| |
 |
Saturday, October 1, 2005 |
Taking Out the Trash: Cheney Directly Involved In Leak Scandal. In today[base ']Äôs New York Times an anonymous source reveals that Cheney was directly involved in the strategy to discredit former ambassador Joe Wilson:
A lawyer who knows Mr. Libby’s account said the administration efforts to limit the damage from Mr. Wilson’s criticism extended as high as Mr. Cheney. This lawyer and others who spoke about the case asked that they not be identified because of grand jury secrecy rules.
On July 12, 2003, four days after his initial conversation with Ms. Miller, Mr. Libby consulted with Mr. Cheney about how to handle inquiries from journalists about the vice president’s role in sending Mr. Wilson to Africa in early 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was trying acquire nuclear material there for its weapons program, the person said.
This is an effort by the White House to reveal more details about Cheney[base ']Äôs role on their own terms. The information was leaked to the New York Times on Saturday, the day when the fewest number of people read the paper. Also, it is presented in a way that makes Cheney[base ']Äôs involvement sound innocuous as possible.
Now, when more details about Cheney[base ']Äôs involvement are released by the special prosecutor or another source, the administration can dismiss it as [base ']Äúold news.[base ']Äù Remember, the first details about Karl Rove[base ']Äôs role were released by his own lawyer.
Nevertheless, the fact that this scandal reaches all the way to the Vice President [base ']Äì at a minimum [base ']Äì is very big news.
[Think Progress]
10:01:45 AM 
|
|
Harry Shearer: Better to Give Than to Receive
Harry Shearer
Today, 12:09 AM
A couple of stories are surfacing about the difficulty of getting aid from the Red Cross in the wake of Katrina. Friday afternoon, WWL-TV reported the situation in Baton Rouge, where the Red Cross opened a center to dispense--where have we heard this before?--debit cards, then closed it down because the crowds were larger than anticipated.
And then there's this, emailed from a friend:
This is from New Orleans artist Dawn Dedeaux who has been on the Gulf Coast
taking pictures.
To Whom It May Concern:
I realize the Red Cross has the best of intentions, but most of the
storm victims I have met still cannot get through to the RED CROSS on
the one and only 800 number that is circulated.
I have been trying to contact the RED CROSS every day for the past
month and the line is always busy.
Curiously, yesterday an ad appeared asking people to DONATE to the RED
CROSS. The following number was provided: 1 800 HELP NOW.
It appears to "give" to the RED CROSS is far easier than to "receive."
I got through immediately.
Was this just luck? In the form of an experiment, I have called the
donation phone number ten times in the past two days. Each time I
successfully get through to a REAL person. Each time I have identified
myself as a displaced citizen wanting to process for assistance. I am
repeatedly instructed to call the same old number that I have tried for
the past month -1 800 975-7585. When I offered my constructive protest,
and asked that my call be "transferred" to an assistance person, I was
told that there was no way to transfer my call and that I had to go
through a special 800 number. The number given each time is the same
number I had been calling for the past month to no avail.
You can test the accessibility for yourself.
Again, intentions are not in question, but efficiency and management
are. To think that Americans have so generously contributed to this
organization and yet the Red Cross has not been able to increase their
availability. WHAT ABOUT USING SOME OF THE MONEY TO ADD A FEW PHONE
LINES? WHAT ABOUT USING SOME OF THE MONEY TO PAY SOME OF THE REFUGEES
TO ASSIST WITH PHONE TRAFFIC? This is only common sense.
People not only try to reach the RED CROSS by phone. Many have
traveled to a Red Cross Shelter. But most of the shelters cannot
process the information. In the area where I take refuge, you have to
make appointments first "by phone" and then drive forty minutes away to
another town to meet with a county Red Cross representative (by
appointment only). Again, the number is always busy. And why should
anyone to have to drive a substantial distance? Many people don't even
have cars. Each and every shelter in each and every small town should
have the ability to process the needed information. If there are not
enough volunteers to staff this aspect of service, then HIRE/TRAIN SOME
OF THE STORM VICTIMS!!! This is only common sense.
My intention, with this letter, is to contribute to a constructive
"learning curve" on how our response charities and organizations can
better serve people the next time around. Otherwise, I for one would
not encourage Americans to give in the future to the Red Cross. It may
have worked for 9/11 because of the close area surrounding ground zero,
but Katrina-Rita disaster is widespread, and the methods of service
must be fluid and disaster specific. Each disaster will have varied
circumstances and SMART logistical flexibility is paramount.
PLEASE BRING THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESS. IT
IS NOT TOO LATE TO FIX THE PROBLEM. I WOULD CALL THE RED CROSS
DIRECTLY, BUT .....(you now know the story). I WOULD HOPE THIS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION CAN SOMEHOW MAKE THE NATIONAL EVENING NEWS OR
TOMORROW MORNING'S PAPERS.
Thanks for your efforts to promote such constructive change.
DAWN DEDEAUX
8:38:42 AM
|
|
Nicholas von Hoffman: The Dreadful Mr. Woo
Nicholas von Hoffman
Today, 07:23 AM
John Yoo made a trip back to Washington in June to give a speech at the American Enterprise Institute praising assassination as an instrument of policy. As a Justice Department lawyer, Mr. Yoo had already achieved a modicum of fame by writing a legal memo arguing that torture is OK up to the point of "death or organ failure," which one might have thought were pretty much the same.
Now Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley where he teaches the necessity of "a change in the way we think about the executive order banning assassination, which has been with us since the 1970s." For those given to night sweats Mr. Yoo explains that, "A nation at war may use force against members of the enemy at any time, regardless of their proximity to hostilities or their activity at the time of attack."
Like fellow lawyer Maximilien Robespierre Mr. Yoo is a man of many theories and abstractions the practical consequences of which he is apparently not entirely aware. Ultimately Mr. Robespierre was to taste of the practicalities as he stretched his neck forward to give the guillotine a shot at a good clean cut.
One hopes that Mr. Yoo himself will not be cut down by an assassin, because he would then have no time to reflect on the real world reactions to his legal teachings. History, which is often the story of what happens when people act on insane ideas, teaches that when one side espouses assassination as a tool of war, the other side responds in kind.
Mr. Yoo[base ']s personal history is of elite prep schools, Harvard, Yale, clerking for appellate court judges and aide-de-camping out in Senators[base '] offices. Thus ill equipt for life, how was he to understand, with nothing more than Google for spying out the other side, that Americans are assassination bunglers. If we weren[base ']t, Osama would not be alive.
8:37:10 AM
|
|
DeLay Blames Indictment On Newspaper Editorial. Always one for finger-pointing, DeLay’s newest target in his fight against his criminal indictment? The Austin-American Statesman newspaper.
On September 28, responding to the criminal indictment, DeLay blamed a September 11 editorial by The Statesman:
(As) recently as two weeks ago, Mr. Earle himself publicly admitted I had never been a focus or target of his inquiry. Soon thereafter, Mr. Earle’s hometown newspaper ran a biting editorial about his investigation, rhetorically asking what the point had been, after all, if I wasn’t to be indicted….It was this renewed political pressure in the waning days of his hollow investigation that led this morning’s action.
A September 29 editorial in The Statesman responds:
A Sept. 11 American-Statesman editorial questioned why only the political action committees and not the individuals behind them had been indicted. DeLay was not mentioned by name, nor was there an allusion to him. It is either DeLay’s hubris or his conscience that leads him to think that the editorial targeted him.
The much-discussed September 11 editorial can be found here. As the paper’s editorial staff states, the editorial mentions several men by name, including indicted John Colyandro, but never mentions Tom DeLay.
Let’s recap: DeLay has now blamed The Austin-American Statesman, “unabashed partisan zealot” District Attorney Earle (the truth is here), a “runaway” grand jury, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the DCCC, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Democrats generally, and the rest of the news media.
Poor Tom DeLay.
[Think Progress]
8:35:17 AM
|
|
Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Exit Strategy.  1,934 U.S. soldiers have died and nearly 15,000 have been wounded in Iraq. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Iraq has become a new haven for global terrorists, and now sits on the brink of sectarian civil war. And for this, American taxpayers will soon have paid three hundred billion dollars — $300,000,000,000.00.
Nevertheless, no alternatives to the President’s discredited “stay the course” strategy have emerged in government or among foreign policy elites. Clearly, the status quo is untenable. But simply shifting gears into reverse and implementing a hasty withdrawal from Iraq is not the answer.
Today, the Center for American Progress released a progressive exit strategy for Iraq. It will ensure the strength of our armed forces, increase chances of stability in Iraq, and culminate with the redeployment of virtually all U.S. forces out of Iraq by 2007. Details on the plan follow (or read the full report here):
Strategic Redeployment
Phase 1 (2006):
– Shift in Iraq Forces: Drawdown 80,000 troops, leaving 60,000 US troops in Iraq by December 31, 2006.
– Redeployment of Troops Within Iraq: US troops would immediately and completely redeploy from urban areas, with Iraqi police, troops, and militias, like the Kurdish pesh merga, taking responsibility for security in these areas. The top U.S. priorities would be continuing to train Iraqi security forces, tightening Iraq’s border, and tracking down insurgents with small Special Forces units.
– Redeployment of Troops Outside Iraq: All Guard and Reserve troops would be demobilized and would immediately return to the United States; another 20,000 would be shifted to Afghanistan; the remaining 14,000 would be stationed in Kuwait, enabling the Army and Marines to return to the time-tested policy of allowing a soldier or Marine to spend at least two months at home for every month deployed abroad.
Phase 2 (2007):
– Shift in Iraq Forces: Drawdown 59,000 troops, leaving 1,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by December 31, 2007
– Redeployment of Troops Within Iraq: The remaining forces would consist of a small Marine contingent to protect the US embassy, a small group of military advisors to the Iraqi Government, and counterterrorist units that work closely with Iraqi security forces.
The report also calls for a regional diplomatic initiative aimed at securing Iraq[base ']Äôs borders and taking down terrorist networks; smarter support for reconstruction and political development in Iraq; and a new global communications campaign to clarify US intentions in Iraq and the region, including an unambiguous announcement by President Bush that the United States will not build permanent military bases in Iraq.
Read the full report HERE.
[Think Progress]
8:32:53 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
|
|
