Category Archives: dick cheney

click through to support. . .

i don’t usually support direct
purchase campaigns of any
stripe — but this one is a
very-worthy exception — get
a bunch of these; then resell
them — that’s the basic premise.

just click the image to do so:

p e a c e

HJC chairman conyers to hold hearing on wan kim legacy in civil rights division of DOJ

on tuesday next, or sept.
25, 2007 at 10 a.m., e.d.t., the
house judiciary committee will hold a
hearing on the deterioration of
enforcement efforts in the area
of civil rights in employment
settings — a function long, and
quite ably, advanced by the civil
rights division of the department
of justice. that is, until the bush
administration began systematically
firing, demoting, demeaning and
re-assigning the fine career attorneys
prosecuting employment cases under
our civil rights and equal opportunity
statutes and regulations. . .

this is alberto gonzales’, and
wan kim’s, legacy. we need to
figure out how best to restore
professionalism, independence
and zeal for a fair use of the
law to the civil rights division.

let’s hope this hearing makes
a good start. i’ll have a working
link to the live webcast, here by
very early on tuesday morning:

Tuesday 09/25/2007 – 10:00 AM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building


Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

Oversight Hearing on the Employment
Section of the Civil Rights Division
of the U.S. Department of Justice.

By Direction of the Chairman

well this is pretty "god-damn" ironic. . .

. . . and pretty “god-damn” entertaining, too!

what — exactly — was the thought
being “censored” in faux-tv’s emmy
broadcast, last sunday night?

you decide. i already have.

and, all in about forty seconds. . .

curious: dick cheney’s opinion — reply to greenspan — in the wall street journal today. . .

UPDATED 09.22.07 @10 a.m.

the generally-pungent
peggy noonan offered this,
this morning, on the green-
span “iraq war is about oil”
— and it is illuminating,
largely because her reportage of his
later clarification/correction, is,
in fact, much more of an admission
to the essential truth of his statement:

. . .while reading Alan Greenspan’s memoir, in which the war for Iraq was all about oil, though the wise have long been prohibited from sharing this insight with the common folk. In interviews, Mr. Greenspan now corrects that: He meant the war seemed to him, though he cannot claim it did to others in power, driven primarily by American dependence on foreign energy. . .

gee — that’s fascinating. it actually
confirms what peggy noonan, and all “the
” long knew to be true.

erh, good work, peg!


this is a noteworthy silence.

the vice president offers his
own — mostly revisionist — views
on almost every one of greenspan’s
observations, in the ex-federal reserve
chairman’s “the age of turbulence: ad-
ventures in a new world
” — and, in
an almost point-by-point fashion, to boot. . .

but cheney writes not. a. single.
about this — about this, mr.
cheney is entirely “sphinx-like“; solely silent:

. . .I’m saddened that it is politically
inconvenient to acknowledge what
everyone knows — the Iraq war is
largely about oil
. . .

indeed. now, greenspan is a near-diety
on wall street — and on this one
sound-bite, if cheney were to retort,
or engage in any fashion [this one is
plainly unwinnable — irrefutable],
the street, then the nation, too,
would brand him an outright

the nation already has.

why won’t the street?

w h y ?

they now know he is — and from
their very own oracle’s pen, now
they just know it.

time to act, wall street — time
for a regime change on pennsylvania
avenue — in 2008 — or before then.

senator schumer — VIDEO! — lights a july 8, 2007 signal-fire re libby’s commutation!

now, this is hardball!

and this is the way we do it, downtown. . .

here, senator chcuck schumer suggests that
there was a darker purpose behind choosing
commutation over outright pardon. . .

he also suggests that he and senator leahy
may yet call patrick fitzgerald to talk about
the cloud over the vice president — to
essentially restate his closing summation
from the libby criminal trial, before a
senate judiciary committee (read: televised!)
hearing, in the near future. . . YES!

do watch it — it is only 1:48 long. . .

[h/t to FDL, for alerting me to
schumer’s statments, on video. . .]

more to come, later this afternoon. . .

ACK — wrong letter! — be back later, with correct one!

larry thompson — former deputy
attorney general — is here
[click to enlarge]:

even so — this is what one would
expect from a former department of
justice attorney
, given the evidence
at trial, and at the sentencing memo
phase of scooter’s criminal proceedings. . .

i am no longer sure that fred thompson wrote
one. . . developing. . .

sincere apologies if i am in error. . .
re-checking the 373 pages, now. . .

there is no letter from fred thompson.

it is time to consider indicting dick cheney. . .

all the latest posts by nolo

on this topic will be found here. . .

waxman to subpoena rice tomorrow morning?

oh so developing — but cooool!

lock and load the subpoenas!

goodling, rove, rice. . .


doncha’ love the smell of no
in the morning. . .

bob barr, david keene and richard viguerie write president bush, in first public call for gonzales’ ouster. . .

i admit to being more than
a little loath to link or hype
conservative groups here, but
time magazine is reporting
on it this morning — from a
letter sent to president bush
by a newly-formed, and deeply
conservative group called the
american freedom agenda:

“. . .Mr. Gonzales has presided over an
unprecedented crippling of the Constit-
ution’s time-honored checks and balances. . .

He has brought rule of law into disrepute,
and debased honesty as the coin of the realm. . .

He has engendered the suspicion that
partisan politics trumps evenhanded law
in the Department of Justice. . .

. . .Attorney General Gonzales has proven an
unsuitable steward of the law and should resign
for the good of the country. . .

The President should accept the resignation,
and set a standard to which the wise and honest
might repair in nominating a successor
. . .”

. . .this is the first public demand by a group
of conservatives for attorney general gonzales’
ouster. signatories to the letter include
bruce fein, a former senior official in the
reagan DoJ, who has worked frequently with
the bush 43 administration and the r.n.c.
to promote bush’s court nominees; david keene,
chairman of the american conservative union,
one of the nation’s oldest conservative groups,
richard viguerie, a well-known republican fund-
raiser, and bob barr, the former republican
congressman from georgia, as well as john white-
head, head of the rutherford institute, a
conservative nonprofit active in fighting
for what it calls religious freedoms. . .

— from the time article

again — i trust groups like these about
as far as i can throw ’em — but i think
about this one — they are clearly right.

i must say, it is deeply unfortunate that
while firedoglake, thinkprogress,
talkingpointsmemo and talkleft,
among many others, have been offering
these sorts of wise, majestic, principled, ideas
for a very long while — it takes an eve-of-des-
truction-moment to bring these supposedly-true-
patriots forward — here, now, finally
pointing back to our long-espoused-traditions
of ordered liberty, and a nation governed by
the rule of law (not men), that until now,
were uninterrupted for some 220 years. . .

“but i will take help — from whatever
quarter it is offered”,
here — as this is
a moment of truly historic significance. . .
and i think they finally sense it, too.

alberto must go. go now. and “let the
wise and honest repair, to nominate his
” — one patrick fitzgerald(?). . .

nah, he’s too smart to want the job. . .

but i can dream. . .

"i love the smell of a subpoena, in the morning. . .

. . .it smells like. . . victory. . .”

or, “subpoenas are like high-colonics — they
sure get things a-movin’. . .” he he.

i’ll get to the various bi-partisan
letters demanding an accounting for
the deleted R.N.C./white house e-mails
in a moment. . . but — first-up this
morning — is an examination of mr.
bush’s latest, and most desperate,
attempt to broaden executive privilege.

it would be breath-taking — if it were
any other presidency — but this one? par
for the course. . . it’s almost yawn-inducing
in its utterly shameless transparency. . .

this morning’s new york times reports
that the white house now claims an
executive privilege” covers what its
staffers do amongst themselves, on their
own time, while working for the republican
national committee
. riiiiight.

. . .The clash also seemed to push the White
House and Democrats closer to a serious
confrontation over executive privilege, with
the White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding,
asserting that the administration has control
over countless other e-mail messages that
the Republican National Committee has
archived. Democrats are insisting that they
are entitled to get the e-mail messages
directly from the national committee.

. . .Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York
Democrat. . . said the Fielding letter “can be
summed up in three words: “We. are.

s t o n e w a l l i n g. . .

[ed.: emphasis supplied.]

. . .Mr. Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, [also]
issued a tart reply: “The White House position seems
to be that executive privilege not only applies
in the Oval Office, but to the R.N.C. as well.
There is absolutely no basis in law or fact
for such a claim
.”. . .

well, i think a little reductio argument
will make the central point — plainly enough that
even mr. bush will be able to understand it:

erh, i am sorry to be the first to point this
out to you, mr. president, but the whole
R.N.C. “off-the-books” e-mail debacle is what
naturally follows from “outsourcing” your
presidency to karl rove and dick cheney

look — EITHER the R.N.C. is a political
organization — a party — or, it IS the
presidency, and is subject to all the rules attendant
thereto, including the presidential records act.

but you cannot have it both ways, mr. bush.

you must choose: are you the president,
i.e., do you possess executive privilege?

or is the R.N.C. the presidency, and all R.N.C.
activity is protected by the privilege?

[wait — whose name was on the ballot
in november of 2004. . . i don’t remember.]

s e g u e

i’ll place the letters in a new post.

comin’ right up. . .