Worker Refuses to Honor Jessie Helms
North Carolina employee, L. F. Eason, took a forced early retirement rather than honor Jessie Helms by flying the flag at half-mast. Way to go, Mr. Eason!!!
Entries Tagged as 'Senate'
Senate Hands Bush FISA
With money from the telecoms, the Bush administration will be getting their way today as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation seems to be set for passage. Below you’ll see Rachael Maddow discussing the latest with Jonathon Turley, law professor at George Washington University.
I have talked about the FISA bill on a number of occasions (here, here and here). There is no reason for the Democrats to pass this legislation, except perhaps the fear of being labeled. Democrats need to stop with the fear and stand up for the Fourthth Amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Finally, I must add that I am very disappointed in Senator Barack Obama’s “centrist” position on this bill. He is not standing up for principles. Instead, he is stooping to political maneuvering by taking a position that really will not upset either side in the debate too much. I had expected more. I expected a different type of politician. But it looks like I have the same old type of politician just packaged a little differently. I’m disappointed in Democrats in general, but specifically in Obama. There is no principle that can’t be bent or run over if there is some perception of a political advantage.
In case you missed it, Jonathan Turley mentioned the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush case. There is an excellent article in Salon.com about this case -
On July 3, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California made a ruling particularly worthy of the nation’s attention. In Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush, a key case in the epic battle over warrantless spying inside the United States, Judge Walker ruled, effectively, that President George W. Bush is a felon.
Judge Walker held that the president lacks the authority to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — which means Bush’s warrantless electronic surveillance program was illegal. Whether Bush will ultimately be held accountable for violating federal law with the program remains unclear. Bush administration lawyers have fought vigorously — at times using brazen, logic-defying tactics — to prevent that from happening. The court battle will continue to play out as Congress continues to battle over recasting FISA and possibly granting immunity to telecom companies involved in the illegal surveillance. (more… )
Update: As usual, Glenn Greenwald is all over this story. He continues to write intelligently and forcefully on FISA.
Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan noted the post I wrote this weekend regarding why telecom immunity is so destructive and corrupt. But Sullivan then wrote: “In the period after 9/11 in question, I do not find these cardinal sins. Venial maybe.” Had this surveillance lawbreaking been confined to the weeks or even months after the 9/11 attack, that might be true. Even EFF’s lead counsel, Cindy Cohn, said that had the illegal spying occurred only during that time period, it’s unlikely that even they would have objected and sued.
But the reality is that the Government and the telecoms broke the law, not for weeks or months, but for years — well into 2007. They continued to do so even after the New York Times exposed what they were doing. They could have brought their spying activities into a legal framework at any time, but chose instead to spy on Americans in exactly the way our laws criminalize. Manifestly, then, national security had nothing to do with why they did it. The Bush administration chose to do so because they wanted to eavesdrop without oversight and to establish that neither Congress nor the courts can limit what the President does, and telecoms did not want to jeopardize the massive government surveillance contracts they have by refusing. (more… )
Jessie Helms Dies
I will have a lot more to say about Senator Jessie Helms later on this afternoon. Right now, I can say that Helms should be admired by all. Whether you believe in his politics or not, he did stand by his convictions. He also showed everyone what a determined senator can do.
Think Progress points out that the former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, Harvey Gantt, who ran against Helms in 1990, was defeated in part by a racially based advertisement which reinforced North Carolinians worst racial fears.
From New York Times:
Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday. He was 86.
Mr. Helms’s former chief of staff, Jimmy Broughton, told The Associated Press that the former senator died of natural causes in Raleigh.
In a 52-year political career that ended with his retirement from the Senate in 2002, Mr. Helms became a beacon for the right wing of American politics, a lightning rod for the left, and, often, a mighty pain for Presidents whatever their political leaning. (more… )
Update: From TCR -
The WaPo’s David Broder wrote a column in August 2001, shortly after Helms announced he would not seek re-election. Broder, who would hardly qualify as a reflexive liberal ideologue, did a fine job explaining exactly what made Helms politically significant, and precisely why he’ll be remembered.
What really sets Jesse Helms apart is that he is the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country — a title that one hopes will now be permanently retired. A few editorials and columns came close to saying that. But the squeamishness of much of the press in characterizing Helms for what he is suggests an unwillingness to confront the reality of race in our national life. […]
What is unique about Helms — and from my viewpoint, unforgivable — is his willingness to pick at the scab of the great wound of American history: the legacy of slavery and segregation. He inflamed racial resentment against African Americans.
Many of the accounts of Helms’s retirement linked him with another prospective retiree, Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Both these Senate veterans switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party when the Democrats began pressing for civil rights legislation in the 1960s. But there is a great difference between them. Thurmond, who holds the record for the longest anti-civil rights filibuster, accepted change. For three decades he has treated African Americans and black institutions as respectfully as he treats all his other constituents.
To the best of my knowledge, Helms has never done what the late George Wallace did well before his death — recant and apologize for his use of racial issues. And that use was blatant.
In 1984, when Helms faced his toughest opponent in Democratic Gov. Jim Hunt, the late Bill Peterson, one of the most evenhanded reporters I have ever known, summed up what “some said was the meanest Senate campaign in history.”
“Racial epithets and standing in school doors are no longer fashionable,” Peterson wrote, “but 1984 proved that the ugly politics of race are alive and well. Helms is their master.”
A year before the election, when public polls showed Helms trailing by 20 points, he launched a Senate filibuster against the bill making the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. Thurmond and the Senate majority were on the other side, but the next poll showed Helms had halved his deficit.
All year, Peterson reported, “Helms campaign literature sounded a drumbeat of warnings about black voter-registration drives…. On election eve, he accused Hunt of being supported by ‘homosexuals, the labor union bosses and the crooks’ and said he feared a large ‘bloc vote.’ What did he mean? ‘The black vote,’ Helms said.” He won, 52 percent to 48 percent.
In 1990, locked in a tight race with an African American Democrat, former Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt, Helms aired a final-week TV ad that showed a pair of white hands crumpling a rejection letter, while an announcer said, “You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota.” Once again, he pulled through.
That is not a history to be sanitized.
Helms wasn’t a nice guy or even a good guy. He was a cornerstone of the Republican party for decades. I think that this says something about the Republican party, North Carolina (the state in which I live) and the United States. Unfortunately, what it says isn’t good.
At the risk of sounding heartless, the same is true on the day of Helms’ death.
Countdown - Special Report on Gas Prices
Keith Olbermann tells us how John McCain and his chief economic policy adviser former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas help develop then maintain the Enron Loophole. This Loophole has allowed energy speculators to pump up the price of gas. This is an excellent report.
Obama has given a major speech stating that he wants to close the Enron Loophole.
Access to McCain’s Medical Records a Joke
A hand-selected group of reporters (only 20 people) were allowed to access 1,173 pages of Senator John McCain’s medical records for three hours. No one was allowed to photocopy or photograph the records, but a reporter could take notes. Oh, also there were no cellphones allowed.
So, what do we know? Not much. The types of tests done to look for cancer recurrence were not revealed in the AP article I reviewed. We do know that the cancer removed from his jaw was of an intermediate depth. We also know that his lymph nodes were negative. This is about all the reporters could find out in the limited time allowed. If they read 1,173 pages in three hours, they would have to read a page every six minutes. You can’t get any detail from that. I’m not sure that we know more now than we did before the records were flashed in front of our eyes.
To be honest, this was a great political maneuver by the McCain camp: Release the information on a Friday before a holiday weekend, a slow news day, when nobody is paying any attention and then control what is said. The McCain camp got the exact headlines that they wanted. Reuters stated: “McCain deemed in good health by doctors.” The McCain camp couldn’t have written it any better.
Update: The McCain campaign has released a short summary of the Senator’s medical records. I guess they did this to quiet critics like me. There is still no thoughtful summary of the follow-up tests that have been done or their results. It is clear that some tests would have been done to look for spread of his cancer. . To me, the only nugget of new information was that John McCain had another melanoma on his nose that I didn’t know about. That makes the fourth site that I know of.
Kennedy Diagnosed with Brain Tumor
What terribly sad news. Senator Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor at 76 years of age. I’m sure that the doctors knew this hours after he arrived on Saturday. Kennedy underwent a brain biopsy, which was probably performed on Sunday. There really aren’t any good brain tumors in terms of long term survival. Malignant Gliomas are bad.
Official Hospital statement:
Statement from Dr. Lee Schwamm, Vice Chairman, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Dr. Larry Ronan, Primary Care Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital:
“Over the course of the last several days, we’ve done a series of tests on Senator Kennedy to determine the cause of his seizure. He has had no further seizures, remains in good overall condition, and is up and walking around the hospital. Some of the tests we had performed were inconclusive, particularly in light of the fact that the Senator had severe narrowing of the left carotid artery and underwent surgery just 6 months ago. However, preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe. The usual course of treatment includes combinations of various forms of radiation and chemotherapy. Decisions regarding the best course of treatment for Senator Kennedy will be determined after further testing and analysis. Senator Kennedy will remain at Massachusetts General Hospital for the next couple of days according to routine protocol. He remains in good spirits and full of energy.”
Kennedy Update
We have been waiting for Senator Ted Kennedy’s doctors to tell us something. The Boston Globe has a very nice story that sums up the fact that we still know nothing.
The most common cause of seizures in the elderly would be tumor, alcohol withdrawal, stroke, and arteriovenous malformations (AVM). This is not a complete list, but it is what I can remember from my days in medical school.
I would like to go on TV and get paid for saying nothing, like the M.D. in this clip.
Kennedy Update
We really don’t know any more than we did six or seven hours ago. Neither the Washington Post, New York Times, or the Boston Globe really have anything new. Senator Edward Kennedy had a seizure this morning. He was transported to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston where tests are being run. The Senator is reportedly awake and interactive. That’s about it.
Senator Kennedy Airlifted to Hospital
Senator Kennedy, 76 years-old and very overweight, was airlifted to Massachusetts General Hospital. As far as I can tell, no one really has a handle on what is going on. The news media is reporting that he has symptoms of a stroke.
I pray for his speedy recovery.
Update from the Boston Globe:
Doctors believe that Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts suffered a seizure at his home in Hyannis Port this morning, then a second seizure as he was being transported by helicopter from Cape Cod Hospital to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, according to an official briefed on the situation.
His condition was unclear early this afternoon, as a special police security detail gathered at Mass. General. Kennedy family members were called this morning and told to rush to Boston, according to sources.
Update II Statement from Senator Kennedy’s office:
“It appears that Senator Kennedy experienced a seizure this morning,” a statement released by his office in Washington said. “He is undergoing a battery of tests at Massachusetts General Hospital to determine the cause of the seizure. Senator Kennedy is resting comfortably, and it is unlikely we will know anything more for the next 48 hours.”
All I can say this that this statement isn’t exactly accurate. They should know something by now. Kennedy has been at the hospital for over two hours. I guarantee that he has had blood work and a CT scan of his head, at the very least. Also, since Kennedy was recently diagnosed with a narrowing of his carotid artery but no surgery was recommended, I would guess that a test has been performed on that artery to see if the disease has progressed.
Lt. General Odom testifies
We will assume that we will get progressive friendly testimony when Biden is in charge of the Foreign Relations Committee. I love it. (emphasis added is mine)
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ
By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.
2 April 2008
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked.
Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy.
Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.
I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.
Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.
More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic. No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.
Also disturbing is Turkey’s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.
Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.
Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq.
The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime.
As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran.
Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government’s troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation.
Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.
This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki’s military actions in Basra and Baghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up.
I challenge you to press the administration’s witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of feudal Europe’s transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.
How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.
To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration’s witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy. The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran’s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.
No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’s policy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.
Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.
A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don’t make sense.
First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.
Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the “domino theory” in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it.
The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.
Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.
I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.
Thanks for this opportunity to testify today.
Chevron credit card application
Lowest apr credit cards
Master card credit application
Cheap Wellbutrin SR
Imuran
Heartland credit card processing
Instant approval credit cards for bad credit
Heartland credit card processing
Nonprofit debt consolidation
500 credit score
Nexium
How to raise my credit score
New home loans
Automobile refinance
Health insurance rates
Wellbutrin
Atacand
Codeine
Buy Flomax
Online Viagra Cialis Levitra
Instant approval canadian credit cards
Insurance home
Improve my credit score
Tenormin
Free instant credit report online no credit card needed
VPN setup
Cheaper credit card uk
Home loan mortgage rates com refinance
Application credit card
Aspire credit card application
Cheap Doxycycline
Student credit cards with no apr
Buy Evista
Imovane
Low apr credit cards uk
Alprazolam
Credit free improve score
Credit report and scores
Personal health insurance
American debt consolidation
Why is your credit score is important
Credit card bad debt
Get credit score
Online Acomplia
Low apr credit cards uk
Nolvadex
Viramune
Is 700 a good credit score
Credit card application
Cheap Capoten
Pink Floyd Ringtones
Disputing your credit report
For credit scores
Cheap Cialis Professional
Consolidate student loan debt
Application card credit instant online
Credit reporting agencies in
To credit reporting
Cheap Avandia
Zovirax
Credit score interest
Check my credit report
Credit cards with no apr
Cheap Plavix
Verizon Wireless Ringtones
Trw credit reports
How to get free credit reports
Plavix
Diflucan
Uk online credit card application
Valium No Prescription
Capoten
Excessive credit card debt
Cheap Ultram
Buy Cipro
Atarax
50 Cent Free Ringtones
Countdown - Lott stepping down
Senator Trent Lott and Representative Newt Gingrich are the dynamic duo. They were the ones that set up a system that rewarded loyalty to them and the party above loyalty to your family and friends. You wanted to get a bill to come up for discussion you had to pay. If you wanted to get re-elected, you had to pay. For their friends, piles of cash and no opposition in the primaries. For their enemies, the wrath of the right wing, including Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. That’s how it was. Things have changed. The mighty have fallen. Newt requested that his backers for president raise $20 million, if I’m not mistaken, they didn’t come close. Senator Trent Lott has been up and down over the last several years. He butted heads with the White House and lost. He lost his position has Senate Majority leader, in part because the White House wanted him out. He won the Senate Minority whip by one vote.
Suddenly, he called a press conference and will resign from the Senate before his term is over. Why did he leave so suddenly? I’m guessing that he is involved in something bad and it may come out soon.
From American Progress:
Yesterday, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) announced he would resign from the Senate before the end of the year. Lott’s departure was “stunning” for its timing, observed the Washington Post. Currently occupying the number two position in the Senate GOP leadership — after enjoying a “political rehabilitation from allegations of racial insensitivity” — Lott “cruis[ed] to his re-election” just last year. With this sudden resignation, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) said yesterday that he would “call a Special Election for United States Senator to be held on November 4, 2008,” an election which may violate Mississippi state law. The resignation has sparked a “round of maneuvering inside the Republican conference,” with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) announcing he will run for the leadership position. While Lott has not yet clarified a specific motive for his retirement, the “decision will complete a two-year roller coaster ride for Lott and his emotional investment in the Senate.”
THE LOBBYIST’S SENATOR: Lott has warmly embraced the entreaties of lobbyists while in the Senate. For example, he “tops the list” of “lawmakers who have most frequently been jetted around the country aboard the luxurious private jets of Corporate America.” In 2006, he voted against establishing a Senate Office of Public Integrity. Lott, whose son is a lobbyist, was part of a small bloc of conservatives who voted against the ethics reform bill in August that included a two-year revolving door ban, reflecting his longtime opposition to lobbying reform. It is speculated that Lott is retiring so that he can avoid these new restrictions on former members entering the lobbying world, which kick in after 2008. Lott said yesterday that “he was going to move into the private sector after 35 years in Congress.” NBC News reported that Lott may join the “lucrative world of lobbying Congress.” He maintains the ethics restrictions “didn’t have a big role” in his resignation.
I’m not sure why Senator Lott has stepped down. He is clearly someone that progressives need to keep an eye on. Trent Lott is still a mover and a shaker. He has been in Congress a long time. He loves power. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is up to something in his home state of Mississippi. (psst. there is an ugly rumor that Lott’s gay affair may be the breaking story. I have no idea if this is true. All I know is there is a reason that he left suddenly.)
McConnell earmark is a little stinky
I really don’t like earmarks. They don’t help democracy. They help incumbents stay in office. Mitch McConnell seems to be in a little hot water over one of his earmarks. Now, I guess that you could label earmarks into 3 categories - bad, worse and awful. I think that pushing for a defense contractor is bad. Pushing for an overseas (British) contractor is worse. Trying to get a $25 million project to a company that is under investigation by the Justice Department is awful, isn’t it?
—————–
From the Lexington Herald-Leader:
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is pushing $25 million in earmarked federal funds for a British defense contractor that is under criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and suspected by American diplomats of a “longstanding, widespread pattern of bribery allegations.”
McConnell tucked money for three weapons projects for BAE Systems into the defense appropriations bill, which the Senate approved Oct. 3. The Defense Department failed to include the money in its own budget request, which required McConnell to intercede, said BAE spokeswoman Susan Lenover. (more…)
Craig tries media offensive
Senator Larry Craig is now trying the last act of a disparate man. He is trying to be seen with wife in front of the camera. I’m not sure if this helps or hurts his case. There really isn’t any excuse. If you thought that you were framed then hire a lawyer. I panicked is his excuse. Please. What a load of horse feathers. The best part of the interview is that he is trying to blame the media. It is their fault. It isn’t his fault for bumping boots with a police officer. It isn’t his fault for not telling his wife, his staff or his lawyer about it. It wasn’t his fault for pleading guilty. It was the media’s fault for covering the story. I would like a Kilo of whatever he is smoking for next weekend!
Update: Lauer’s interview style was terrible. There were no probing (pun intended) questions. It was a waste of time.
Senator Craig vows to fight on, again
Note that I resisted the title - Senator Craig has his panties in a twist. 
Just in case you are wondering Senator Larry Craig is going to appeal his most recent court decision. He also feels that Mitt Romney has treated him unfairly.
Give me a break. The Senator has become Britney Spears. He does something stupid. The press covers it and he whines.
———–
From CNN.com:
Sen. Larry Craig says he will file an appeal Monday over a judge’s refusal to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea stemming from his arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting.
In an interview Sunday with KTVB-TV, Craig repeated he will not resign his post in the Senate and said he will continue to work his legal options.
“It is my right to do what I’m doing,” said Craig, an Idaho Republican. “I’ve already provided for Idaho certainty that Idaho needed — I’m not running for re-election. I’m no longer in the way. I am pursuing my constitutional rights.” (more…)
Republican reaction to Larry Craig
Most Republicans understand that Larry Craig is an anchor and he is pulling the Republican Party down with him. As far as I’m concerned Larry Craig and Mark Foley belong in the same sentence.
——
From WaPo:
Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) vowed to serve out the remainder of his term yesterday despite losing his bid to withdraw his guilty plea for disorderly conduct in an airport men’s restroom.
Craig, who said earlier that he would resign if unable to withdraw his plea, said he is considering appealing yesterday’s decision by a Minnesota judge. The judge ruled that some of the senator’s legal arguments were “illogical.” (more…)
He’s still here - Senator Larry Craig
Ah, the gift that keeps on giving - Larry Craig. Senator Larry Craig announced today that he was not leaving the Senate. I couldn’t be happier. Sometimes when you are trying the think of the latest example of Republican hypocrisy you can’t come up with the right on. Some examples are too old. Some didn’t get enough press for everyone to know what you are talking about. Larry Craig on the other hand, can be pointed to as the best example of someone who opposed gay rights but clearly acted on gay impulses. You can’t convince me that this is the first time that he had gone to that bathroom. (more on Larry Craig - here and here)
So, now the judge in Minnesota says no way Jose to Larry Craig’s petition to have a re-trial. TPM has a great paragraph that sums up this whole case -
So Craig’s fellow Republicans basically do everything short of physically forcing him to resign. He “resigns”. Only it’s not a resignation. Rather, it’s a rather ingenious ploy to let the temperature ease off on the story, a post-dated resignation. Then it’s not a resignation. He’s going to fight the guilty plea — something of a novelty in the annals of jurisprudence. He’ll stay in office if he can get his plea withdrawn. And now he can’t get his guilty plea withdrawn so, well, too bad. He’s staying anyway.
It is kind of remarkable that it is the Republicans that look impotent for once.
Senator Craig still around
He ain’t going nowhere. When you are addicted to power it is hard to let go. It looks like Senator Larry Craig is not going to leave the Senate at the end the month as he hinted a couple of weeks ago. it looks like he is going to wait until the judge hands down his verdict on whether or not he should get a retrial.
BTW, he shouldn’t get a retrial. If his judgment is so BAD that he pleads guilty to something that he is not guilty of then he needs to be removed from the Senate for being too stupid to govern. On the other hand, if he was soliciting sex like I think he was, he needs to be removed from office for being a 2-faced liar. There’s his choice. I look forward to him choosing.
Webb amendment fails
The following Senators clearly hate the troops.
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Voinovich (R-OH)
McCain continues to floor me. Maverick?!?! Straight talk? Partisan Bush lapdog is a better way of describing him. My Senators Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr are completely useless. They will not get up an answer a ringing telephone unless President Bush says its okay.
Now, Reid needs to prove that he is serious. Nothing else gets done until this amendment passes. Make these guys filibuster. Make them filibuster for days.
———–
From NYT:
Senate Democrats fell short late this afternoon in what was seen as their best chance to shift the course of the war in Iraq, in a vote on a measure to require that troops get as much time at home as they spend overseas before being redeployed.The vote on the measure, offered by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, was 56 to 44 in favor — four less than the supporters needed to prevent a filibuster. The outcome was almost the same as that in a vote on the measure in July, when 56 senators voted in favor and 41 against. (more…)
Senate Jack Reid - Dem Response
Although I do like Senator Reid’s response but I haven’t liked the Dems in general on the war. The Dems have been kind of afraid of what people will think. I guarantee that the R’s in this same position wouldn’t be as kind. They would have the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh all worked up. Senator Lott would be on every talk show talking about the moral outrage. Gingrich and Bob Dole would be called into action. The whole Republican party with the help of Drudge would be out in force if the shoe was on the other foot.
Okay, here’s the question, do we have any hope of fixing the problems in Iraq in the next 14 months? If the answer is no then what are we doing? Victory is always just around the corner for this President. He warns us not to predict the future BUT he can predict with 20/20 vision the chaos that will ensue when we leave.
The whole thing is kind nuts when you look at it. Just look at this, we went to war based on screwy logic or lies. Then we were asked to continue the war because we have to liberate the Iraqi people. We were then told that we have to finish what we started. We were then told that Al Qaeda was there and that’s why we have to stay. The reasons for staying keep changing. Why? Well that’s because we were NEVER told the real reason for going into Iraq. Was it oil? Was it flexing American power? The one thing that I know is that it wasn’t to spread democracy to the Middle East. That I know.
So, back the original question, why not bring everyone home? That’ s the plan that I endorse. Any plan that gets the troops out of there ASAP is the plan for me!!!
Obama outlines a new direction in Iraq
The direction is out! The time is NOW!
Update: NYT has the story here. Video added! The full text of Obama’s speech is here.
——
From BarackObama.com:
“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” Obama was expected to say in a speech Wednesday at Ashford University.
“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now,” the Illinois senator was to say.
“The president would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis,” Obama said. “I reject this choice.”
Instead, he argued for creating an international working group of countries in the region and in Asia and Europe that would work to stabilize Iraq. (more…)
-
Errington C. Thompson, MD, is a surgeon, scholar, fulltime sports fan and part-time political activist. He is active in a number of community projects and initiatives. Through medicine, he strives to improve the physical health of all he treats...