Pat Thurston's Radio Weblog :
Updated: 7/6/06; 11:45:23 AM.

 

Subscribe to "Pat Thurston's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

 
 

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Report: U.S. activates missile defense. Read full story for latest details. [CNN.com - World]
12:41:57 PM    comment []

Truthout's editor, "endeavoring to mitigate hysteria," argues that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was using an indictment to seek "documentation of Cheney's involvement" from Karl Rove, whose attorney denies the Truthout report. [Cursor.org]
12:04:46 PM    comment []

Molly Ivins: Our Pathetic State of Government. If you are put in charge of government, the least you can do is run it well. Alas, the Republicans have been preoccupied with their ever-worsening corruption scandals. [AlterNet.org]
12:00:59 PM    comment []

Ex-Bush Aide Convicted in DC Corruption Case NBC News

Tuesday 20 June 2006

Safavian found guilty on 4 counts of obstruction, making false statements. Washington - A jury Tuesday convicted a former Bush administration official of four counts of lying and obstructing justice in the first trial to be held in connection with the influence-peddling scandal of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

On the fifth day of deliberations, the jury found David Safavian - a former chief of staff at the General Services Administration - guilty of four of five counts of lying and obstructing justice.

Safavian sat impassively as the judge read the verdict and showed no expression when the judge announced the guilty verdicts on each of four counts. Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 12.

Each of the counts carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in jail.

Real Estate and a Golf Trip

Safavian was charged with lying about his relationship with Abramoff and his knowledge of the lobbyist's interest in acquiring properties from GSA, the property managing agency for the federal government. He was also charged with obstructing investigators looking into a golf trip he took with Abramoff in 2002.

The trial consumed eight days of testimony about Safavian's assistance to Abramoff regarding government-owned real estate and a weeklong golfing excursion the lobbyist organized to the famed St. Andrews golf course in Scotland and London.

Safavian went on the trans-Atlantic trip while he was chief of staff at the GSA, and other participants included Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, two Ney aides and Christian Coalition founder Ralph Reed.

The jury found Safavian guilty of obstructing the work of the GSA inspector general and of lying to a GSA ethics official. It also convicted him of lying to the GSA's Office of Inspector General and of making a false statement to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. He was acquitted of a charge of obstructing the committee's investigation.

First Case From Abramoff Scandal

This was the first trial to emerge from the scandal surrounding Abramoff, who is a former business partner of Safavian. Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal crimes here and in Miami, would likely be a witness if the Justice Department assembles criminal cases against any members of Congress.

The government made its case without ever putting Abramoff on the witness stand. It relied on the testimony of the officials Safavian was accused of deceiving.

A key witness in the case was Neil Volz, a convicted partner of Abramoff's and ex-chief of staff to Ney. Prosecutors introduced hundreds of e-mails exchanged among Safavian, Abramoff, Volz and others in 2002.

The Justice Department made a case that Safavian provided Abramoff advice and some inside information about two government properties including the Old Post Office in downtown Washington.

Prosecutors said Abramoff wanted to buy or lease part of the GSA's White Oak property in the Maryland suburbs for use by a Jewish school he had established. They also said he wanted to give an Indian tribe client a leg up on obtaining the contract to redevelop the Old Post Office in as a luxury hotel, near two restaurants Abramoff owned.

One of Their 'Champions' Inside Government

Volz testified the Abramoff team referred to Safavian as one of their [base "]champions[per thou] inside government, who could give them insider information they couldn't get elsewhere. He said Safavian was the mastermind of some of the strategy for developing congressional pressure or action to sway GSA.

Volz said they tried to keep this maneuvering secret.

Prosecutors showed that Safavian's advice began right after he went to work at GSA and was intensely pursued in the weeks before Safavian went on the weeklong golfing expedition to Scotland in August 2002. Abramoff had arranged the trip for members of Congress and invited Safavian to come along when one of them dropped out.

Safavian took the stand for two days in his own defense. He acknowledged some misjudgments and forwarding Abramoff some insider information, such as the position of other government officials on the GSA properties, but attributed these errors to his inexperience.

Basically he maintained he simply gave generally available information to an old friend who was inquiring about government property that the GSA had not even decided what to do with yet.

He said he answered all investigators' questions. Safavian said he didn't volunteer information about his advice on the two properties. Safavian said he didn't consider Abramoff was doing or seeking business with GSA because the agency wasn't letting contracts at the time.

$3,100 Check Didn't Cover Trip Costs

Safavian claimed he thought he paid all of his costs with a $3,100 check to Abramoff on takeoff, though he acknowledged that trial testimony had shown him some elements were more expensive than he thought.

Prosecutors said the trip of nine participants cost more than $130,000. They scoffed at the notion anyone could think $3,100 would cover his share of chartered jet travel, $400 and $500-a-night hotels, $400 rounds of golf and $100 rounds of drinks.

GSA officials and a Senate investigator said Safavian never told them about the advice he was giving Abramoff on the two properties or details about the Scotland costs. They also said they would have wanted to hear that. The GSA officials said if they had known, they might have ruled differently on his request to go on the trip. The GSA Inspector General's office closed an investigation of the trip without taking any action against Safavian in 2003. Safavian's problems didn't begin until 2004 when investigators began looking into Abramoff's illegal conduct.

-------
11:12:57 AM    comment []


GOP Kills Bill to Police Halliburton. Republicans in Congress have made it clear they're willing to fight for military contractors' right to lie, cheat and defraud taxpayers. [AlterNet.org]
11:08:18 AM    comment []

Robert Dreyfuss: White House Won't Comment on Rove Backside.

The following is an unedited transcript of today's White House press briefing by Tony Snow:

Q. There's a controversy this week over Congressman John Murtha's comments about Karl Rove. What can you tell us? Specifically, does Mr. Rove have a "fat backside"?
Snow: I don't want to comment on the anatomical aspects of White House staff.

Q. Come on, Tony, It's just a factual question. Is his backside fat, or not?
Snow: Again, I don't think the question is appropriate.

Q. Well, how would you describe his backside?
Snow: Mr. Rove's posterior is rotund.

Q. Well, isn't rotund the same as fat?
Snow: I'll leave it you in the press to parse the meaning of those words. I'm only authorized to say, his posterior is rotund.

Q. Another member of Congress, speaking of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame affair and Rove's role in that, said, and I quote, "Fitzgerald should have indicted his ass." Doesn't that make his backside relevant?
Snow: I don't see whether the size of his backside has anything to do with whether his ass ought to have been indicted or not. It's irrelevant.

Q. Well, the size is important. It's relevant to how big the target is.
Snow: If that's true, you've answered your own question. If the target was so big, if his "ass" is "fat," as you and Mr. Murtha insist, then Fitzgerald ought to have been able to hit it. But Mr. Rove was told he is a not a target of the investigation.

Q. So you're saying, Fitzgerald can't even hit Rove's big fat ass?
Snow: As I said, I'm commenting on whether his backside is fat, or not. I'm just saying, if it were, and you seem to be insisting that it is, then Fitzgerald really missed a big fat target, didn't he?

[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
11:07:22 AM    comment []

Stephen Elliott: Dick Cheney's Last Throes.

"I guess if I look back on it now, I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered." - Vice President Dick Cheney, yesterday, Monday, June 19, 2006

There are men dragged across the streets of Fallujah, their charred bodies hanging from a bridge. A video captured on a cell phone shows a man's foot pressing against a woman's belly, a geyser of blood erupting from her throat. The Sadr militia pins the troops from their rooftop perch and this is the beginning of the insurgency and the day Casey Sheehan dies.

Mission Accomplished flutters on the ship's deck and the President poses for photo opportunities in his flight suit like a young child. Later, he says the banner wasn't his idea. How was he to know? The atrocities at Abu Ghraib were an isolated incident in no way indicative of a trickle down from the top. He would love to close Guatanamo, he's just waiting for te right time. Also, everyone thought there were weapons of mass destruction, there is no one to blame.

Yesterday, Senator Frist said, "We are making progress. We can't just cut and run. Surrender is not the answer." We are making progress. Progress toward what? And if we surrendered, what would happen then, and who would we surrender to? If you're not fighting for anything in particular, is it still surrender when you put down your guns and go?

Yesterday a translator was kidnapped and the bodies of two soldiers were recovered. They had been tortured horribly. We have to honor their memory. We have to find those weapons of mass destruction. We have to win this war, stay the course.

The Uncle is not happy with America's policy, the right prepares their attack. Nick Berg's head is cut off and his father asks for peace. Cindy Sheehan loses her son and is attacked by the friends of the administration as she holds vigil outside the President's ranch.

The insurgency has been in its last throes for a while now. We're winning, according to the VP, but maybe we underestimated how Saddam's strong-amr tactics would continue to affect the Iraqi's willingness to embrace democratic reforms, he says. Blame it on the people, the culture, the history. Anything but the planning, the soldiers, the planes, the bombs. Anything but willful lies, intelligence manipulation, otherwise intentions.

A writer is shot in the head at a road block. 2,500 American soldiers are killed. 30,000 Iraqis, perhaps many more. Still, the insurgency is growing. If insurgency is the right term. No one is safe in this country. Saddam is replaced with an Islamic theocracy at best, chaos, civil war at worst. Hundreds of billions of dollars gone to destroy a country. Zarqawi is killed and Bush receives a bounce.

The story in the media: Democrats are losing because they can't agree on what to do in Iraq. It's like the older siblings who are punished because they can't agree on how to clean up the younger siblings' mess. The child has puked all over the kitchen and destroyed the vases and wrapped his fat fingers around the cat's skinny neck and now the parents are home and the older children are punished and the younger child is rewarded. Why? Because the young child is consistently wrong and has no intention of fixing anything. The Democrats are in trouble because they can't agree on how to fix the mess the Republicans have made. The Republicans are rewarded for staying the course.

I am still waiting for a convincing argument to stay in Iraq. I would still like to know why we are there in the first place. Instead of criticizing the Democrats for not agreeing on how quickly to leave I would like to focus on what Republicans mean by victory. How will we know when we have won? Will it be when things are as good as they were under Saddam Hussein? Or when it's possible for a foreign journalist to report from inside the country? When women can walk safely without covering their heads? Instead of consensus among Democrats on when we should leave I would like to see a consensus among Republicans on what it means to win in Iraq, and how we will know when we have lost. By what measure we can safely say there is nothing left to do but go home.

- Stephen Elliott

[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
10:58:27 AM    comment []

RFK Jr. to sue over 'stolen' 04 vote (160). RFK Jr. to sue over 'stolen' 04 vote (160) [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news]
10:48:32 AM    comment []

Bill 'to police Halliburton' nixed (0). Bill 'to police Halliburton' nixed (0) [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news]
9:03:28 AM    comment []

Rumsfeld: 'Laws apply to me?' (12). Rumsfeld: 'Laws apply to me?' (12) [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news]
8:58:56 AM    comment []

O'Reilly: US should run Iraq like Saddam (24). O'Reilly: US should run Iraq like Saddam (24) [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news]
8:57:47 AM    comment []

Pentagon Thinks Homosexuality Is A 'Mental Disorder'. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-20-military-gay_x.htm By . [TomPaine.com]
8:05:13 AM    comment []

Eric Boehlert: The Press Plays Dumb About the Bush Bounce.

Lapdogs---RS-Fix.jpg

The mainstream media's incessant, excited chatter about a looming Bush Bounce represented just the latest embarrassment in an endless parade of journalism missteps during the Bush years. The depressing puppet show--senior White House aides announce things are great, conservative 'news' outlets echo the spin and then MSM journalists gamely play along--has become annoying, tiresome and transparent. Yet the MSM won't stop embarrassing themselves.

Two problems with the contagious Bush Bounce story: a) the Bounce was all but non-existent, with three of the last four national polls (USA Today, WSJ-NBC, CNN) showing no statistical movement whatsoever for Bush following last week's wildly hyped "wave of good news" (AP).

And even more importantly, b) when it was eagerly misleading news consumers about how Bush was about to enjoy a big bump in the public opinion surveys, the press provided virtually no context regarding exactly where Bush stood in the polls. Yes, some journalists noted in passing that Bush's job approval ratings had vaguely fallen during his second term. But notice what is not reported and discussed in polite Beltway company--that Bush is an historically unpopular president. Period. (Fact: If Bush doesn't post an approval rating gain soon, he'll trail>my book, "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush":


It was not surprising that awed reporters and pundits, carrying on about Bush's mandate and his lofty stature were so slow to acknowledge that Bush at the time of his second swearing-in stood as an historically unpopular president. On Jan. 20, a New York Times/CBS poll revealed Bush's job approval rating was just 49 percent, marking the worst Inauguration Day approval rating for any president since modern day polling began nearly 80 years earlier. On the day of Bush's swearing-in, even as they searched for topics to discuss during the all-day coverage, television pundits politely avoided mentions of Bush's poor standing. Over the course of four hours of continuous inauguration coverage from 8 am to noon (collectively, that's 24 hours among the three networks and three all-news cable channels), the topic of president's (historically poor) approval ratings came up exactly four times.


If, in the coming days, the next batch of presidential surveys match the findings of USA Today, WSJ-NBC and CNN--that Bush received no "turnaround" in the wake of widely trumpeted good news--then it will be obvious the American people have closed the book on Bush. That their minds are made up, they're not going to give him another serious look, and that barring a truly seismic event, Bush will be relegated to serving out his term as a political has-been. That'll be the verdict of the American people. The MSM of course, will come to a much more comforting conclusion.

[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
8:03:13 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.
 


June 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
May   Jul