Patriot Act Renewal Distraction

******* 23 July 2005 UPDATE *******
Prison Planet's analysis reveals some very interesting observations. Below are a few of the more intriguing:

Today is the last day of parliament before an 80 day break. So if the governmen wanted to get those anti-terror measures through which were proposed after the 7/7 bombing, then this status of high alert is the perfect climate to get them rammed through without dissent.

Sky News reported that members of parliament could be recalled tonight in a special session for the express purpose of passing that legislation.

In the early confusion about what is actually happening in London, several things are already clear.

- This immediately stalls questions about the first bombing. The mainstream media were finally beginning to highlight the fact that the government's official story did not fit together. This takes those issues off the front pages.

- This further promulgates the fearmongering and creates a pliable public that is willing to accept draconian anti-terror laws. They are trying to turn us into Israel, with an alert or a bombing every fortnight.

- On the very day that the Patriot Act is due to be renewed, Bush can use the alert level to grease the skids and bully Congress into re-authorizing the bill.
Read the rest of the article here

******* Original Post*******
Coincidence or not?

Yesterday's London bombings occurs on the same day the US House of Representatives permanently renews 14 out of 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions. The two which were not permanently renewed will come up for renewal in 10 years.

The original Patriot Act was in response to the 9/11 attacks and supposed to be a temporary measure to provide intelligence agencies with the capabilities to catch the terrorists. It has sinced turned into a permanent fixture in the American intelligence apparatuses.

Passage came with the specter of terrorism fresh in lawmakers' minds after another round of bombing incidents in London earlier in the day.
Source: CNN

Interestingly, on the day the vote was to take place, the failed London bombings provided a timely, vivid "reminder" of the necessity for intelligence agencies to have the freedom to go after anyone them deem to be a terrorist or terrorist suspect.

Although the Senate still has to authorize the changes, the fact this news-worthy item is being overshadowed by the London bombings is very interesting.

And, bombings which appear to have been made to look like the July 7th bombings, but were actually quite amateur in comparison, failed to explode -- ALL FOUR! What are the odds of that happenning?

Unlike the devastation of a fortnight before, when 56 people died and more than 700 were injured, Thursday's repeat attacks caused no casualties as the rucksack-borne bombs seemingly failed to detonate fully.

Witnesses reported hearing loud pops like guns or corks as smoke poured from the rucksacks, testimony which experts said indicated that the bombs' detonators went off but failed to ignite the main charges.
Source: AFP

Today, a suspected terrorist was shot in a London subway.

Scotland Yard said the man shot dead at about 1000 BST on Friday in Stockwell had still to be formally identified.

He was being under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched following Thursday's attacks, a spokesman said.

The man was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, he added.

Stockwell passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen a man of Asian appearance shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers".

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said.
Source: BBC

So, he's a suspected terrorist because he walked out of a suspected terrorist house. Even though they aren't sure who he is, he is tackled because his attire and behavior is a bit suspicious, then they unload five shots into the unknown individual.

Let's hope, for the Scotland Yard's sake, this individual is found to have explosive material on him and, by their actions, the police prevented enother potentially devastating attack. If not, let's hope there's a public outcry for police restraint until there is absolute certainty of guilt of an individual before someone is allowed to kill them in cold blood.

All of this, food for thought yet again...

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts, War on Terror.

Move Over Rove and Let Joe Take Over

Move over Rover and let Jimi take over
Jimi Hendrix - Fire

Joseph Wilson speaks out in a Washington Post article:

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson called on President Bush Thursday to fire deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, saying Bush's top-level aide engaged in an "abuse of power" by discussing Wilson's wife's job with a reporter.

Wilson, in an interview broadcast Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, said he thinks the White House's posture in this controversy represents a continuing "cover-up of the web of lies that underpin the justification for going to war in Iraq."

"The president has said repeatedly, "I am a man of my word,' " Wilson added. "He should stand up and prove that his word is his bond and fire Karl Rove."

Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the administration to discredit him after he challenged its assertion that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking to obtain from Niger material to make nuclear weapons.
Source - Washintgon Post

The heat is on Bush to do something about Rove. Bush's credibility is on the line.

It would be interesting to see if some BIG event coincidentally strikes to take the focus away from ...

• Rove's illegal act of revealing the identity of an intelligence operative.


• Bush's refusal to take action on the source of the Plame leak.


• Downing Street memos confirming the Bush administrations' "fixing" the facts to support the policy of going after Sadam.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Iraq, Media, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Rove's Scandalous Links

Karl Rove has acts as if, and I'm sure considers himself, beyond reproach. Nothing can touch him. Noone can stop him from getting his way.

Those were the old days.

Although he still is connected and influencial, the revelations of participation in what are becoming more obvious as scandalous activities are beginning to show the cracks in the armor. Several still vocally stand in his defense, most likely to gain future favors. A growing number of others are distancing themselves carefully so as not to draw attention to themselves when the hammer falls. And, another number of others are fence sitting to weather Rove's political storm should he win or lose.

Daniel Schorr, National Public Radio's senior news analyst and Christian Science Monitor's contributing columnist, writes in the article Rove Leak is Just Part of Larger Scandal:

Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.

In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.

No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.

One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a super-secret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.

The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
Source: Christian Science Monitor

This from someone with a career of more than six decades who knows how to conduct his research and developed a keen sense for putting all the pieces together.

Now, for the other scandal brewing...

As most of you who have followed this blog know, the actions of another Texas politician, not too disimilar from Rove in his character, Tom DeLay, have been in and out of the media for quite some time. Specifically, the issue of ethical misconduct.

Well, lo and behold, here we find Karl Rove involved as well.

In a press release from the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress, manager Peter L. Kelley reveals Rove's close connection with Jack Abramoff, who is at the center of DeLay's lobbying scandal. From the article Rove Tied to Tom DeLay Lobbying Scandal:

Karl Rove's involvement in leaking the name of a CIA operative for political advantage during wartime could be just the tip of the iceberg as far as unethical behavior, since his web of influence extends to the most notorious figure of the House Lobbying Scandal.

"It's widely known that Karl Rove has been pulling strings all over Washington for years, obviously not just in the case of the Plame leak," said Peter L. Kelley, manager of the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress.

"What is not widely known, however, is his close connection with Jack Abramoff, who is at the center of the lobbying scandal in which Washington is now embroiled. Rove let archconservative operatives like Grover Norquist call shots at the White House. And just this week, a Texas judge ruled that a former Rove lieutenant must face felony charges of money laundering for Tom DeLay's political operation.

"Without further ethics reforms, the public has virtually no ability to find out what is really going on in Washington these days," Kelley said. "But what we do know is starting to smell, and it offers a starting point for further investigation."

The collapse of Rove's dynasty has begun. Let's see whether his influence will save him from these continuous revelations of unethical and, potentially, criminal activities.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Media, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Media Sharks Smell Blood in White House CIA Leak Involvement

Interesting week to say the least!

Since my last post on Friday, where I expressed my concern over the undeniably restrained coverage by the press community for such a HOT news item (specifically, last week's revelation that Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, was the source of the leak which resulted in the exposure of a CIA operative) which should have had them all drooling to break the news. Well, this week, the press has been all over White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Bush, who was initially defending Rove, has taken a more non-commital tone.

There is definitly blood in the water. The press sharks smells it and have decided to jump all over the news of Rove's involvement. Like dogs who have been beaten for so long, sensing a time to bite the abuser in a moment of weakness.

Democrats are calling for Rove's dismissal while the Republican faithful see nothing wrong, or relevant to the leak, in Rove's discussion of Joe Wilson's wife being a CIA operative.

Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter.
Source: Washington Post

The Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans are vocal in blaming the Democrats for "partisan politics", yet the White House has been taking a more subdued approach, in contrast to earlier unwavering support for Rove.

President Bush said Wednesday he will withhold judgment about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in the leaking the identity of a CIA operative until a federal criminal investigation is complete.

The lack of an endorsement surprised some Bush advisers who had expected the president to voice his support.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush said at the end of a meeting with his Cabinet, with Rove sitting just behind him. "I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete.

"I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," he said, when asked whether Rove acted improperly in discussing CIA officer Valerie Plame with a reporter.

Bush is "withholding judgement". Sounds like political CYA.

Media Quiet on Karl Rove Involvement in Plame Leak

Why haven't we been hearing more about Karl Rove's alleged involvement in leaking Valerie Plame's (identified as a CIA operative) name to the media? One of the most potentially damaging stories of the year for the current administation and it is obviously being played down.

Isn't it odd that one of the most treacherous acts against the country is going under-reported? Revealing the name of an intelligence operative and compromising, more likely resulting in the death of, other assets and intelligence channels which have taken years to develop. According to the law, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the act by itself warrants imprisonment.

Ariana Huffington's opinion, appearing July 6th on her site, is the obvious fear of what Karl Rove and the White House are capable of doing, to even the biggest of media moguls and their empires, to those who cross them.

According to the players, the key to whether this story has real legs -- and whether it will spell the end of Rove -- is determining intent. And a key to that is whether there was a meeting at the White House where Rove and Scooter Libby discussed what to do with the information they had gotten from the State Department about Valerie Plame being Joe Wilson’s wife, and her involvement in his being sent on the Niger/yellowcake mission. If it can be proven that such a meeting occurred, then Rove will be in deep trouble -- especially if it is established that Rove made three phone calls leaking the info about Plame and her CIA gig… one to Matt Cooper, one to Walter Pincus, and one to Robert Novak.

So, it's a given Karl Rove is involved, the questions is to what degree he willingly, and with premeditated intent to cause harm, released the information. Did he encourage, demand, or suggest (wink, wink) the name be made public as pay-back for Ambassador Joe Wilson's (Valerie Plame's husband) public denial of the Nigerian yellowcake uranium memo used by the Bush administration as proof of Sadam's weapons program.

Other than intent, the other big legal question raised was: will Rove be able to get away with claiming that he did not know Plame was an undercover agent?

We all know what happened after Rove placed those calls. The question is, what will happen now?

Yes, what will happen now? Good question, indeed.

Last week, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sentenced to jail, being held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal a confidential source to the grand jury investigating the disclosure of Plame's identity. We can only hope this ultimately results in the revelation of the identity of the leak.

One thing is for certain, the media will wish this go away or some other news rise to the surface. You see, this will be the only way to avoid being held to the public scrutiny of having failed in their responsibility to report this egregeous action and bring to light this obvious violation of public trust by our leaders.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Media, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Blasts in Britain: Police had Advance Warning

Truly a sad day today in England. A series of explosions were reported to have occurred in the subway and on a bus resulting in a large number of deaths.

I am saddened by the meaningless loss of life. It makes no sense that this should happen to innocent civilians which are not responsible for the politicians' actions. In addition, I'm disturbed by the timing of the event and disappearance of some initial reports.

Below is an objective analysis from Signs of the Times of why actions such as these definitely DO NOT serve the terrorists' objectives, whatever they may be:

We would like to appeal to all our readers to think about these attacks rationally. First of all, ask yourself, what does "al-qaeda" or any other "previously unknown" Islamic group have to gain from carrying out these attacks at this particular time in London. Coming on the very day that the "G8" leaders meet in Scotland, the only tangible results of the attacks have been to vector British and world public attention TOWARDS the "reality" of "Arab terrorism" and AWAY from the crimes of people like Bush and Blair as regards the pillaging of the resources (both human and natural) of third world countries. On the very day that G8 leaders were expected to deliver on the demands of the World public to alleviate "third world" debt, "al-qaeda" steps in and saves them the trouble by bringing "terrorism" center stage.

One of the most troubling aspects of "Arab terror" attacks in Europe and the US is that the victims are almost always ordinary civilians. By now, any Arab terrorist strategist should surely have realised that their issue is not with the civilian population of Western nations but rather with the politicians that make the decisions, many of which run contrary to the will of the people. The massive anti-Iraq war demonstrations around Europe and the US made this point quite clear. In this case, what does "al-qaeda" have to gain from attacking London trains and buses filled with civilian workers when it is patently obvious that civilian deaths at the hands of "terrorists" will do nothing to sway the average Western government from their political and military designs on the Middle East, quite the opposite in fact.

It really is a no brainer that "al-qaeda" terrorism very definitely serves the agenda of Bush and Blair.

Something very strange happened during the early reporting of the events. Several articles released early during the breaking news of the explosions stated that British police had notified the Israeli embassy of the potential terrorist acts began disappearing from web sites. The original release being replaced by denials.

One such report had the title "Israeli Official: Scotland Yard had warning" with the brief content:

JERUSALEM — British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before today's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

The report was replaced with on titled "Israel denies receiving warning before blasts".

Links to sites where the article was replaced:

• Fox News - "Israeli
  Official: Scotland Yard Had Warning"


• Houston Chronicle - "Britain passed on warning to Israeli Embassy just before blast"


• Canoe - "Israel got warning of terror attack minutes before"

Here is one example where the original AP release exists:

Scotland Yard had warned Israel of possible terror attacks

Jerusalem, July 7 (AP): British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before today's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position.

Israel was holding an economic conference near the scene of one of the explosions. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to attend, but the attacks occurred before he arrived.

Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy and said warnings of possible attacks had been received, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference.

Link to article on Hindu News
Link to article on Rediff.com
Link to article on NY Newsday

I'm troubled by the parallels to the reports of warnings to the Israeli instant messaging service company in the World Trade Center, Odigo, prior to the September 11th attack. Why is it that Israeli interests seem to have been warned PRIOR to the attacks?

Food for thought.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Israel, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts, War on Terror.

You Lied!

Yesterday, I listened to a song I was unable to get out of my head. 'You Lied' (listen here) possesses a pleasant-sounding musical accompaniment and melodic flow to a definitely disturbing, yet starkly accurate, lyrical foundation.

Here are the lyrics for your benefit:

You Lied
copyright 2005 Signs of the Times

You told the world Saddam had chemical bombs
To kill us all in our homes, on our farms
You said he sent his men into the heavens
big planes crashing down, September 11

You lied, You lied,
People died, When Bush lied

I've got some questions, wipe that smirk off your face
Betraying your people, that's a real disgrace
See I'm having a hard time finding that plane
you said hit the Pentagon, bursting into flames
Vapourising the aircraft, didn't leave no remains
But the bodies appear not to burn quite the same

More lies Yeah, yeah, more lies
America died, When Bush lied

And talk about mir'cles, did you see how they fell,
the three towers in New York, those charges worked well
Flattened out in a straight line, just like it was planned
Did you think we were so stupid that we wouldn't understand
And it's a pity about the folks there on Flight 93,
Just as they took back control, you blew them to smithereens

You lied, You lied
Heroes died, when Bush lied

You say Osama is living in a place you have traced
But you don't go and get him, it seems such a waste
Could it be it's because he's still one of your men
A C-I-A asset just like he was then
He endorsed your campaign in a last minute pitch
Is he just one more man who has gotten quite rich

From your lies, Your lies
Freedom died, from your lies

How about those Israelis dancing to their success,
On the rooftops of Jersey, they created a mess
So you sent them back home with a slap on the wrist
Told the cops not to bother, 'cause they don't exist

It's a lie, You lied
Justice died, when you lied

Now people are dying through your crimes in Iraq
You've killed more than Saddam, though you don't care to keep track
Cause they're only some Arabs in a faraway land
That Yahweh has promised to his chosen band
While Sharon and his cronies pull on your strings
When he opens his mouth your whole government sings

His lies, His lies
Palestinians die, With Bush lies

Next time you talk to your God, I've got a question for him
What side is he on or does it change on a whim'
There's a whole lot of people, suff'rin here in his name
What kind of pyscho is he that he's playing this game
It sounds more like the devil is guiding your hand
Destruction and death are the plagues of the land

of your lies, your lies
Children die, When Bush lies

You see, Mr President, there's something amiss
Two elections you lost, but you overcame this
By rigging the vote, not counting the blacks
You've ensured two full terms, the dry drunk is back
And now they're changing the laws to get you a third
The brown shirts are charging at the front of the herd

of your lies, your lies
Democracy dies, When Bush lies

The question remains what can we do about this
Most people refuse to consider this list
They're lost in illusion, can't recognise proof
so we offer this song to all who stand for the truth

No more lies, No more lies
Must we all die, Because of your lies

No more lies, No more lies
Must we all die, Because of your lies

Your lies...

Here's another you might have heard before which is just as significant:

Imagine
Written by: John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Think about the it for a moment... no more lies, no more wars.

How much longer do we accept the world which has been set up for us? Get up and DO something to change the status quo. Take the world back from those who wish to control and enslave every single one of us.

For us, for our children, for mankind's future.

Technorati Categories: Bush, Current Affairs, Entertainment, Music, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts.

Listen to Molly

Molly Ivins has been around quite a while (30 years in journalism) commenting and writing about a variety of things. She has a no-nonsense, down-to-earth, yet piercing style of getting right to the heart of the matter. I've enjoyed reading her columns and would like to share a few with you...

On the recent Supreme Court decision to allow local governments to sieze private property for economic development:

Eminent development - Supreme Court sides with rich vs. poor
"Jobs, jobs, jobs," is the eternal cry of the economic development lobby, which always stands to profit from whatever abomination is about to be foisted on the public. I'm not arguing that bigger is better or worse, I'm arguing that local governments are likely to seize on any chance to increase their tax base. We've got places in Texas that beg for prisons, chemical complexes, even nuclear waste dumps.

What it doesn't mean is a better place to live, which I gather is what the Supreme Court majority had in mind with this decision. Those who naively trust local governments to make wise decisions clearly haven't been paying attention. The main difference between the feds and the locals is that it costs more to buy the feds. And I don't like cynics.

People have the most remarkable ability to convince themselves that what they are doing is for the greater good if they are also making a great deal of money out of it. Or, as Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

People excuse this kind of thing by saying, "You can't stop progress." "Progress" of this sort doesn't happen through some inexorable law, it usually happens because the law and the political system have been bought by huge economic interests. Corporations can file lawsuits and defend lawsuits longer than a normal human can live, and they can make more generous campaign contributions than any seven homeowners will ever be able to come up with.

On the Downing Street memo:

Dismissing Downing Street - Just because everyone knew it was a setup doesn't mean it's not news
The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have all gone way out of their way to deny that the Downing Street Memos (it's now plural) are news. Like many of you, during the entire lead-up to the war with Iraq, I thought the whole thing was a set-up.

I raise this point not to prove how smart we are, but to emphasize that I followed the debate closely and probably unconsciously searched for evidence that reinforced what I already thought. Most people do that. I read some of the European press and most of the liberal publications in this country. I read the Times, the Post, the Wall Street Journal and several Texas papers every day. It's my job.

But when I read the first Downing Street Memo, my eyes bugged out and my jaw fell open. I could not believe what I was reading. It was news to me, and as I have tried to indicate, I'm no slouch at keeping up. Yes, it has long seemed to me the administration had been planning the war for months before it began its pubic relations campaign to scare a skeptical public.

That was no easy task. Public opinion was still evenly divided at the time we invaded. The administration actually said it could invade another country without even consulting Congress or the United Nations. Pretty much everything that followed was a charade.

It was always weird that the White House kept saying it knew Saddam Hussein had WMD, but it would never tell the U.N. inspectors where.

The very prestigious papers [New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times] that are now dismissing the Downing Street Memos have already themselves admitted that their pre-war coverage was -- I don't know, you pick the adjective. Slack? Inadequate? Less than rigorous? Wrong? And now they're saying, oh hell, this isn't news, we knew it all along.

Michael Kinsley out at the Los Angeles Times, which has certainly done some commendable reporting on this war and taken the heat for it, too, also dismisses the memos. I don't get it. You suddenly get evidence -- I don't know if it proves or just strongly suggests -- that this administration lied to all of us about war, and your reaction is not to go after the administration, but to dismiss the evidence? And to put down the people who are calling you screaming about why you haven't bothered to mention it? What is wrong with this picture?

Also aggravating, the Republicans in Congress refuse to allow hearings. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan held "Democratic hearings," without the R's, in a room described as a large closet, because they were not allowed to use an actual hearing room. Under these difficult circumstances, 30 Democratic representatives persisted in asking the important question, "Were Americans deliberately misled in the lead-up to this war?" When did we come to the point where the minority has no place?

I don't know if these memos represent an impeachable offense -- although I must say, I don't want to bring up the Clinton comparison again. But they strike me as a hell of lot worse than anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated.

On the Bush administration:

The definition of insanity - Bush appointments and comments clearly indicate he's not learning from his mistakes
Sometimes you look at the people Bush appoints to high public office and the only possible response is, "What were they thinking?"

Zalmay Khalilzad for U.S. ambassador to Iraq? Why not just send Richard Perle? Khalilzad is a second-rank neo-con with all the same credentials as the rest of those bozos -- pre-emptive war, world hegemony, Project for a New American Century... the whole stinking lot of it. Plus, he's been a big booster for Iran's ayatollahs, the Afghani Mujahideen and the Taliban, not to mention an oil company consultant. Isn't that just jim-dandy?

What this tells us is that the administration has learned exactly nothing from the past three years of insurgency in Iraq. The 1,700-dead, $1 billion-a-week mistake will continue to be run in exactly the same way we have already proved doesn't work.

It's like Ben Franklin's definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

As one who has long argued that George W. Bush is not stupid, I must admit that not learning from your mistakes is a prime signal of stupidity. But of course, in order to learn from your mistakes, you have to recognize you made them.

On business clout and influence in politics:

Turning up the sleaze - Welcome to the age of government by transaction
A jaw-dropping article in The Texas Observer shows that two lobbying clients of Jack Abramoff paid $25,000 to Grover Norquist's group for a lunch date and meeting with President George W. Bush in May 2001. Abramoff brought the Indian chiefs to the White house at the request of Norquist, a leading "movement conservative" in Washington. In addition, Abramoff obtained $2.5 million in contributions from the Indians for a nonprofit foundation run by his wife and himself.

The White House guests were the chiefs of two of the six casino-rich Indian tribes represented by Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon, former top aide to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. The $25,000 check from the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana is made out to Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax group founded and directed by Norquist.

Norquist, Abramoff and Karl Rove have worked together for 30 years, since they were national leaders of the College Republicans. Norquist, DeLay and Abramoff are all key players in the "the K Street Project" to turn the Washington lobby corps into an arm of the Republican Party.

For an overview of the entire Abramoff scandal and its relation to Tom DeLay and the K Street Project -- and what all this means in terms of Washington sleaze -- see an article by Elizabeth Drew, "Selling Washington," in the June 23 issue of The New York Review of Books. Drew and other students of Washington corruption conclude what we have here is not so much a difference in kind as in degree of corruption -- but of a degree that's making a difference in everything.

Drew writes, "The effects of the new, higher level of corruption on the way the country is governed are profound. Not only is legislation increasingly skewed to benefit the richest interests, but Congress itself has been changed. The head of a public policy strategy group told me: 'It's not about governing any more. The Congress is now a transactional institution. ...' The theory that ours is a system of one-person, one-vote, or even that it's a representative democracy, is challenged by the reality of power and who really wields it. (Massachusetts Rep.) Barney Frank argues that 'the political system was supposed to overcome the financial advantage of the capitalists, but as money becomes more and more influential, it doesn't work that way.'"

Molly has lots of material which you should go give it a look. Go here for a list of her opinion columns.

Technorati Categories: Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts.