Leahy: Bush ‘must go back to the rule of law’
President Bush “must go back to the rule of law.”
“Well, many say he should fire the attorney general, but I think it’s more than that,” Leahy said. “I think he has to state we have made — we, the administration have made — some bad mistakes in saying we’re above the law. Nobody’s above the law. The president’s not above the law, you’re not, I’m not. And he’s got to go back to the rule of law. If we need to make changes in our Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example, we’ll do that. We’ve done this a half a dozen times already.”
The article quotes Arlen Spector (R-PA),
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, called for Gonzales to correct the record.
“Let’s give him a chance,” he said.
The media falls all over themselves to call Specter a moderate, yet just a few days ago he was frustrated with the Attorney General for his evasiveness,
[ ]…”Would you focus on my question for just a minute, please?” Specter asked.
He added: “I’m not going to pursue that question, Mr. Attorney General, because I see it’s hopeless. … You’re the attorney general, and you’re also a lawyer. And we’re dealing with a very fundamental controversy.”
Gonzales has answered or rather evaded, refused to answer or lied to the same committee now twice. Is it the ever moderate Senator Specter’s opinion that the third time will be the charm.
Weighing in on the O’Reilly’s war on DailyKos the rude pundit linked to a post at freeperville (The Free Republic ), a few comments that were posted,
6 posted on 07/22/2007 2:01:24 PM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: driftless2“You will find out that these people are foul-mouthed haters.”
That’s putting it diplomatically. In fact, they are agents of treason. (emphasis mine)
10 posted on 07/22/2007 2:10:00 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: AKSurprise
essentially, that the entire Democratic Party is a ‘hate’ party.
Pretty much sums it up quite nicely.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: driftless2Lotta’ Jew-baiters on Kos(omol)…
Ex-CIA officer Slams US Allegations against Iran as Sham
Giraldi refuted the assumption that sharing hostilities towards the US, placed Iran and AlQaeda in the same camp and sharing similar agenda, arguing that Iran followed a very different agenda in its dealings with the US. He emphasised both the fact of Iranians’ helpfulness in Iraq, in terms of pushing for greater stability, and also their help and cooperation in Afghanistan, as well as the reality of the deep hostilities between Shiia Iran and Sunni extremism of AlQaeda. Giraldi recalled the major attack against the Iranian consulate general in Afghanistan by the Taliban, a close ally of AlQaeda, in which 11 Iranian diplomats were killed, and the regular AlQaeda violent attacks against Shiia population in Iraq, and concluded that a Shiia Iranian-AlQaeda alliance was not a plausible possibility.
[ ]…Highlighting what he called American “ultimate hypocrisy”, Giraldi explained how the US government is supporting terrorist groups and ethnic division in Iran and charging the Iranians in Iraq for what the US was doing in Iran itself and with a lot more evidence. Giraldi talked of US’s support for Jundollah which he described as a Sunni Baluchi separatist group in eastern Iran that has launched deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran. He also spoke of US support for separatists amongst the Arab minority which is closer to the border with Iraq.
I don’t know much about this site, but what this agent says is closer to reality then the lies and distortions posted daily on right-wing web sites. General Wesly Clark corroborates this to some point when he says that Iran has been in the neocons cross hairs since day one, only they thought that Iraq could be done quick and cheap,
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq — the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Gangs Spreading In The Military
Evidence of gang culture and gang activity in the military is increasing so much an FBI report calls it “a threat to law enforcement and national security.” The signs are chilling: Marines in gang attire on Parris Island; paratroopers flashing gang hand signs at a nightclub near Ft. Bragg; infantrymen showing-off gang tattoos at Ft. Hood.
“It’s obvious that many of these people do not give up their gang affiliations,” said Hunter Glass, a retired police detective in Fayetteville, North Carolina, the home of Ft. Bragg and the 82nd Airborne. He monitors gang activity at the base and across the military.
“If we weren’t in the middle of fighting a war, yes, I think the military would have a lot more control over this issue,” Glass said. “But with a war going on, I think it’s very difficult to do.”
Gang activity clues are appearing in Iraq and Afghanistan, too. Gang graffiti is sprayed on blast walls – even on Humvees. Kilroy – the doodle made famous by U.S. soldiers in World War II – is here, but so is the star emblem of the Gangster Disciples.
The soldier who took photos if the graffiti told CBS News that he’s been warned he’s as good as dead if he ever returns to Iraq.
If we try to think and spin like the Right this story would make the entire FBI and the Army’s Office of the Provost Marshal anti-military. Gangs have been in the military, even before Bush, but not to this degree. When the Pentagon had to lower enlistment standards because our brilliant Commander Guy His Royal Majesty Bush was short on soldiers this was bound to happen. Now America gets gang members trained with our tax dollars in the use of military weapons and tactics back on the street in a few years. The ineptitude never ends.
Stanley Motss: I’m in show business, why come to me?
Conrad ‘Connie’ Brean: War is show business, that’s why we’re here.
Wag the Dog (1997)
The Long Goodbye 