Are you KIDDING me? They shut down the government in a tiffy fit. They fought him tooth and nail on everything. They spent countless time and money trying to impeach him. You need to get a library card an USE it, girlfriend.
They call it worst security glitch to date in state's voting machines and a 'big deal'
By Stephanie Desmon Sun reporter
May 12, 2006
Computer security experts say they have found the worst security flaw yet in the oft-criticized touch-screen machines that Maryland voters will use in this year's elections, leaving one computer scientist to warn that the state should have stacks of paper ballots on hand in case of a complete Election Day breakdown.
The machines, made by Diebold Elections Systems, are much, much easier to attack than anything we've previously said, said Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer science professor who first cast doubt on the reliability of the technology in a 2003 report.
On a scale of one to 10, if the problems we found before were a six, this is a 10. It's a totally different ballgame, he said.
The new problem is being described as an intentional hole left in the system to allow elections workers to update voting software easily. Instead of using pass codes or other security protocols, anyone with access to a voting machine could install new software that could easily disable a precinct full of machines, Rubin said.
Diebold officials say they are aware of the situation and, although they say any problem can be avoided by keeping a close watch on voting machines, they are developing a permanent fix.
Still, said company spokesman David K. Bear, it's one more what-if scenario. ... It's becoming somewhat ridiculous.
Maryland elections officials said they have known about the latest concerns for two weeks and will have an independent security consultant look into them next week to ensure that the state's Diebold machines are safe.
We are taking steps, said state elections administrator Linda H. Lamone. She said she is confident that the problem will have little effect in Maryland because of strict rules about who is permitted to handle voting machines in the state. Everyone that has access to them has to undergo a criminal background check, she said.
Before the Diebold machines were distributed statewide about two years ago, questions arose about whether hackers might be able to get into the automated-teller-like computers and alter their software, allowing multiple votes, vote-switching and other problems.
Computer experts, including Rubin, said security measures were insufficient and poorly designed. Activists pushed to add a paper ballot component to the machines in case a recount was needed.
Still, the state moved forward and nearly every voter in Maryland used a touch-screen machine in the 2004 presidential election. There were few complaints or problems.
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. called on the state this year to abandon its touch-screen machines, saying he had no confidence in the technology, in part because lawmakers adopted other voting changes such as early voting.
He put money into his budget to pay for optical scan machines, which were used in the state for years before 2004. The General Assembly did not approve a voting machine switch during this year's session, which ended last month.
Rubin said he fears that the latest security problem could be serious enough to cause an Election Day meltdown that could put precincts of machines out of action. He recommends that counties have a pen-and-paper alternative on hand as insurance.
Joseph M. Getty, the governor's legislative and policy director, called the newly disclosed security flaw not really a new problem.
It's the same problem of vulnerability to outsiders, he said.
Getty said the latest Diebold problem bolsters the administration's case against early voting, which was approved by the legislature last year. He said any security risk can be minimized in one day of voting but is multiplied when machines are in public use for six days.
Michael Shamos, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University and a Pennsylvania voting machine examiner, pushed his state, which will have a primary election next week, to lay out strict new rules for installing software and sealing machines for safety.
It's a big deal. It's a very big deal, Shamos said. The good part is it's very easy to fix. You have to repair it. You can't just do nothing. ... It's not just like leaving the key to your door under the mat. It's like leaving the key dangling from a string from the door.
The temporary fix, Shamos said, involves reinstalling the proper software just before the election, preferably in a public setting, then locking the machines to keep them from being tampered with before voting begins.
In 2004, Shamos testified on behalf of the state of Maryland in a suit filed by a citizens group asking a court to compel the state to address possible security problems and give voters the option of using paper ballots instead of the new machines. The state won.
If I had known about this problem then, I wouldn't have had good things to say, he said.
The latest security hole was discovered by Finnish computer scientist Harri Hursti, who was doing work in Utah for Black Box Voting Inc., a nonprofit group that has focused on computerized voting.
Most computer scientists don't want to disclose too many details about the problem because they fear that would provide hackers with the tools needed to cause havoc during an election. They waited many weeks before making their findings public.
We were worried the threat was so serious that if the details were to get out, someone could actually do it, Rubin said.
Asked whether former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 52 percent said he was not, but 43 percent said they believe he was. The White House has denied Hussein's 9/11 involvement -- most recently in a news conference August 21, when President Bush said Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks.
just touted SP's foreign policy experience because the state borders RUSSIA and CANADA. That is twice the experience she had before. Utah gov also flummoxed by tape showing Rove saying dem Tim Kain (3-year gov) did not have the experience to be VP. Utah gov tried to recover, but stepping all over his tongue.
Someone e-mailed this to me, I thought it was kind of funny and took it in the spirit in which it was sent (considering a pub sent it to me). The date says 2004, but whoever recirculated it put in some current references. Not saying that it is true, just thought it was funny.
A Day in the life of Joe Republican.
Politics September 28, 2004
Found onThis Modern World, an e-mail that’s apparently making the rounds:
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations]
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to and the power of unions]He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations that have prevented poisoned food being imported to the USA ]
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations].
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations and environmental protections]. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day.[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of many of the public projects in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex]He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to and the power of unions]If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to safety nets in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex]It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of many of these consumer protections and public assistance in favor of the giant financial industry]Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.(Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of Americafor the good of ALL Americans)He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. (Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of Americafor the good of ALL Americans) The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.(Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of Americafor the good of ALL Americans) He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to unions and government safety nets in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex]Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.(And have used smears and lies against liberals that have pushed these agendas)Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives!After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.” (sic)
Their majority is going to be fleeting if they keep this up, because even their own constituents are getting steamed at their lack of progress.
Congress
Actually the Congress should be smarter than to be snookered. They're snookered because they want to be. None of them are looking out for the American citizens. After all, would they give any of us billions of dollars in loans without knowing what we were going to do with the money? Think what they'd do if we borrowed money to buy a house and then spent the money on a posh vacation. We'd be in the federal pen is where we ordinary peons would be!!!
Wrong Woman - Wrong Message
http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-wrong-woman-wrong-message
Wrong, wrong, wrong, clueless Lu.
Horse hockey
letter to Congress
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:59:37 -0800 (PST) From: NT <nancyt1210@yahoo.com> Subject: Open Letter to Congress from a Veteran and Military Dad
Stan Goff is Vietnam veteran and son served in Iraq. An Open Letter to Congress from a Veteran and Military Dad On Power By STAN GOFF, Dec. 2, 2005 (Disclaiming in advance for the rare exceptions in Congress) If there is one thing we can always count on, it's politicians who walk over human corpses to show fear only in the face of something as formless and abstract as an opinion poll. Many of us in the veterans and military families antiwar movement are well-versed on so-called realism--and that deference we are supposed to exercise when we approach elected officials, hat in hand, for a few crumbs of your attention and support. We understand power very well. You are fighting each other for your careers, and you are retaining your power over us through distance and guile, and trying to promote that power by pretending you are hearing our concerns. But we have more than concerns at stake here. It is because we understand power that we haven't the slightest intention of allowing ourselves to be used to promote your careers past the 2006 elections. If you fail to demand US withdrawal now, you are supporting the war; and if you support the war, as far as we are concerned, you can go straight to hell in 2006. It is because we understand power that we are not going to forgive and forget that when the war fever was up, fed by the lies of Republicans, the war was facilitated by the eager xenophobic complicity of most Democrats, and by the slavish obedience of the corporate press. Most of you not only co-signed what you knew to be an illegal invasion--you have continued to sign the checks to perpetuate the war. You wanted to be lied to about the war, because the polls supported the war, and you were sniffing the political air. It is because we understand power that we know that most of you did this out of craven opportunism and a concern for your political ambitions--knowing full well that no one you loved was likely to be sent home without a limb, without an eye, without a life. It is because we understand power that we know how cynically cavalier you are with the lives of others, and how narcissistically self-promoting. It is because we understand power that we understand why many of you are backpedaling in your support for the war. You are maneuvering to be critical of the war. You demand the administration provide an effective exit strategy. And you haven't said a goddamned substantive thing, as the cameras shutter away for you. And you want us to play along--so you can beat Republicans without taking a single real position. You don't want to stop this war. You want to win an election. By the time you win that election, another thousand troops and another 20,000 Iraqis could be dead. We do not calculate time the way you do. It is because we understand power that we know most of you will stand by while those of us with less privilege see our loved ones sent to kill and die. The real corpses produced by the exercise of power are no more to you than a political calculation. We understand power, because we know what really stands behind it. Power is embodied in the mounted cops you use to police our protests. Power is expressed by the armed guards for your gated communities. Power is the ability to kill and maim and get away with it, even if you dress it up in $5,000 suits and trot it out on the talk-show circuit, on C-Span, in your interviews with CNN. Power is projected onto other peoples using your Cruise missiles and A-10s and Bradley fighting vehicles and the people who join the military. And the price of that power doesn't merely come from our pockets. We probably wouldn't fight you about how you rob us for your pork barrel defense contracts. The price that has us in motion right now--you really must understand this, because it means we will never back off--is exacted on the bodies of human beings. The price is exacted with mortars, with IEDs, with high powered rifle ammunition, with bombs, with the same A-10s and Bradleys; and it is exacted on the bodies of our loved ones and the loved ones of the Iraqi people. That's why we are not going to grant you the power to manipulate us, to contain us, to corral us, or to pimp our grief over this war and its costs on behalf of your political careers or the needs of a political party. That's why were are going to be rudely explicit when we say that your bombast against the Bush administration--as if they did this without your help--in calling for a more effective exit strategy and demanding that people merely think about a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that will take months or years this verbiage is meaningless and manipulative. We will never stand for studying a withdrawal, for phasing a withdrawal, for delaying a withdrawal, for setting conditions for a withdrawal, or for partial withdrawal. Never. Our demand from the beginning remains unchanged. It is for withdrawal, and for immediate, unilateral, unconditional withdrawal; and if political careers go up in smoke as a consequence, we do not give a good goddamn. People are dying in Iraq as a direct result of this war every single day. Go back to your fucking law offices and let our children live. Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while those military sedans continue to roll up in front of people's houses to announce the extinction of a human being to his or her family and while the bodies are dropped into the fresh graves at the cemeteries of Iraq. Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the poisons accumulate in the soil and water and food of Iraq, and in the bodies of Iraqis and occupation troops. Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the hospitals fill up with the lamed, maimed, blinded, and disfigured. Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the grief and horror associated with this criminal war become the daily emotional fare of more and more people, occupation forces and Iraqis. No member of Congress has the moral right to dither on the question of his or her precious career while a single constituent is facing the fear of that devastating knock on the door. We say the emperor has no clothes; and we say we know you when you feign concern with your eye fixed firmly on your ambition. An exit is not a strategy. An exit is a command. If the commander in chief won't give that command, then you in Congress--if you want to salvage anything that looks vaguely like a conscience or a soul--will refuse to grant this administration another penny to continue this war. We are not hearing you when you tap dance about political realism. The mounting mass of corpses, that you have walked over every time you voted a cent to continue this war, is about as real as it gets. Don't you dare ever lecture military families and veterans about realism. And don't you doubt that we understand power. You may think you can respond to your careerist concerns in the face of reversing polls. You may think you can pretend to do something, that you can bewilder us into accepting half a loaf better than none. To the tiny handful of you in Congress who have said what we say, Out Now!, we commend you and thank you for your principled voices. To those of you who are openly supporting this criminal administration, we'll see you in the street, and history will consign your names to the chapters about imperial bullying, comb-over machismo, and cognitive mediocrity. To those of you who call for half measures, phases, and strategies, you are directly in front of us now. You are standing directly in our path, and we are not going to go around you. We are not going to commend you on being better than the reactionaries. We are not going to thank you for our half a loaf. We are not going to try and give you the political cover you need to wiggle around those shifting opinion polls while you salvage your careers. We do not love you. We find your ambivalence contemptible. We love the people who are facing the real consequences of this war while you schmooze your way through the chicken-salad circuits of imperial power, nattering on about realism and phases and strategies. You will not divert our attention away from you. You will redirect neither our anger nor our will away from you. It is you who are standing directly in our way; and every time you try to dicker about people's lives with us like we are in street market, every time you try to pimp our outrage at this crime, as a mere concern that only you are entitled to address with your careerist half-measures, we will call you to account. We will embarrass you. We will shine a spotlight on your cowardice, your opportunism, and your grotesque cynical hypocrisy. November 2006 is not an election to us; it is a body count. If you think you can take us for granted over an election, think again. Get it right, because we have never wavered on our position. The mass of American society is moving toward us, not you. They are listening more and more to us, and less and less to you. We are about saving lives, not saving face. So get it right, and get it right fast. We are looking at your political house with an eye to pulling it down. We understand power very well. Stan Goff is the author of Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti (Soft Skull Press, 2000), Full Spectrum Disorder (Soft Skull Press, 2003) and Sex & War which will be released approximately December, 2005. He is retired from the United States Army. His blog is at www.stangoff.com. Goff can be reached at: sherrynstan@igc.org
Yep, the dems in congress won't do anything
until they have a dem as president. They know if they do something positive, such as helping us with our oil/energy problem, Bush will get the credit and they won't stand for that.
...this is the SECOND time he snookered Congress: First with his Chicken Little rush to hurry up and go to war with Iraq (which most of us were stupid enough to buy hook, line and sinker, myself included).
Now the economic "crisis" that required us to hurry up and give more money to reward the Wall Street crooks who have already stolen from us WITH THE EXPRESS CONDITION that there be no oversight, that we simply hand the money over to former Wall Street guru Paulson (wink wink) and let him and Bush figure out (wink wink) with no questions asked regarding the identity of the recipients. (Apparently, they are changing the rules as they go along, as we saw today regarding where the money is going.)
If you REALLY want to get your blood boiling, read the following two articles. Seems everyone who is a decision-maker in the administration regarding this whole fiasco is a former employee of one of the failed companies.
Bush has always held America and Americans in contempt. I now hold Congress in contempt and place the blame squarely on them for being stupid enough to believe Bush again.
Fed loans to AIG make Paulson's previous employer rich
Congress has looked at the Big 3's plans to cut costs in order to "qualify" for a bailout, the amount of which has now grown to $34B. Nancy Pelosi seems to be in favor, so my bet is they will get it.
Some of the concessions the auto makers are ready to make is slashing the executive pay, getting rid of executive bonuses, postponing employee merit raises for next year, suspending health care payments into a union health care plan, and possibly getting rid of the controversial job banks.
Ford said they only wanted a standby line of credit with the government in case the other two go belly up. GM seems to be the one hurting the most.
I really have to wonder, will a bailout REALLY help or will it just postpone the inevitable with the rest of the economy dying the way it is????
administration has blocked any kind of transparency and refuses to be acountable to the American citizens who are funding the Wall Street giant giveaway.
The General Accounting Office says the Wall Street bailout isn't being policed properly:
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers want the Treasury to do a better job of insisting that banking institutions sharing in the $700 billion bailout comply with limits Congress imposed on executive salaries and use the money for its intended purposes.
In the first comprehensive review of the rescue package, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday that the Treasury Department has no mechanisms to ensure that banking institutions limit their top executives' pay and comply with other restrictions.
"The GAO's discouraging report makes clear that the Treasury Department's implementation of the (rescue plan) is insufficiently transparent and is not accountable to American taxpayers," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The auditors acknowledged that the program, created Oct. 3 to help stabilize a rapidly faltering banking system, was less than 60 days old and has been adjusting to an evolving mission.
But auditors recommended that Treasury work with government bank regulators to determine whether the activities of financial institutions that receive the money are meeting their purpose.
In a response to the GAO, Neel Kashkari, who heads the department's Office of Financial Stability, said the agency was developing its own compliance program and indicated that it disagreed with the need to work with regulators.
Continued at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/the-bailout-isnt-being-po_n_147982.html
P.S. Neel Kashkari, formerly of Goldman Sachs (a/k/a the fox guarding the hen house), just recently got his job. His bio:
I agree. The ones in congress who think it is okay
I do NOT want to fund this crap, but I am sure maybe some of the 25 in the stimulus might be okay, but then again MAYBE NOT. IF and ONLY IF some of the 25 others parts mentioned in the stimulus were okay, then I agree to add on later, but NOT NOW.
Control of Congress???
If you don't know what you are talking about - maybe you should venture to a safer topic, like, I don't know, knitting? Bush vetoed and obstructed the Dems at every turn (do you read?). Just like right now - the pubs are obstructing and delaying at every turn. Same old games just a different President. Obama is getting a crash course in "Politics as Usual." He may have been woefully mistaken in believing the 2 parties could work together. Won't happen. The pubs will trumpet their BS and obstruct everything they can all in the name of trying to exert their power. They don't give a rats about what happens to the American people. They really don't. They want to keep big corporations and banks in power - not We The People. Do you really think they care if people stay in their houses or not? NO. The problem is all these banks with empty houses they can't sell. Gotta save the mortgage companies and Banks - screw the people. There will be some kind of bendover in the new mortgage contracts with lower interest - watch and see. WHAM! It'll hit those people right between the eyes just when they thought things were going good, that is, if the economy turns around - which I doubt. Not enough cooperation.
Yeah! Joe for Congress. He's my guy!
x
And it is usually Congress that prevents
them from pursuing their promises.....
How could he VOTE when he isn't in congress?
duh
In Congress We Trust....NOT
SIBEL EDMONDS: In Congress We Trust...Not
The former FBI translator and whistleblower suggests blackmail may be at the heart of Congressional refusal to bring accountability and oversight to its own members - such as both Hastert and Harman - in matters of espionage and national security
Exclusive to The BRAD BLOG...
Posted By Sibel Edmonds On 4th May 2009 @ 13:41 In Dennis Hastert, NSA, National Security, Mainstream Media Failure, Accountability, U.S. House, FBI, Henry Waxman, U.S. Senate, Nancy Pelosi, Bush Legacy, Jane Harman | 54 Comments
Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds
I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job starting or ending my thoughts - that tend to be expressed in long winding sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: "It's a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken."
The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is 'badly' broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been declining drastically. Recent poll results [1] highlight how the American people's trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its role of oversight and accountability. Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place - without explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of them.
The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations [2] regarding Jane Harman (D-CA) by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in the integrity of Congress. But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media's insistence on burying 'real' issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation's continuous downward slide. In this particular case, the 'thank you' should also be extended to certain blogosphere propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress and intelligence agencies, helped in the post-burial cremation of this case.
Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan aisle utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party's tainted colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin roof, making one excuse after another; playing the 'victims of Executive Branch eavesdropping' card, the same very 'evil doing' they happened to support vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, and have done so without the apparent need for much arm twisting...
Hastert Redux
I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair published an article [3], which, in addition to my case and the plight of National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and the corroborated allegations of his illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests.
Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five credible sources, and after triple pit-bull style fact-checking. They were vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 2009, The Hill reported [4] that the Former Speaker of the House was contracted to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates that Hastert will now be "principally involved" on a $35,000-a-month contract providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in Congress --- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOU's when they secure their positions with 'the foreign lobby.'
In a recent article [5] for American Conservative Magazine, Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point: "Edmonds's claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons in both parties' closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the new regime in Washington has not lifted."
And then, he hits the nail on its head: "In Hastert's case, it certainly should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden parachutes for their retirement?"
Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in not pursuing the case, with the same zeal as they have, so far, not pursued the Harman case. Similarly, the mainstream media is happily letting it all disappear.
I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story in Vanity Fair, Jane Harman's AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman was none other than Hastert --- the man himself. The same Hastert, who in addition to being one of several high-ranking officials targeted by FBI counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate involvement in the Abramoff scandal [6], to the Rep. William Jefferson scandal [7]; from his 'Land Deal' scandal [8] - where he cashed in millions off his position while "serving", to the 2006 House Page scandal [9].
All for One, One for All?
How does it work? How do these people escape the consequences of accountability? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the Executive Branch against Congressional representatives, as if the days of J. Edgar Hoover were never over? Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, when Congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress watch out for each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we see this 'all for one, one for all' kind of solidarity in Congress when it comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.
Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman case may appear to involve blackmailing --- or a milder version, exploitation of Congress by the Executive Branch --- deeper analysis would suggest even further implications, where Congressional members themselves use the incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier:
In 2004 and 2005 I had several meetings with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a high-security SCIF [10], where details and classified information pertaining to my case and those involved could be discussed.
I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the Republican majority was preventing further action - such as holding a public hearing on my whistleblower revelations. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier was removed, or so I thought.
In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' And so they became 'uninvolved.'
What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI's pursuit [11] of Hastert, and certain other representatives, were bound to come out in any Congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi were both informed of Harman's role in a related case involving counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current state of our mainstream media.
And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted their Congress with the role of ensuring oversight and accountability.
This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like him will abide by the un-pledged oath of 'solidarity with your party members' and 'loyalty to your dear colleagues.'
Rotten at its Core
Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the mainstream media, and/or, the logic-free defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts alike by the apologist spinners --- some of whom pass as the 'alternative' media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss' possible beef with Jane Harman; accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being 'conspirators' with ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren't so serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy satire.
Let's take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported [12], albeit not comprehensively, by TIME magazine years ago. It took a tenacious journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources who leaked in the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation and decided to 'really' talk. After all, the AIPAC espionage case was dropped [13] by the Justice Department's prosecutors within two weeks of the Harman revelations.
Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels; Congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.
Now let's look at the 'blackmail' and 'Goss Plot' angles. Of course the 'blackmail' scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'
We all can imagine, easily, a high-ranking Justice Department official having a 'discreet' meeting with a member of Congress who's been pushing for a certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and saying, 'dear Congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor…'
But, let's not forget, the misuse of incriminating information, for the purpose of blackmail, does not turn the practitioner of the wrongful deed into a victim, nor does it make the wrongful criminal deed less wrong. Instead of spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a very serious disease that has infected our Congress for far too long. Those who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very same people they are overseeing…Period.
Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or unethical activities against the interests of the same people they've sworn to represent, and then be given a pass.
As for far-reaching ties such as Harman's stand on torture, or a specific beef with former CIA Director Porter Goss, or wild shots from the hip in bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo; please don't make us laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here?! Harman's staunch support of NSA Wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 2008, the Patriot ACT, the War on Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil Liberties' No-No list, is widely recognized by almost everyone, apparently, but the authors of the recent apologist spin.
And, let's not forget to add her own long-term cozy relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she's received from various other AIPAC-related pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain 'wannabe' journalists, driven by far from pure agenda(s), shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas [14] they are serving as a mouthpiece for.
Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman's and Hastert's, involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end. Criminal conduct, by powerful foreign entities, against our national interest, is given a pass, as was recently proven by the abandonment of the AIPAC spy case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media seem now to have been almost universally accepted as a fact of life.
Pursuit of cases such as mine, via cosmetically available channels, has been, and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.
Therefore, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? Because more and more people --- although not nearly enough --- are coming to the realization that our system is rotten at it's core; that in many cases we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.
I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down.
These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight. As long as that's the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty charlatans who represent only self-interest --- achieved by representing the interests of the few, rather than the majority of the people of this nation. And so I write.
Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: "If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can't protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don't need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives." - Will Rogers
==
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and noted whistleblower who has been under a years-long "gag order", prohibiting her from discussing many details of her allegations of corruption and espionage gleaned during her time at the FBI, due to the continuing "States Secrets privilege" assertions by the Executive Branch. Her own story has been partially documented over the last several years in several different media outlets, including a lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes [15], a detailed feature in Vanity Fair [16] and, over the years, in a number of exclusive articles here at The BRAD BLOG [17]. She is the Founder and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. [18]
Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH - and yet another d*mned lawyer) who is a ''freshman.'' She has spent the last 20+ years with her face in the public trough: school board, county commissioner, has run for this and that (treasurer, etc.) lost a very close congressional election in 2006 (absentee votes gave her opponent the edge) and finally the party decided it was her turn to go to Washington in 2008.
She is all over local radio today selling the ''larger issue'' of energy independence that Cap & Trade will guarantee. Riiight. I have e-mailed and faxed her offices all week but I doubt there is much point, since her yes-vote is the bag. Still, gotta try. She will not have the excuse that she thought she was serving her constituents by following the party line.
Ahem...that was due to what was done in Congress during those years....
and you should really give credit where credit was due...there was a Republican majority in congress during most of Clinton's years as President and THAT is where all the changes are made, friend...in CONGRESS. So, on behalf of the Republican majority congress during the Clinton years, THANK YOU SO MUCH for endorsing the job they did, but please to give them the credit along with Mr. Clinton for all those years of prosperity you enjoyed.
I really love the way you paint it with such a broad brush...like Bush in and of himself could do any of those things. One man CAN'T. Congress is in the driver's seat. And the sound bite of most of the world not dependent on our good will hate us. And who would that be? France? They have ALWAYS hated us. It started right after we liberated their country during World War II and they immediately told us to get out. Yeah, the French, they loved us. Russia? Yeah, they realllyyy loved us. China? Wellll, they certainly loved Bill and Hill and the offshoring they did...google them and China some time for a real eye opener. Canada? Yeah they hate us, until they need to come here for medical care they can't get in their own country because of socialized medicine. Exactly what countries loved us before Bush and hate us now?
If you really want it back like it was in Bill's time, let's elect a Republican Congress. You will have it back then. And it really doesn't matter as much who is President...it matters who has the majority in Congress. And what pray tell has the Democratic majority done since they have been in office? Zip, zilch, nada as far as I can see. All those promises they made? Not one have they met. Why are you not posting about that?
marks the location of current message within thread
