Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » creeksneakers2 Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
creeksneakers2's Journal
Posted by creeksneakers2 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Nov 16th 2009, 10:19 PM
They once called judicial nominee filibusters unconstitutional.

FROM NPR:

Hamilton has served for 15 years as a federal district court judge in Indiana. He is so widely respected that Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican, strongly endorsed his nomination, as did the state president of the conservative Federalist Society. At the confirmation hearing, Lugar praised Hamilton's "brilliance," "fairness" and commitment to law. "He is the type of lawyer and the type of person one wants to see on the federal bench," Lugar said.

(snip)

Democratic filibusters of some of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees so infuriated Republicans that they threatened to do away with the century-and-a-half-old rule, using an end run that came to be known as the "nuclear option."

In 2005, Republicans spoke for days about the insult of the judicial filibuster, calling it unconstitutional. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, now the Senate Republican leader, said in 2005 of the Democrats: "For the first time in 214 years they've changed the advise and consent responsibilities to advise and obstruct."

(snip)

Now, many Republicans are maintaining that Hamilton presents just such an extraordinary circumstance — and Sessions said Monday that regardless, Republicans no longer feel bound by the earlier agreement.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments) | Recommend (+2 votes)
Posted by creeksneakers2 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun May 17th 2009, 06:15 PM
This morning, Boehner repeated the current GOP talking point:

"If the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they be prosecuted. And if that's not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/17/pel... /

But where was Boehner when a key member of the GOP contradicted the CIA's accounts of briefings on the destruction of interrogation tapes?

NY Times 12/07/07

In his statement, General Hayden said leaders of Congressional oversight committees had been fully briefed about the existence of the tapes and told in advance of the decision to destroy them. But the two top members of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 said Thursday that they had not been notified in advance of the decision to destroy the tapes.

A spokesman for Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, who was the committee’s chairman between 2004 and 2006, said that Mr. Hoekstra was “never briefed or advised that these tapes existed, or that they were going to be destroyed.”

The spokesman, Jamal Ware, also said that Mr. Hoekstra “absolutely believes that the full committee should have been informed and consulted before the C.I.A. did anything with the tapes.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/washingt...

Gingrich and others are making the case that its outrageous to say the CIA lied. But in Hoekstra's case the GOP did the same thing. And how can the GOP claim that the CIA is so honest about what occurred concerning torture, when we know the CIA destroyed the interrogation tapes? We also know those tapes were requested by the 9/11 Commission and weren't provided.

So the CIA lied and the GOP called them liars. Why the different standards now?
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by creeksneakers2 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Feb 11th 2009, 08:17 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...

Working to accommodate the new, lower overall limit of the bill, negotiators effectively wiped out a Senate-passed provision for a new $15,000 tax credit to defray the cost of buying a home, these officials said. The agreement would allow taxpayers to deduct the sales tax paid on new car purchases, but not the interest on loans for the same vehicles.

Out of $2 trillion worth of stimuli they cut out the $19 billion that would have re sparked the housing market, which is supposedly at the center of all the trouble. The money was put in the bill on an unanimous Senate vote. I was so hoping to be able to buy a house.

I'm mad. I hope the whole bill fails to pass now.
Read entry | Discuss (30 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by creeksneakers2 in Election Reform
Wed Jan 21st 2009, 08:01 PM
Or so she tells the Cleveland Scene

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/90/poi...

After her husband was named as a witness in Arnebeck's lawsuit, Heather Connell was hounded by self-styled online journalists. Some sent threatening postcards. One, a reporter for the website Raw Story, handed Mike's daughter a slip of paper asking Heather to meet her in a nearby park. The cloak-and-dagger approach frightened Heather so much that Connell called his lawyers and had them prepare a restraining order. Until she spoke to Scene last week, Heather had taken to siccing her dogs on anyone who approached her front door. She spends a lot of time in her husband's basement office these days, chain-smoking thin cigarettes and drinking Diet Coke.

Also in the article......

Mike never intended to testify against Rove, says Westover, because he had nothing to say. "He thought the lawsuit was utter bullshit. He was caught in the middle. He just shrugged his shoulders and said, 'That's the dirty business of Washington politics.'"

None of Mike's closest friends remember him ever saying he felt threatened or that his plane might be sabotaged. The only time he canceled a flight was when he turned back to Akron when an engine made noises over Pittsburgh earlier this year. He had the engine serviced by local repairmen.


Also........

"I picked up parts of his body from the lawn where the plane crashed. I have them in a box upstairs. That's how concerned the police and coroner were in investigating it as a suspicious death."

Read entry | Discuss (124 comments) | Recommend (+8 votes)
Posted by creeksneakers2 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Jan 21st 2009, 07:50 PM
Or so she tells the Cleveland Scene

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/90/poi...

After her husband was named as a witness in Arnebeck's lawsuit, Heather Connell was hounded by self-styled online journalists. Some sent threatening postcards. One, a reporter for the website Raw Story, handed Mike's daughter a slip of paper asking Heather to meet her in a nearby park. The cloak-and-dagger approach frightened Heather so much that Connell called his lawyers and had them prepare a restraining order. Until she spoke to Scene last week, Heather had taken to siccing her dogs on anyone who approached her front door. She spends a lot of time in her husband's basement office these days, chain-smoking thin cigarettes and drinking Diet Coke.

Also in the article......

Mike never intended to testify against Rove, says Westover, because he had nothing to say. "He thought the lawsuit was utter bullshit. He was caught in the middle. He just shrugged his shoulders and said, 'That's the dirty business of Washington politics.'"

None of Mike's closest friends remember him ever saying he felt threatened or that his plane might be sabotaged. The only time he canceled a flight was when he turned back to Akron when an engine made noises over Pittsburgh earlier this year. He had the engine serviced by local repairmen.

Also........

"I picked up parts of his body from the lawn where the plane crashed. I have them in a box upstairs. That's how concerned the police and coroner were in investigating it as a suspicious death.








Read entry | Discuss (28 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by creeksneakers2 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Jan 09th 2009, 08:30 PM
NTSB investigators who examined the wreckage report there were no apparent anomalies with the control system and the engine appeared to have been developing power on impact.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/1295/conspir...
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com /



From NBC/NJ's Matthew Berger
WASHINGTON, Pa. – Palin’s nod to Hillary Clinton may not go over well everywhere, because at a rally Saturday, the mere mention of her name brought a chorus of boos.

Palin was lauded for speaking of Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro in her speech Friday in Dayton, acknowledging the role their candidacies had played for other women, including herself. It was seen as a smart political gesture toward winning over some of the Clinton supporters who feel disenfranchised and may not vote for Obama in November.

She gave essentially the same speech today at a minor league baseball stadium outside of Pittsburgh. But when she said Saturday that Clinton “showed determination and grace in her own campaign,” there were an audible boos smattered amid the cheers. Palin ignored the boos and continued on with her speech.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
The following is not all Biden did in his attempt to keep the US out of war with Iraq. I'm limited by copyright.

Excerpts from the Book HUBRIS By Michael Isakoff and David Corn

Page 64:

Hagel, who believed Saddam was bottled up and posed no pressing threat to the United States, quickly talked to Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic chairman of the foreign relations committee, and the two discussed whether the White House's war aims extended beyond Iraq. "I remember saying to Joe over the phone, the way this is written, the president could go to war anywhere in the Middle East, " Hagel later said. "And I remember Joe and I talked about Iran and Syria. Maybe they're thinking, 'We just take them all down, just take two, three of them out, go after Syria and Iran too,' What's to stop them?"

Page 127:

By the end of September, the president's war resolution was no sure thing. The White House had trimmed it back, dumping the language that authorized Bush to go to war to achieve stability in the region. Still, the White House faced a threat. Senator Joe Biden and two Republican senators on the foreign relations committee - Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel - were pushing an alternative that would narrow the president's authority further. Under their proposal, Bush would be able to attack Iraq only for the purpose of destroying Iraq's WMDs and only after seeking UN approval. If the United Nations said no, Bush would have to come back to Congress and demonstrate that the Iraqi weapons threat was so "grave" that only military action could eliminate it. The Biden - Lugar measure was attracting support from both Democrats and Republicans. And, according to Biden, he and his allies were getting backdoor advice and encouragement from the administration's reluctant warriors, Powell and Armitage. The White House was worried about Biden's endeavor, and Bush was furious. "I don't want a resolution such as this that ties my hands," he told Senator Trent Lott. The president, according to Lott, gave him an emphatic order: "Derail the Biden legislation and make sure its language never sees the light of day.


But it was Dick Gephardt, the Democratic leader in the House and past and future presidential candidate, who derailed the bipartisan effort.....At any moment, the House Republicans could put the president's bill to a vote on the floor, and it would pass - with a number of Democrats signing on......"This is a good as it gets," Gephardt recalled, "and I became convinced we couldn't get more."


Biden also held a hearing on the WMD threat.


Page 117-118

.....But the hearing wasn't done. The committee had previously learned of the dispute within the government about the aluminum tubes, and Biden had invited witnesses to represent the skeptics. The State Department's chief intelligence officer, Carl Ford, Jr., was there to testify after Tenet, as was Rhys Williams, the chief of the Energy Department's Office of Intelligence. Both witnesses told the dwindling number of senators that their agencies didn't accept the tubes argument. But few senators were paying close attention to their testimony, and the hearing was petering out.

David Corn mentions this on his website.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn /


Read entry | Discuss (3 comments) | Recommend (+4 votes)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26314990 /

(snip)
For Obama, he receives the support of just one in two voters who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries,

(snip)

The Clinton factor
Yet perhaps the biggest factor keeping the presidential race close has been Obama’s inability to close the deal with some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. According to the poll, 52 percent of them say they will vote for Obama, but 21 percent are backing McCain, with an additional 27 percent who are undecided or want to vote for someone else.

What’s more, those who backed Clinton in the primaries — but aren’t supporting Obama right now — tend to view McCain in a better light than Obama and have more confidence in McCain’s ability to be commander-in-chief.

(snip)

It’s also worth noting that while Obama leads McCain by three points in the poll, Clinton edges the Republican by six points in a hypothetical match up, 49 to 43 percent. But she remains a polarizing figure: 49 percent say they don’t want to see her as president someday, and 42 percent view her favorably versus 41 percent who see her in a negative light.

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26314990 /

(snip)
For Obama, he receives the support of just one in two voters who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries,

(snip)

The Clinton factor
Yet perhaps the biggest factor keeping the presidential race close has been Obama’s inability to close the deal with some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. According to the poll, 52 percent of them say they will vote for Obama, but 21 percent are backing McCain, with an additional 27 percent who are undecided or want to vote for someone else.

What’s more, those who backed Clinton in the primaries — but aren’t supporting Obama right now — tend to view McCain in a better light than Obama and have more confidence in McCain’s ability to be commander-in-chief.

(snip)

It’s also worth noting that while Obama leads McCain by three points in the poll, Clinton edges the Republican by six points in a hypothetical match up, 49 to 43 percent. But she remains a polarizing figure: 49 percent say they don’t want to see her as president someday, and 42 percent view her favorably versus 41 percent who see her in a negative light.

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...

(snip)
Documents show Kathleen Anne Hensley was born to Jim and Mary Jeanne Hensley on Feb. 23, 1943. They had been married for six years when Kathleen was born.

(snip)
Cindy Lou Hensley was born nine years later, in 1954.

(snip)
She was, however, the sole inheritor of his considerable estate.
Kathleen Portalski was left $10,000, and her children were left nothing. It's a fact Nicholas Portalski says his sister discovered the hard way.

(snip)
"The fact that we don't exist," he says. "The fact that we've never been recognized, and then Cindy has to put such a fine point on it by saying something that's not true. Recently, again and again. It's just very, very hurtful." Kathleen Portalski says she'd like an acknowledgment and an apology. NPR asked the McCain campaign — specifically, Cindy McCain — to comment or respond. Neither replied.




Read entry | Discuss (23 comments) | Recommend (+16 votes)
American control of Iraq's oil resources is also prohibited.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/...

Section 1222: Amends the Warner Act to make permanent the prohibition on the establishment of permanent military installations in Iraq or U.S. control over oil resources of Iraq.

Sometimes the Democrats do something worth cheering about. This is getting too little notice.
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments) | Recommend (+2 votes)
According to Powell, Bush knew that Iraq was likely to turn out just the way it has. All that time that the White House was putting out propaganda about "cakewalk" and "greeted with flowers" they all knew that Iraq was very likely not going to turn out that way. Being politicians, they had to know how unpopular the war would become, and they didn't care.

Everybody who is willing to knows that Bush lied before the war. This time, we have clear proof Bush knew he was lying. To me, lying to cover up what was probably going to come in Iraq was far worse than lying about the WMD.

TRANSCRIPT

MR. RUSSERT: Prior to the war, Walter Pincus wrote that you were provided, the president was provided some information from the CIA. Let me read it here. “On August 13th, 2003, the CIA completed a classified, six-page intelligence analysis that described the worst scenarios that could arise after a U.S.-led removal of Saddam Hussein: anarchy and territorial breakup in Iraq, a surge of global terrorism,” “a deepening of Islamic antipathy toward the United States.

“According to then-CIA director George Tenet, it was relegated to the back of a thick briefing book handed out to President Bush’s national security team for a meeting on September 7th, 2002, at Camp David where the Iraq war was topic A.” Do you remember that?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t remember specifically that book, but I’m sure it exists. But a week earlier, the 5th of August 2002, the president and I, with Dr. Rice present, had a conversation that touched on many of the likely outcomes and the realization that it would probably tie up a significant percentage of our armed forces for a long period of time, it would cost a great deal, we’re getting inside of a sectarian conflict that we would have to keep a lid on, and we would have to get Iraqis up and moving as quickly as possible in order to hand the responsibility off to them. And so I don’t think any of us were unaware of the kinds of problems that we might face. I certainly was not unaware, and I was informed by my own thinking, as well as CIA documentation, not just the one Mr. Pincus makes reference to. But all along the way, those who had experience in this part of the world and those that had experience in war understood that we were taking on something that was going to be a major burden to us for many years, and I think the president was well aware of that. And my, my judgment is that we didn’t prepare ourselves well enough for the kinds of challenges that occurred in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read entry | Discuss (21 comments) | Recommend (+19 votes)
Posted by creeksneakers2 in Latest Breaking News
Fri Apr 27th 2007, 12:22 AM
First though, I think the biggest barrier to putting Rice in jail is Bush's power to issue pardons. I doubt that anything would trump that, except impeachment, which requires 67 votes.

Here is some information about what Congress could do to enforce the subpoena before it got to the point of a pardon:

Congress has three routes .

(1) The old method,the inherent contempt power, was used up until 1935. The Sergeant- at-Arms would bring the person in contempt before either house of Congress, where the offender would be tried. The house of Congress could then sentence the offender to jail for a specific time as a punishment, or put the offender in jail for an indefinite time which could not go beyond the end of the legislative session. With the latter choice, the offender could end his confinement by complying with Congress.

I don't know of any reason, other to the time it would take to try her, that the inherent contempt power method couldn't be used now, even though it hasn't been used for 70 years. Again though, I think, even if Rice was imprisoned by Congress, Bush could pardon her.

(2) Since 1935, Congress has used statutory contempt actions against those in contempt. To use the statute, a full vote of either house is required. The statute says it is the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute the person held in contempt.

I guess that Congress would not be able to force the Attorney General to prosecute. The power to prosecute is a unique power of the executive branch. The power to prosecute must include the power to refuse to prosecute. This issue has never gone to court, so I am just guessing that the courts would see an attempt to force the Attorney General as a violation of separation of powers.

(3)Congress also has a civil contempt alternative but it can't be used against the executive branch, with exceptions. I haven't looked up what the exceptions are.

(PDF)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pd...


If Waxman starts down this road, the story would dominate the news. There's much to lose because the fight could wind up giving conservatives the powerful executive they've long sought, and seriously diminish the power of Congress. However, the political side looks great.

I think the biggest threat we face is not George Bush or Iraq. Its the creeping fascism of the right wing. It would be great for the public to see just how far the right wing would go to do wrong and cover it up.

Rice had to have known that questions were raised about the Niger/uranium story. I don't think any career intelligence employee believed the story. According to the CIA debriefers who heard Wilson's report on Niger, they didn't circulate Wilson's findings because Wilson told them nothing new. If Wilson said the Niger/uranium yarn was a hoax, and that was nothing new, then everybody at the CIA must have already known it was a hoax. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was under GOP control, the State Department analysts who first viewed the Niger/uranium documents broke out laughing at what poor fakes the documents were. The documents were then sent to the CIA, where they were put unseen in a safe for months. The best explanation I can think of for the CIA doing that was that they didn't want to examine the documents because they knew they were forgeries, and nobody wanted the responsibility of telling the White House or covering it up.

On top of all that, Tenant told Rice the Niger/uranium story wasn't credible. Rice says she forgot. How could the person responsible for the security of the United States forget whether what she judged as the greatest threat to national security was real or not?

I think a good constitutional showdown could bring attention to the biggest problems we face. The administration's case for the Niger/uranium hoax is so weak that at some point Americans could finally stop asking what happened and start asking WHY it happened. How did the Bush cabal get away with all they did? The media has much to hide about their own involvement. A big story like a constitutional showdown would be impossible to downplay. If we can get to the WHY all this happened, we'll save America.

GO WAXMAN GO!


Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by creeksneakers2 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Mar 04th 2007, 05:55 PM
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.