Archive for July, 2007

Fear and loathing … and proctology

Last weekends foray into the nether regions of the presidents internals have produced a few pretty good jokes — and some interesting reflections from the pundits … poking [pun intended] fun at the Dubby and shuddering in disgust at Uncle Dick’s fleeting power as “temporary president” [sic.]

Dave Letterman quipped that now Dubby knows what it feels like to be invaded, and Leno, citing reports that upon waking up George went to play with his dogs and ride his bike, queried, “What is he? Twelve?”

Here are three very entertaining reads about that short event — briefly digging around in George’s colon left the nations prospects not in the hands of the Dingbat, but the Brute, and bubbled up a kind of dark angst and Cosmic pause … the kind of intellectual tension combined with primal fear that Hitchcock used to scare the bejesus out of us.

Jude

President Cheney Sickens Planet
Earth recoils as VP assumes role for two “unholy” hours.
Also: no WMD in Bush’s colon

Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, July 27, 2007

Beginning at 7:16 a.m. last Saturday, and continuing for exactly two hours and five minutes, Vice President Dick Cheney assumed the role of President of the United States, while George W. Bush underwent a routine colonoscopy, a safe but risky-enough procedure that obliged the administration to invoke the rarely used 25th Amendment, which transfers all executive powers to the vice president when a sitting president is unable to perform the duties of his office.

While most Americans were completely unaware that the temporary transfer had taken place, the response from the collective body was nevertheless nearly instantaneous, as millions across the nation reported feeling some sort of unnerving wave of dread, something dark and ominous and stifling, like a collective shudder, a giant musty pillow jammed over the mouth of life itself, a great, low moan of deep, chthonic pain.

“What the hell is going on?” cried Jane Klowster of Oklahoma City, echoing the sentiments of millions as she called in to a local talk-radio program early Saturday morning, just after making a pot of coffee so bitter as to be undrinkable and noticing the flowers on her patio had suddenly wilted for no apparent reason, and also that her parakeet was dead.

“Did someone snuff out the sun or something? Why does the world feel so pale and deathly right now? I feel like my heart is being molested by a drunken hockey team made up of poisonous sea slugs and angry pinecones in the bowel of a rock. Wait, does that even make sense? I don’t care. That’s the feeling.”

Klowster was, apparently, far from alone.

“I can’t go to the bathroom. Everything’s stopped up, like someone poured rancid concrete into my intestines and stirred with Satan’s own swizzle stick while laying on a bed of nails made of spider legs, in the sun,” reported Tom Deavers to his baffled family doctor. “I also feel like punching a wall. And also crying.”

The stories were as shocking as they were, you know, titillating. “We were totally having wicked sex in the tailgate of my Subie,” said Brandon “Bran Flakes” Zander, 22, a surfer from Redondo Beach, sitting next to his “smokin’ hot” girlfriend, Amber, 19. “When all of a sudden, right in the middle of the good s–, boom, everything sorta went limp, you know? Like some dude yanked the plug from the love toaster, right? We just sorta look at each other like, WTF? We decided to fire up a spliff and wait it out.”

Doctors, scientists, healers, middle managers, astrologists and even auto mechanics nationwide were, at least initially, equally confounded by the bizarre outbreak of widespread malaise, which seemed to impact nearly every aspect of the animate and inanimate world, and even caused automobile clutches to suddenly seize, light bulbs to dim, shiny things to tarnish and electric components to flicker and spark and, often, spontaneously combust.

Finally, one scientist actually read a newspaper, and it all came clear in an instant.

“Two little words,” said Dr. Alan Lenner of the Phenomenology Research Institute in Bethesda, MD, glancing around nervously as if his next utterance would cause lightning to strike him dead. ‘President Cheney,’” he whispered. At that exact moment, a woman’s terrible scream could be heard in the distance, a pack of wolves howled, and once again that long, low moan reverberated throughout the land. No, seriously, it totally did.

What’s more, the virulent reaction to the temporary Cheney presidency — now referred to as “Dick Doom” by phenomenologists — wasn’t restricted to humans. Pet store owners reported a sudden, deafening outbreak of yelping, squealing, barking, hissing and so on.

“It was total cacophony,” exclaimed Becca DeWalt, assistant manager of Petapalooza in the Northtown Mall in Boulder, Colo. “Every creature that could make a noise or that could show some sort of reaction suddenly let loose and acted as though it had just caught on fire. Heck, I was standing right over there when, at exactly 7:16 a.m., at least 50 goldfish actually leapt out of the main tank to their deaths, like some sort of mass suicide. It was totally crazy.

“But then I heard about — should I really say this out loud? — President Cheney, and it all made sense.”

(Editor’s note: At the mention of the words “President Cheney,” that poor woman’s terrible scream could be heard again. Apparently, even writing the words in this very paragraph provokes this unholy sound. “President Cheney.” See? It’s uncanny).

Like a virus, like a bad rumor, like nuclear mushroom cloud spreading in all directions, feelings of Dick Doom quickly reached the rest of the planet. Reports flooded in from as far away as Singapore, Turkey, Latvia and Nanjing of strange animal mutations, mass faintings, violent fights breaking out in churches and small woodland creatures intentionally leaping into electrical fences, as a wave of dark energy swept over the land.

Nuclear warheads spontaneously armed. Guns spontaneously cocked. Every active soldier on the planet felt his mouth go dry in dread. Herds of gazelles and addaxes and even prides of lions across the African veldt paused in their activities, looked up and cocked their heads in nervous awareness, as if sensing the presence of a very large, reeking predator.

Shoes came untied. Cheese sweated. Clouds scowled. Scissors nicked. Children on playgrounds worldwide instantly halted all play and fell to the dirt and began to wail. Eager fetuses just entering the birth canal sensed something ominous and quickly retreated, apparently deciding to wait just one more day.

“I never ever in a million years thought I’d say this, but oh my God am I grateful that Bush got back into the president’s seat almost immediately,” sighed much of the nation, collectively, as it slammed another triple vodka and waited for the residual nausea to pass. “I mean, he’s by far the worst president the United States has ever known and he’s done more to set this nation back and embarrass us and create more terrorism and repress science and women and love and hope for all mankind everywhere. But oh my God, he’s still no Dick Cheney. That guy makes baby unicorns bleed.”

On a related note, after Camp David doctors successfully removed five apparently benign polyps from Bush’s colon, they were allegedly instructed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to see if they could, at long last, find at least a trace of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction “up in there” to help justify the Iraq conflict, a lost war that even the smallest human child now understands was one of the most malevolent and destructive political decisions in American history.

“We looked and looked. No WMD. No secret storage bunkers. Not even a vial of Nigerian plutonium,” sighed the doctors, who all seemed pretty much through with this terminally long joke. “And just in case you were wondering, no sign of Osama up there, either. We did find one of Jerry Falwell’s big gold rings. But that doesn’t really count. Wait, does it?”

Dick Cheney, busy cackling ominously deep in his bunker, was unavailable for comment.

Sifting through the ruins: The vast majority long for 2008
Alan Bisbort
Jul 26 2007

When George W. Bush went in for his colonoscopy on Saturday — insert joke about brains, head, ass here — Richard “Lon” Cheney was king for a day. He got to wear the crown, sit on the throne, bounce the beach ball with the globe on it up and down, phone down to the kitchen for pretzels and beer. More important than any other perk to Cheney was that he got what he always wanted — keys to the Oval Office. Though Cheney has been de facto president these past six years, until last Saturday he never actually got to sit in the hot seat.

Speaking of hot, I was sweating more than usual last Saturday, knowing this killer was within arm’s reach of the nuclear codes. Alas, days later, the Clown Prince is back on the throne and, unbelievably, I’m breathing easier. At least now I can concentrate on questions that matter, like: How much longer did you say these two guys will hold us hostage? How many more lives can they ruin before we’re released?

Bush and Cheney have already ruined my life. Every day I (still!) wake up with a sick feeling in my gut knowing that they’re running the show. You’d think a person would get accustomed, or inured, to the abuse, but I haven’t. Each day is a fresh new kick in the gut, a fresh new wave of nausea. I’m sure neo-cons, and their fellow travelers, must smile at admissions like this. I can picture them rubbing their hands and muttering, “Good, oh good … things are going exactly as we planned! We’ve ruined Bisbort’s life!”

I take small solace in knowing I am not alone in having my life ruined by Bush and Cheney. Indeed, for once in my life, I walk in step with the vast majority of Americans who have collectively figured out that these two guys are rotten to the core. And guess what? We figured this out with no help from the mainstream media. Indeed, the failure of our “free press” during these benighted years will ultimately be the biggest story of this era; it’s already the subject of a timely new book, When the Press Fails: Political Power and the New Media from Iraq to Katrina (Univ. of Chicago Press).

Be that as it may, the vast majority of us have come to loathe Bush and Cheney. And that’s the real legacy this pair will leave behind: hatred. They have made Americans hate again. We haven’t hated like this since Dick Nixon or LBJ. While Nixon seemed genuinely perplexed by the hatred he inspired — at least in his more reflective later years — Bush and Cheney seem to enjoy spreading the hate around. What other explanation is possible for the fact that, with a second term in irreparable tatters, they threaten to veto legislation that would provide health insurance to 3 million American children while also pushing for war with Iran? They are pissing on the leg of 75 percent of Americans and they look gleeful while doing it. Hell, Bush looks like he’s not had this much fun since prep school. This is not leadership. This is the behavior of sociopaths.

After a week’s escape to an island far away, I began to feel my “old” life returning to me. During my respite, I read no newspapers, tapped into no Internet sites, watched no television, heard no radio babble, learned nothing about whatever paltry opposition the Democrats in Congress have finally decided to mount, heard none of the Bush/Cheney lies. And I’ve been home for one day only to learn that (no surprise) I didn’t miss a damned thing.

Under Bush and Cheney, it’s Groundhog Day every day.

Or, as we used to sing at camp when I was a relatively innocent and apolitical boy: “Second verse / Same as the first / A little bit louder / A little bit worse.”

Not Of This Earth
Ed Naha
Jul 26 2007

The free world can breathe a sigh of relief, at last. Bush’s weekend colonoscopy was a success. Five non-cancerous polyps were removed from the Oval Orifice as well as something called a medulla oblongata. Said Bush Spokesman Tony Snow: “The president is in good health. There is no reason for alarm.”

The operative words there are “good health” and “alarm.” If we assume that Bush can now go back to business as usual there are plenty of reasons for alarm. As is his wont, Bush can return to governing this country in the manner of the extraterrestrial emissary from the science-fiction classic “To Serve Man.”

Bush immediately got his ass into high gear this week by insisting that the al-Qaeda we’re fighting in Iraq is the same al-Qaeda that hit us on 9/11. (Those polyps may have been benign but they weren’t too bright.) To those who argue that the recently-formed al-Qaeda in Iraq is purely an Iraqi phenomenon, Bush said: “That would be news to Osama bin Laden.”

I’m betting it wouldn’t.

After singling out al-Qaeda in Iraq as “Public Enemy Number One,” (I hope these terror guys don’t mind sharing titles.), he chided critics who see the war in Iraq as a distraction in the global war on terrorism. “The problem they have is with the facts,” Bush declared, before breaking into his Golden Oldie: “We will stay on the hunt. We will deny them safe haven. We will defeat them.”

His ass refused to comment.

Smart ass.

The dumb ass, meanwhile, mentioned “al-Qaeda” over one hundred times in less than a half-hour.

Bush began his al-Qaeda routine to rally the disbelieving American populace July 4th, when he said that many of the car bombings and killings in Iraq were being carried out by “the very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th. A major enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that dared attack the United States on the fateful day.”

Americans, by and large, responded by eating burgers.

By mid-month, Bush was dropping the words “al-Qaeda” more frequently than Gonzales dropped federal attorneys.

Yet, no one seemed to pay attention to Bush. In fact, every military expert not wearing a Hannity hickey said that Bush ought to have his head examined. (Hence, the proctologist.)

So, Skeletor Chertoff stepped into the fray and told the American people that his gut was warning him of a terrorist attack on American soil this summer! Terrorists seem to like attacking during the summer. It’s something about that old Jan and Dean song, “Dead Man’s Curve” and hiding bombs under Hawaiian shirts. When the public disregarded Chertoff’s gut the way Bush does the realities of Iraq, our President got around to doing what he does best…dismantling the government.

Chanting “it’s good to be the King” Bush Co. stated that the Justice Department won’t be allowed to pursue contempt charges from Congress against White House officials in the U.S. attorney firing case because Bush had invoked “executive privilege.”

Bush also issued an executive order defining what verboten “torture” means as opposed to nifty “enhanced interrogation.” Of course the executive order didn’t actually list any approved interrogation techniques. So, we are to assume the CIA can still use the tried and true “Yo mama’s so fat…” routine.

On “Meet the Press,” National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell offered his assessment of Bush’s new rules. “I would not want a U.S. citizen to go through the process. But it is not torture, and there would be no permanent damage to that citizen.”

If that citizen’s name was Superman.

On a roll, Bush also issued another executive order, zippily entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.” In other words, like the hero of TV’s “The Burn Notice,” an American citizen could wake up one, sunny day and find all his financial assets frozen, his credit and debit cards worth zilch and no way to legally defend himself if the government thinks that the above-mentioned citizen directly or indirectly aided someone who has committed or “poses a significant risk of committing” violent acts “threatening the peace or stability of Iraq.” Or, if the citizen somehow undermined “efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform” in Iraq.

You know, like if you have an anti-war bumper sticker or something.

(On a related note, one major network is thinking of launching a fall show entitled “So, You Think You Can Goosestep.”)

Bush is having a grand old time of it, transforming the capitol dome into a cone of silence.

Last May, for instance, Senator Hillary Clinton queried the Pentagon, wanting to know if the U.S. had an exit strategy for Iraq. Two months later, as Bush’s approval ratings achieved “Gong Show” loser status, she got her reply via a bitch slap by Under Secretary of Defense and former Cheney incubus Eric Edelman who wrote: “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

In other words, question der Bushki’s defense of der Homeland and you’re a regular Tokyo Rose or Hanoi Hannah or Keith Olbermann.

Edelman’s boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates backpedaled from Edelman’s spit-take, saying, “congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate.”

Back to Bush’s cone. Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the Homeland Security Committee who usually has access to all classified material, decided to see what plans the White House had to keep our government operating after a terrorist attack. He request was denied.

“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio told Oregonian newspaper reporter Jeff Kosseff.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told DeFazio that his request was approved before it was quashed. Why? Bush spokesman Trey Bohn declared: “We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails.”

DeFazio, fazed by this executive power play, is going to try again, although he admitted: “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right.”

With the Iraq war going south, the working class economy stagnant and the country being regarded as a leper by most of the world, Bush, last week, showed just why he’s known (in his head) as “the Decider.”

At an invitation-only speech, Bush singled out a veteran sitting in a wheelchair in the crowd. The serviceman had lost both legs in Iraq. Beaming like Alfalfa after battering a ballad, Bush declared: “He’s a good man. We’re going to get him some new legs. And, if he hurries up, he can outrun me on the South Lawn of the White House.”

Sigh.

Uh, suppose this kid was fine with his old legs? Let’s suppose he’d grown attached to them over the years and was quite upset when they were blown off in a war that originated in the wet dreams of Chickenhawks?

Bush’s ass was saved last weekend by a proctologist.

Who’s going to save ours?

Oh, yeah. “To Serve Man” was a cookbook.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
self credit 2b help2cc credit lending mortgage2ieme credit au chance3025 credit woodlandscredit 394 7542companys 3n credit majorcredit personal 50000chicago 555 credit micro india Mappersonal loans check no unsecured creditcredit history personal no loanhouse australia loans deposit no inhome loans established no creditfax overnight no loan paydayno personal loans verification incomehome loan no job mortgagecash lenders no teletrack loan Map

Add comment July 27th, 2007

The Unbearable Sweetness of Oversight!

Well, it’s a good day for the red, white and BLUE.

Special counsel for Fredo, contempt citations for Josh and Harriet, subpoena for Karl — and, cherry on the cake, scrutiny of John and Sam.

Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ about!!

Jude

House Panel Backs Citing Bush Aides for Contempt
Dan Eggen and Paul Kane, Washington Post
Thursday, July 26, 2007

The House Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to issue contempt citations for two of President Bush’s closest aides, moving nearer to a constitutional confrontation with the White House over access to information about the Justice Department’s dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.

The panel voted 22 to 17, along party lines, to issue citations to Joshua B. Bolten, White House chief of staff, and Harriet E. Miers, former White House counsel. Both refused to comply with committee subpoenas after Bush declared that documents and testimony related to the prosecutor firings are protected by executive privilege.

“If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn’t even have to bother to show up . . . then we have already lost,” committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said before the vote. “We won’t be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other.”

The vote represents the first concrete step toward finding Bolten and Miers in criminal contempt of Congress. The issue will next be considered by the entire House, and if a similar vote occurs there, the citations could be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. But a floor vote appears unlikely before the end of next week, when the House recesses for a five-week summer break.

“Congress will act to preserve and protect our criminal justice system and to ensure appropriate Congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. She added that she hopes the vote will “help the Administration see the light” on its privilege claims.

Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by as much as one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Previous contempt votes against officials in other administrations were settled by compromise, but officials on both sides have warned that resolution may be elusive in this dispute.

A Pelosi aide confirmed that a floor vote is unlikely until after Labor Day, giving Congress and White House counsel Fred F. Fielding another month and a half to negotiate a settlement of the legal standoff.

The Bush administration has said that it will block the prosecution of any contempt charges. A presidentially appointed U.S. attorney, it said, cannot flout a president’s determination that the materials and testimony sought are protected.

White House spokesman Tony Snow responded in strong terms: “Now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that’s never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington and, in particular, to use criminal contempt charges against the White House chief of staff and the White House legal counsel,” he said.

Miers’s attorney, George T. Manning of Atlanta, did not respond to a telephone message left at his office yesterday.

Republicans on the panel argued strongly against the contempt citations, and Democrats shot down two proposed GOP amendments before voting. “I believe this is an unnecessary provocation,” Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said. “Absent showing that a crime was committed . . . I think the White House is going to win an argument in court.”

Sensenbrenner, the judiciary panel’s former chairman, said lawmakers should instead have filed a lawsuit challenging Bush’s executive privilege claim. But Conyers said the administration had provoked the battle by offering only private, off-the-record interviews of presidential adviser Karl Rove and other aides about their roles in the removal of the prosecutors.

House Republicans are anticipating a September floor showdown and plan to brief members next week on the contempt process and the current dispute.

Yesterday’s action came after seven months of hearings and subpoenas in the investigation of last year’s prosecutor firings. The dismissals culminated a two-year effort by the White House and the Justice Department that targeted some U.S. attorneys for removal partly because of their perceived disloyalty to the Bush administration and GOP priorities.

Several of the fired prosecutors have alleged that they were improperly contacted by GOP lawmakers or staff members about politically sensitive investigations.

Democrats say that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others have offered no reasonable explanation for removal of most of the nine prosecutors.

More than half a dozen senior Justice Department officials have resigned during the investigation. ++

FBI Director Contradicts Gonzales
LAURIE KELLMAN and LARA JAKES JORDAN, AP vis Huffwire
July 26, 2007

WASHINGTON — The head of the FBI contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ sworn testimony and Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation Thursday in a fresh barrage against President Bush’s embattled longtime friend and aide.

In a third blow to the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser, in connection with its investigation.

“It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements,” four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement calling for a special counsel to investigate.
“I’m convinced that he’s not telling the truth,” added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The developments marked a troubling turn for Gonzales as well as the administration, which has been on the political defensive since congressional Democrats launched an investigation seven months ago into the firings of U.S. attorneys.

That probe revealed information that Democrats have sought to weave into a pattern of improper political influence over prosecutions, of stonewalling and of deceit in sworn testimony before Congress.

The White House defiantly stuck by Gonzales and denied that FBI Director Robert S. Mueller had contradicted the attorney general. Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said Gonzales and Mueller can make only limited comments in public about the classified program.

“This is the latest in a long line of artful distortions by people who have spent the last six months hurling allegations at the attorney general,” Snow said. “It is inappropriate and unfair to ask people to testify in public settings about highly classified programs.”

“The president meanwhile maintains full confidence in the attorney general,” he added.
Democrats insisted that Gonzales had been untruthful and that the White House had encouraged top aides to flout congressional subpoenas in the U.S. attorney probe.

But Gonzales took the toughest hits Thursday, when four Senate Democrats issued a list of examples of what they said was the attorney general lying to Congress under oath - the basis for their request to Clement to appoint a special counsel to investigate.

Among the Democrats’ examples of Gonzales’ untruthfulness was his emphatic and repeated statement to the Judiciary Committee Tuesday that his dramatic nighttime visit to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004 was not related to an internal administration dispute about the president’s secret warrantless eavesdropping program.

Last year, Gonzales told the panel that there had been no internal administration dispute about the program, but former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the panel that he, Ashcroft and Mueller were among the top Justice Department officials who believed the program was illegal and were prepared to resign over it.

In his own sworn testimony Thursday, Mueller contradicted Gonzales, saying under questioning that the terrorist surveillance program (TSP) was the topic of the hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials.

Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the dramatic March 10, 2004, confrontation between Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.

“Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?” asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.

“I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes,” Mueller answered.

Jackson Lee sought to clarify: “We use ‘TSP,’ we use ‘warrantless wiretapping,’ so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?”

“The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes,” Mueller responded.

The NSA, or National Security Agency, runs the program that eavesdropped on terror suspects in the United States, without court approval, until last January, when the program was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Other examples of what Sen. Charles Schumer called Gonzales’ “lying” that merited a probe by a special prosecutor included the attorney general’s sworn testimony that he had not spoken about the firings with other witnesses because the matter was under investigation.

His former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, testified under a grant of immunity that Gonzales had privately recounted his recollections of the firings and asked for her opinion on his version.

“There’s no wiggle room,” Schumer said. “Those are not misleading. Those are deceiving. Those are lying.”

Not signing the letter to Clement was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who instead sent a letter to Gonzales Thursday giving him a week to resolve any inconsistencies in his testimony.

“The burden is on him to clear up the contradictions,” Leahy said.

Ranking Republican Arlen Specter, R-Pa., agreed, calling the call for a special counsel premature, and he took particular aim at Schumer, who has led the probe into the firing.

“Senator Schumer’s not interested in looking at the record, he’s interested in throwing down the gauntlet and making a story in tomorrow’s newspapers,” Specter said.

Meanwhile, Leahy subpoenaed Karl Rove, the architect of Bush’s rise to the White House and his top political adviser, to provide testimony and documents related to the firings by Aug. 2. Also subpoenaed is a White House political aide, J. Scott Jennings. The Justice Department included both men on e-mails about the firings and the administration’s response to the congressional investigation.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding has consistently said that top presidential aides _ present and past - are immune from subpoenas and has declared the documents sought off-limits under executive privilege.

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a contempt citation against two other Bush confidants, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. The full House is expected to vote on the citation in the fall, but the Justice Department has said it won’t prosecute the two. ++

Associated Press Writers Ben Feller in Washington and Brendan Riley in Carson City, Nev., contributed to this story.

Specter to probe Supreme Court decisions
Carrie Budoff, Politico
July 25, 2007

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.

Specter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.

“There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it,” Specter said, singling out Roberts.

The Specter inquiry poses a potential political problem for the GOP and future nominees because Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions.

Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who served as chairman during the hearings, said he wants to examine whether Roberts and Alito have “lived up” to their assurances that they would respect legal precedents.

Judicial independence is “so important,” Specter said, but an examination could help with future nominations. “I have done a lot of analyzing and have come to the conclusion that these nominees answer just as many questions as they have to.”

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a Judiciary Committee member who voted against both nominees, said a review “could lead us to have a different approach.” He said senators need to be “more probing” with their questioning of nominees.

“Certainly Justice Roberts left a distinct impression of his service as chief justice. And his performance on the court since, I think, has been in conflict with many of the statements he has made privately, as well as to the committee,” said Durbin, who was unaware of Specter’s idea.

“They are off to a very disturbing start, these two new justices. I am afraid before long they will call into question some of the most established laws and precedents in our nation.”

The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.

Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Roberts has defended his rulings as applications of “existing precedent.”

Specter, however, said Breyer’s statement was “an especially forceful criticism of the Roberts court.”

“I only noticed it in a couple of cases,” Specter said of the court overturning or undermining precedents. But Breyer, in their Aspen conversation, said “there were eight.”

Those that have earned the most criticism from liberals were rulings that struck down desegregation programs, upheld a federal law prohibiting late-term abortions and weakened restrictions on broadcast ads during campaigns.

“The reality is, although John Roberts and Samuel Alito promised to follow precedent, they either explicitly or implicitly overruled precedent,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor.

“It is important to point out how the confirmation hearings were a sham. There is nothing you can do about it now; they are there for life. But it is important as we look to future hearings.”

Conservatives such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a Judiciary Committee member, have no complaints. “I don’t have any concerns about them whatsoever,” Sessions said of Alito and Roberts.

Like other Republicans and many Democrats, Specter grilled the nominees on their approach to precedent, often as a way to discern their thoughts on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing abortion rights.

And Specter repeatedly sought assurances that Roberts and Alito would respect what the senator considered settled law.

Roberts said there would be instances that called for a reconsideration of prior decisions. But, he added, “I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness.”

Alito called stare decisis “a very important doctrine,” although it was not an “inexorable command.”

“I agree that, in every case in which there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of stare decisis,” Alito said. “And the presumption is that the court will follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior precedent.”

Before voting to confirm Roberts and Alito, Specter cited their statements on precedent as reason enough to put them on the high court.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said at the time that he, too, found Roberts’ statements “reassuring” and voted to confirm him. He voted against Alito.

“Oh, sure,” Lieberman said Tuesday when asked whether he is concerned about the court’s treatment of precedent. “I am interested in what Arlen has to say.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the testimony from Roberts and Alito was misleading in light of their rulings.

“I very much got the idea, the strong chain of reasoning, that they had great respect for stare decisis and they didn’t want to be activist judges,” said Feinstein, who voted against both nominees. “As you know, some of these latest cases have pretty much shattered precedent.”

A review could put “judges on notice that they can’t come in front of the Judiciary Committee, say one thing and leave one impression, and then go out and do another,” she added.

Specter, who said he will do the review when he “gets a spare moment,” would not go as far as Feinstein on whether he feels misled.

“Don’t put words in my mouth,” Specter said. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment July 26th, 2007

Next Posts Previous Posts


Calendar

July 2007
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category