The original OJ not-guilty verdict because the jury was too afraid of another Rodney King-like riot were he actually convicted?
I just hope Biden is qualified to be president. I honestly don't see Obama actually becoming president or maybe that's just wishful thinking, take it however you want.
We, the complainant signatories below, petition the Attorney General of New York, on behalf of millions of New Yorkers who also call for a fearless independent inquiry; for the sake of residents, workers, and business owners in New York—most particularly in and near Ground Zero; and also on behalf of other Americans who have lost employees, friends, and family members as well as health, business, and personal assets and civil, privacy, and other rights in the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.
We approach your office as concerned citizens desiring to bring to light the truth about the events of 9/11. And where fault and liability may be found through your investigative action (by whatever means), we seek the recovery of billions of dollars of damages that have been sustained and continue to accrue, and a process by which the true perpetrators and aiders and abettors of the 9/11 attacks may speedily be brought to justice.
As we reported previously to your office, a representative poll published by Zogby International on August 30 of this year found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New Yorkers overall believe there was official foreknowledge and conscious acceptance of the 9/11 attacks, and that 66 percent of city residents and 56 percent overall want a new investigation. These findings are stunning and we believe they provide conclusive evidence that the people of New York are not satisfied that official investigations and mainstream news media have adequately addressed the truth of the events of that fateful day.
These Zogby Poll findings point to the immediate consituency for our Complaint and Petition; but we also note here that a burgeoning nationwide movement also holds to the same belief about 9/11 as do these native New Yorkers. Fifteen legislators who are members from New York in the US House of Representatives, New York State Senate and Assembly, and New York City Council have responded to these results by also expressing support for a new investigation by the Attorney General or Congress.
If this belief of millions of citizens is borne out by a legitimate investigation, then it may follow that the responsible officials are guilty of both mass murder and treason, as well as conspiring to inflict untold suffering upon the people of New York and violating a host of New York State laws, in addition to federal terrorist, treason, and other laws.
Clearly, this Complaint and Petition concerns a supremely serious matter. Yet we the complainants contend that no independent official investigation into these alarming yet plausible allegations, for which we present compelling evidence herein, has ever been held or is now contemplated.
When citizens of New York widely suspect appalling criminal activity within our government and by bad actors doing business in the State of New York—activity that has caused us grievous harm—we believe we are well within our rights as sovereign citizens to demand the legal and investigative means to address these concerns. If indeed there exists such a widespread belief that our own government intentionally allowed such a catastrophe to occur on our own shores, then we submit that this is prima facie evidence of a deep crisis of trust in government. We were therefore inspired to read the Attorney General‘s 2002 Law Day address in regard to this issue of restoring public trust in our institutions. You focused then on financial markets, charities, and churches, but we believe your words aptly address the collapse of faith in government that the 9/11 Zogby Poll reveals today:
It is important that we understand that this crisis exists, that it has already damaged important institutions, and that we must take immediate action to restore the faith of a betrayed public…The process of restoring a shattered trust is a lengthy one. Unfortunately, we do not have time to wait…Too much will be lost during the time that this process naturally unfolds; the skepticism and distrust that exists will continue to exact a tremendous cost…Our system of law can provide—indeed, can itself be—the solution to the crisis created by the betrayal of their trust. [2]
And it is precisely in this same spirit—that of invoking the legitimacy of a lawful solution to the issue of 9/11—that we request your intervention in order to swiftly address the grave concerns outlined below, enforce accountability, and restore the public trust.
As Attorney General, you hold ultimate responsibility for enforcing public safety, criminal, and investor protection laws in the State of New York. As indicated in the Zogby Poll, a clear majority of your constituents desires a full investigation of still unanswered questions either by Congress or your office. We provide herein evidence to prove that Congress and the 9/11 Commission have shown themselves incapable of such an inquiry. We are left with no alternative but to turn to you to take up the case we have put forth in this Complaint and Petition.
We therefore respectfully request that you immediately invoke your powers to open one or more urgent investigations into apparent crimes before, during, and after September 11, 2001. This could be accomplished by your office alone or in conjunction with other state and local legal and enforcement offices with jurisdiction (which might include, for example, other state attorneys general and the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau).
We firmly believe that we are able to show probable cause for convening a grand jury and that we present herein the necessary facts and lines of inquiry that would lead reasonable persons to believe that numerous still-unsolved crimes have taken place.
In this Complaint and Petition, we submit compelling evidence constituting probable cause that some or all of the following crimes and possible additional crimes have been committed and that you have jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes: murder, criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter; assault; reckless endangerment; official misconduct; criminal offenses relating to public safety; enterprise corruption; obstruction of justice and the infliction of emotional distress, including causing untold suffering and billions of dollars in damages on the citizens, businesses, and institutions of and upon the State of New York itself and cities, counties, and other jurisdictions within New York; and the criminal facilitation or solicitation thereof and conspiracy or accessorial conduct in connection therewith.
In summary, we submit that available evidence demonstrates that the requisite state of mind exists, pointing to (1) negligence as would be appropriate for assigning civil liability, and (2) an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as would be required for assigning criminal liability.
It is happening now on a small scale....
we have one refundable tax credit now that I know of...the earned income tax credit. What Obama wants to do is expand that dramatically, and that is most definitely new. That credit does not stretch to that entire 30-40% of people who don't pay federal income taxes. Obama's plan WILL. Because those people comprise part of that 30-40%. How can he give a tax CUT to 95% of Americans otherwise? THAT is my point. Why on earth tax small businesses and yes, even large corporations MORE, so you can give people on welfare a refundable tax credit check?? In my opinion, extending refundable tax credits to people already on the government t*t is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Yes, we have a refundable tax credit now that benefits some persons. What Obama proposes is taking that from where the earned income tax credit is all the way to the bottom. That is his starting from the bottom theory. How many times have we heard that?
How about that larger refundable tax credit of McCain's?
x
RIOTS/HOMICIDE?
Think if McCain wins, there will be riots? Think if Obama wins, he will be killed? If he is killed, think there will be riots?
Commentary: Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers
Date: Friday, April 14, 2006 By: Judge Greg Mathis, BlackAmericaWeb.com
Despite slower-than-anticipated growth and lower-than-expected profits, many corporations have generously rewarded their leaders, while simultaneously reducing lower-level staff salaries and benefits in an attempt to control costs. This disturbing practice only serves to further widen the gap between America’s wealthy few and its working class and clearly demonstrates just how little this country values its workforce.
At a time when most American workers are struggling to make basic ends meet and worrying how they’ll manage to save enough for retirement, many of this country’s corporate chief executives are stuffing their pockets with larger-than-life compensation packages that include high base salaries, stock options and ample pension plans. In 2004, the average chief executive’s salary at a large company was more than 170 times that of the average worker’s pay. Last year, executive salaries grew 25 percent, while that of the average American worker grew only 3.1 percent.
Even when a company struggles, their CEOs are still rewarded. For example, the current CEO of a global manufacturing firm received over $11 million in compensation last year, despite the company’s $3.4 billion revenue loss, an 11-percent drop in stock value and a staff reduction of 17,000 workers. There are similar stories at corporations across the country. While worker pensions are frozen and many are asked to do without raises, CEOs manage to earn their multi-million dollar bonuses.
It’s no surprise that CEOs are cleaning up. Consider this: Corporations often use compensation committees to set their executive salaries. Many of these committees use outside consultants to help guide the process. These consultants are often already contracted to do other work for the company. The conflict of interest here is obvious: The consultant won’t upset the CEO -- and risk losing other contracts -- by setting a more realistic, performance based pay model.
Many corporate CEOs are, in short, getting over, and it is a slap in the face of every American worker. While it is understood that executive salaries would greatly exceed that of the average worker’s, there is no logical argument to explain why the growth rate between the two is so dramatically different. To protect its workforce, corporate America must ensure worker’s salaries grow at rates that keep pace with the cost of living, while slowing the rate of growth of CEO salaries. Corporate boards must stop rewarding CEOs with multi-million dollar bonuses. It is unacceptable for a company to lay off thousands of workers and then turn around and pay an executive for a job well done.
As a country, we often ask our government to think about the needs of the average American, and rightly so. However, if America is to truly prosper, the corporations that feed our local economy must also consider and respect the well-being of average worker.
---
Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
This admin. doesn't ALLOW itself to be put on trial.
What a copout! - it's only accusations! And that's all it's ever likely to be because this administration with the help of its corrupt and partisan congressional majority simply refuses to allow any independent inquiry into its crooked dealings. Let's not pretend that we actually have a balance of power in the federal govt. sufficient to allow normal due process to occur. So go on with your just accusations simpering - try these crimes in an international court and see how long they stay that way.
I should have said Lunsford *investigation*, not trial...sm
I don't think that crumb cake has had his trial yet.
They haven't been brought to trial yet....(sm)
because a) some of them would be innocent and would have to be set free, and b) Bush obviously had no plan for those who would be found guilty. Actually, about half of them haven't even been charged yet, much less had a trial. I honestly think the whole point of Gitmo is torture. I think that Bush actually thought it was a viable means for gaining information, which has been proven to be incorrect. Basically, the longer they can keep them there, the longer they can torture.
I will remember that one...if you remember...thou shalt not kill. nm
nm
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting aggressive wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime, the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.
Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.
He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.
Which wars should be prosecuted? Every war will lead to attacks on civilians, he said. Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes.
Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.
The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.
Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.
That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area, he said. They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time.
Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.
Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.
Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.
In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said that would require volumes of books.
Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents.
The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.
trial date set for muzzammil hassan
The "moderate Muslim" who beheaded his wife right here in New York because she served him with with divorce papers and an order of protection. And it's only second degree murder????
The President wants the detention center closed within a year. Now the search is on to find new places to hold detainees while they await trial.
One of the places under consideration is Fort Bragg. It's not hard to image the base being considered a possibly site to relocate Gitmo detainees. In the past, Bragg has sent PAO teams and military police units to the detention center in Cuba.
North Carolina congressman David Price says the center should have been shut down long ago.
"it's just unacceptable to have that facility remaining open with people detained indefinitely with no resolution of their cases, no rights at all to even know what they're accused of," he offered.
But Price isn't sure that Bragg should be a serious consideration.
"It will have to be a very high security facility and my understanding of Fort Bragg is there is nothing like the kind of facility that would be required, but I don't know. I'm not going to presume what facilities will be chosen," he said.
Price is right. Right now, soldiers awaiting trial at Fort Bragg on a variety of charges are held in the Cumberland County detention center. Folks who live in Fayetteville have mixed views about bringing suspected terrorists to the community.
"That can be kind of scary actually... having that type of element here in our homeland and where we live," Offered resident Marco Clark.
"Well, we've got to put them some place and in that case Fort Bragg wouldn't be a bad idea," said David McCune.
Military leaders have a year to figure out where they're going to put the detainees. Sources say Camp Pendleton, Charleston Naval Base, and Fort Leavenworth might be better choices than Fort Bragg. Leavenworth may be the number one choice because it's the military's only maximum security prison.
This woman, Phyllis, is a friend and former
co-employee of a very good friend of mine. My friend went to her trial on
Monday. We'd been following this for the past year. I was surprised
they found here guilty so easily, but I guess rules are rules. Now
remember, Phyllis is a retired teacher from Fox Valley Technical
College and her description was that the guard kept touching her breasts and
crotch over and over like she was enjoying it. Now bear in mind that this
guard was investigating the privates of a 62-year-old gray-haired retired
schoolteacher from Appleton at the Appleton, Wisconsin airport - a very
small airport. Wondered what you all thought --- as for me I'm
undecided. I see this made the national headlines.
Woman Convicted of Groping Screener
GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) - A woman who was upset over
being searched bodily at an airport was convicted Tuesday of assaulting a
security screener by grabbing the federal officer's breasts.
A federal jury heard the case against retired
teacher Phyllis Dintenfass, who also allegedly shoved the screener during the
search at the Outagamie County Regional Airport in Appleton in September 2004.
Dintenfass, 62, faces up to a year in federal prison
and $100,000 in fines. The judge set sentencing for Nov. 1.
12px>On Monday, Transportation Security Administration screening supervisor
Anita Gostisha testified that Dintenfass activated metal detectors at a
checkpoint, and she heard Dintenfass say she thought the problem was bobby pins
and barrettes in her hair.
Gostisha said she took the woman to another
screening area, where she used a handheld wand. Gostisha said she was following
protocol when she also performed a ``limited pat-down search.''
Gostisha said she was using the back of her hands to
search the area underneath Dintenfass' breasts when the woman lashed out at her.
``She said `How would you like it if I did that to
you?' and slammed me against the wall,'' Gostisha testified. ``She came at me
and grabbed my breasts and squeezed them.''
Distenfass claimed she acted in self-defense.
``I said, 'What are you doing? No one's done that to
me before,''' she said. ``And she kept going ... for what felt like an
interminably long time.''
Dintenfass denied shoving Gostisha, but admitted
putting her hands on the agent's breasts.
``I was mortified that I had done that,'' she said.
``I was reacting to what felt like an absolute invasion of my body.''
U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said TSA officers
perform a vital service and are entitled to protection from assault.
Bush Tells Press U.S. Won't Leave Iraq While He Is President -- And Says He Won't Campaign in Connecticut
By E&P Staff
Published: August 21, 2006 11:55 AM ET
NEW YORK At a press conference this morning in Washington, D.C., President Bush declared, We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake.” Bush leaves office in January 2009.
He also said, in response to a question about backing the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut --against Democrat Ned Lamont and Independent Joe Lieberman -- that he is going to stay out of Connecticut.
Reminded that a reporter that this was his native state (he was born there), Bush replied, to laughter, Shhh.
He explained further, And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Bush also tied Iraq to 9/11, and then backed off, when asked about the effects of the U.S. invasion as witnessed today.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the 'stir up the hornet's nest' theory, Bush said. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Asked by a reporter what Iraq had to do with 9/11, Bush replied, Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Also on Iraq, Bush explained, The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve the objectives and dreams which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy. The tactics — now — either you say yes it’s important we stay there and get it done or we leave. We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know terrible, signal to reformers across the region. It would say we’ve abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror.
Bush also said at the news conference -- held at the temporary press quarters while the old White House briefing room is being rebuilt -- that if the government in Iraq fails, it could turn the country into a safe haven for terrorists and extremists and give them revenues from oil sales.
He said he agrees with a top military commander that if the U.S. were to do so, the terrorists will follow us here. Bush added those who want an immediate pullout from Iraq are absolutely wrong. He says it takes time to defeat the extremists, but that the U.S. is going to stand with the government of Iraq, and with reformers across the region.
Despite all the grim news, Bush often acted in a very jocular manner. He also had a rare exchange with reporter Helen Thomas on the Lebanon conflict.
Asked by another reporter if he was frustrated by lack of progress in Iraq he replied: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that.
You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists.
A partial transcript follows. To watch a full video of the President's press conference, click here
***
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month -- the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?
BUSH: No, I -- I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of. And therefore we have a plan to help them -- them, the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives.
Part of the plan is political; that is, to help the Maliki government work on reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community.
The other part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they needed to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes, you know, a very robust security plan for Baghdad. We -- you may or not know, Terry -- have moved troops from Mosul Stryker Brigade into Baghdad, all aiming to help the Iraqi government succeed.
You know, the -- I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm -- I'm concerned about that, of course. And I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country, and that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the extremists and the radicals and al Qaeda, and that the security forces remain united behind the government. And one thing that's clear, the Iraqi people are showing incredible courage.
The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century.
You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people -- saying withdrawal now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself and listen to the -- and answer to the will of the people....
Helen?
Q: (Chuckles.)
BUSH: What's so funny about me saying Helen? (Laughter.)
Q: Israel --
BUSH: It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.
Q: Israel broke its word twice on the truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah rockets, but it's Israeli bombs that destroyed Lebanon. Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on view on breaking of your oath for a truce?
BUSH: Hm. Yeah. Thank you.
I -- I'd like to remind people about how this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which -- which -- which bothers me, began; what caused this.
Q: Why drop bombs on -- (off mike)?
BUSH: Wait, let me finish. Let -- let -- may I -- let me -- may I -- please, let me finish the question. It was a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway....I know you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath.
(Laughs.) There you go.
It's -- this never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how she defends herself. Israel is a democratically elected government. They make decisions on their own sovereignty. It's their decision making that is what leads to the attacks they chose. And -- but the world must understand that now is the time to come together to address the root cause of the problem, and the problem is you had a state within a state. You had people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.
And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who are involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon to help the Lebanese government achieve some objectives. One is their ability to exert control over the entire country. Secondly is to make sure that the Hezbollah forces don't rearm, don't get armed from Syria, or Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.
Let's see. We'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be patient.
Q: Thank you.
BUSH: It's kind of like dancing together, isn't it? (Laughter.)
Q: Yeah, kind of.
BUSH: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery, I'll call on you. (Laughter.)
Q: Mr. --
BUSH: Yeah. By the way, seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody gets it. (Laughter.) Never mind.
Q: It's the summertime east Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.)
BUSH: (Laughs.) Yes. Yes, Martha. Sorry.
Q: That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You have continually cited the elections, the new government as progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You have to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?
BUSH: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon; you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.
Q: I'm talking about the strategy.
BUSH: Well, the strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy.
The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, it's important that we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know, terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists. No, we're not leaving. ...
Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete, and we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I -- I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.
And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with plan Baghdad, and that's when we move troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replace them with a Stryker Brigade so we're not -- we increase troops during this time of instability.
Q: Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy is --
BUSH: Sounded like the question to me.
Q: You -- you keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave, but is your strategy to win working, even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before. These things have happened before.
BUSH: If I didn't think it would work, I would change the -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy.
They believe it'll work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government's been in power for, you know, less than six months. And, yeah, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- of -- the reason I've cited it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really -- it's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.
And, you know, obviously I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But incredibly enough, they showed great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.
And this is the campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now. Vote for me. I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they're trying to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It were to be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq....
Q: Good morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the violence in Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals and then al Qaeda. It seems that al Qaeda and foreign fighters are much less of a problem there and that it really is Iraqis versus Iraqis. And when we heard about your meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some of the reporting out of that said you were frustrated, you were surprised, and your spokesman said, Nope, you're determined.
But frustration seems like a very real emotion. Why wouldn't you be frustrated, sir, by what's happening?
BUSH: I'm not -- I do remember the meeting; I don't remember being surprised. I'm not sure what they meant by that.
Q: About the lack of gratitude among the Iraqi people.
BUSH: Oh. No, I think -- yeah -- first of all, to the first part of your question, you know, if you look back at the words of Zarqawi before he was brought to justice, he made it clear that the intent of their tactics in Iraq was to create civil strife. In other words, if you -- look at what he said. He said let's kill Shi'a to get Shi'a to seek revenge and therefore to create this kind of hopefully cycle of violence. Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that the -- at least the evidence indicates that the bombing of the shrine was an al Qaeda plot, all intending to create sectarian violence.
Now, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the more -- I would guess, I would surmise that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda suiciders. No question there's sectarian violence as well. And the challenge is to provide a security plan such that a political process can go forward. And you know, I know -- I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million Iraqis voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society. That's what that means, see. And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long term is to defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one that -- where government, you know, responds to the will of the people. And that's really the fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this 21st century is whether or not we believe as a nation and others believe it is possible to defeat this ideology.
Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically -- but I strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology, they have tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a huge mistake for the United States to leave the region, to concede territory to the terrorists, to not confront them.
And -- and the best way to confront them is to help those who want to leave in free society. Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their government succeed.
Q: But are you frustrated, sir?
BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the -- the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's -- that's -- that's the question.
And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future generations to do so....
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier Do you agree with those in your party, including the vice president, who said or implied Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and the message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad.
BUSH: What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world. That's what we're saying. And it's an honest debate and it's an important debate for Americans to listen to and to be engaged in.
In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are unacceptable. I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself, A -- you know, chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region.
Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged or cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job would done would be -- send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job was done would be a disaster. And that's what we're saying. I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.
It's like the other day I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion, and that's why we're appealing it. And I have no -- you know, look, I understand how democracy works. Quite a little bit of criticism in it, which is fine. That's fine. It's part of the process. But I have every right, as do my administration, to make it clear what the consequences would be of policy, and if we think somebody is wrong or doesn't see the world the way it is, we will continue to point that out to people. And therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply don't see the world the way we do. They say it maybe kind of isolated incidents. These aren't isolated instances; they're tied together. There is a global war going on.
And you know, somebody said, well, this is law enforcement. No, this isn't law enforcement in my judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, you know, singular response to the problem. This is a global war on terror. We're facing, you know, extremists that believe something and they want to achieve objectives. And therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and we must work with others to defeat this enemy.
That's -- that's the call. And we -- in the short run, we got to stop them from attacking us. That's why I give the Tony Blair government great credit and their intelligence officers, and our own government credit for working with the Brits to stop this attack.
But you know something? It's an amazing town, and -- you know, where they say on the one hand, you can't have the tools necessary -- we herald the fact that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the people, and sure enough, a(n) attack would occur and say, how come you don't have the tools necessary to defend the people? That's the way -- that's the way we think around this town. And so, you know, we'll -- Jim, we'll continue to speak out in a respectful way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their -- their strategies or their -- their point of view.
And, you know, for those who say that, well, all they're trying to say is we're not patriotic simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they? What -- what matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different points of view, and there are a lot of people in the Democrat party who believe that the best of course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period, and they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done. But I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation as far as I'm concerned.
Q: And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?
BUSH: I'm going to say out of Connecticut. (Laughter.)
Q: It's your native state, Mr. President! You were born there!
BUSH: Shhh! (Laughter.)
Q: How can you stay --
BUSH: (Chuckles.) I may be the only person -- the only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born.
Do you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched that and dropped it out for everybody to see, particularly since I dissed that just ridiculous-looking outfit. (Laughter.)
Q: Your mother raised you better than that, Mr. President....
BUSH: And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Q: Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy, and people will change their mind about it? Or is the kind of thing you're doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain public support for it?
BUSH: Thank you. Yeah, look -- look, I mean, presidents care about whether people support their policies. I don't -- (inaudible) -- think that I don't care. Of course I care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq. I can understand that. There is -- we live in, you know, a world in which people hope things happen quickly. And this is a situation where things don't happen quickly because there's, you know, a very tough group of people using tactics, mainly the killing of innocent people, to achieve their objective, and they're skillful about how they do this and they also know the impact of what it means on the conscienceness of those of us who live in the free world. They know that. And so I care. I really do. I wish -- you know, and so therefore I must spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can, you know, why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq. And --
Q: A quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mention for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the stir up the hornet's nest theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --
Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.
Now, I said going into Iraq we got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialized. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world was better off without him. Now, the question is, how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS | REPRINTS
SUBSCRIBE TO EDITOR & PUBLISHER »
Related Articles
Former CIA Officer Defends 'Wash Post' Op-Ed in Online Chat
Jan 10, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
Gallup: 55% Now Call Iraq War a 'Mistake'
Feb 22, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Military Times' Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War
Jan 2, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Stars and Stripes' to Launch Weekly U.S. Edition: A Military 'Parade'?
Aug 29, 2005 – Editor and Publisher
Small Oregon Paper Leads Reporting On Missing Local Soldier
Jun 19, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
hroes? Why have I been so badly misinformed?
GWB is the king of big government
US Government has grown 27% under Bush - really O can't be much worse than that!
King of Pork!
Earlier this year, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. introduced H. J. Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment which prohibits a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama president for life. Not surprisingly, the corporate media currently caught up in Obama-maniahas not covered this story.
“Will George W. Bush end up being the last true U.S. President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, ‘once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization ACORN nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.”
Oh my! I remember him well. I remember we used to call him...sm
tricky d!ck. He lost the election when he appeared at the first television debate against JFK, slam dunk! He was a very crafty, evil man in my opinion and the latest news reinforces my opinion even more. It was so interesting that he eventually did become president years later and proved to be a disgrace to the presidency.
Why did the 9/11 commission give King
Yet again, you continue to miss the point. He acted ILLEGALLY. For all your blabbing about *intelligence* you have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps it's okay with you that your civil rights are violated all in the name of *protecting the country*. Why is it so hard to get the required permission from judges?
The madness of King George Here's another example of King George's *work*
Bush Quietly Says No Need Follow Patriot Act Oversight Measure
White House Says Signing Statement Is Normal and Constitutional
Analysis By GEORGE SANCHEZ
March 24, 2006 — - When President Bush renewed the revised USA Patriot Act on March 9, Congress added oversight measures intended to keep the federal government from abusing the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize documents.
The additional provisions require law enforcement officials to safeguard all Americans' civil liberties and mandate that the Justice Department keep closer track of how often and in what situations the FBI could use the new powers, and that the administration regularly provide the information to Congress.
However, it was not known at the time that the White House added an addendum stating that the president didn't need to adhere to requirements that he inform members of Congress about how the FBI was using the Patriot Act's expanded police powers.
After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discreetly issued a ''signing statement, an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.
Presidential Power in Question
In doing so, it appears the president once again cited his constitutional authority to bypass the law under certain circumstances.
For example, after The New York Times reported last year that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, the president said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.
When Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in U.S. custody, Bush signed off on it but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Bush's actions have provoked increased grumbling in Congress from both parties. Lawmakers have pointed out that the Constitution gave the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute them.
On Thursday Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, took issue with Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act. He said it represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.
''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, Leahy said. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. Leahy voted against renewing the Patriot Act this year after sponsoring the bill back in 2001.
The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required.
''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven inspector general reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act's renewal was viewed as a rare victory for the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives approved the measure by a vote of 280-138 after the Senate passed the controversial bill 89-10.
Oh, I forgot. It's the neocon MO to bash the messenger and defend the actor.
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227238 Mary Carey to Dine with President Bush By: Chip Baker Posted: 1:15 pm PDT 5-18-2005 LOS ANGELES - Porn star and former gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey will be joining her boss, Kick Ass Pictures president Mark Kulkis, in attending a dinner with President Bush in Washington, D.C. on June 14.
President Bush may have tried to claim a little bit of the legacy of Coretta Scott King with a warm and generous reference to her at the opening of his State of the Union address this week, but it should be remembered that King was a foe of this president and a frequent critic of his abuses of power.
On the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, King celebrated the anniversary of the birth of her late husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., by recalling that the slain civil rights leader had been outspoken in his opposition to unnecessary and unwise wars.
We commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. as a great champion of peace who warned us that war was a poor chisel for carving out a peaceful tomorrow. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. Martin said, 'True peace is not just the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice,' Coretta King told a crowd that had gathered at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church. She continued, May his challenge and his example guide and inspire us to seek peaceful alternatives to a war with Iraq and military conflict in the Middle East.
Coretta King continued to speak out against the Bush administration's policy of pre-emptive war-making, and she always make it clear that she disagreed passionately with this president.
Coretta Scott King ponders a reporter's question in front of a painting of her late husband, civil-rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., in this Jan. 14, 2003 file photo from Atlanta.
When Bush showed up to lay a wreath at the Rev. King's grave in January 2004, Coretta King was polite but pointed in her remarks. Before greeting Bush, she said at another event at Ebenezer Baptist that she sided with those who opposed the war rather than supported it, and she lamented the fact that those people are not in charge of making the policies of their nations. If they were, she added, I think we would have more peace and more justice.
There will be many celebrations of Coretta Scott King's brave and inspiring life, as well as her rich legacy of activism.
But none will be so appropriate as those that recall her absolute opposition to this president's illegal and immoral war-making.
Revelations, King James Version The anniversary of Martin Luther King's...
"I have a dream" speech. And it was not condescending. He was being honest. It is a historic day. On this day in 1963 is when King delivered that speech, and today the first African American man will accept the nomination of a major party for President of the United States. It is historical and McCain was taking the high road.
By any chance, you catch Larry King?
To begin with, I was a pregnant teen and most definitively will be voting for Obama. The other unwed mother poster is voting for Obama too in case you hadn't noticed. Bully, fear and threat tactics are not effective.
His candidacy is alive and well and has nothing to do with this issue and how it is going to play out. Tonight, Larry King's panel were talking this subject up one side and down the other. Every single issue that was raised today in these posts on this board were touched upon....every single one. SP is in the political arena now. Unfortunately, she has put her daughter there too. The issues surrounding this will be politicized. You can't stop this train.
Who watched Larry King last night?
They were talking about the idea of implementing a stimulus package for (in particular) the auto industry. Well, turns out that they have already been trying to pass a stimulus package and I'll give you one guess as to who's blocking that. In the meantime if the auto industry goes down that's another 2-3 million jobs. Nice going Bush!
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Martin Luther King would be sickened by him....
nm
Clinton and C, King's memoral service today....
Four presidents were present at Coretta King's memorial service today. Carter was there and blasted Bush by recalling how the Kings were illegally wiretapped. Bush Sr. was there and actually seemed quite amiable and pleasant. Bush Jr. got up and read his usual canned ghost-written blah blah.
It was almost embarrassing though to see the difference in the way the mourners responded to Bush Jr and to Bill Clinton. The crowd greeted Clinton with resounding cheers and a standing ovation when he came into the church - no such greeting for Bush, only a polite clapping. When Clinton took his turn to speak - the only speaker of the Presidents by the way not to be reading a notepad or turning pages on the podium - he got a another standing ovation for his eulogy, which was delivered off the cuff, from the heart, and just seemed to hit a nerve with the audience like Bush Jr. has never been able to do.
I think it's clear - despite the smear jobs and the hypocritical railroading, the vast majority of America still loves Bill Clinton and in fact I think always has. Sure, he's not perfect and did some questionable things. But, his intelligence, charisma, ability to speak eloquently without teleprompters or earpieces, and just plain good empathy, diplomacy and people-sense, when compared side by side with Bush's obvious discomfort and absorption in his script pages, just really made clear how much we are lacking in the White House today - painfully clear.
The memorial service was great though, with a tone of worship and celebration rather than sadness. Goodbye to a truly great lady.
King funeral--just another money shot for politicians
and opportunity for all politicians involved to bloviate ad nauseum. The whole thing went on forever. Reminds me of the old Appalachian mountain funerals where there were five or six preachers and each one had to see who could out preach the other.
Everybody had to get their money shot (especially Clinton and Carter) and to me it was sad to see a bunch of politicans and so-called religious leaders take advantage a good woman's funeral just to make their political hay.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The full text of the letter follows:
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.
I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).
[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).
Video at: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/07/bush-lay/
Transcript:
KING: The death of Ken Lay.
G. BUSH: Yes, yes.
KING: I know he was your friend. How do you feel? Were you shocked?
G. BUSH: I was. I was very surprised. You know, just — my hope is that his heart was right with the Lord, and I feel real sorry for his wife. She’s had a rough go, and she’s now here on earth to bear the burdens of losing her husband, a man she loved.
KING: Was that whole thing, the whole Enron story shocking to you?
G. BUSH: Yes, yes.
KING: Because, I mean, you knew him pretty well from Texas, right?
G. BUSH: Pretty well, pretty well. I knew him. I got to know him. This — people don’t believe this, but he actually supported Ann Richards in the ‘94 campaign.
KING: She told me that.
G. BUSH: She did?
KING: She liked him a lot.
G. BUSH: Yes, he’s a good guy. And so what I did — then did was we had a business council, and I kept him on as the chairman of the business council. And, you know, got to know him and got to see him in action.
One of the things I respected him for was he was such a contributor to Houston’s civil society. He was a generous person. I’m disappointed that there was this — he betrayed the trust of shareholders, but…
KING: Did you know him well, Mrs. Bush?
L. BUSH: I knew him. Not really well, but I did know him.
KING: Did you know his wife?
L. BUSH: And I know Linda and I’m sorry for her.
KING: Did you contact her?
L. BUSH: I haven’t.
G. BUSH: I haven’t yet. I’m going to write her a letter at some point in time.
So surprise at all. Bring out the boogey man and
flash the 9-11 neon sign, and we are all supposed to go *Baaaaaaah, baaaah, baaaah, take away my civil liberties in the name of security, baaaaaah, baaaah, whatever you say, baaaaaah, baaaaaaaaah.
You know who I really feel sorry for? The Brits: They see through this caca, but because Blair is Bush's poodle, they're stuck with being targets of terrorism. Geez.
Caught him on Larry King one night last week.
He's a very funny and intelligent man....
I saw part pf Larry King Monday night.
He was trashing Palin and laughing at Stephanie Miller's really nasty jokes. The media have intruded into where they should have never gone. They have laughed and acted better than women from small town, kind of like Obama calling us bitter and clinging to our guns and God.She has been given the Bork and Clarence Thomas treatment. It is a very sad day for all women. They did this to Hillary, just not to the extreme in such a short time. The media really really want Obama to win.
marks the location of current message within thread
