to 2008. With that what happens if or when McGovern is right and the forgery comes to the executive offices?

Beyond preposterous...or plausibly denied

Mark F. wrote on May 4, 2007 2:48 PM:

Unitary Executive theory stipulates (and I quote):

"The President is King God. The Boss. The Big Cheese. No one has a right to question Him, His employees, or anyone He is associated with unless He says it's OK. Which He won't. So f*ck off."

That's directly from the official White House Unitary Executive's Handbook, by the way.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 4, 2007 2:48 PM:

I am still a fan of defunding the White House/ Administration expect for the two Constitutional mandated jobs . . . This would show who is in this for the love of the Bush . . . And who is in it for the money.

When Condi has to sale a cpoyple of $800 shoes to eat . . . Prehaps she will change her tune.

kmsor wrote on May 4, 2007 2:50 PM:

Just more evidence of the degree to which they are flouting our Constitution in a concerted effort to cement their control of our government and Republican hegemony.

Sharon A wrote on May 4, 2007 2:51 PM:

May the flames ignited by these global Bush arsonists be quenched by our beautiful Constitutionally-established processes.

You know what we're seeing here? We're seeing a civil war within our government. It's a tidy process where at the end of the day, nobody dies.

Well, unless, of course, you exclude Iraq troop casualties -- hostages of Bush's political wars.

michael wrote on May 4, 2007 2:57 PM:

With a Democratic controlled White House and Congress in 2009, where is Condeleezza Rice and all the other Bush administration crooks going to hide? Don't they realize it's just a matter of time before they will be forced to pay the piper. Their future jobs better be high paying ones to cover their lawyers fees. Many Republicans are going to jail.

Unless we get another "terrorist event" and with the "patriot act" and the weakning of posse comatatus whats to stop them declaring martial law and stopping the elections ?????? I really hope these dolts wont go that far but sometimes I get worried

P J Evans wrote on May 4, 2007 3:24 PM:

Some one needs to tell her, straight out, that 'answering questions' from a Congressional committee doesn't mean the kind of snowjob answer she gave in college, and that a subpoena isn't something that a snowjob answer will get her past. If she can't answer legitimate oversight questions truthfully and completely, she needs to find another job.
Maybe Payless Shoes will hire her.

bjobotts wrote on May 4, 2007 3:25 PM:

One thing for sure, she's getting her instructions from the WH. There's really no other reason why she and hers at the SD would make such efforts to be uncooperative with Waxman other than they haven't come up with a "good enough" story or lie to protect Bush/Cheney. They think they are above the law. If you asked Rice who she worked for she would say the president, not the people. If you asked her who she swore loyalty to she'd say the president, not the constitution. Her reputation is a joke. She can no longer represent America just America's president. Imagine how the rest of the world thinks about her refusal to answer a subpoena and worse, she doesn't care, and she's in charge of our diplomacy. How ineffective and harmful she has become and she really doesn't care. Incompetence reigns.

Marc wrote on May 4, 2007 3:25 PM:

Ah...so all Clinton needed to do was ignore Ken Starr and the court order to testify. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Republicans are being intellectually consistent here. Maybe Monica should have just claimed executive privilege.

Austin Cooper wrote on May 4, 2007 3:35 PM:

Rice? Feh. Arrogant, skanky, "Let's Go Shopping!", intellectual ho, with no redeeming value. Piano virtuoso? Uh-huh; they say Reinhard Heydrich played the violin so well it could make one cry, too.

Put her in the dock at the Hague, right next to Rummy, The Dick, Perle, Feith, Wolfie, and "lil' Boots".

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 3:49 PM:

[quoted]With a Democratic controlled White House and Congress in 2009, where is Condeleezza Rice and all the other Bush administration crooks going to hide?
[/quoted]

The Chaco. Paraguay.

oldtree wrote on May 4, 2007 4:06 PM:

is there anyone remaining out there that believes our government is not an organized crime racket?
isn't it great how they got rid of all the competent republican lackey's that they appointed, replaced them with incompetent lackey's that don't bother with the law at all.

so, they fix it so they charge someone and then drop the charges. treasonous and other high crimes, no problem if you know who to talk to.

and don't feel too bad for the US Attorneys that were fired. The weasels didn't bother to speak up about their precious administration until someone said something about them. this is the sign of a real dirtbag folks, why would we revere them in such a way? If I am wrong and there is ANY evidence where these clowns blew the whistle early on, I will be happy to apologize. But otherwise, they are THE PROBLEM that has caused numerous investigations to be sidelined or eliminated for members of congress, the pentagon, military, defense, EXU, DOJ, the list is endless and it is a complete circle of corruption.

let us not place scum on too high a pedestal here. step back and realize how bad it is not revealing that someone came to you to pressure you about a pending federal investigation or indictment. these toadies expect political instruction on how you do their job and permitted the WH to use political influence over them during their entire tenure. weasels at least provide for their family and the good for their group as a whole. USA's apparently only care about what is theirs and how they are going to keep it.

we thank you so much for finally saying no after 4 years. you should all be disbarred and imprisoned for abandoning the public trust.

phil james wrote on May 4, 2007 4:36 PM:

What I want to know is who is going to enforce the subpoena and how are they going to do it? Condi has done Gonzo one better by simply refusing to honor the subpoena. That's probably a good thing for us because she would have done nothing anyway but blow the same brand of smoke that the AG did. And it brings the issue of enforcement more to the fore. i.e. how is Waxman going to force Condi to show up?

Uncle Don wrote on May 4, 2007 4:40 PM:

U. S. Constitution: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or PROFIT under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to
Law."

Uncle Don wrote on May 4, 2007 4:43 PM:

Phil James: The House Judiciary Committee can vote to hold Secretary Rice in contempt for failing to respond to its subpeona. The full House must ratify that vote and the matter then is placed with the U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who would seek an indictment before a federal grand jury. Trial in federal court would then ensue.

phil james wrote on May 4, 2007 4:55 PM:

Uncle Don: Would the USADC be compelled to seek an indictment or would he or she have discretion?

Sparkle Plenty wrote on May 4, 2007 5:19 PM:

It would be a matter of great concern - as well as an obvious conflict of interest - if vou had directed your staff to impede a congressional investigation into matter that may implicate your conduct as National Security Advisor.

Isn't this Waxman politely telling Rice that blocking Dodge from meeting committee staffers is obstruction of justice? Sounds to me like he's saying he's willing to pretend she didn't authorize this if she wants to review her situation and back off.

I sure hope that's what he's saying.
.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 4, 2007 5:20 PM:

It will take years to find out what this administration has be, is and will be up to.

As a nation of laws it is up to Rep. Waxman to restore the honor and reputation of this once revered, not feared United States of America.

code design, as in the constitution was designed to prevent the abuse of power by the president.

Sully18 wrote on May 4, 2007 6:55 PM:

I used to be a process server in the mid-70s.It was the best job I ever had.It was alot of fun giving subpoenas to the bad guys,as well as the good guys.
Back then,when either the good guys or the bad guys didn`t show up for court,we`d go get them.That was the most fun I`ve ever had,but I was nuts then.
I`d love to be a process server in D.C.,right now.I guess I`m still nuts,but I still think that if you`re served,and you don`t show,... BUSTED till it`s time to testify.

perfidius wrote on May 4, 2007 6:59 PM:

she could have a case if they are secretly married.

randiego wrote on May 4, 2007 7:44 PM:

Security code "Book", as in "Book 'em, Danno!"

Youffraita wrote on May 4, 2007 9:04 PM:

Don't any of these criminals know that obstruction of justice and lying to Congress are FEDERAL crimes? It's not like a misdemeanor for "accidentally" making a left turn from the right-turn lane. (snark)

melior wrote on May 4, 2007 9:48 PM:

There must be some mistake. These reports of Condi being rude to delegates and obstructing justice simply can't be true... Why, I just read a very serious piece in Newsweek reporting how charming Condi's "inner nature" really is!

Secretary of State Rice’s Middle Eastern charm offensive might seem at odds with previous Bush administration policy. But it reflects her inner nature.

Whistler wrote on May 4, 2007 10:37 PM:

Just hire the Los Angeles Police Department to go and serve the appropriate paperwork on all of those concerned. They're not afraid to get rough and tough, and demonstrate their dominance. And their public image could use the rehabilitation.

Can't wait to see the Real Life version of:

http://backbonecampaign.org/chaingang.cfm

Ryan wrote on May 4, 2007 10:46 PM:

Here's where Rice comes from: before Bush ever thought of running for pres. he was invited out to San. Fran. to talk with George Schultz (ex-secreatary of state, now at Bechtel-which has made real good money off of the Iraq war-along with Cheney's Haliburton Co.). In the same "meeting" was Condisleazy Rice . After they talked for a couple hours, Schultz said that if Bush wanted to run for pres., they could get him elected (i.e., the backing, press, etc.). That's when Bush decided to run. Turns out that Schultz's father worked with Bush's grandfather at the American International Corp. (at 120 or 150 Broadway -forget which-in N.Y.C.). This was a Rothschild/Rockefeller front company -that basically set up communism (the phony "us-against-them" concept/ money-making ploy that went from 1917 to the '90's) in Russia (read the book "Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution" by Anthony Sutton-who used to belong to the Hoover Institute at Stanford-where Rice & Schultz went to school). Sutton later wrote a book (among others) on the Skull & Bones Society of Yale-a society that originated in Franfurt-home of the Rothschilds ("by coincidence"-not!). So, when we see the following three "powers behind the throne" in the Bush admin. pushing for war with Iraq we know "where" it's coming from-the three being: Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith (they all studied under a jewish philosophy prof. named Leo Strauss too-or Prof. Richard Pipes, who got Feith his first govt. job). All three are jewish ("by coincidence")-the first two have direct former links to Israel (a country which was set up by Lord Victor Rothschild) as in, for example, links to JINSA, an Israeli policy/ think tank. Also, Strauss & Pipes are jewish-"by coincidence". George Tenant said he was shocked when just one day after 911 (as in Sept. 12), Perle said to him-"this means we must invade Iraq". Tenant thought to himself "what the heck is (this jerk) talking about!?" Tenant said this in the CBS 60 Minutes interview. The lead 911 hijacker (that Atta guy) is the first & last terrorist you'll ever see coming out of Germany-as in Hamburg. It might as well have been Frankfurt (but "that's just a coincidence"-not!). And so the world soap opera/con continues. Vietnam was based on lies that "they" knew were lies (Gulf of Tonkin incident)-but first they had to get rid of JFK-who was getting the heck out of Vietnam in '64-which he told at least three people, including his close aide & advisor Dave Powers. Iraq is based on a con/lie called 911 (how else could you ever get the U.S. in a totally bogus war without a "Pearl Harbor/Remember the Alamo/ Remember the Maine" type of big. pre-planned con of an event!?). Perle, Wolfowitz (now head of the World Bank-and guess who runs that! Vietnam era weasel/sec. of defense under JFK, McNamara, went on to head the world bank too-what a coincidence !) and Feith should tell their "handlers" that if they want to start a "war du jour -as- usual- of -the -decade" they should use the Israeli army as cannon fodder-or, if not large enough, try the Chinese army or some other complete suckers. We in the U.S. are just tools of "the international bankers" led by the Rothschilds (and what's/who's behind all of them, which hasn't been uncovered yet) -period. Anyone who doesn't believe it has got a lot of serious reading to do. What's stopping you? at least Google makes it easier now, you've got no excuse-or just get the book "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" by David Icke. But of course, as ever (so the controlled media tells us) "it's all just a conspiracy theory" -always, every time-"facts" (conveniently "for someone") don't exist anymore when it comes to "all of this".

The Oracle wrote on May 4, 2007 11:29 PM:

If Simon Dodge testifies, then Condi Rice's goose is cooked.

Dodge sounds like he was in a position to intimately know how the pre-Iraqi War intelligence was cooked, and how the Bush administration cooked it.

Which means that Rice, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Feith, Cambone, and all the rogues in the Bush administration's gallery of rogues definitely don't want him to be asked any questions, especially if he plans on answering them truthfully or doesn't plan on falling back on a bunch of "I don't know" or "I don't recall" like Gonzales did.

If Dodge does plan on speaking the truth to power and honoring his oath to our Constitution, though, I just hope police protection has been provided for him 24/7 up until the time of his testimony...and afterward.

One just doesn't know how far the Bush administration is willing to go to keep the truth from getting out.

D-of-G wrote on May 5, 2007 12:05 AM:

As an African-American, who grew up in the 'Bombingham', Al. area in the fifties and sixties, as Rice did, it's so unfortunate that she would cast her talents to such a profane crowd. Any other person, growing up in 'Jim Crow's world and not blinded by ambition, would have left with Colin Powell. But with all of her intelligence and education, 'home girl' didn't realize that 'gold is not always where you find it'!

al wrote on May 5, 2007 2:11 AM:

Don et al;
Two things:
First the process has to be right and a court proof process carefully constructed by the finest legal experts.

Two it has to be an educational experience for the offending players so they understand why the behavior is unacceptable. These are mismotivated humans that need to be an example to all those that are willing to take the risks again. The American people also have to understand they too cannot tolerate unconstitutional behavior by elected or appointed officials.

The parameters of freedom are incorporated in the promise that "All men are created equal" T.J. indicates the intention of the founding fahers in the Declaration of Indepence followed by our U.S.Constitution which was preceeded by a bloody and painful 792 years stuggle starting with the Magna Carta and The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine a British immigrant. Which inflamed the American Revolution. And led to The Bill of Rights and our Constitutional law.

To occupy Iraq on the pretext that a democracy would be established is an absolute insult to the honor of the American people and their veterans. The war was another oil war. A direct plan to destabilize the region into the confusion that scholars likw Proffesor Bernard Lewis has proposed for decades.

That a group of anarchist could blatantly disregard this long list of brave people's sacrifices and efforts, all those heroic people who died fighting for freedoms is beyond wicked, evil and unkind. tTo stand down as this goes on is in itself a crime against civilization.
We would have been better served by our government to feed the starving, heal the sick and care for the planet and rebuild our country.

Mr. Bush, your administration and supporters there is a question you all must answer. How could you participate or stand while this ignomy was occurring? Tell the World, the American people and our fellow nations of the world that answer. That question should be put to you by a judge before sentencing.

Flecther wrote on May 5, 2007 2:35 AM:

Regarding "The Oracles" post on "gallery of rogues", consider this From "wikipedia": Cheney was on the board of advisors of JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) which wikipedia says is " a think tank focusing on issues of U.S. national security" WHAT!? It also says: "JINSA is closely associated with the neo-con movement and the U.S. military- industrial complex" The LAST thing Eisenhower said before leaving office was: "beware of the military-industrial complex". Curious, no? In addition to Wolfowitz & Perle, U.N. ambassador John Bolton was in JINSA .Cheny, and others, also formed these "think tanks" (otherwise known as rats nests): the Project for the New Century and The American Enterprise Institute (check them out on wikipedia). Members of the former included: Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz -and a major advocate was Abram Shulsy, an assoc. of all of them (check him out on wikipedia). Wikipedia says that the Project for the New Century was "a major advocate of the 2003 Iraq invasion". Also of note, Cheney & Rumsfled got George Bush senior appointed as head of the CIA around 1976-the very time that the whitewash called The Church Committee was going on-that way it was assured that no "damaging" info. leaked from the CIA that the Church Committee might "find uesful". Check Church Committee out on wikipedia. Does anyone ever wonder why Cheney & Rumsfeld, who date from the NIXON & FORD admins.,would ever be in our govt,-at the top of a new admin. after ALL these years!?-Well, wonder no more: one person may change, as in the president, but the so-called "shadow govt." goes on-and on. This is not a free country, it is a controlled country-from within and from abroad.

Flectcher wrote on May 5, 2007 3:14 AM:

Rumsfeld in wikipedia- "On Jan. 29, 1998" Rumsfeld signed a "Project for the New Century" letter to Bill Clinton urging regime change in Iraq. So "the plan" has been in effect for a long time, awaitng for an "event" (as in 911) to make it possible.A leading Ex-CIA official on Iraq (interviewed on CBS" 60 Minutes") said that they concluded that there was a better than 50% chance that Saddam could be removed by internal dissidents. This route, however, would lead to absolutely no war profiteering potential-billions & nearing a trillion dollars "so far"-so "that" would never do, "of course". Regarding Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex", the company Kellogg Brown & Root ( a former subsidiary of Haliburton, where Cheney was CEO for years) has won major contracts in Iraq, along with Haliburton & Bechtel. Kellogg Brown & Root is a major "war profiteering company" dating back to WWII (see wikipedia). FDR had to step in (strange, no!?) to prevent the IRS from busting them & Lyndon Johnson for income tax fraud (the govt. ended up settling for "pennies on the dollar"). Speaking of Johnson, Kellogg Brown & Root (then known as Brown & Root) were, by far (very far!) the main backers of Johnson's career from day one.It's "very interesting" that the Vietnam war started, in actuality , under Johnson-with the 1964 "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution by congress-which was suckered into believing N. Viet. PT boats had attacked American ships in the gulf-it NEVER happened (so it came out later)- exact same deal as Iraq-a war started with deliberate lies. Turns out (says wikipedia) that Brown & Root led a consortium that received 85% of the funding for projects in Vietnam-they made more money off of the war than any other U.S. contractor. And on it goes...

PJWhite wrote on May 5, 2007 4:04 AM:

If these bozos are going to be prosecuted after the election, someone had better confiscate all their passports on Jan 9, 2009, or they will all make a beeline for Dubai, where they can enjoy their ill-gotten profits.

SC: profit (see above)

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 7:30 AM:

Let's hope history repeats itself closely. If it does, then we're right at the point where things become very serious, indeed. (Three days before the prosecutors who were fired testified before the Senate - Mar 3rd and 6th), Gonzales claimed he was too busy to deal with congress' oversight:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002669.php

He's been too busy for anything but that, since.

Satchmo wrote on May 5, 2007 7:49 AM:

What if the Democrats blow it again in 2008 and the Republicans retake Congress and hold the Presidency?

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 8:06 AM:

Satchmo said:

"What if the Democrats blow it again in 2008 and the Republicans retake Congress and hold the Presidency?"

We give D.C. back to the Native Americans; and large parts of Texas to the Mexicans. And stick our fingers in our ears, and not listen to them.

JM wrote on May 5, 2007 10:19 AM:

Bush is down to a small cadre of "stonewalls" like Condi, Karl, and Abu. Throw Laura and the dogs in there as well. They'll bunker with him through 2008.

El Borba wrote on May 5, 2007 11:50 AM:

This is really starting to get good.
Who'd of thunk that Condi might be the first target for impeachment?
But you must go where the clear and indisputable evidence takes you!
This sort of explains why Condi had to be the replacement for Powell at State.
Ya gotta love Waxman!
My favorite part is how he got all of the punches in, even though there were some obvious things that he would have loved to say, but couldn't.
He's definitely on his game (and must have been itching more than anyone in the House for the election results last November)!
For example, he couldn't mention that she claimed in interviews that she won't comply with the subpoena for these materials that the comittee issued last week, because she has not sent the committee a letter to that effect.
She's only attempting to try her case in the press, or, more accurately, using the state propaganda apparatus for her own means.
That makes the line "This official claimed that allowing Mr. Dodge to speak with Committee staff would be 'inappropriate' because the Committee voted to issue a subpoena to compel your attendance at a hearing..." from the letter even funnier!
And that is why he had to resort to the wording of the "I assume that your legislative staff was acting without your authorization..." paragraph, which I believe is even more damaging to Condi (and accelerates any possible impeachment procedings against her).
Can anyone really wonder why the past three congresses did nothing in the way of oversight?

Rich Miles wrote on May 5, 2007 12:44 PM:

Wow! A feisty bunch in here the last couple days!

Coupla quick thoughts, one of them arguably off-topic:

1) I really like Richard Adlof's suggestion, yesterday at 2:49p, that we defund the White House. I mean, it's always been known to be the part of government where the taxpayer gets the least return on his money. So - shut the damn thing down and fire the employees! They're mostly non-union political appointees anyway.

Garry Trudeau actually did a Doonesbury strip on this very topic, many years ago, perhaps during the Ford admin. They furloughed the president, to which he replied, "Oh. I didn't know you guys could do that..."

2) Has anyone noticed an essential tautology in the various explanations of the USA firings: that the president can fire them at will, BUT that the people who actually made the decisions to fire them AND did the firings were, according to everyone who has said anything about it, NOT THE PRESIDENT?

Meaning, of course, that either Bush is lying his butt off about having nothing to do with it, OR someone in DOJ has arrogated to him/herself the powers of the presidency, without the president's knowledge. Which would sort of suggest to me that maybe some little law or other was broken, dontcha think?

I've put this idea out on several sites, and no one has bitten to explain how I'm seeing it wrong, nor has anyone agreed with me. Am I missing something, or have the WH and the DOJ set up a series of excuses that not only seem to be lies, but simply cannot, in any real sense, both be true?

Security code memory, as in "the administration pretends to have none, and they think we don't either."

El Borba wrote on May 5, 2007 1:01 PM:

Rich Miles:

Just so you know someone is reading and agrees, I have come to the same conclusion about the dissonance between the claims (that USAs serve at the pleasure of the President who can fire them at any time, and that Bush was not involved in the firings). And I am surprised that you haven’t found agreement or even discussion of this issue in the blogosphere.

But as for MSM, I will resort to my broken-record observation. The MSM no longer has anything to do with curiosity or investigative reporting, due either to conservative bias/ownership or to its successful and complete transformation or absorption into or the state propaganda apparatus.

Code: “roll” as in “let’s”

Jesse Fairow wrote on May 5, 2007 1:07 PM:

Come on people. Read Waxsman's letter to Rice again. He used the proper grammer. He discourages Rice from keeping her minions from talking to his commitee

Pissed Off American wrote on May 5, 2007 1:54 PM:

I see some optimism here that history would seem to disqualify. On almost a monthly basis we see events that are heralded as the beginning of the end for this Administration. Yet, somehow, these events, and their implications, dissappear like fog in the wind. Have already forgotten the Downing Street Memo? The Armstrong revelations? Gannon doing sleepovers in the West Wing?

Don't forget, if it gets too hot for this Administration, they always have the option of cashing in on another "trifecta".

It ain't over 'till its over.

Dana Scott wrote on May 5, 2007 1:57 PM:

I am hoping that some kind (and rich!) soul will donate a big, black marble wall to the soon-to-be-built Bush Library with all the names of the brave men and women in the "Coalition Forces" who died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It should also contain names of other workers, UN and humanitarian staff, news reporters and staff, and, yes, Blackwater "security" forces who were killed as well.

Additionally a large statue should show in some kind of symbolic manner the relative sizes of the number of "our" people killed to the number of those civilians of the two countries who died as a result of our fighting. The costs of the two wars should also be represented, perhaps in comparison to the national budgets for health care and education.

Maybe the head of one of the oil companies can be tapped for this patriotic donation.

"Long live democracy!"

Ian Calabrese wrote on May 5, 2007 2:15 PM:

"Look at the monkey"

proudlefty wrote on May 5, 2007 2:22 PM:

Both Waxman and Leahy are diligently plodding along, slowly, methodically, because they are laying the groudwork for criminal prosecutions in both the State Department and the Justice Department, as well as the White House.

And for those who think impeachment would just be too troublesome and that there isn't evidence of crimes anyway... if this administration doesn't deserve the harshest penalties, i.e. impeachment AND imprisonment, then there should be a constitutional amendment to ban it altogether because it has become meaningless.

Pissed Off American wrote on May 5, 2007 2:46 PM:

"Both Waxman and Leahy are diligently plodding along, slowly, methodically, because they are laying the groudwork for criminal prosecutions in both the State Department and the Justice Department, as well as the White House."

Posted by: proudlefty

Do you really believe that? Without a doubt, this Executive Administration has already successfully avoided any semblance of accountability, both symbollically, and in consideration of the letter of the law. You are displaying faith in a process that has already been shown to be impotent in its ability to rein in the crimes, perjuries, and constitutional abuses of this administration. Using recent history as my rationale, I suggest that only massive civil dissent will stand a chance of unseating the corrupt and treasonous bloc of criminals currently in the leadership roles of both the right and left sides of the aisle. It should be obvious to even the slowest thinkers here that our system of checks and balances has utterly and completely failed. To expect our Democracy to be resurrected and repaired, by the very institution of corruption that has damaged it, is naive and overly optimistic. What few nights in shining armor that exist who would ride to our rescue are marginalized, criticized, and ridiculed by the media that provides the "news" to the vast majority of oyur citizenry. Until the majority within the citizenry activelly engage themselves in massive demonstration, demanding representation, the so called "majority" in Congress and the Senate are going to simply maintain the status quo. The two parties have become little more than a prop, a tactic designed to separate and agitate the citizens while the global agendas of the very wealthy elite are pursued in direct conflict with the original aims and tenets of the founding fathers. Your optimism must be comforting, and in many ways I envy you for it. But it is founded in fantasy, not in reality.

Pissed Off American wrote on May 5, 2007 2:56 PM:

Along the lines of my previous comment....

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_kissinger_connection/

An excerpt........

"A similar dichotomy applies to the Democratic Establishment in Congress, pre and post invasion. This is important. It is a major reason which explains why there will be no impeachment of Bush and Cheney. As best exemplified by John Kerry in his 2004 Presidential campaign against G.W. Bush, the Washington Democrats, with few exceptions, have been content and comfortable to criticize the execution of the policy, that is, the conduct of the war during the occupation. The Democrats thereby imply that they would somehow have done a better job. Up until relatively recently in this long war, there has been only mild criticism of the terrible idea to go to war in the first place, and no effort to examine the real motives behind the decision to invade. The Democrats don’t go there, except to say that they were misled. Why not?"

Look folks, if the left really intended to do something about these criminals in the Bush Administration, they would be screaming for immediate impeachment, indictment, and prosecution. Anything less than that demonstrates complicity.

marta wrote on May 5, 2007 3:38 PM:

From Waxman’s committee today: Committee Seeks Niger Documents and Testimony and Instructs State Department Not to Impede Probe
Today Chairman Waxman sent a letter to Secretary of State Rice (1) informing the Secretary that the legislative affairs officials in the Department should not hinder the Committee’s inquiry into why Secretary Rice and President Bush cited forged evidence to build a case for war against Iraq; (2) advising the Secretary that the Committee will depose a nuclear weapons analyst at the State Department; and (3) requesting relevant documents. Letters were also sent to the CIA, the White House, and the Department of Defense requesting relevant documents.

The article I wrote more than one year ago about the state department warning

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/59/19157

State Department Memo: "16 Words" Were False
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 17 April 2006

Sixteen days before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa - an explosive claim that helped pave the way to war - the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo.

The revelation of the warning from the closely guarded State Department memo is the first piece of hard evidence and the strongest to date that the Bush administration manipulated and ignored intelligence information in their zeal to win public support for invading Iraq.

The memo says: "On January 12, 2003," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries."

Moreover, the memo says that the State Department's doubts about the veracity of the uranium claims may have been expressed to the intelligence community even earlier.

Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reason that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in February 5, 2003 - one week after Bush's State of the Union address - to try to win support for a possible strike against Iraq.

"After considerable back and forth between the CIA, the (State) Department, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and the British, Secretary Powell's briefing to the U.N. Security Council did not mention attempted Iraqi procurement of uranium due to CIA concerns raised during the coordination regarding the veracity of the information on the alleged Iraq-Niger agreement," the memo further states.

Iraq's interest in the yellowcake caught the attention of Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Association. ElBaradei read a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate and personally contacted the State Department and the National Security Council in hopes of obtaining evidence so his agency could look into it.

ElBaradei sent a letter to the White House and the National Security Council (NSC), warning senior officials he thought the documents were forgeries and should not be cited by the administration as evidence that Iraq was actively trying to obtain WMDs.

ElBaradei said he never received a written response to his letter, despite repeated follow-up calls he made to the White House, the NSC and the State Department.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who made the rounds on the cable news shows that month, tried to discredit ElBaradei's conclusion that the documents were forged.

"I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney said. "[The IAEA] has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past."

As it turns out, ElBaradei was correct, the declassified State Department memo now shows.

Monday's declassified State Department memo was obtained over the weekend by the New York Sun under a Freedom of Information Act request the newspaper filed last July. The Sun's story Monday morning, however, did not say anything about the State Department's warnings more than a week before Bush's State of the Union address about the bogus Niger documents.

The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was drafted by Carl Ford Jr., the former head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, in response to questions posed in June 2003 by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, about a February 2002 fact-finding trip to Niger that former ambassador Joseph Wilson undertook to investigate the uranium claims on behalf of the CIA.

The memo had originally been drafted in June in response to Libby's questions about Wilson. But after Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times July 6, 2003, in which he disclosed that he had personally investigated the Niger uranium claims and found that they were false, Powell requested further information from his aides. Ford went back and retrieved the June memo, re-dated it July 7, 2003, and sent it to Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage.

The Sun reported that the memo contained no direct reference to Plame Wilson's CIA status being marked as "secret" despite the fact that the word "secret" is clearly marked on every page of the INR memo.

The memo does not say that the State Department alerted the White House on January 12, 2003, about the bogus uranium claims.

But the memo's author, Carl Ford, said in a previous interview that he has no doubt the State Department's reservations about the Niger intelligence made their way to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

One high-ranking State Department official said that when the department's analysts briefed Colin Powell about the Niger forgeries, Powell met with former Director of the CIA George Tenet and shared that information with him.

Tenet then told Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and her former deputy, Stephen Hadley, that the uranium claims were "dubious," according to current and former State Department and CIA officials who have direct knowledge of what Tenet discussed with the White House at the time.

The White House has long maintained that they were never briefed about the State Department's or the CIA's concerns related to the Niger uranium claims.

"I refuse to believe that the findings of a four-star general and an envoy the CIA sent to Niger to personally investigate the accuracy of the intelligence, as well as our own research at the State Department, never got into the hands of President Bush or Vice President Cheney. I don't buy it," said a high-ranking State Department official. "Saying that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was all it took, as far as I'm concerned, to convince the House to support the war. The American people too. I believe removing Saddam Hussein was right and just. But the intelligence that was used to state the case wasn't."

A spokeswoman for Tenet said Monday that the former head of the CIA wouldn't comment on the newly declassified document but promised that Tenet would tell the "full story" about how the infamous 16 words wound up in Bush's State of the Union address, in Tenet's book, "At the Center of the Storm," expected to be published in late October.

Many career State Department officials interviewed Monday said they were upset that the so-called "16 words" made their way into the State of the Union address and they are pleased that the INR memo has been declassified, thereby proving that their colleagues sounded early warnings about the dubious Niger intelligence.

A State Department official who has direct knowledge of the now declassified INR memo said when the request came from Cheney's office for a report on Wilson's Niger trip it was an opportunity to put in writing a document that would remind the White House that it had been warned about the Niger claims early on.

Many other State Department officials believed that the existence of a memo that would, in essence, disagree with the White House's own assessment on Niger would eventually hurt the administration.

"This was the very first time there was written evidence - not notes, but a request for a report - from the State Department that documented why the Niger intel was bullshit," said one retired State Department official.

"It was the only thing in writing, and it had a certain value because it didn't come from the IAEA. It came from State. It scared the heck out of a lot of people because it proved that this guy Wilson's story was credible. I don't think anybody wanted the media to know that the State Department disagreed with the intelligence used by the White House. That's why Wilson had to be shut down."

Jason Leopold is a former Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire. He has written over 2,000 stories on the California energy crisis and received the Dow Jones Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his coverage on the issue as well as a Project Censored award in 2004. Leopold also reported extensively on Enron's downfall and was the first journalist to land an interview with former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling following Enron's bankruptcy filing in December 2001. Leopold has appeared on CNBC and National Public Radio as an expert on energy policy and has also been the keynote speaker at more than two dozen energy industry conferences around the country.

domga wrote on May 5, 2007 3:55 PM:

All I can add is a lot of people waxman wants to talk too better stay away from small planes and be careful what they say on the phone and in their emails.

makesenseofit wrote on May 5, 2007 4:07 PM:

The irony is that the best attorneys are in the executive branck to protect them from telling the truth to the American public ..
Can you believe that ??
The president and his staff .. the executive branch of government retreating to create confusion in order prevent testimony from telling the truth .... the whole truth about the hoax
contrived since the Bushevicks took office in 2000.

"Responsibility" & "Values" wrote on May 5, 2007 4:40 PM:

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
-Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03).

In the Radio Act of 1927, Congress mandated the FCC’s forerunner, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), to grant broadcasting licenses in such a manner as to ensure that licensees served the “public convenience, interest or necessity.” As former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson pointed out (California Lawyer, 8/88), it was in that spirit that the FRC, in 1928, first gave words to a policy formulation that would become known as the Fairness Doctrine, calling for broadcasters to show “due regard for the opinions of others.” In 1949, the FCC adopted the doctrine as a formal rule (FCC, Report on
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 1949). In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." - U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969. - Steve Randall

"The Wall Street Journal's editorial board is confusing the Equal Time principle in current law with the Fairness Doctrine, a policy which the FCC abandoned in August 1987. The Fairness Doctrine, instituted in 1949, required licensees to "Cover vitally important controversial issues of interest in their communities" and to "Provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints." The Fairness Doctrine also codified what became known as the "Personal Attack Rule" and the "Editorial Rule." The Personal Attack Rule required broadcasters to notify the subjects of on-air personal attacks that an attack had occurred, and to then provide them with an opportunity to respond. Similarly, the Editorial Rule allowed political candidates to respond either to criticisms or to station endorsements of another candidate." - Media Matters

"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50. Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995).

The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views. (ala FOX, despite FOX's constantly repeated self-proclamation of somehow being "Fair And Balanced" -ed). In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.” Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate.

For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media. Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment. According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If
one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues. From the 1920s through the ’70s, the history of the Fairness Doctrine paints a picture of public servants wrestling with how to maintain some public interest standards in the operation of publicly owned but corporate-dominated airwaves. The 1980s brought Regan with an army of anti-regulatory extremists; not least among these was Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, Fowler earned his reputation as “the James Watt of the FCC” by sneering at the notion that broadcasters had a unique role or bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse (California Lawyer, 8/88). It was all nonsense, said Fowler (L.A. Times, 5/1/03): “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.” To Fowler, television was “just another appliance-it’s a toaster with
pictures,” and he seemed to endorse total deregulation (Washington Post, 2/6/83): “We’ve got to look beyond the conventional wisdom that we must somehow regulate this box.”

Of course, Fowler and associates didn’t favor total deregulation: Without licensing, the airwaves would descend into chaos as many broadcasters competed for the same frequencies, a situation that would mean ruin for the traditional corporate broadcasters they were so close to. But regulation for the public good rather than corporate convenience was deemed suspect. Fowler vowed to see the Fairness Doctrine repealed, and though he would depart the commission a few months before the goal was realized, he worked assiduously at setting the stage for the doctrine’s demise. He and his like-minded commissioners, a majority of whom had been appointed by Reagan, argued that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First
Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations. Moreover, rather than increase debate and discussion of controversial issues, they argued, the doctrine actually chilled debate, because stations feared demands for response time and possible challenges to broadcast licenses (though only one license was ever revoked in a dispute involving the Fairness Doctrine- California Lawyer, 8/88).

The FCC stopped enforcing the doctrine in the mid-’80s, well before it formally revoked it. As much as the commission majority wanted to repeal the doctrine outright, there was one hurdle that stood between them and their goal: Congress’ 1959 amendment to the Communications Act had made the doctrine law. A controversial 1986 legal decision by Judge Robert Bork and then-Judge Antonin Scalia, both Reagan appointees on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in a 2-1 opinion avoided the constitutional issue altogether, and simply declared that Congress had not actually made the Fairness Doctrine into a law. Wrote Bork: “We do not believe that language adopted in 1959 made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation,” because, he said, the doctrine was imposed “under,” not “by” the Communications Act of 1934 (California Lawyer, 8/88). Bork held that the 1959 amendment established that the FCC could apply the doctrine, but was not obliged to do so-that keeping the rule or scuttling it was simply a matter of FCC discretion. “The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959,” according to MAP. But it signaled the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in 1987 by the FCC under new chair Dennis R. Patrick, a lawyer and Reagan White House aide. A year after the doctrine’s repeal, writing in California Lawyer (8/88), former FCC commissioner Johnson summed up the fight to bring back the Fairness Doctrine as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America.”

Though a bill before Congress to reinstate the doctrine passed overwhelmingly later that year, it failed to override Reagan’s veto. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when George H.W. Bush threatened another veto. What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03). The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.
Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station (Extra!, 3-4/95). Some towns have two. When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or
democratic about it.” For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.” According to TV Week (11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners-NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom-made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.” Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine. What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees,
broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse." - Steve Rendall, FAIR Senior Analyst

MICROWAVE MIND CONTROL: MODERN TORTURE AND CONTROL MECHANISMS ELIMINATING HUMAN RIGHTS AND PRIVACY
by Dr. Rauni Leena Kilde, MD September 25, 1999

Eleanor White's comments: Dr. Rauni Kilde, formerly the Chief Medical Officer for Lapland (northern Finland), is one of our bravest professional supporters. She was given an award from CAHRA for her appearance on a now-unavailable video by Transmedia Productions in London, England. She has given us permission to post this article, an example of the most vigorous support we have ever received. We thank Dr. Kilde most sincerely.

HELSINGIN SANOMAT, the largest newspaper in Scandinavia, wrote in the September 9, 1999 issue that Scientific American magazine estimates that after the Millenium perhaps ALL people will be implanted with a "DNA microchip". How many people realize what it actually means? Total loss of privacy and total outside control of the person's physical body
functions, mental, emotional and thought processes, including the implanted person's subconscious and dreams for the rest of their life. It sounds like science fiction but it is secret military and intelligence agencies' mind control technology, which has been experimented with for almost half a century. Totally without the knowledge of the general public and even the general academic population. Supercomputers in Maryland, Israel and elsewhere with a speed of over 20 BILLION bits/sec can monitor millions of people simultaneously. In fact,
the whole world population can be totally controlled by these secret brain-computer interactions, however unbelievable it sounds for the uninformed. Human thought has a speed of 5,000 bits/sec and everyone understands that our brain cannot compete with supercomputers acting via satellites, implants, local facilities, scalar orother forms of biotelemetry.

Each brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment characteristics. Remote neural monitoring systems with supercomputers can send messages through an implanted person's nervous system and affect their performance in any way desired. They can of course be tracked and identified anywhere. Neuro-electromagnetic involuntary human
experimentation has been going on with the so-called "vulnerable population" for about 50 years, in the name of "science" or "national security" in the worst Nazi-type testing, contrary to all human rights. Physical and psychological torture of mind control victims today is like the worst horror movies. Only, unlike the horror movies, it is true. It happens today in the USA, Japan, and Europe. With few exceptions, the mass media suppresses all information about the entire topic. Mind control technology in the USA is classified under "non-lethal" weaponry. The name is totally misleading because the technology used IS lethal, but death comes slowly in the form of "normal" illnesses, like cancer, leukemia, heart
attacks, Alzheimer's disease with loss of short term memory first. No wonder these illnesses have increased all over the world. When the use of electromagnetic fields, extra-low (ELF) and ultra-low (ULF) frequencies and microwaves aimed deliberately at certain individuals, groups, and even the general population to cause diseases, disorientation, chaos and physical and emotional pain breaks into the awareness of the general population, a public outcry is inevitable.

[Eleanor White comment: ELF/ULF frequencies on their own cannot be focussed and are practically impossible to transmit in the usual manner of radio transmissions. ELF/ULF cannot carry voice. ELF/ULF CAN be carried on radio and ultrasound carrier signals, however, and are effective in things like setting up a target to be more receptive to hypnosis,
force a target to be unable to sleep, and force a target to fall asleep daytime. This is like the reverse process of reading the brain's natural ELF/ULF electrical activity using biofeedback.]
Who is behind a sinister plan to microchip and control and torture the general population? [Eleanor White's comment: Reports from persons targeted by neuro-electromagnetic experimentation show that not everyone is implanted. The fact that those few victims who have had implants removed cannot get custody of the implants means someone has a keen interest in controlling the use of covert implants and preventing the publication of this practice.] The Patent Office of the U.S.A. has granted patents for purposes of mental
monitoring and mind alteration. Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brainwaves, methods for inducing mental, emotional and physical states of consciousness, in human beings. Method of and apparatus for desired states of consciousness are among some of them.

People who have been implanted, involuntarily or through deception voluntarily have become biological robots and guinea pigs for this activity under the guise of national security. The real consequences of microchip implantation (or with today's advanced hidden technology, using only microwave radiation for mind control,) are totally hidden from the public. How many know the real dangers of microwaves through mobile phones? How many believe the disinformation that microwave radiation is not causing health problems? The economic issues in the mobile phone industry are enormous. Therefore health issues are deliberately brushed aside. However, the same thing is inevitable in the future as with the tobacco industry. When economic compensation for health damages becomes big enough, as in the tobacco industry, health hazards will be admitted and users are then responsible for their tobacco-related illnesses. Today, already about 50% of Finns, Swedes and Norwegians use mobile phones, especially the young population. Mobile phones used in mind control was yet another "brilliant" idea by these nazis. Military and police agencies can follow every user, influence their thoughts through microwaves, cause healthy people to hear voices in their heads and if needed burn their brains in a second by increasing the current 20,000 times. That probably happened to Chechnyan leader General Dudayev who died talking to a mobile phone. Heating effect of tissues with the speed of light is a known effect of high power microwave and electromagnetic pulse weapons. According to Navy studies they also cause fatigue states, depression, insomnia, aggressiveness, long and especially short term memory loss, short catatonic states, cataracts, leukemia, cancer, heart attacks, brain tumors and so forth. Alteration of behavior and attitudes hs been demonstrated as well.

Dr. Ross Adey has found out that by using 0.75 milliwatts per square centimeter intensity of pulse modulated microwave at a frequency of 450 MHz it is possible to control ALL aspects of human behaviour. Microwave radiation excites the hydrogen bond in the cells and can interfere with meiosis, which leads to tumors. All our emotions, moods, and thoughts have a
specific brain frequency which has been catalogued. When these records fall into the wrong hands, our behaviour and attitudes are manipulated by persons whose ethics and morals are not in our best interest by any standard. Both military and intelligence agencies have been infiltrated with such despicable persons. The Director of the Swiss Secret Service had to resign in September 1999 because of his agency's involvement in illegal arms deals and a plan to create an ORGANIZATION within the legal Secret Service. This globally infiltrated organization has "octopus type" activities in all major intelligence services in the world, working together with the Mafia and terrorists. It has recruited people from all important government institutions, state and local administrations. It owns Star Wars technology which is used against military and civilian populations, claiming it is "non-lethal"weaponry.
"Down and out" people, jobless, freed prisoners, mental outpatients, students and orphans are trained by this organization to harass, follow, and torture innocent people, who for whatever reason have been put on the organization's hit list. They are ALREADY in every apartment block.

[Eleanor White comment: This gang-like colour-coding is not reported in all areas. Dr. Kilde's experience is with northern Europe.] Deception is the name of the game, so recruits are told untrue sinister stories of their victims to keep them motivated. They have a military order and get rewarded for their evil actions, which include Satanism, and symbols and yellow-orange-black colors. However, fresh recruits must wear pink - and the highest elite wears yellow ties with dark suits. Even dashes of yellow or orange in their ties may signal their recruitment
as well as yellow shirts or other objects with that color for signalling. Too many world leaders fit into this signalling. However, it is quite possible they are only used as fronts for this global organization without any knowledge of it's criminal activity in the field against innocent people. Mass media and big industry are also infiltrated. Who are the targets?

Experimentation with soldiers and prisoners may continue, as well as handicapped children, mental patients, homosexuals and single women. They are still experimental guinea pigs for
electronic and chemical warfare. But today ANYONE can become a target, even those who invented the system. Researchers who find out about this secret radiation of the population become targets themselves.

The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force's "Commando Solo" aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of "non-lethal"
weapons against anyone engaged in activities the DoD opposes. Thus opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth can be beamed to sickness or death. The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a brilliant cover up operation in 18 languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies' actions towards their targets. THE MANUAL LISTS ALL MIND CONTROL ACTIONS AS SIGNS OF PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA.

If a target is under surveillance with modern technology via TV, radio, telephone, loudspeakers, lasers, microwaves, poisoned with mind altering drugs via airducts, giving familiar smells
which cause headache, nausea and so forth, if he claims his clothes are poisoned, his food or tap water as well --- all medical schools teach their students that the person is paranoid, ESPECIALLY if he believes intelligence agencies are behind it all. Never is the medical profession told that these are routine actions all over the world by intelligence agencies against their targets. Thus, victims of mind control are falsely considered mentally ill and get no help since they are not believed and their suffering is doubled by ignorant health profess-
ionals. The unethical abuses of power by individuals in charge of biomedical telemetry are incomprehensible to normal people. The goal of mind control is to program an individual to carry out any mission of espionage or assassination even against their will and self-preservation instict and to control the absolute behavior and thought patterns of the individual. The purpose of mind control is to disrupt memory, discredit people through aberrant behavior, to make them insane or to commit suicide or murder.

How is it possible that this technology is not stopped by political top authorities? They themselves will also be targets someday, a fact they have not always realized. How much are they involved? This year the 1999 European Parliament in "Resolution on Environment, Security, and Forein Policy", in paragraphs 23, 24, and 27 calls for "non-lethal" weapons
technology and development of new arms strategies to be covered and regulated by international conventions. Also, it calls for an international convention introducing a GLOBAL BAN on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable ANY FORM OF MANIPULATION OF HUMAN BEINGS. Project HAARP in Alaska is a global concern,
and calls for it's legal, ecological, and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing. It is possible that the USA will ignore those resolutions. The dangers of non-lethal mind control weapons were already revealed in an expert meeting of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, in
July 1994.

Only increased public awareness of the microchip implants, their frightful consequences to privacy by influencing of individuals' thoughts and actions, causing people to become biological robots with physical and emotional pain whenever the supercomputer technician so wishes, is enough reason to refuse to take the chip into your body for whatever reason.
It is the biggest threat to humanity and the most sinister plan to enslave the human race forever. If you have a choice and want to remain a normal human being with privacy, do not have your children nor yourself implanted with a DNA microchip. Otherwise your vision, hearing, sensing, thoughts, dreams and subconscious will be influenced by an outsider, who does not have your best interests in mind, to say the very least. These entirely unamerican, anti-human nazi activities are utterly criminal, degenerate, illegal, unethical, immoral, and inhuman. MICROWAVE MIND CONTROL WITH "NON-LETHAL" WEAPONS IS THE BIGGEST CRIME IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND AGAINST THE POPULATION OF PLANET EARTH. IT MUST BE STOPPED BY ALL PEOPLES OF THIS GLOBE.

Rauni Kilde MD

capnmike wrote on May 5, 2007 6:46 PM:

Ah, yes...and the Martian Communist Radioactive Conspirators among us (cleverly disguised as human politicians) are already advancing their plan for world domination, since they only have to worry about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles...

OH PUUULLLEEEEEEASE!!!!!!

Austin Cooper wrote on May 5, 2007 7:09 PM:

"How is it possible that this technology is not stopped by political top authorities?"

Well, Rauni... because they, and we, have all been reprogrammed by our Alien Overlords. You've seen them. They've seen you. They appear to be Dogs... but they *aren't*.

Dog is *my* co-pilot, Rauni. And when you wake up tomorrow -- Dog will be yours, too.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programs.

The Skeptical cynic wrote on May 5, 2007 7:19 PM:

"I assume that your legislative staff was acting without your authorization in this matter."

Giving Condi the benefit of a doubt? NFW! Waxman just called her out for the dumbass she is without having to explicitly having to call her a dumbass.

When I read the clipping from Waxman's letter to the Rice Cake, I had to smile. What a slick way suggesting to Rice and the rest of the world that she is a clueless dolt who doesn't know what is going on in her bailiwick! Although subtle, the analogy is similar returning a letter to the person who YOU KNOW wrote it with a note stating,

"Some a$$hole send me this incredibly stupid letter and signed your name to it. I thought you should know."

Sincerely yours,

Joe Whoever

You just got to love Waxman!

enough already wrote on May 5, 2007 7:27 PM:

Sadly, the Zionsts have a lock on all aspects of this government. If one tries in any way to unseat or criticize their supplicants, the Bush administration, they are called anti-semitic or holocaust deniers. Wake up folks, the Zionists have achieved a coup d'etat. It is not about oil, it is about Israel.

Where was the mandate by the American people to send their sons and daughters to die for Israel?

Pissed Off American wrote on May 5, 2007 10:16 PM:

Actually, "enough already", the current list of Democratic hopefuls are even more alarming when one considers the great sway that Israel has over American foreign policy through AIPAC's bribery and intimidation of our Representatives in Washington. Pelosi, Hillary, Edwards, Obama, all have publically expressed their fealty to Israel. Pelosi has done even more than cow-towed, she has gone so far to remove provisions from the wording of resolutions at AIPAC's behest, such as her removal of the "Iran preovision" in the first draft of the Iraq war/funding resolution.

Now, consider this.....what would prompt Kagan, a rabid Israel firster and PNAC neocon, to jump on Obama's bandwagon?

http://tinyurl.com/28g4hd

An excerpt........

"But last week a surprising new name joined the chorus of praise for the antiwar Obama – that of Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990s, which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."

Ryan wrote on May 5, 2007 10:26 PM:

To "enough already": you are right, but it goes beyond that: it's all about the centuries old international banking families- working in concert with each other- almost all of which "happen to be jewish". This world is basically controlled out of Germany, where most of them originally came from. Bush's approval rating is now 28%, 64% of people polled said "he was stubborn & unwilling to admit mistakes" in Iraq. WRONG! -he's a two-bit soap opera actor, is what he is-reading the script of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz & Feith-who in turn get the script from the abovementioned clique of "people" in Germany (& elsewhere). Bush's "job" (nice job, Jackass -Jerk George!) was to first start a phony war and then to mess it up as much as possible, so it drags on absolutely as long as possible making "war profiteers as usual" an absolute ton of money, while serving the "plan as usual" of artifically pitting one group of humans ( "muslims") against another (us in the 'west"). They did it in WWI, WWII (backing Hitler, financing him, making sure he was "let into" the German govt. -when an "advisor" to the Bismarck-as in a Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith type of weasel- talked the Bismarck into letting Hitler in the govt. as vice-chancellor. The Bismarck was like 81 yrs. old at the time-so "guess what was going to happen"-right, you got it!), radicalizing the German people after WWI with truly draconian Treaty of Versaille repatations/conditions-to guarantee the desperate climate that would lead to WWII. Similarly, Vietnam was another artificial set-up of a war. In the meantime, when there wasn't a "hot war" we had the phony, set-up "us against-them " cold war, lasting for decades on end. The CIA purposefully made sure western technology was leaked to Russia (this is a documented fact)-so that congress could be told "wow, the clever Russians have got better weapons somehow, we need more-and even better and more expensive ones!". As Eisenhower said in his last speech ever: "beware of the military-industrial complex"-funded by the abovementioned bankers, just like Hitler was funded by them.Now we have Iraq foisted on us . Why?-because very, very few people know the REAL history of the world, courtesy of the mass media-contolled totally by the abovementioned banking families-or their "associates". Never does the mass media discuss any of this-it's always "Bush or Tenant or Rumsfeld being incompetant or Rice...yada,yada,yada. NEVER talk of who/what is really behind these absolute jokers. The media knows exactly what the score is-but instead of reporting the real truth, they report on the perpetual soap opera diversion of a sideshow.I suspect far more europeans know the true story than americans-we are particularly easy marks (courtesy, in part, of our "wonderful, free" media)-all you have to do to half the people is say "freedom, democracy, patriotism,and: big bad nasty muslims out to destroy our way of life"-just say that and half the morons in this country will jump off any cliff "they" want them to-like absolute lemmings. When more than half the people in this world know the TRUE story and the TRUE history of the world-fully, so that it really sinks in-then the weasel "banking families" really controlling things (and the weasels behind them, yet to be discovered) will have problems running their ongoing game-which has been going on for decades & centuries. The old saying "what if they held a war and nobody came" could come true. In the meantime, a certain contolling world group of elite monkey-like creatures (with over 99% chimpanzee genes) sends other monkey-like creatures off to be killed in wars. Better to work at Wal-Mart than be cannon fodder for these conniving monkeys. Guess this makes cats smarter than us-try to get a cat to jump off a cliff or go get shot in a war just because some other rotten cats tell him to do it-yeah, right! People can be easily herded by jackass "front people" in authority. Look how many millions were herded by just one idiot chimp named Hitler-an idiot chimp who was PURPOSELY set loose on the world by a relatively small clique of manipulating other chimps-who have amassed VAST amounts of money, and so VAST amounts of control, using VAST amounts of agents & associates behind the scenes. When asked what the most powerful force in the universe was, Einstein said: "compound interest"-guess who invented this concept-and who has benefitted from it IMMENSELY-over centuries-you got it!

Ryan wrote on May 5, 2007 11:16 PM:

P.S. to above- what people have got to realize is this: what do you think the controlling clique of chimp-like creatures running the world "game" does all the time?They don't have regular jobs like us-what do you think they do, spend all their time playing poker or canasta, or polo or croquet? No-the whole world is a monopoly game board to them. They don't just plot things out months in advance, they plot them out DECADES in advance. They have the money ("obviously"-as in "understatement of the millenium") to employ think tanks/study groups etc. on EVERYTHING. They count on humans being tribal in nature-subject to peer pressure and "personality" issues. So we conveniently (for them) focus on the individual jokers they foist on us-like Bush & Cheney, Obama or Hillary (ever notice how much major media attention Obama got YEARS ago even? I did-yep, he's on their "farm team" alright, like Bill Clinton was).On the media front we focus on out-and-out "plants" (called "opinion makers" or also "con artists") like columnists Judy Miller & William Safire of the N.Y. Times-two joker puppets who said that all of Bush's lies were the truth "no question about it" and that we needed to invade Iraq. Since this controlling clique is never visible it's hard for" us" oversocialized tribal monkeys to maintain focus on who's really behind the jokers "in power" (yeah right !) that they foist on us. Time (past due) for people to become more undersocialized & less peer group driven (this ain't Jr, high school anymore-as for me, even then I didn't give a damn about any stupid "peer group", contrary to most other tribal monkeys). So, as an example, Condisleazy Rice-monkey is really just a nit in importance (as in "nitwit" as well) compared to the important apes behind the scenes-which are more like the size of elephants-and she's just a nit/gnat on their back.

Ryan wrote on May 5, 2007 11:45 PM:

P.P.S. to above: regarding Israel, in the same way that Bush is just a political frontman/sideshow, the same goes for Israel-it's just a front/conduit for the centuries- old banking families in question (who set it up). For what it's worth, the big majority of these families originally came from Germany-but of course Germany has no relevance, these families are a country onto themselves. Before Germany they were in eastern europe and before that they were a tribe (unknown to many historians even, apparently) in the region of the caspian & black seas-which, around 750 a.d. (to avoid getting caught up in muslim/chistian in-fighting in the area) "decided to call themselves "jewish" one day, out of the blue as it were. So it has been said that 90% of the jewish people in the world are related to them-and only 10% of people who call themselves jewish ACTUALLY have a genetic tie to the 'jewish tribe of the bible" from the mideast.

Fletcher wrote on May 6, 2007 12:39 AM:

Genetic studies now prove that everyone on the planet is related to one man and one woman who lived in Africa about 60,000 and 150,000 years ago, respectively. In terms of the history of life on earth, this is a blink of the eye in time. Therefore, all the strife caused by race & reilgion, over time and now in the mideast, is meaningless. We all come from the same place: Africa. Ancient african religions no doubt have nothing to do with current major religions, although there may be similar mythical stories. It makes more sense to follow african religions than more modern ones. You could say that since they are more ancient, they are more apt to be"true" (?) Why is it so that the religions that are based in the mideast:christianity, judaism,islam have such prominance today? This is the 21st century. Religions in general, based on events that are only a few thousand years old, should be treated as what they really are: stories and advice on how to live from the past, and nothing more. Probably two of the worst things ever devised by humans (after the idea of war) were religion and bank interest. The first caused untold needless strife over centuries, and continuing today. The second allowed concentration of incredible wealth in the hands of a few families.

Chabuka wrote on May 6, 2007 12:44 AM:

throw her ass in jail...for contempt of Congress...this whole "the laws don't apply to ME B.S." that this administration pulls in every situation has gone on long enough...there come a point when the Democratic majority Congress is not protecting the laws, they become complicit in breaking the laws..you hear that..? Pelosi, Leahy, Levin..? Impeach,!....or we will fire your butts too!

skyreader7 wrote on May 6, 2007 2:41 AM:

Condi's arguments are the walls of Jericho.

pre AmeriKKKan wrote on May 6, 2007 5:33 PM:

it's up to rice's neighbors now. when she comes out to get her morning newspaper, they can make a citizens arrest.

otherwise, there is no power on earth that is going to get her, turdblossom, 43 or, most importantly, sharpshooter dick, to ever own up to anything. pardons and medals all around if things go as planned.

might as well be realistic ( or maybe i'm just suffering from "corruption fatigue").

rocket scientist wrote on May 6, 2007 6:06 PM:

Executive Privilege is not applicable when that person is quite likely to have committed a crime.

Any lawyers lurking here that can verify this?

demdandy wrote on May 6, 2007 10:16 PM:

Waxman has a juris doctor and is building his case one day at a time. Outwardly, the bunker buddies don't seem to be too worried. I wonder why? Could it be they know an election cancellation is coming in '08, and possibly martial law? Time is not on their side, however, and they could all be impeached, then indicted after they get kicked out of office by the end of this year.

J-dog wrote on May 6, 2007 10:47 PM:

"You know what we're seeing here? We're seeing a civil war within our government. It's a tidy process where at the end of the day, nobody dies.

Well, unless, of course, you exclude Iraq troop casualties -- hostages of Bush's political wars.

Posted by: Sharon A
Date: May 4, 2007 02:51 PM"

Sharon, I appreciated your point, but your comments beg a question. Why is it that everyone, even the supposedly more aware anti-bushies are still forgetting that humans are humans. What's so fawking special about Americans that when they die, somehow it's more important that when human members of other countries die? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comment, but it appears you've used the "no one dies" to refer only to american soliders. I had hoped (perhaps misguidedly?) that most aware folks still cared about human life, regardless of origin.

Ryan wrote on May 6, 2007 10:56 PM:

Here's some words of wisdom from Lee Iacocca-former CEO of Chrysler (from his new book): "Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up afetr a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when politcians say "stay the course" Stay the course? You've got to be kidding!...The president of the U.S. is given a free pass to ignore the constitution,tap our phones and lead us to war on a pack of lies!...and the press is waving pompoms instead of asking hard questions". Lee's "slightly wrong" on two points: first, the bozos are bozos alright (namely Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith), but they know exactly what they're doing. By rights Bush should be impeached, and the minute Cheney becomes president he should be impeached too. Then Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith should be deported to Israel (where their true "handlers" reside-and in turn these "handlers" ultimate "handlers" reside in Germany) and never be allowed to set foot in the U.S. again. Second, the press is waving pompoms because their "handlers" (exact same handlers as the bozos have) like it that way.The "free mass media" doesn't tell the truth because it's not, on the "important, key issues" free at all-it's totally, absolutely contolled. It feeds us an ongoing lie of a soap opera-mainly by "conveniently" failing report the ultimate truth behind the "select facts" it chooses to cover-period.

George wrote on May 7, 2007 9:00 AM:

What's astonishing to me is that Waxman hasn't declared Condi to be in contempt of Congress yet. He must do so and issue an arrest warrant for her. How else can she or any Bush Administration official ever be accountable to anyone.

aaron l; wrote on May 7, 2007 9:47 AM:

Subpoena power? What subpoena power?

Cugel wrote on May 7, 2007 10:37 AM:

With a Democratic controlled White House and Congress in 2009, where is Condeleezza Rice and all the other Bush administration crooks going to hide? Don't they realize it's just a matter of time before they will be forced to pay the piper. Their future jobs better be high paying ones to cover their lawyers fees. Many Republicans are going to jail.

No-one's going to jail. Bush will pardon everyone before he leaves office. Complete blanket immunity for every wrongdoer and then smirk as he saunters off into the sunset!

Nobody can seriously think he's going to allow his cronies to be imprisoned without pardons. They'd all write books and tell all the dirty secrets like Dean and Erlichman, from the Nixon era.

Thomas Watts wrote on May 10, 2007 11:46 AM:

Is it just me or has everyone gone nuts? Dr. Rice has ALREADY testified in front of a large panel about this whole thing. It's on paper and right there for anyone in the whole world to see. (Including you!)

I don't blame her. Why should she participate in this mad witch hunt?