Nancy Pelosi Thinks You're Stupid

Comments yesterday from Nancy Pelosi, via reporter Karen Tumulty at Time:

[I]t makes progress in the right direction. But these bills depend on the commitment to the Constitution of the President of the United States and of his Justice Department. So while some may have some complaints about this, that, or the other about the bill, it is about the enforcement, it is about the implementation of the law where our constitutional rights are protected.

But I'm pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law. Reaffirmation, I guess that's the word I'd looking for. A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon.

Of course, it is about "enforcement" if you determine that "enforcement" of the law means "blanket immunity for anyone who breaks it." The bill directs the courts to dismiss all lawsuits against the telecommunications companies if the Bush administration directs them to, based on evidence which is required to remain secret but which may be as meager as an assertion that the company was told by the President that he had the authority to demand of them whatever-it-is-they-did. Which is also secret.

That's a hell of a compromise, don't you think? Can't you just smell the "enforcement" of basic Constitutional rights, there? Certainly worth a little self-congratulation from the Speaker of the House for standing up for us. Because at heart, Nancy Pelosi thinks you're too stupid to figure out the difference between "enforcement" and "amnesty".

But what's even better is that, in the span of two statements, Pelosi says that this bill is dependent on the President of the United States following the law... and praises the law for sternly "reaffirming" the law he already broke. Well, hell, you should feel confident now. And if he breaks the law again, of course -- no problem. Because we'll just pass another law making it retroactively legal again, and call that a great victory too.

Today, Pelosi stated:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.

"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.

But of course, FISA was already the authority under which the government conducted electronic surveillance. It's fine and grand to "reaffirm" that, but if you're "reaffirming" it in one breath and immunizing all violations in the next, you'd have to really think your constituents were stone-cold stupid to count that a victory.

Pelosi's right about one thing, though. This is a democracy, not a monarchy. In a monarchy, the king would just violate the law at will, and nobody would say a word. In a democracy, the President gets to violate the law at will, and we'll jump through months of hoops to change the law so that he retroactively didn't violate it. You'd have to be stupid not to see the difference.

View Original Article

Increasing America’s Domestic Fuel Supply by Building New Oil Refineries

* The number of refineries fell from 324 in 1981 to 223 in 1985, and domestic refining capacity dropped by almost three million barrels per day (b/d). * By 2006 the number of U.S. refineries had slipped to 149.Total refining capacity fell as small refineries closed, but the capacity of the remaining refineries has grown due to expansions and improvements in efficiency. For example, due to efficiency improvements refineries that operated at 78 percent of their maximum capacity in the 1980s, on the average, have produced more than 90 percent of their potential output since 1993. However, higher utilization rates increase the seasonal volatility of gasoline prices. Refineries cannot pick up the slack caused by shortages which arise when capacity is taken off-line because of maintenance or natural disaster. Thus, outages cause supply to fall and prices to rise. In the summer of 2007, for example, the loss of output from two refineries led to a gasoline price increase of 24 cents in the Midwest.

NCPA | Brief Analysis #603, Increasing America’s Domestic Fuel Supply by Building New Oil Refineries

Think Progress » Does McCain Support Amending The Constitution To Overturn The Supreme Court’s Habeas Decision?

Unconstitutional?  That's ok.  We'll just amend the Constitution to shape this country into a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. 

Last week, after the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus protections apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) denounced it as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” At a townhall in New Jersey, McCain railed against the “unaccountable judges” who made the decision.On Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol suggested that McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) would soon introduce legislation to undermine the decision by creating national security courts. But Graham has also floated another option for blunting the decision: The Court’s decision is bad on many levels and I will continue to review the decision and determine its sweeping effect on our military. I will also explore the possibility, if necessary, of a constitutional amendment to blunt the effect of this decision when it comes to protecting our men and women in the military and our nation as a whole.According to the Boston Globe, Graham raised the constitutional amendment at a news conference with McCain last Friday and McCain “did not rule out that option“: Graham, a close adviser to McCain on military and justice issues, said Thursday the Constitution might need to be amended to override the Supreme Court ruling. McCain did not rule out that option yesterday but said there are other avenues available, including drafting a new law to limit detainees’ access to federal courts.Considering that McCain’s camp has made a concerted effort in the past three days to make the Supreme Court’s decision a central issue in the 2008 campaign, McCain should definitively answer the question: Would he support a Constitutional amendment to override the Supreme Court’s ruling in Boumediene v. Bush?

Think Progress » Does McCain Support Amending The Constitution To Overturn The Supreme Court’s Habeas Decision?

Crooks and Liars » Turley on new FISA bill: ‘It’s what any criminal would love to do.’

The Senate is our last hope.  Call them and tell them to protect our Constitution.
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law.  Professor Turley comes on KO (Keith Olbermann) once again to blast the umpteenth version of the compromise FISA bill that is being shoved down our throats. This time the Hoyer/FISA rollover bill is attached to the new GI Bill and extending unemployment benefits bill.
Jonathan Turley: They repeatedly tried to cave it in to the White House only to be stopped by civil libertarians and bloggers and each time they would put it on the shelf, wait a few months, they did this before, reintroduced it with Jay Rockefeller’s support and then there was another great dust up and they pulled it back. I think they’re simply waiting to see if public's interest will wain and we’ll see that tomorrow because this bill has quite literally no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering. The type of thing the Bush administration is famous for and now the Democrats are doing. That is to change the law to conform to past conduct. It’s what any criminal would love to do.  Break the law and then pass a bill making what they did legal retroactively.
 As usual Russ Feingold isn’t happy. “The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”
Sen. Chris Dodd, I cannot support the so-called ‘compromise’ legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name. “As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting American’s civil liberties by rejecting this measure.”

Crooks and Liars » Turley on new FISA bill: ‘It’s what any criminal would love to do.’

Think Progress » House passes surveillance bill with telecomm immunity.

At the bottom of this post you can check to see if your representative voted to allow illegal searches and seizures. This bill says that Bush can spy on you without a warrant which is against the 4th amendment to the Constitution. (in other words this bill will not pass the Supreme court but it will buy Bush some more time.) How many more rights will we allow him to take from us? Torture? Cruel and unusual punishment? Indefinite confinement without legal recourse? War without reason? Lies to the American public? What are we going to allow this monster to continue to get away with?

House passes surveillance bill with telecomm immunity.»Today in a 293-129 vote, the House passed a “compromise” wiretapping bill that shields telecomms civil lawsuits for their participation in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. FDL liveblogged today’s hearing and as ThinkProgress reported yesterday, there was little in today’s bill that constituted a compromise. The ACLU has also put out a statement calling the vote “infuriating.”UpdateRoll call vote here.

Think Progress » House passes surveillance bill with telecomm immunity.

White House exerts executive privilege to hide global warming documents.

The Bush administration distorted the research of scientists to read the way they wanted it to read and now they're trying to hide the evidence.  The scientists involved have already testified in congressional hearings that Bush censored their science findings.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scientists.bush.ap/
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=Bush&submit=Search
They must have signed a contract saying that they could not release the originals of their work without bush's permission because this is what congress would need to look at to determine how Bush falsified scientific research in his favor.

As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson reports, President Bush today exerted executive privilege to block the House Oversight Committee’s subpoenas for EPA documents on global warming, heading off a scheduled contempt vote for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and White House Office of Management and Budget regulatory administrator Susan Dudley. Committee chairman Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) blistering response to the news:

I don’t think we’ve had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president. When the President of the United States, may have been involved in acting contrary to law and the evidence that would determine that question for Congress, in exercising our oversight, is being blocked by an assertion of executive privilege. I would hope and expect this administration would not be making this assertion without a valid basis for it, but to date I have not seen a valid instance of their executive privilege.

View Original Article

Think Progress » Florida’s Republican House Speaker calls McCain ‘disingenuous’ for linking drilling to gas prices.

It's not about increasing output.  It's about increasing output at $140 a barrel.

Florida’s Republican House Speaker calls McCain ‘disingenuous’ for linking drilling to gas prices.»Though he supports offshore drilling, Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) “challenged Gov. Charlie Crist and John McCain’s implication that drilling could lower gas prices anytime soon.” Rubio told the Miami Herald today that Crist and McCain are making a “disingenuous” and “flawed” argument: “For anyone to represent that someone drilling off the coast in Florida is going to lower gas prices here or anywhere in this country is disingenuous and a flawed argument,” he said. “Oil drilling could take 10 years before any oil is pulled out of the ground, and there are a large number of leases held by oil companies that are not being exploited now. We can’t say we need more until we’ve exploited those.”

Think Progress » Florida’s Republican House Speaker calls McCain ‘disingenuous’ for linking drilling to gas prices.

How not to know what's going on in the world.

Last week, Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member in Tennessee, told Nashville’s City Paper that for all he knew, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) “may be terrorist connected.” In a letter of apology to the Executive Committee, Hobbs now says he had that “incorrect” impression because he watched Fox News:

I was not as well prepared as I should have been when speaking with reporters, and I should have taken more time to research Senator Obama’s positions. My comments did reflect questions I had after what I had seen reported on Fox News, but I should have taken some time to check the accuracy of what I saw on television before speaking publicly. My statement that Senator Obama “may be terrorist-connected” was incorrect, and I apologize for making it.

Two weeks ago today, Fox News anchor E.D. Hill suggested that a greeting between Obama and his wife Michelle may have been a “terrorist fist jab.”

t r u t h o u t | EU Agrees to Lift Sanctions Against Cuba

Here's a laugh for you.  We're disappointed with the EU for lifting sanctions against Cuba because we are still concerned with Castros record of human rights.  Oh what a riot!  We imprison without trial, torture, war without reason, spy without warrant and we're worried about Castro's human rights record.  HoHoHo!

Brussels - EU nations agreed Thursday to definitively lift their sanctions against Cuba, in the hope of encouraging democracy on the island, European diplomats said. European Union foreign ministers took the decision in principle during dinner on the sidelines of an EU summit in Brussels. "There was an agreement to lift the sanctions against Cuba," a European diplomatic source said. "They have agreed to have an annual review and in one year's time to assess the political dialogue with Cuba," she added. The move is a largely symbolic gesture as the sanctions, which restrict high-level diplomatic contacts and offer some symbolic support for dissidents, have been in suspension since 2005. Sources with the Spanish delegation confirmed the move. Spain restored diplomatic relations with Havana last year and championed the move to get the sanctions lifted. However Washington said it was "disappointed" by the EU decision favouring Cuba, which it said remains an authoritarian regime despite recent reforms. "We're disappointed in this decision. We think the Castros need to take a number of steps to improve the human rights conditions for ordinary Cubans before any sanctions are lifted," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "Certainly, I would hope that ... any of our democratic friends and allies throughout the world would be cognizant of not taking actions that would appear to give additional legitimacy" to the Cuban regime, he said. Many European officials have called for the lifting of the sanctions. "We see encouraging signs in Cuba and I think that we should show the population in Cuba that we are ready to work with them," said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. "We should not be insensitive to what is going on," she added, in reference to the first steps of Raul Castro since taking the reins from his ailing brother Fidel. "The lifting of sanctions would give us a more effective way to deal with the human rights question," through better engagement, Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said. The measures were imposed in 2003 after Cuba jailed 75 dissidents and executed three young Cubans who had attempted to escape to the United States. However they have had little effect as the authorities in Havana have only released 20 of the 75, mostly for medical reasons. A Cuban dissident group asked the EU on Monday to press Havana for "real" reforms ahead of a review of its Cuba sanctions, dismissing changes introduced so far by President Raul Castro as cosmetic. A small minority of EU member states, led by the Czech Republic, along with the Netherlands and Denmark, had been reluctant to definitively lift them, insisting that the EU should continue to press on the prisoners and wider human rights issues. Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg stressed the importance of the 12-month review while decrying the terrible treatment of prisoners. "We will continue our contacts with the democratic opposition," he said. "We have not given up pursuing the question of human rights".

t r u t h o u t | EU Agrees to Lift Sanctions Against Cuba

There is No Oil Shortage

The story goes if that darned government would just let those sweet little oil companies drill we could get ourselves out of paying $4.00 a gallon for oil. The dirty little secret is that there are unused leases all over this country that the oil companies are just sitting on to keep the price of energy stocks rising.
Here is a map showing the active and inactive oil and natural gas wells along the gulf coast. http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/Visual1.pdf
These wells are already leased to the oil companies, they're just not drilling them. They are manipulating the price of oil (energy stocks) intentionally by not drilling them and saying they MUST drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Guess who stopped drilling off the coasts of Florida? Jeb and George.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=053002&ID=s1156519
Curiously, according to data from the "Energy Information Administration:U.S. Crude Oil Reserves New Field Discoveries" , total oil discoveries from 2002-2006 combined were less than the discoveries in 2001. So it would appear more leases do not mean more discoveries (or more drilling. shelley).
It seems Exxon, in partnership with other oil companies, had a lease at Point Thomson for 31 years and produced no gas or oil. Point Thomson, Alaska is believed to hold 25% of the known natural gas reserves in the state. When Alaska tried to reclaim the leases to try to get others to develop the area, Exxon sued.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1402840
In fact on May 29th oil supplies dipped a little, not due to lack of drilling, but because the tankers just didn't show up to be unloaded in LA. Someone canceled the deliveries. Nobody knows why, they can only speculate. Who canceled those orders? Who's messing with our energy supply?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2939765720080529

Social Justice and the Wage Gap

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, in a speech on March of 2007, quoted a Congressional Budget Office Report which stated that, “the wealthiest one percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent” of workers in the U.S. That means that those who actually produce the wealth, the bottom 90% are getting a pittance compared to those who sit at the top and collect off of the laborers production. They hire lobbyists who write beneficial laws for them and then take huge wads of cash to Washington to buy influence from those elected officials who should be representing all of us but who really only represent the wealthiest among us. Those top 1% couldn’t survive without the working classes to serve them. The workers in this country know how to make water run through our pipes. They know how to build houses and cars. They know how to make this world run. They’re the one’s who’ve always done it so why do the top 1% get all of the rewards while the bottom rungs, who actually create the wealth, can’t even pay their medical, mortgage, food or heating and cooling bills? I’ll tell you why. The rich get what they want because they are very active in our government while the masses are not. The rich get what they pay for and we get NAFTA, CAFTA and GAT (free trade agreements that have broken the American manufacturing industry and it’s workers). We get loan shark level interest rates. We get to bail out corporate mistakes but lose our own homes in the bargain because we are passive bystanders. We must not ignore the actions of our government. Get active! Call your representatives and tell them what you want. 1-800-828-0498. The rich do, so should you.
Shelley

Conservatives Echo McCain’s False Claim That Katrina Caused No Oil Spill Damage

In a Tuesday speech delivered before an audience of oil executives, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pushed to overturn the federal ban on offshore oil drilling. McCain claimed drilling is so “safe” that “not even Hurricane Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston.” Watch it:

Picking up McCain’s talking points, a growing chorus of conservatives have repeated this claim as justification for expanded drilling:
            – George Will: “Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling             rigs without causing a large spill.”

– Wall Street Journal editorial: “Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn’t cause a single oil spill.”

– Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne: “When Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast where we have about 4,000 oil and gas platforms, 3,000 were in the direct line of the storms - the most significant storms we’ve seen ever - and 3,000 of those had to be shut down. We had no significant oil spill. The system worked.”

– Fox News’ Dick Morris: “And by the way, the safety concerns, Hurricane Katrina didn’t cause any leakage or any spill in the Gulf of Mexico oil wells.”

The truth is that Hurricane Katrina caused oil spillage so significant it was clearly visible from space. It also wreaked environmental havock near the scale of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson explains the disastrous extent of Katrina’s wreckage of Gulf oil facilities.

– Lee Fang

View Original Article

Mortgage fraud probes underway: Hundreds indicted

Well, well, Spud fell in the well—Our Gang-Wheezer, 1931

Crooks and Liars, all of them:Federal authorities announced Thursday that more than 400 real estate industry players have been indicted since March — including dozens over the past two days — in nationwide crackdown on mortgage fraud that has contributed to the country’s housing crisis. The FBI put the losses to homeowners and other borrowers who were victims in the schemes at over $1 billion.

Meanwhile, over at Bear Stearns.

Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi, formerly senior managers of two hedge funds run by Bear Stearns that failed last year, already have been taken into custody.

The charges against two will be announced during a press conference this afternoon in Brooklyn involving the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the New York division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

I watched it happen with my own eyes. Buying a mortgage is a very complicated thing for everyone, more so for a first timer and as we’ve learned—-many, many people were manipulated and lied to. And to all those free marketers—we need regulations.

View Original Article

The Value of National Security Experience

Barack Obama:

I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

View Original Article

Daily Kos: Larry Sinclair arrested

Larry Sinclair arrestedby kosThu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:45:02 PM PDTBen Smith wrote yesterday about Larry Sinclair's long criminal record, and added this tantalizing bit at the end (which I blogged yesterday): Sinclair's notoriety, and his scheduled press conference, however, has drawn the interest of the Colorado authorities. "We've notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they will investigate," Hall said.Well, they took action. Sinclair was arrested after his Press Club appearance. The second Sinclair stopped taking questions, he fled the room and reporters were denied access to anyone but Sibley. I was a little disappointed until I heard the reason. Larry Sinclair was arrested after the press conference and is being held by the Washington, D.C. metropolitan police. He's been charged as a fugitive from justice; one of his warrants can be seen here.

Daily Kos: Larry Sinclair arrested

Daily Kos: The early Obama map

Daily Kos: The early Obama map

Market Manipulation

Has the world supply of oil been cut in half in the past year?
Has the demand for oil world wide increased by double in the past year? surely everyone knows neither case is true so what caused the price of oil to double since last year?
deregulation of the energies futures markets. congress had hearings 2 weeks ago to find out how they could stop the speculators from destroying our country by up bidding the price of oil not on the basis of supply and demand, but on hedging their bets. on unregulated gambling on the energies markets. no collateral needed just lots of money to keep reinvesting over and over till oil is up to what ever it can be.
In the hearing we found out that if the word "energy" were reintroduced into already existing commodities (things we need to survive as an economy) regulations, the price of oil would drop between 25% and 50% in one day. Why haven't they put that regulation back into the legislation? Republicans are stopping the legislation from going through. Filibustering. You can call your representatives and senators and tell them to reregulate all commodities including energy at 1-800-828-0498

A Government of Law, Not Fear

John McCain and Barack Obama’s differences over the Supreme Court’s recent Guantanamo decision speak volumes about the two candidates and their competing visions for America.

READ THE WHOLE ITEM

View Original Article

Scottish Bank Issues Global Stock, Credit Alert | Drudge Retort

Scottish Bank Issues Global Stock, Credit Alert

The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.
A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the bank's credit strategist.A report by the bank's research team warns that the S&P 500 index of Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more than 300 points to around 1050 by September as "all the chickens come home to roost" from the excesses of the global boom, with contagion spreading across Europe and emerging markets.RBS warning: Be prepared for a 'nasty' periodSuch a slide on world bourses would amount to one of the worst bear markets over the last century. "I do not think I can be much blunter. If you have to be in credit, focus on quality, short durations, non-cyclical defensive names."Cash is the key safe haven. This is about not losing your money, and not losing your job," said Mr Janjuah, who became a City star after his grim warnings last year about the credit crisis proved all too accurate.RBS expects Wall Street to rally a little further into early July before short-lived momentum from America's fiscal boost begins to fizzle out, and the delayed effects of the oil spike inflict their damage."Globalisation was always going to risk putting G7 bankers into a dangerous corner at some point. We have got to that point," he said.US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank both face a Hobson's choice as workers start to lose their jobs in earnest and lenders cut off credit.The authorities cannot respond with easy money because oil and food costs continue to push headline inflation to levels that are unsettling the markets. "The ugly spoiler is that we may need to see much lower global growth in order to get lower inflation," he said."The Fed is in panic mode. The massive credibility chasms down which the Fed and maybe even the ECB will plummet when they fail to hike rates in the face of higher inflation will combine to give us a big sell-off in risky assets," he said.Kit Jukes, RBS's head of debt markets, said Europe would not be immune. "Economic weakness is spreading and the latest data on consumer demand and confidence are dire. The ECB is hell-bent on raising rates."The political fall-out could be substantial as finance ministers from the weaker economies rail at the ECB. Wider spreads between the German Bunds and peripheral markets seem assured," he said.Ultimately, the bank expects the oil price spike to subside as the more powerful force of debt deflation takes hold next year."

Scottish Bank Issues Global Stock, Credit Alert | Drudge Retort

Electoral-Vote.Com: Obama 344, McCain 194

Electoral-Vote.com has surveyed the polls on a stte by state basis, and concluded that if the national elections reflect current state by state polls, Obama would beat McCain 344 to 194 electoral votes.

View Original Article

Iraq, and Big Oil, and no-bid contracts … oh my - The Carpetbagger Report

Iraq, and Big Oil, and no-bid contracts … oh my
Dear Iraq, sorry the war hasn’t gone well. But now that the surge is wrapping up, we hope you won’t mind that we need several dozen permanent bases in your country. Oh, and did we mention that we’ll need you to approve some no-bid contracts for our oil companies, too? After all, what’s a few bases and oilfields among friends? Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power. Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat. The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations. The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.Daniel Altman provides some helpful context: “Imagine. At the precise moment when demand for oil was the highest in history, a recently democratized country with enormous reserves had the chance to sell extraction contracts to the highest bidder. This was a country that desperately needed the revenue to help rebuild its schools, power grid and water supply after a long internal conflict. So why did it hand out the contracts with no auction at all?”And Andrew Sullivan answers the rhetorical question: “Because the US told them so. You don’t get to conquer a new province and not get any spoils, do you? Who needs ANWR or a carbon tax when you can drain Iraq at record high oil prices?”I try to avoid bold predictions, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess this might lead some to suspect the war in Iraq is about oil. It’s worth noting, as Matt Yglesias does, that this assumption is only part of the story. I think the evidence is clear that the Bush administration went to war in Iraq because it’s run by crazy people. The oil money more plausibly comes into play in explaining the desire to stay at war forever. After all, these companies (or their corporate ancestors) had oil contracts in Iraq in the past and now they’re getting them back “36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.” Nationalization, you see, is a substantial risk of doing business — especially natural resource business — in unstable countries. But a given government is much, much, much less likely to nationalize western countries’ assets if it’s dependent on external U.S. military support and especially if its security services are nicely enmeshed with the U.S. military. Our troops can “curb Iranian influence” and provide “stability” all of which is good for business. But don’t call it imperialism, we’re there to help!This point isn’t lost on the relevant players. Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.Riiiiight. The no-bid contracts will do wonders for Iraq. What could possibly go wrong?

Iraq, and Big Oil, and no-bid contracts … oh my - The Carpetbagger Report

John and Cindy McCain would reap $373,429 if McCain’s tax proposal were enacted.

In a new Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis, Michael Ettlinger documents how much the presidential candidates stand to personally benefit from the McCain and Obama tax proposals. The McCains — who report an annual income of over $6 million — would receive well over $300,000 from John McCain’s tax plan. By contrast, both the Obamas and McCains would receive a substantial, albeit much smaller, savings under Obama’s tax plan:

Check out The Wonk Room for the full details, including how the McCain and Obama households fared under the Bush tax cuts.

View Original Article

Daily Kos: A warning to pro-capitulation House Dems

by kosThu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:52:12 PM PDTWhen we started this "netroots" thing, we worked to get "more and better Democrats" elected. At first, we focused on the "more" part. This year, we're focusing a bit more on the "better" part. And in 2010, we'll have enough Democrats in the House to exclusively focus on the "better" part.That means primary challenges. And as we decide who to take on, let it be known that this FISA vote will loom large. Voting to give telecommunication companies retroactive immunity may not guarantee a primary challenge, but it will definitely loom large.We kicked Joe Lieberman out of the caucus. We got rid of Al Wynn this year. Those were test runs, so to speak. We've got a lot more of that ready to unleash in 2010.

Daily Kos: A warning to pro-capitulation House Dems

Two House Judiciary Members Hint at 'Consequences' for Rove if He Doesn't Answer Subpoena

Is the photo at left beginning to seem less and less absurd?

Looks like we're headed for an interesting game of chicken next month in the House Judiciary Committee surrounding Rove's subpoena to appear before it to answer questions in the Don Siegelman affair (and perhaps others) on July 10. RAW has the story worth putting on your radar, with no less than two House Judiciary members hinting that they may be willing to take extra steps (eg. use of "inherent contempt" to have Rove arrested by the House Sergeant at Arms if need be) should he refuse to testify.

If Rove refuses to appear, says Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, "then we have to take the next step." And Rep. Sanchez notes, "We really need to set our foot down and show there are consequences to people who laugh in the face of Congressional subpoenas."

Tea leaves sure, but interesting ones, worth watching. The point is also made that the Committee may continue with this particular investigation, even as a new President takes office. Would be a whole different ballgame under those conditions. Presuming that new President isn't McCain, in any case. Hmmm...

View Original Article

ACLU Condemns FISA Deal, Declares Surveillance Bill Unconstitutional

Washington, DC – With news that a surveillance bill may be voted on in the House of Representatives as early as tomorrow, the American Civil Liberties Union sternly warned members against voting for the legislation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has worked closely with the White House and has led the effort to gut the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and give the telephone companies what amounts to a pardon for breaking the law.

View Original Article

Ex-State Dept. official: Hundreds of detainees died in U.S. custody, at least 25 murdered.

At today’s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, with up to 27 of these declared homicides:

NADLER: Your testimony said 100 detainees have died in detention; do you believe the 25 of those were in effect murdered?

WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the number’s actually higher than that now. Last time I checked it was 108.

A February 2006 Human Rights First report found that although hundreds of people in U.S. custody had died and eight people were tortured to death, only 12 deaths had “resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official.”

Transcript: (more…)

View Original Article

Exxon, oil giants prepared to sign no-bid oil deals in Iraq.

Four Western oil companies — Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, and BP — are in the final stages of “talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields.” The New York Times writes:

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India […]

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

These current contracts are reportedly a “foothold” in Iraq for companies striving for more lucrative, longer-term deals.

View Original Article

Think Progress » Taguba: ‘The current administration has committed war crimes’ and needs to ‘be held to account.’

In the preface to a report by Physicians for Human Rights on the “medical evidence of torture by the U.S.,” former Abu Ghraib investigator ret. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba writes that President Bush “authorized a systematic regime of torture” that has stained “our national honor.” Taguba, who first spoke out publicly in June 2007, bluntly accuses the Bush administration of committing war crimes: After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.The report found that medical examinations of 11 former detainees revealed “scars and other injuries consistent with their accounts of beatings, electric shocks, shackling and, in at least one case, sodomy.”

Think Progress » Taguba: ‘The current administration has committed war crimes’ and needs to ‘be held to account.’

Think Progress » New wiretapping bill dubbed ‘repugnant’ and ‘a capitulation.’

Under a “compromise” wiretapping bill the House is expected to approve tomorrow, U.S. phone companies that cooperated with President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program after Sept. 11 “could be shielded from lawsuits” as long as “there is written certification that the White House asked a phone company to participate and assured it” of the program’s legality. However, as critics of the deal have noted, there isn’t much to the bill that constitutes a “compromise”: – Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): “The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. … Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity.” – Marcy Wheeler: “All it takes to get off scott free, in this bill, is for the President to have said the program was legal, regardless of whether it was or…whether the telecoms should have questioned whether the directives were legal.” – Glenn Greenwald: “[W]e’ll have a new law based on the premise that the President has the power to order private actors to break the law, and when he issues such an order, the private actors will be protected from liability of any kind on the ground that the Leader told them to do it — the very theory that the Nuremberg Trial rejected.”Referring to the bill’s text, Greenwald added, “Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is.”UpdateSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office released this statement: “Senator Reid believes this version is better than the bill the Senate passed in February and much better than the Protect America Act signed by the President last summer, but he remains opposed to retroactive immunity and is reviewing the bill in its entirety.”

Think Progress » New wiretapping bill dubbed ‘repugnant’ and ‘a capitulation.’

"The Single-Payer Solution"

By Amy Goodman

As the media coverage of the Democratic presidential race continues to focus on lapel pins and pastors, America is ailing. As I travel around the country, I find people are angry and motivated. Like Dr. Rocky White, a physician from a conservative, evangelical background who practices in rural Alamosa, Colo. A tall, gray-haired Westerner in black jeans, a crisp white shirt and a bolo tie, Dr. White is a leading advocate for single-payer health care. He wasn’t always.

He told me in a recent interview: “Here I am, a Republican, thinking about nationalizing health care. It just went against the grain of everything that I stood for. But you have to remember: I didn’t come to those conclusions with lofty ideals of social justice.”

In the early 1990s, his medical group started falling apart. White, a keen student of economics and the business of medicine, determined that it wasn’t just his practice but the system that was broken.

“You’re seeing an ever-increasing number of people starting to support a national health program. In fact, 59 percent of practicing physicians today believe that we need to have a national health program. I mean, that’s unheard of, even 10 years ago. It’s amazing to see a new generation of physicians coming up who are disgusted with our current health-care system. You know, we’re trained to be advocates of patients, we’re trained to save lives, we’re trained to practice medicine. And instead, what we’re doing is we’re practicing Wall Street economics.”

Single-payer is not to be confused with universal coverage, which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both support. In fact, in a recent debate, when Clinton raised the issue of single-payer, the audience interrupted with applause. She immediately countered, “I know a lot of people favor [it], but for many reasons [it] is difficult to achieve.”

Why? One of the most powerful industries in the country opposes it—the insurance industry. Under universal coverage, insurance profits are preserved. Under single-payer, they are not. Dr. Rocky White, who now sits on the board of the nonprofit Health Care for All Colorado, has switched his political affiliation. He also has updated and reissued Dr. Robert LeBow’s book on single-payer called “Health Care Meltdown: Confronting the Myths and Fixing Our Failing System.”

He described possible solutions: “There are a lot of different types of single-payer systems—you could have purely socialized medicine. That’s kind of like what England has. The government owns the hospitals, the government owns the clinics, the government finances all the health care, and all the doctors work for the government. That is truly socialized medicine, as opposed to the Canadian system, where the financing comes through their Medicare program, but all the doctors are in private practice.”

The economics are complex, but this plain-spoken country doctor explains it clearly:

“You know, this industry is a $2-trillion industry, and the profits in the for-profit insurance industry are so huge and it’s so deeply entrenched into Wall Street … but until we move to a single-payer system and get rid of the profit motive in financing of health care, we will not be able to fix the problems that we have.”

What would it take? Dr. White has spent his life dealing with the high winds on the high plains, from Nebraska to Colorado, and describes the challenge the country faces in familiar terms:

“I think that our current presidential candidates understand that ideally single-payer would be the best, but they don’t have the political will to move that forward. Their job is to feel which way the wind is blowing. Our job is to turn that wind.”

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 650 stations in North America.

View Original Article

Veterans Affairs Tells Court It Can't Imagine Voter Registration Drives for Its Wounded Veterans and the Homeless

The VA's attorney tells a federal appeals court that voters registration drives are a partisan distraction.

View Original Article

The Real Story Behind the Midwest Floods? Climate Change | Environment | AlterNet

The floodwaters are rising, swamping cities, breaching levees. Tens of thousands are displaced. Many are dead. No, I am not talking about Hurricane Katrina, but about the Midwest United States. As the floodwaters head south along the Mississippi, devastating communities one after another, the media are overflowing with televised images of the destruction.While the TV meteorologists document "extreme weather" with their increasingly sophisticated toolbox, from Doppler radar to 3-D animated maps, the two words rarely uttered are its cause: global warming. I asked former Energy Department official Joseph Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, about the disconnect: "Part of the reason is that the people who write about global warming for most newspapers and TV are not the same people as those who tend to cover weather. In general, the media is covering this as all sort of unconnected events, just regular weather maybe gone a little wacky. But, in fact, the scientific community has predicted for more than two decades now that as we pour more heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the planet will heat up, and that would redistribute water. If you heat up the planet ... you evaporate more water, and areas that are wetter will tend to see more intense rainfall and deluges and earlier snowmelts, and all that will lead to flooding. So what we're seeing is exactly what scientists have been telling us would happen because of human emissions."Perry Beeman is an award-winning investigative reporter for The Des Moines Register, and former president of the Society of Environmental Journalists. From his flood-racked city of Des Moines, he told me: "Not even a few weeks before this all happened, we were in the middle of doing a climate-change series that's going to run over the year. We had two-page graphic talking about the different things that would happen [in Iowa as a result of climate change] and pointing out ... that you would expect more torrential rains. What has happened here is consistent with many scientists' view of what global warming will mean in the Midwest."So if the disasters that follow one another, from hurricanes to tornadoes to flooding, are consistent with global warming, why aren't the networks, the weather reporters, making the link? Dr. Heidi Cullen, a climate expert on The Weather Channel, created a stir in late 2006 when she wrote in her Weather Channel blog: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS [American Meteorological Society] shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming."As reporters stood in waist-high water in the flooded downtowns of major American cities, President George Bush basked in the sunlight in Washington, D.C., urging Congress to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling and on oil shale drilling, and to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. While regular people are getting hit in the wallet at the gas pump, paying now more than $4 per gallon for gasoline, the oil, coal and gas industries are reaping huge rewards, and applying pressure to open up protected spaces for resource extraction.One of the candidates to replace Bush has a solution. When I asked Ralph Nader about global warming this week, he said: "We've got to have a national mission of converting our economy, and the example for the world is solar energy, 4 billion years of supply. It is environmentally benign, decentralized, makes us energy-independent and replaces the ExxonMobil/Peabody Coal/uranium complex. That is why we have got to go for economic, political, health and safety reasons."Nader understands how the levers of power and influence operate in Washington, but also how flooding can devastate a community. He grew up in Winsted, Conn., where the Mad River and Still River flooded in 1955, where another Nader confronted another Bush. Ralph Nader's mother, Rose, shook the hand of Bush's grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush, R-Conn., and refused to let go until he agreed to build a dry dam. The dry dam got built, and Winsted hasn't flooded since. A half-century later, our global problems have gotten far worse. Citizen activists need to shake not hands but the system, holding to account those with power and influence, from politicians to the personalities who report the weather on TV.

The Real Story Behind the Midwest Floods? Climate Change | Environment | AlterNet

Taking on Sacred Cows: Ending Israel's Veto on a Just Foreign Policy | ForeignPolicy | AlterNet

By Ed Hunt, AlterNet. Posted June 19, 2008.

The world would be a better place if the U.S. cut the purse strings that embolden Israel's human rights violations and land grabs.

Obama's promise of change apparently comes to a screeching halt at Israel's doorstep. Witness Barack's statement at the recent AIPAC conference, and heard around the world, that the relationship between the US and Israel was "sacrosanct."More disturbing was the comment on Jerusalem, which he said "will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." US policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict has never been fair and even-handed. But recent indicators by US politicians reveal an alarming shift to an even more biased policy in favor of Israel's continued ethnic cleansing and land grabs in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Don't forget recent revelations out of Israel that President Bush gave a quiet nod to continued settlement activity on Palestinian land. Hillary Clinton had already been on record as endorsing the annexation of east Jerusalem, and had declared at AIPAC that US policy on Israel was non-negotiable and will "never change."Actually, stated US policy is supposedly one of opposition to Israeli settlements in any of the occupied territories. There has never been any overt endorsement of the unmistakable Israeli intent to ethnically cleanse East Jerusalem, by any US administration. It looks as though US policy could change, if we take either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama at their word. Contrary to Hillary's recent statement, this would be a change indeed -- for the worse. Tragically, this pushes a fair and just settlement further from reach.It does not bode well for a new and more democratic US foreign policy that the candidate of change appears to support the further disenfranchisement of Palestinians. I'm not nave. I know full well the stranglehold that the Israel lobby has on national politics in this country. I know that if Obama took the high moral position on the conflict that all justice loving politicians should, these powerful forces would jump into action to work to ensure his defeat in November. Still, he did not have to endorse the annexation of East Jerusalem.Another leader of promise bends and kneels at the altar of AIPAC. When is it going to end? Politicians will never stick their necks out for a fair and even handed policy in the Palestine-Israel conflict until there is a large and vocal grassroots block demanding it. I do, however, believe we can ultimately send AIPAC packing, but we have to think new, and not expect that this block be the exclusive province of the left side of the spectrum.Iran, Iraq and the US failure to support democracy in the Middle EastWhat about Iran? I support democratic change in Iran but unfortunately one must be reminded that it was our CIA that helped to overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. What followed was a bloodbath and installation of the Shah, who went on to rule with a terrible human rights record for many years until his overthrow.Successive US administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, continued to support the Shah economically and militarily without concern for those massive human rights abuses. Sooner or later there was going to be blowback. The result was Islamic revolution. Isn't it time we assign some blame, here at home, on our own politicians who demonstrated bad, even criminal, judgment? In the end, democratic change can only come from within.On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary indicated her willingness to "obliterate" Iran for Israel.Ironically, news had just broken that US authorities had taken Ben-Ami Kadish into custody for spying for Israel. This is the umpteenth time that US authorities have arrested individuals in the service of Israel for espionage. For a country that many celebrate as a great ally, Israel has a never ending stream of spies operating here.I don't happen to subscribe to the view that Iran is poised to nuke Israel even if they had the means to do it. You cannot hit Israel without hitting the occupied Palestinian territories and/or other Arab states, and of course Iran is not going to do that. But it is dangerous, and dishonest, for American politicians to pretend Iran is on the verge of doing so.Do we talk to Hamas? Why not? We talk to Israel, and they've killed a lot more innocent Palestinian civilians than Palestinian suicide bombers have killed Israelis.Ironically, it was covert Israeli support for Islamist organizations as a counterweight to the secular PLO that contributed to the early growth of Hamas. Hamas is often presented to the US public by politicians as puppets of the Iranians. Even Israel knows that's not true, but the lie works in their favor. Even Israel talks to, and negotiates with, Hamas, and Hezbollah, when it suits them.Israel has killed Americans too. Israel attacked the USS Liberty in the 1967 war, killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 174, as the ship monitored events in the eastern Mediterranean. The attack was swept under the rug by the Johnson administration. The survivors and families still ask for justice and accountability. The incident is dismissed as an accident, but anyone who has talked to the witnesses, or read the accounts, know something is seriously wrong with the official explanation. Some believe there were not supposed to be any survivors, so that Egypt could be blamed for the attack.Why is a debate on Israel policy, and the peculiar relationship of the United States with that country, so taboo in this country? It is quite amazing that Israel managed to remain unscathed, and still hold their hands extended for a hefty sum of 3-5 billion dollars in US taxpayer dollars annually.We're mired in war in Iraq, ostensibly to stop the man George Bush declared the new Hitler. But we are not talking about the fact that Saddam "Hitler" Hussein was given generous amounts of assistance by the Reagan and first Bush administration, even though they knew about the mustard gas. But how many are aware that in the 1960's, our CIA was involved in the overthrow of a (yes, another) democratically elected government in Iraq, putting Saddam's Ba'athist Party in power in the first place.Given the history, forgive my skepticism when our politicians declare we're in it for freedom and democracy. Saddam may be gone, but US politicians who aided and abetted his crimes have not been held accountable. One of them, Dick Cheney, is not only avoiding any accountability, but has gotten sizable rewards in the form of no-bid contacts for his Halliburton, bilking US taxpayers out of billions for its "services."Obama does a better job than the others in pointing out the serious flaws in US foreign policy. He says Iraq is a war we never should have fought. Obama has also stated on many occasions that we must challenge the mindset that leads us into these wars. But even Obama doesn't stray far from the destructive policies that perpetuate the conflict in the Middle East.The burden of compromise rests exclusively on the backs of the Palestinians, even as the Israeli boot remains firmly on the collective throats of the Palestinian population. I do not condone any act by any party that results in the death or injury to innocent civilians, whether the intended or "accidental" target is Palestinian, Israeli or anyone else. The fact remains, the occupied Palestinian territories account for only 22% of what was Palestine in 1948, and Israel's behavior indicates that there is no intention of returning a significant portion of that remaining 22 percent.The world would be a better place if we stopped propping up tyrants, and cut the purse strings that embolden and encourage continued Israeli human rights violations and land grabs, perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.If the Democrats had any sense, they would take their "soft on the bad guys" image that the right wing has successfully hung around their necks, go on the counter-offensive and enlighten American voters with the wealth of evidence that exists, that the Republicans have a long, blemished history of being in bed with bloody tyrants all over the planet. The democrats could crucify the Republicans with these revelations, if they had the political will.

Taking on Sacred Cows: Ending Israel's Veto on a Just Foreign Policy | ForeignPolicy | AlterNet

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

FISA Fight: Capitulation Reached
by mcjoan
Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:55:06 AM PDT

Hoyer has a done deal, according to CQ.com (sub. req.):

A final deal has been reached on a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules and will be announced Thursday, two congressional aides said.

The aides said the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday....

As of Wednesday, sources said the new bill would allow a federal district court to decide whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for their role in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program....One source said the federal district court deciding on retroactive immunity would review whether there was "substantial evidence" the companies had received assurances from the government that the administration’s program was legal.

That means, of course, de facto amnesty for the telcos. The federal district court would not be deciding on the legality of the program, they would be limited to determining if the White House showed the telcos a piece of paper saying that the warrantless program was legal enough--which we already know. They're going to try to justify it with that "substantial evidence" business, as if defining that piece of paper as "substantial" somehow makes the fact that they are directing the court to make its decision, regardless of the law, not a travesty.

Call Barack Obama and urge him to make a public statement reiterating his opposition to telco amnesty. His opposition could kill this deal: Phone (202) 224-2854, Fax (202) 228-4260

Call Steny Hoyer and tell him this is a bad deal: Phone (202) 225-4131, Fax (202) 225-4300

Call Nancy Pelosi and urge her to pull the bill from the House schedule: Phone (202) 225-4965, Fax (202) 225-8259

Call your representative and tell them to vote no on the FISA rewrite tomorrow.

Update: More contact numbers below the fold.

Update II: Glenn has a copy of the bill:

The provision granting telecom amnesty, Title VIII, has the exact Orwellian title it should have: "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Section 802(a) provides:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.

That's the "compromise" Steny Hoyer negotiated and which he is now -- according to very credible reports -- pressuring every member of the Democratic caucus to support. It's full-scale, unconditional amnesty with no inquiry into whether anyone broke the law.

* ::
*

Here are the Blue Dogs who supported the House's good FISA bill, the one that did not include amnesty. Call them and ask them to hold tough and vote against this bill tomorrow:

* Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa -- Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608
* Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-4076, Fax: (202) 225-5602
* Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-3772, Fax: (202) 225-1314
* Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. -- Phone: (202) 225-2611, Fax: (202) 226-0893
* Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. -- Phone: (202) 225-3711, Fax: (202) 225-7830
* Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. -- Phone: (202) 225-2823, Fax: (202) 225-3377
* Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. -- Phone: (202) 225-5235, Fax: (202) 225-5615
* Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. -- Phone: (202) 225-6161, Fax: (202) 225-8671
* Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4714, Fax: (202) 225-1765
* Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah -- Phone: (202) 225-3011, Fax: (202) 225-5638
* Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- Phone: (202) 225-4636, Fax: (202) 225-3284
* Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. -- Phone: (202) 225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944
* Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. -- Phone: (202) 225-2865, Fax: (202) 225-2807
* Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio -- Phone: (202) 225-6265, Fax: (202) 225-3394

These are the Blue Dogs who were with the Republicans on the last vote. Tell them it's never too late to redeem themselves and vote against this bad bill:

* Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. -- Phone: (202) 225-2701, Fax: (202) 225-3038
* Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-3731, Fax: (202) 225-9594
* Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4311, Fax: (202) 226-1035
* Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-6831, Fax: (202) 226-5172
* Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-5546, Fax: (202) 226-0996
* Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. -- Phone: (202) 225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422

Tags: FISA, warrantless wiretapping, telco amnesty, Steny Hoyer (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

View Comments | 487 comments

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

FISA Fight: Leahy, Feingold Say "No"

Democrats on both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees should take note of Chairman Leahy's opposition (via e-mail):

"After months of negotiations, the legislation unveiled today to replace the so-called Protect America Act, which Republicans refused to extend, is not a bill I can support.  I have said since the beginning of this debate that I would oppose a bill that did not provide accountability for this administration’s six years of illegal, warrantless wiretapping.  This bill would dismiss ongoing cases against the telecommunications carriers that participated in that program without allowing a judicial review of the legality of the program.  Therefore, it lacks accountability measures that I believe are crucial.  My interest is not in harming telecommunications carriers.  I would have supported indemnification by the government or substitution of the government for them in these lawsuits.  But for me, there must be accountability...." [emphasis mine]

Sen. Feingold:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration." [emphasis mine]

The Judiciary Chairs were essentially shut out of the recent round of negotiations, if press reports are to be believed. That should be enough to make the Democratic majority members of those committees vote against this bad bill. It likely won't. But you can add them (links above show committee members with links to their pages) to the other calls.

Call Barack Obama and urge him to make a public statement reiterating his opposition to telco amnesty. His opposition could kill this deal: Phone  (202) 224-2854, Fax (202) 228-4260

Call Steny Hoyer and tell him this is a bad deal: Phone (202) 225-4131, Fax (202) 225-4300

Call Nancy Pelosi and urge her to pull the bill from the House schedule:  Phone (202) 225-4965, Fax (202) 225-8259

Call your representative and tell them to vote no on the FISA rewrite tomorrow.

View Original Article

Daily Kos: IL-10: Kirk (R) says to shoot Obama on sight

IL-10: Kirk (R) says to shoot Obama on sight
by kos
Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:45:01 AM PDT

Remember Cheney's whopper about the Chinese drilling off the coast of Cuba? The one where a senator in his own party had to tell him it was nothing more than an urban myth? Well, Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk is still peddling that b.s..

But worse than that, is this, from Kirk on a radio program:

"I would much rather have a policy where if we see Obama, there's a shoot-on-sight order."

An honest mistake? Part of a pattern to "confuse" Obama and Osama Bin Laden? Freudian slip?

Regardless, we can help retire Mark Kirk. Orange to Blue candidate Dan Seals is locked in a neck-and-neck battle for this Dem-leaning seat. Drop a $20 or whatever you can into his kitty so we can rid ourselves of this asshole Republican.

On the web:
Dan Seals for Congress
Orange to Blue ActBlue page

Daily Kos: IL-10: Kirk (R) says to shoot Obama on sight

FISA Fight: Capitulation Reached

Hoyer has a done deal, according to CQ.com (sub. req.):

A final deal has been reached on a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules and will be announced Thursday, two congressional aides said.

The aides said the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday....

As of Wednesday, sources said the new bill would allow a federal district court to decide whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for their role in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program....One source said the federal district court deciding on retroactive immunity would review whether there was "substantial evidence" the companies had received assurances from the government that the administration’s program was legal.

That means, of course, de facto amnesty for the telcos. The federal district court would not be deciding on the legality of the program, they would be limited to determining if the White House showed the telcos a piece of paper saying that the warrantless program was legal enough--which we already know. They're going to try to justify it with that "substantial evidence" business, as if defining that piece of paper as "substantial" somehow makes the fact that they are directing the court to make its decision, regardless of the law, not a travesty.

Call Barack Obama and urge him to make a public statement reiterating his opposition to telco amnesty. His opposition could kill this deal: Phone  (202) 224-2854, Fax (202) 228-4260

Call Steny Hoyer and tell him this is a bad deal: Phone (202) 225-4131, Fax (202) 225-4300

Call Nancy Pelosi and urge her to pull the bill from the House schedule:  Phone (202) 225-4965, Fax (202) 225-8259

Call your representative and tell them to vote no on the FISA rewrite tomorrow.

Update: More contact numbers below the fold.

Update II: Glenn has a copy of the bill:

The provision granting telecom amnesty, Title VIII, has the exact Orwellian title it should have: "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Section 802(a) provides:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.

That's the "compromise" Steny Hoyer negotiated and which he is now -- according to very credible reports -- pressuring every member of the Democratic caucus to support. It's full-scale, unconditional amnesty with no inquiry into whether anyone broke the law.

View Original Article

War money on its way to the floor today

The first report was from the AP, but since they don't like bloggers to use them or link to them, we'll just talk about the facts of their story without burdening them with the traffic. We'll send it to other, friendlier and more web-savvy sources instead.

The news: A deal has been struck on the House side to move an Iraq funding bill.

Details are still emerging, but initial reports (from that news source that doesn't like links) said only that an agreement had been reached, and that the package would include approximately $165 billion in funding for military operations, plus the Webb "GI bill" provisions, Midwest flood relief, and an unemployment benefits extension.

As time -- here measured in mere minutes -- passed, new details emerged. A second AP report that they also don't want links to hinted that Bush was backing away from his earlier threats to veto war funding that was accompanied by significant restrictions on its use, and unemployment benefits that went to people who had worked less than 20 weeks out of the previous year. Bush had also ruled out a provision Blue Dogs had insisted on to pay for the GI bill, that being a 1/2% surtax on top-earning taxpayers.

That seemed rather curious, until a report in The Hill cleared it up:

The compromise bill will include about $165 billion in funding for the Iraq war with no conditions, such as banning torture or blocking a "status of forces agreement" between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.

It will include a new program, called the "new GI Bill," to pay the college tuition of Iraq and Afghan war veterans, which will be transferable to family members. The cost of the program will be added to the federal deficit, because there will be no offsetting tax increase.

It will extend unemployment benefits by three months, but will require recipients to have worked at least 20 weeks, a requirement Democrats had sought to shorten.

Mmmm, yeah. That smells like a deal to me! In exchange for agreeing to accept $57 billion more for the Iraq war, Bush was willing to allow Democrats to drop their demands for a ban on permanent bases, torture and the SOFA and their demands on expanding eligibility for unemployment benefits. It really must be said that he's truly a generous man.

Should be an interesting vote, if both the Blue Dogs who said they wouldn't vote for GI bill provisions that weren't budget neutral and the 70 other Members who said they wouldn't vote for war funding that didn't have withdrawal language all stick to their guns.<sup>*


*</sup> Note to McCain campaign: This is not a statement on firearms policy.

UPDATE: The text of the rule they're going to use isn't available yet, but here's how that "interesting vote" is going to be managed. First, the House will have to pass H. Res. 1281, reported from the Rules committee yesterday, which:

Waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee) against any resolution reported from the Rules Committee on the legislative day of June 19, 2008, providing for consideration or disposition of a measure making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008

Then they're going to have to cobble together a procedure that waives PAYGO rules so they can shoehorn in the GI bill provisions, and allows for separate votes on the various provisions -- the war money, the GI bill, the unemployment benefits, etc. -- and then have a final vote on a package that includes whatever provisions get a majority along the way.

The end result will be that the progressives can vote against the war money but for the rest of the stuff, the Blue Dogs can vote against the GI bill but for the rest of the stuff, thereby producing a different majority for each of the provisions, and then everybody can throw up their hands and vote for the final package, which will represent "the best we could do despite my opposition to provision X, Y or Z."

Happy C-SPAN viewing, everybody!

View Original Article

'Curveball' Turns Out To Be Two-Bit Con Man

The Los Angeles Times managed to track down and interview Rafid Ahmed Alwan, a.k.a. the infamous 'Curveball', purveyor of a remarkable series of stories on Iraq's supposed biological weapons capabilities. It was he that came up with the "mobile weapons labs" that Colin Powell showed cartoon drawings of at the United Nations, that Iraq was attempting to smuggle WMD's from England, and that a collection of corn sheds at Djerf al Nadaf were part of a secret biological weapons program. He now lives in Germany.

As it turns out, of course, he bullshitted the whole thing. In Iraq he was a con man, thief, embezzler and general crook who was fired from job after job.

He claimed, for example, that the son of his former boss, Basil Latif, secretly headed a vast weapons of mass destruction procurement and smuggling scheme from England. British investigators found, however, that Latif's son was a 16-year-old exchange student, not a criminal mastermind. [...]

"Rafid told five or 10 stories every day," Freah said in an interview. "I'd ask, 'Where have you been?' And he'd say, 'I had a problem with my car.' Or, 'My family was sick.' But I knew he was lying."

He had a gift for it and "was not embarrassed when caught in a lie," Freah said.

At the Djerf al Nadaf warehouse, laborers treated seeds from local farmers with fungicides to prevent mold and rot. But Alwan convinced his BND handlers that the site's corn-filled sheds were part of Iraq's secret germ weapons program. He worked there, he told them, until 1998, when an unreported biological accident occurred.

In fact, Alwan had been dismissed three years earlier, in 1995, after inflating expenses and faking receipts for tools, supplies and lamb for a party.

"I fired him," Freah said. "He was corrupt and he was found stealing."

Even his fellow Burger King employees in Germany knew him as a serial liar...

In early 2002, a year before the war, he told co-workers at the Burger King that he spied for Iraqi intelligence and would report any fellow Iraqi worker who criticized Hussein's regime.

They couldn't decide if he was dangerous or crazy.

"During breaks, he told stories about what a big man he was in Baghdad," said Hamza Hamad Rashid, who remembered an odd scene with the pudgy Alwan in his too-tight Burger King uniform praising Hussein in the home of der Whopper. "But he always lied. We never believed anything he said."

So his family, his friends, his co-workers and his employers, from Iraqi warehouses to German Burger Kings, all knew him to be a con man, crook and general nut. German officials warned the Americans not to use information provided by him, and weapons inspectors who investigated his claims before the war found them false.

But that still wasn't enough to keep his valued "information" out of the hands of the special intelligence gathering operations of Rumsfeld and Cheney, who then passed it to the press, or from Colin Powell's speech at the United Nations, or from George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, or from any of the myriad other administration reports used to justify the war. Truly, the Iraq War was a perfect example of a group of con men getting together and deciding to believe each other's stories.

Coalition deaths in the Iraq War have recently topped 4,100. The number of Iraqi deaths are not known, and not counted.

View Original Article