Archive for September 26th, 2007
Sep 26, 2007 at 8:39 PM by Political Chase
The White House pulled out its White Out today and corrected the official transcript of Bush’s No President Left Behind remarks.
As yesterday’s positive Report Card shows, children do learn when standards are high and results are measured.
Late Update: The White House has revised the transcript to accruately reflect the President’s remarks.
As yesterday’s positive Report Card shows, childrens [sic] do learn when standards are high and results are measured.
Sep 26, 2007 at 8:07 PM by Political Chase
MSNBC (Countdown) is reporting a federal judge has just ruled to major portions of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.
More to come…
Update: See related story here.
Later Update: This will not bode well for George Bush. If this is upheld, the Decider will have most definitely broken the law thousands upon thousands of times. Here’s the story.
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”
Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.
Sep 26, 2007 at 7:22 PM by Political Chase
White House water boy and House Minority Leader (R-OH) is swinging from the Capitol dome tonight after leading an overwhelming 341-79 House vote condemning MoveOn.org’s General “Betray Us” ad.
Because the leaders of the current majority had refused to allow a vote on this important resolution, House Republicans took action to force an up-or-down vote today.
General Petraeus and the men and women of our armed forces deserve our strongest support, and while the measure passed with significant bipartisan support, it is troubling that so many Democrats still voted to condone this attack defaming the general.
But the Senate and House votes may not elicit the precise response Congress is looking for. According to The Hill, it may simply embolden MoveOn.
In response to the vote, the executive director of MoveOn.org’s Political Action Committee, Eli Pariser, said the group would continue its “ad campaign to accuse the Republicans who are blocking an end to the war of a ‘Betrayal of Trust.’ ”
Pariser noted that U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians lose their lives every day and “with every passing day, more information comes to light casting more and more doubt on the validity of the facts and conclusions presented by General Petraeus in his testimony before Congress.”
Pariser strongly criticized Congress for “fiddling with an ad while Iraq burns.”
“It is unconscionable and outrageous that instead of doing the people’s work and ending this war, Congress chooses meaningless and distracting gestures,” he said.
This is getting pretty ridiculous. If this becomes a major topic in tonight’s debate, it is going to be a very long, ugly, and useless campaign.
Sep 26, 2007 at 7:03 PM by Political Chase
Forget the resignation announcement for now. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) has decided he will stick around until Hennepin County, MN Judge Charles Porter rules on his case. Roll Call (sub. req.) reports the judge will likely not issue his ruling until next month.
If Judge Porter’s remarks and focus in the 40-minute hearing are indicative of his initial assessment, things may not look so good for the Senator. Judge Porter repeatedly questioned Craig’s attorney but only asked the prosecutor one procedural question. Furthermore, casting doubt on Craig’s motion to withdraw, Porter asked Craig’s attorney why he should withdraw the plea, followed by, “That’s what he did in in his petition — admit what he did.”
Strangely enough, Craig seems to think if the judge rules in his favor it will clear his name.
Today was a major step in the legal effort to clear my name,” Craig said in a statement. “The court has not issued a ruling on my motion to withdraw my guilty plea. For now, I will continue my work in the United States Senate for Idaho.
If the judge allows the plea to be withdrawn, it doesn’t end there. Instead, it starts all over. Craig would have to enter a not guilty plea and then face a jury trial.
I find it hard to believe Craig’s “good name” will be restored by any successful motion to withdraw or even if acquitted by a jury.
Sep 26, 2007 at 5:30 PM by Political Chase
From the Washington Post:
As a candidate, George W. Bush once asked, “Is our children learning?”
On Wednesday, he had an answer.
“Childrens do learn,” he said.
The setting was, yes, an education event where the president was taking credit for rising test scores and promoting congressional renewal of his signature education law. To create the right image, he summoned the city’s school chancellor, a principal, some teachers and 20 eager students from P.S. 76.
The visual worked fine. The oral? Not so much. For Bush, it was a classic malapropism, the sort of verbal miscue that occasionally bedevils him in public speaking and provides his critics easy fodder for ridicule.
Sep 26, 2007 at 5:19 PM by Political Chase
The Senate passed a resolution today 75-23 endorsing Joe Biden’s (D-DE) plan to establish a loose federal government in Iraq, which would divide the country into three semi-autonomous sectarian regions. Obviously it is not binding because Congress cannot dictate legislation to a sovereign country and is scared to death to defy the president’s wishes.
The Washington Post claims “it represents a significant milestone in the Iraq debate, carving out common ground in a debate that has grown increasingly polarized and focused on military strategy.” That’s a bunch of crap. A significant milestone must be actionable, not just a “feel good” moment.
Why waste the time on do-nothing, toothless legislation? Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell could have gotten a staffer to draft a letter to George Bush, saying “pretty please,” signed it, dropped it in the mail, and achieved the same results.
Sep 26, 2007 at 4:51 PM by Political Chase
Just a quick reminder. The Democratic presidential candidates will debate on MSNBC tonight 9 - 11 PM ET.
Sep 26, 2007 at 4:34 PM by Political Chase
The Senate is considering a bill to provide limited protection to journalists (i.e., shield law), which if passed could have substantial consequences. After the Nixon administration, Watergate, and more than six years of the Bush-Cheney administration, it would be hard to argue the importance and significance of the press, and thereby the necessity of protection. However, the mere act of implementing a federal shield law provides definition and scope, which, depending on the circumstances, can be both an asset and a liability.
Although the evolution of the press has created a substantially different medium than the Founding Fathers could have possibly envisioned, they viewed the press as the only available source to provide the critical two-way communications between the People and the Republic, as well as independent oversight. The Founding Fathers accurately and rightfully believed Democracy could not survive if two-way communications did not exist. Hence, the press has historically and justifiably been deemed the Fourth Estate.
Many people disagree to what extent the First Amendment protects the press, especially in the area of confidential sources. The contemporary debate is surely derived from the 1972 Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes (summary, detail)and subsequently heightened when New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed in 2005 for refusing to reveal confidential sources (viz. Scooter Libby) in the CIA leak case. In Branzburg v. Hayes, the Court ruled the press “is not without First Amendment protections,” but could not agree “about the forms or depths of those protections.”
Although, shield laws exist in 49 states, there are no federal shield laws to protect national reporters, which raises the question, what is applicable to the New York Times reporter, for example, covering a Washington based story, and is predicated upon sources residing in Mobile, Alabama? Obviously protection at the federal level is needed.
I believe it is safe to assume the recent CIA leak case is one of the primary motivators of the Senate’s decision to debate implementing a shield law. It also serves as a good example to demonstrate the liabilities and assets of such laws.
The CIA leak case was based on the illegal outing of CIA agent Valerie Wilson, an operative at the time working in the WMD counter-proliferation division, by Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove. Briefly summarizing, Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter at the time, was jailed for contempt of court because she refused to reveal sources related to the case. After serving 89 days in prison, Miller finally acquiesced to the demands of the court and revealed her sources. Another key reporter in the case, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, was spared imprisonment when he reached an agreement with prosecutors at the last minute.
Although Scooter Libby did a grand job of protecting Dick Cheney by obstructing justice and lying to the Grand Jury about the case, Libby would have never been convicted of his crimes if reporters had not been compelled to reveal their confidential information. On the other hand, there is no way of determining how many people will refuse to provide reporters information in the future, for whatever the situation may be, out of fear they may be revealed because reporters may be compelled by the courts, or limitations of law in the future, to reveal their sources.
In contrast to the CIA leak case, on December 16, 2005, New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed George Bush’s widespread warrantless eavesdropping program - the countless violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. No one can possibly argue that this information would have been revealed in something less than decades later if reporters had been required to reveal confidential source information. Although President Bush declared it a violation of national security and immediately initiated a Justice Department investigation for the public revelation of his crimes, no reporter has released, at least publicly, their sources of information. One can only imagine to what extent President Bush will carry out retribution if the source(s) is ever revealed.
It almost goes without saying, any Bush-Cheney-Nixon like-minded person(s) in power will twist and distort any shield law that may be in place to use as retribution against their critics and whistle-blowers. The importance of Congress carefully implementing shield laws cannot possibly be overstated.
Sep 26, 2007 at 11:16 AM by Political Chase
The State Department issued a statement late yesterday in response to Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-MI) letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding Blackwater’s scheduled
There seems to be some misunderstanding with regard to this matter. All information requested by the committee has been or is in the process of being provided.
Blackwater has been informed that the State Department has no objection to it providing information to the committee. We have offered to make available for testimony those officials in the best position to respond to the specific issues the committee has raised.
The statement strongly implies State intends to fully comply with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s requests, with the possible exception of ambiguity regarding who may testify, which may possibly be centric to the State Department’s response. If not, someone is either backpedaling (viz. State) or has not been completely forthright. Consider what Stephen M. Ryan, Blackwater’s counsel, wrote (pdf) to Committee Chairman Waxman on Monday.
In the fluid setting of a Congressional hearing it may become difficult, if not impossible, for Blackwater personnel to meet the terms of [the State Department's demands], unless the Chairman or Ranking Member take action both in advance of the hearing and at the hearing to obtain [the State Department's] approval for disclosures that Blackwater would need to make for its testimony to be complete.
Ryan’s letter to Waxman and State’s statement, on the surface, are in stark contrast with each other. Moreover, I find it hard to believe Blackwater’s lawyer would respond to the Committee’s requests, much less declare it may not comply, without consulting with the State Department first.
Furthermore, with respect to Condoleezza Rice’s testimony, it is hard to believe Waxman would simply lie and say he was told Rice would not testify. While it is clear in Waxman’s letter to Rice that he had not received confirmation from Rice regarding her scheduled testimony, one can only assume Waxman was led to believe by a source he deemed credible that Rice would not testify.
The money statement from State is: “We have offered to make available for testimony those officials in the best position to respond to the specific issues…”
