TRUE COLORS

Bill Frist (DOESN’T rhyme with “Christ”) has apparently decided that his 2008 ambitions rest upon becoming the candidate of the Religious Right

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/opinion/16sat1.html
Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans. But nothing comes close to the shameful declaration of religious war by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, over the selection of judges for federal courts. . . The message is that the Democrats who oppose a tiny handful of President Bush's judicial nominations are conducting an assault "against people of faith." By that, Senator Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith.

It is one thing when private groups foment this kind of intolerance. It is another thing entirely when it's done by the highest-ranking member of the United States Senate, who swore on the Bible to uphold a Constitution that forbids the imposition of religious views on Americans. Unfortunately, Senator Frist and his allies are willing to break down the rules to push through their agenda - in this case, by creating what the senator knows is a false connection between religion and the debate about judges.

A few reactions across the political spectrum

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/15/20105/9052
John Cole:

This is so patently offensive that I don't have adequate words to describe how truly wrong this is: [...]

If you don't share our politics, you hate the baby Jesus.

If you don't share our politics, you hate religious people.

If you don't share our politics, you are evil.

Congrats, Republicans.

Joe Gandelman:

[T]he "nuclear option" on filibusters. . . has the potential of enmeshing the GOP in charges that it's ushering in a new, dangerous area of theocratic McCarthyism. . . it'll be a watershed moment -- a transformational moment for the GOP...marking the political death of a dominant part of its party. [...]

Isn't this ushering in a new LOW in American political demonization? Isn't this akin to labeling those with whom we disagree Communists or Communist stooges? Isn't this throwing out all pretensions of the kind of intellectual, civilized discourse and debate taught in universities, law schools and practiced daily by Americans on the right and left who sit down for drinks or coffee and agree to differ on issues but maintain respect?

Hunter:

The Republican Party of the United States, led by Sen. Bill Frist, is professing that not giving President Dubya every single one of the judicial nominations he's requested is being "against people of faith". . . Frist has made a political calculation. He and his party has mandated that any dissent from Pres. Bush's wishes -- even in a single vote -- is not to be tolerated, and if dressing Bush in the mantle of infallible God will gain him a few more legislative trinkets, that's exactly what he'll do.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111361812290486889
Rabbi David Saperstein:

The news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to join a telecast whose organizing theme is that those who oppose some of President Bush’s judicial nominees are engaged in an assault on “people of faith” is more than troubling; it is disingenuous, dangerous, and demagogic. We call on him to reconsider his decision to appear on the telecast and to forcefully disassociate himself from this outrageous claim. . . Senator Frist must not give legitimacy to those who claim they hold a monopoly on faith. They do not.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_digbysblog_archive.html#111360247907050476
[Digby] The filibuster is being used against people of faith? Man, these wingnuts are feeling their oats. . . I cannot stress enough how important I think it is to draw the contrasts between the Democrats and Republicans right now. . . All we need to do is say we are defending the constitution. Most people may know nothing about civics in this country anymore, but they know damned well that disemboweling one branch of government is not business as usual.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111360237959690138
Harry Reid:

I am disappointed that in an attempt to hide what the debate is really about, Senator Frist would exploit religion like this. Religion to me is a very personal thing. I have been a religious man all my adult life. My wife and I have lived our lives and raised our children according to the morals and values taught by the faith to which we prescribe. No one has the right to judge mine or anyone else’s personal commitment to faith and religion.

God isn’t partisan.

As His children, he does ask us to do our very best and treat each other with kindness. Republicans have crossed a line today. America is better than this and Republicans need to remember that. This is a democracy, not a theocracy. We are people of faith, and in many ways are doing God’s work. But we represent all Americans, regardless of religion. Our founding fathers had the superior vision to separate Church and State in our democracy. It is a fundamental principle that has allowed our great, diverse nation to grow and flourish peacefully. Blurring the line between Church and State erodes our Constitution, and our democracy. It is a blatant abuse of power. Participating in something designed to incite divisiveness and encourage contention is unacceptable. I would hope that Sen. Frist will rise above something so beyond the pale.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/16/125843/526
Abraham Lincoln:

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. . . . Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. . . Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/what-exactly-is-theocrats-real-agenda.html
What is the moral code they want to impose on America. What exactly is it that the theocrats want? It's surely about a lot more than judges. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006141
As Matt noted, Bill Frist '08 (is it too soon to append "'08" to the end of his name? He is, after all, running the Senate on the sole basis of what might appeal to primary voters) and the religious right will frame the nuclear-option battle as a matter of religious freedom and anti-Christian persecution. . . We've reached a bizarre place where no conservative religious belief can be challenged in polite society. Pat Buchanan spent last night's Scarborough Country interviewing Marty Minto, a pastor who believes Pope John Paul II will not make it to heaven because he wasn't born again. Minto said that he doesn't believe Jews or, say, the Chinese can get to heaven either. It's no exaggeration to say that this sort of uncompromisingly intolerant religious belief is now not only given a free pass, but sought out and promoted -- particularly on cable television. . .

What astounds me, though, isn't that this dynamic exists. It's that nobody sees an upside in challenging this idiocy or in forcing religious extremists and their simpaticos to defend the consequences of their views.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006142
Apparently being a "person of faith" is now synonymous with "holding conservative views about constitutional interpretation and the role of precedent in the legal system."

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/16/6012/56938
So what does President Bush have to say about the religious war declared by the Republican Party? Does he embrace this crusade by his extreme Right Wing fringe-controlled Republican Party? So far, the Media has not asked, or, at the least, has not received, any answers from Scott McLellan or anyone in the Bush Administration. . . So the question remains, does President Bush endorse the religious jihad declared by the Sen. Frist? The unmasking of the Republican Party proceeds apace. In my view, it should also unmask Bush.

More: http://billmon.org/archives/001835.html

Does Frist have the votes?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006145
The calculus on the nuclear option is fairly simple: Bill Frist needs to keep 50 Republican senators on board if he wants to break the rules and keep his nearly stillborn presidential campaign alive. By my count, Frist seems to have 43 definite votes. . . Of the remaining 11, there are three more who are currently "ambivalent" who I can't see bucking the line: Thad Cochran, Mike DeWine, and Pat Roberts. Three Republicans have stated that they'll vote against the nuclear option: Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, and John McCain. That leaves six swing votes, of whom three need to oppose Frist for the nuclear option to fail:
• Susan Collins
• Chuck Hagel
• Dick Lugar
• Lisa Murkowski
• Arlen Specter
• John Warner

DeLay’s agenda, in black and white

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/15/more_delay/index.html
"What I find the most important is to redesign the government, now that we have the opportunity to do that. . . I started an effort to redesign the Appropriations Committee," he noted, "to make it harder to spend -- to make it easier to spend on our priorities and harder to spend on the Democrats' priorities."

DeLay seems to think he can unilaterally declare the accusations against him null and void

http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/2005/04/duck-and-cover-or-shrewd.html
"If you have any questions outside of the scope of the House floor agenda or other legislative issues we're addressing in the House, then I would direct them to my press staff." [DeLay] said this was not a policy change. However, he has answered dozens of questions about the ethics allegations in recent weeks during his weekly press briefings.

Liberal media? Pro-Bush papers come out hard against DeLay

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504150001

Former GOP House members write a petition for DeLay et al. to renew the ethics rules they decimated

http://www.pcactionfund.org/ethics/
We felt grave concern when the Republican leadership changed the ethics rules several weeks ago to require a bipartisan majority vote to even investigate a charge of ethical misconduct. We saw it as an obvious action to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay who had been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee for well-publicized misuse of money and/or power.

More: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/15/spanking/index.html

Bush sticks with him. . .

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/04/15/bush_will_stick_with_delay.html
President Bush's "political need" for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) "transcends his personal distaste and the growing questions about Mr. DeLay's ethical conduct," the New York Times reports. "For that reason, they say Mr. Bush and Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist, are unlikely to try to jettison Mr. DeLay in the same way that they deposed Trent Lott as Senate Republican leader for racially charged comments Mr. Lott made in 2002."

. . . (sort of)

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2826
Bush Mouthpiece Little Scottie McClellan, on Monday:

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you've heard from the President, what he has said on the matter, that Majority Leader DeLay is someone the President considers a friend. . .

Bush Mouthpiece Little Scottie McClellan, on Wednesday:

Q Scott, you said a couple days ago that, as the President said, he considers Tom Delay a friend. . .

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a number of congressional leaders that he works closely with on the Hill and he considers a friend, sure.

Q And he considers Tom DeLay a friend?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. I mean, I think there are different levels of friendship. . .

Bush Mouthpiece Elisabeth Bumiller, today:

President Bush and Representative Tom DeLay, the much-investigated but still powerful House majority leader, have never been pals. They made that clear in the fall of 1999, when Mr. Bush, the Republican front-runner for president, accused Mr. DeLay of balancing the federal budget on the backs of the poor and Mr. DeLay shot back that Mr. Bush "does not know how Congress works."

In an interview that fall, Mr. DeLay also recalled that, when he first met Mr. Bush, the future president was "oil-field trash - that's an endearing term, by the way." In private conversations afterward, Mr. Bush was heard to express contempt for Mr. DeLay.

Meanwhile, another current GOP House member starts hedging his bets

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111357150517636780
[Denver Post] Rep. Tom Tancredo says it is "probably not the worst idea" for embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step down while he deals with ethics allegations. . . Tancredo said that from a political perspective, DeLay has handled the ethics issue "stupidly."

"I don't think we should try to oust him," he said in an interview Thursday at the Capitol. "Right now, I would not encourage him to leave. If he chose to resign as majority leader until these matters are resolved, that's probably not the worst idea."

DeLay finds safe haven

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4942857,00.html
“When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, he wants all of his friends around him, particularly armed. . . So I'm in good company tonight.''

Photo: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010388.html

Bush gobbledygook on Social Security

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_10.php#005452
In a pitch directed to Democratic lawmakers, who are nearly unanimous in opposing Bush's plan to create Social Security personal accounts, the president called for "political amnesty" for those who joined his drive to retool the retirement program.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush16apr16,1,1038571.story
President Bush came to Ohio on Friday to highlight a state retirement savings system that he said showed that Americans would be better off handling their own old-age investments through personal accounts than relying on traditional Social Security. . . But that state's version of personal accounts has attracted few takers among the people eligible — Ohio's 750,000 public employees. And records show that the most widely chosen version of the state-offered accounts has racked up a five-year earning record of 1.86%, about the same return that the president says Social Security produces.

More: http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2832

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56290-2005Apr15.html

His “meet the people” sessions are becoming even more exclusionary and scripted

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2831

Successes everywhere you look

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/business/16stox.html
Stocks tumbled to their lowest levels since the presidential election yesterday, extending a recent slump that has come amid fears that economic growth is slowing.

No bad news!

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11407689.htm
The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001906.html

WH lied about the Al Qaeda/Hussein link: we knew it, now here’s the proof

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010384.html
A top Democratic senator has released formerly classified documents that he says undercut top US officials' pre-Iraq war claims of a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network. "These documents are additional compelling evidence that the intelligence community did not believe there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. . ."

Intelligence overhaul? No time soon

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/politics/16weapons.html
The presidential commission on intelligence has sharply criticized reform plans drafted by the C.I.A. and F.B.I. at the request of President Bush, saying that glaring shortcomings of both proposals illustrate "the difficulty of bringing about real change" in the nation's spy agencies. . . In a letter to the president, the commission particularly denounced the Central Intelligence Agency for proposing what it described as a vague and slow-paced schedule for changes, noting that some goals were set for 2011 and others had no deadline at all.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050415-103901-8936r
Members of the presidential commission that examined U.S. intelligence failures told White House officials they would resign en masse if President Bush did not ensure that the nation's spy agencies cooperated with their inquiry -- and had to repeat the threat more than once. . . Laurence Silberman, the federal judge who was co-chairman of the inquiry said he told officials, "If we did not get support from the White House at any time we ran into any difficulties, I and others would resign. . . I did occasionally have to remind the White House of the commitment I had made to resign," Silberman continued, saying he had done so to "focus their attention."

Human Rights Watch on “extraordinary rendition”

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010383.html

Weapons plundered from unguarded sites now resurfacing in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/international/middleeast/17equipment.html

The National Security Archive has got the goods on Negroponte (thanks to Eric over at “Correspondent X” for the links)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB151/index.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB151/index2.htm

Gonzales: Plame investigation “moving forward” (uh-huh)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=703&e=8&u=/nm/20050415/pl_nm/security_plame_dc

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/15/cia.probe/index.html

The Armstrong Williams cover-up

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/15/payola/index.html

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004150.php

And we didn't know about this in the White House
--Bush, press conference, January 26, 2005

"During a meeting between the White House and Department officials on July 13, 2004, pertaining to communications strategy, the Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy briefly questioned the Deputy Director of OPA about the status of the Williams’ work request..."
--Page 8 Footnote, Inspector General's Report, Department of Education, today

It's there, buried in a footnote at the bottom of Page 8 in the just-released Department of Education Inspector General's report on the Armstrong Williams propaganda fiasco. . . Bush has said that "we didn't know about (the Williams contract) in the White House." Margaret Spellings, Bush's current Education Secretary and former Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and then-Special Assistant to the President and Spellings' Chief of Staff now David Dunn both say they didn't know about the contract either. But now we know why the release of the report was held until the Friday afternoon news dump. . . Dunn did know, and probably Spellings too, given their organizational proximity. And given how close Spellings is to Bush, it is likely that Bush did too. . .

And to cap it off, Bush told the gullible White House press corps in January that not only he, but no one in the White House knew about the Williams' contract, when in fact the report approved and issued by his then-Assistant for Domestic Policy for four years and his associate for a decade before that confirms that Dunn and perhaps Spellings did in fact know about it and Dunn asked DOE staff about the status of the payola contract. Does anyone have a transcript of Spellings' confirmation testimony on January 6, 2005 to see if she testified under oath about this matter, because today's report brings responsibility for the payola-for-propaganda scam inside the White House.

More: http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/04/white_house_did.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-armstrong16_apr16,1,5759500.story

Hagel wavering: Bolton nomination in big trouble

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton16apr16,0,3939442.story
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska signaled Friday that his support for the nomination of John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador was wavering after new reports that Bolton ordered an intelligence analyst removed from his job.

More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000469.html

Chafee?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000470.html
When most observers of the John Bolton jousting match were focusing on whether Lincoln Chafee was going to support or oppose Bolton, many of his advocates and opponents did not realize that the testimony that unfolded in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well as other disconcerting reports in the media had seriously shaken other members, particularly Republican members, of the Committee.

The push-back begins

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/15/bolton.un/index.html

More evidence surfaces about Bolton’s pattern of abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/politics/16bolton.html
An attempt in 2002 by John R. Bolton to remove the national intelligence officer for Latin America from his post prompted John E. McLaughlin, the deputy director of central intelligence, to intervene against the request, according to current and former intelligence officials.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006150
“Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began. . . Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats. . . John Bolton put me through hell -- and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn't just unforgivable, it was pathological."

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton17apr17,1,6526317.story

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_04/006111.php
Steve Clemons points to an illuminating article in The Economist that explores how John Bolton has worked to undermine US foreign policy over the past few years. . .

Bonus item: separated at birth?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1294

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***

For some reason, my blog and news reader is down today and I am unable to access my feeds. I hope to be able to post my daily entry later today or tomorrow. Please check back.

LIARS, CHEATS, and THIEVES

DeLay denies separation of church and state, right to privacy

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/14/121555/279
Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.

Mr. Dinan: How can Congress stop them?

Mr. DeLay: There's all kinds of ways available to them.

Mr. Dinan: You tried two last year on the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Senate didn't go along with those.

Mr. DeLay: We're having to change a whole culture in this - a culture created by law schools. People really believe that these are nine gods, and that all wisdom is vested in them. This means it's a slow, long-term process. I mean, we passed six bills out of the House limiting jurisdiction. We passed an amendment last September breaking up the Ninth Circuit. These are all things that have passed the House of Representatives.

Mr. Dinan: Are you going to pursue impeaching judges?

Mr. DeLay: I'm not going to answer that. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at this. They're going to start holding hearings on different issues. They are more capable than me to look at this issue and take responsibility, given the, whatever, the Constitution.

DeLay’s world

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1288
Tom DeLay in the Washington Times:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay accused Democrats of shutting down the chamber's ethics committee to prevent him from being exonerated of the ethics accusations against him. . . "The only way I can be cleared is through the ethics committee, so they don't want one," Mr. DeLay said. . .

LA Times:
The House ethics committee chairman who presided over three rebukes of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was bounced from the job Wednesday and replaced by a Republican congressman from Washington state. . . The new chairman is Rep. Doc Hastings, the committee's second-ranking Republican. He was named by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to take the gavel from Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.). . . In addition, Hastert appointed three new members to the panel, including two — Reps. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas) and Tom Cole (R-Okla.) — whose political action committees have contributed to DeLay's legal defense fund. Smith's PAC contributed $5,000 in 2001 and an additional $5,000 between July and September 2004; Cole's gave $5,000 between July and September 2004.

Back at the Washington Times:
Asked if he had ever crossed the line of ethical behavior, Mr. DeLay said: "'Ever' is a very strong word. . .”

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/14/13111/1844
Umm, Tom? The right answer was "no". . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_10.php#005439
It's such a tough spot for the bug man, having all these unanswered questions swirling at a time when there's no functioning ethics committee. How could he have known that purging the ethics committee of its three non-DeLay loyalists and forcing through a re-write of the committee's rules to prevent it from issuing any more 'admonishments' of his behavior would lead to such an unhappy impasse?

House GOP kills ethics rule

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20050414/ap_on_go_co/delay_ethics

Bush defends DeLay

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050414/pl_nm/bush_delay_dc

GOP talking points to back their leader

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006134
The next time Democrats or reporters (or both) question Majority Leader Tom DeLay over ethics-related issues, his allies will be ready to defend him. . .

“House of Scandal” http://houseofscandal.org/

Frist to start the filibuster wars by wrapping himself in religion

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_10.php#005445

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/15/31439/3380

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010373.html

Toss ‘em all out

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2817
Q Thank you, Mr. President. We're all aware of the press issues with Armstrong Williams and the video news releases and using government funds to promote true media in journalism. . . do you think that's deceptive to the American people?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it's deceptive to the American people if it's not disclosed. . . Armstrong Williams -- it was wrong what happened there in the Education Department. But, no, I think there needs to be full disclosure about the sourcing of the video news clip in order to make sure that people don't think their taxpayer's money is being used to -- in wrong fashion.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111350340324780718
The Bush administration is impeding an investigation into the Education Department's hiring of commentator Armstrong Williams by refusing to allow key White House officials to be interviewed, a Democratic lawmaker briefed on the review said Thursday. . . In addition, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is considering invoking a privilege that he said would require information to be deleted when the final version is publicly released, which is expected within days.

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/14/164031/336
[Chris Bowers] I have little doubt that the rabbit hole is deep and dark. Already, it has been revealed that at least seven columnists were on the Bush administration payroll at one point, and that nearly every single government agency has produced fake news reports under Bush's watch. Throw in the "town halls," Gannon / Guckert, and who knows what else, and it is no wonder the administration wants to impede further investigation into what appears to be an extremely widespread propaganda machine.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-armstrong15apr15,1,3934832.story

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/14/vnr/index.html
The Federal Communications Committee became the latest federal watchdog agency to clamp down on the use of government-produced "video news releases," those look-alike TV news segments the Bush administration has used to hype its policies. Late yesterday, the FCC instructed broadcasters that whenever they air a VNR they must identify the origins of the report in order to avoid any confusion. The ruling comes on the heels of an assessment by the Government Accountability Office, which concluded that VNR's lacking clear disclosure about their production by the government constitute propaganda, and therefore are an illegal use of taxpayer dollars. . . (The Justice Department later stepped in and overruled the GAO's findings.)

Go ahead, dig yourself deeper

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006125
After yet another little period in which Social Security privatization was looking good and dead, the privateers seem to be preparing for a new assault. Josh Marshall notes new thinking that the House Republicans should press ahead with privatization, abandoning the old "Senate first" strategy. . . Meanwhile, Rick Santorum assures National Review readers that "The GOP won’t drop individual accounts for Social Security.". . . I'm dubious that the votes exist to pass this through the House, and quite certain there's no majority for it in the Senate. The interesting question, at this point, is when the center-right "pain caucus" that dominates conventional wisdom inside the Beltway will wake up to what's going on here. This crowd has long supported privatization on ill-defined fiscal probity grounds. The drive is now being led by people who care nothing for such probity and will, in fact, make the budgetary situation far, far, far worse.

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111351764466904872

Why won’t Bush put forward a specific plan to address the “crisis” he sees with the Social Security fund? Watch Scotty squirm

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2816
Representative Jim Kolbe, who was in that meeting, said that he told the President that the time has come to start putting forth some ideas about how to deal with the insolvency problem, and that the President should offer his remedy. Is it time for the President to do that?. . .

“I got a lot more time”

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050414/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_9
"I got a lot more time to tell people that there is a problem," Bush said in a speech to newspaper editors.

More on Bolton’s misuse of National Security Agency intercepts

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000463.html

Bolton and North Korea

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000464.html

Bolton and Kosovo

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001896.html

Bolton: the “anti-Schindler”

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001894.html

John Bolton’s role in the 2000 Florida recount

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/nichols/index.php?ntid=36007

ANOTHER case of abusing a subordinate (does this sound like a “pattern” yet, Mr. Chafee?)

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001902.html

Lincoln Chafee

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000462.html
"From the evidence we've heard, he's a difficult man to work for," Chafee said Wednesday. Bolton was characterized at Senate hearings this week as treating State Department subordinates harshly. . . The soft-spoken Chafee said Bolton is "absolutely not" the best choice for the job.

Filibuster?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001899.html

Looks like “Jeff Gannon,” who lied about many things (including his name) also lied about his military record

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/14/8341/89426

Pro-war pundits like this should be shipped immediately to the front lines

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/14/124654/671
The backstory: in late-March, Minnesota native Cpl. Travis Bruce was killed in Iraq "by a rocket-propelled grenade while standing watch on the roof of a Baghdad police station." The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Bruce had called his girlfriend the night before his death "and said that he was stationed on the rooftop and increasing the height of the sandbag barricade. `He said they didn't have enough sandbags up there,' she said softly."

Based on this account, Sen. Dayton sent a letter to President Bush calling it "immoral for our command not to provide our soldiers with absolutely everything they need to give them maximum protection: body armor, armored vehicles, sandbags." [Powerline’s] Hinderaker had heard enough.

"First it was body armor, then armored vehicles," Hinderaker complained. "Now it's `immoral' that our soldiers don't have enough sandbags. Am I missing something, or is this ludicrous on its face? I can understand a soldier in Iraq being short of armor. But sand?" He continues: "It is up to soldiers in the field to protect themselves. If they want more sandbags, they should get more sandbags, as Cpl. Bruce apparently did."

Discard after use

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2805
Amid the chaos of war, Sgt. Roberto Orozco and about 35 other members of the Florida National Guard sent to Iraq relied on what they knew for certain: their military training, the love of their families and their government jobs back home.

Then one day in the combat zone, the men got a letter. When they returned home, the letter read, their jobs as full-time members of the Guard assigned to a federal drug interdiction program would be gone.

"We got shafted," said Orozco, 43, a Miami father of three. "We come home from war, and this is what we get.". . .

Indeed, had the soldiers worked for a civilian firm, and not for the federal government, they might have been covered by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which protects reservists from discrimination and job loss when called to active duty.

So what DID those military families say to Bush (in the story clipped yesterday)?

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2810
"I just told him it was very wrong," one of the widows, Linnie Blankenbecler, 47, told me yesterday. "I was not intimidated by the president. My hardest reality was the death of my husband.". . . "I love the U. S. and I am proud of the way my husband died, but I think the way they are treating the families now is a disgrace to my husband and what he believed," she said.

There are two primary ways in which survivors of military personnel killed in action receive benefits: The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), which is based on time and service, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), which provides a flat monthly payment for two years after a service-connected death.

Blankenbecler is most upset about two things. . . One is the rule that widows call the SBP-DIC offset, which actually takes away a dollar from one benefit for every dollar they get in the other. . . "It's disgusting," Blankenbecler said.

The second is a provision in a bill Bush signed in December 2003 that added an extra $250 per dependent child to the DIC payment. But widows whose husbands died before the effective date -- Jan. 1, 2005 -- saw little or nothing of that benefit.

Blankenbecler said that's grossly unfair. . . "I told him I was very disappointed that he would sign something like that," she said. "I know that he doesn't understand everything that he signs, completely. So he asked one of his aides if he knew which bill I was talking about, and he told the guy to check into that."

"And he said he was sorry that I was disappointed, and that there's so many bills out there. I just got the impression that he didn't know which one I was talking about, and he probably didn't realize what he had done.". . .

"The first thing he did was he told me he was sorry for the loss of my husband. For a year and a half, I had been wanting him to tell me that he was sorry -- not that I was holding him responsible in any way, but I was wanting to hear those words from him."

. . . I have to wonder what Bush would say -- or has said -- faced with a widow who didn't support the war. . . It might have happened on Tuesday if widow Shelann Clapp had been invited to meet with him. But she wasn't.

Clapp's exclusion apparently had everything to do with the fact that her husband died in a stateside accident -- and nothing to do with her opposition to the war, which until speaking with me yesterday she hadn't talked about in public.

But she's angry. . . "I'm not a good military wife anymore, I'm an angry military wife. I'm an angry military widow," she said.

Her husband of 28 years, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Douglas V. Clapp, died in November in a helicopter crash not far from Fort Hood. The Black Hawk in which he was a passenger was headed to check out equipment being readied for use in Iraq when it hit support wires from a TV transmission tower. He'd served in the military for more than 30 years and had recently returned from a deployment in Iraq.

What Shelann Clapp is angriest about is that she didn't even hear that Bush was meeting with survivor families until the next day. . . "Maybe my husband didn't really count," she said.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53070-2005Apr14.html

How Texas oil men helped Hussein

http://news.orb6.com/stories/latimests/20041018/usbuyersofhusseinsoilactedtoassistiraq.php
[Oscar] Wyatt came to be a central figure in a small, loosely knit group of Americans who supported policies and activities potentially beneficial to Hussein even as they benefited from the dictator's oil resources, U.S. officials, oil analysts and personal acquaintances said.

Their story provides a revealing glimpse at the politics of oil and the people behind it, operating in a world that mixed diplomacy, intrigue and multimillion-dollar oil deals.

The men, involved in Iraq through professional and personal relationships that in some cases stretched back decades, at times engaged in a secretive campaign of private diplomacy, offering themselves as a communications back channel between Hussein and at least two U.S. administrations, the sources said.

More patriotic Texas oil men

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/international/middleeast/14cnd-food.html
Dramatically broadening the scandal surrounding the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, federal authorities in New York today charged David B. Chalmers, a Houston oil trader, and his company, Bayoil, with making millions of dollars in illegal kickback payments to Iraq while trading oil under the program.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54645-2005Apr14.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/international/middleeast/15food.html

Now all we need is to find a link from these guys to DeLay. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006124

. . . or Bush

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_04/006102.php
[Andrew Tobias]
President Bush is an oil man. His pappy is an oil man. His VP is an oil man. His pals and his family’s pals are oil men. His virtual brother, Prince Bandar “Bush,” and the Saudi Royal Family generally, to whom the Bushes are closely tied, are oil men. . . So when you say “energy crisis,” what exactly do you mean? This is a great time to be an oil man! All those guests at the early Cheney energy meetings — the ones whose names the White House would not reveal even after a subpoena from the General Accounting Office? Most of them are likely reveling in this so-called “crisis.”. . . The solution to the “crisis,” according to this administration, is to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, not to promote conservation. Drilling for oil is what oil men DO.

Lottsa luck: Trent wants a role back in Senate leadership again

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/14/12312/7380

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/14/lott/index.html

Bonus item: the worst excuse for a journalist in Washington (thanks to Atrios for the FAKE story)

http://www.etc3dot.com/Bumiller.htm
Today President George W. Bush followed his dinner with two scoops of Mama Lucy’s Chocolate Ice Cream. This is not a new thing. Since his inauguration, the President has really enjoyed ice cream a lot!

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

Bolton vote delayed until next week. (This is good news: more is sure to come out about Bolton’s lies and abuse of those who work for him)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton14apr14,1,5150055.story

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000461.html
[Y]esterday's hearings and Carl Ford's testimony have wounded Bolton's cause -- and now there is a search for more damage done by Bolton in his last position. There are interviews planned with the many people Bolton intimidated, as well as a roster of people whom Bolton had fired -- or pushed out. . . There is also a roster of substantive policy questions that Senators want to pose to Bolton in written form that deal with the question of whether Bolton was consistent with Bush administration policy in many of his public statements, or working against it. Some senators want these questions answered by Bolton before voting on his nomination. . . Time is actually on the side of those doing the investigating -- not those trying to cover up Bolton's record.

Bill Kristol accuses Bolton foes of “character assassination.” And here I thought it was “character recognition”

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000460.html
[NYT] The longer John Bolton's Senate hearing for the post of United Nations representative went on, the more outrageous it seemed that President Bush could have nominated a man who had made withering disdain for that world body the signature of his career in international affairs. Some fear that the aim is to scuttle the United Nations. It's more likely, but just as disturbing, that this is another example of Mr. Bush's rewarding loyalty rather than holding officials accountable for mistakes, especially those who helped build the case for war with Iraq. . . Whatever the explanation, the hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee only added reasons for denying the job to Mr. Bolton. It turned up a third incident (we already knew of two) in which Mr. Bolton tried to have an intelligence analyst punished for stopping him from making false claims about a weapons program in another nation, notably Cuba.

Here’s an example of “character assassination,” I guess

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/04/lost_in_the_cro.html
When Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., asked about the treaty, Bolton replied: "The administration has submitted the Law of the Sea Treaty as one of its priorities, and I support that." What was his personal opinion? "Well, I haven't personally read the Law of the Sea Treaty," Bolton said. "I don't think I've ever read it, to be honest with you."

Sarbanes pressed: "Well, now, in an article in a book entitled 'Understanding Unilateralism in American Foreign Relations,' published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, you called the Law of the Sea Treaty 'not only undesirable as a policy, but also illegitimate methods of forcing fundamental policy changes on the United States outside the customary political process.' "

Bolton weaseled: "I don't have the article in front of me, Senator." He explained that President Ronald Reagan was concerned about one provision in the '80s, but Clinton officials "adequately fixed" it in the '90s.

SARBANES: But you wrote this article in 2000.

BOLTON: Right.

What game is Lincoln Chafee playing?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000459.html
"It was strong testimony from Mr. Ford. He used strong language," Chafee said. But "it's all focused on this one incident. We're not really seeing a pattern."

[NB: Of course, if there’s anything we ARE seeing from Bolton, it is exactly that, a pattern: of arrogance, abuse, bullying, and willingness to lie to advance policy aims]

Breaking news this morning: another Bolton scandal

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/politics/14bolton.html
John R. Bolton, nominated to be the next ambassador to the United Nations, used his position as a senior State Department official to obtain details about intercepted communications involving other American officials that were monitored by the National Security Agency, according to Mr. Bolton's own account.

The identities of American officials whose communications are intercepted are usually closely protected by law, and not included even in classified intelligence reports. Access to the names may be authorized by the N.S.A. only in response to special requests, and these are not common, particularly from policy makers.

Testifying Monday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Bolton acknowledged that he had made such requests "on a couple of occasions, maybe a few more."

Newt Gingrich, for his own reasons, gives the kiss of death to Tom DeLay

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504130004
Gingrich said that "DeLay's problem isn't with the Democrats. DeLay's problem is with the country," adding that the Texas Republican needs to "get everything out in the open" and that the burden "is on him to prove [his case]."

BORGER: He's said that this is the liberal media going after him.

GINGRICH: Sure.

BORGER: You agree with that?

GINGRICH: Well, that's the famous Hillary Clinton defense; this is the vast left-wing cor -- you know, conspiracy as opposed to her description of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

BORGER: So he's using --

GINGRICH: I'm saying when you're being attacked, the first thing you naturally do is you describe your attackers. In this case, that won't work.

More: http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/politicsnational_story_103122313.html

DeLay apologizes for inflammatory judge comments (well, no, not really)

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010359.html
"I said something in an inartful way, and I shouldn't have said it that way, and I apologize for saying it that way," he said. "It was taken wrong. I didn't explain it or clarify my remarks, as I'm clarifying them here. I am sorry that I said it that way, and I shouldn't have."

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/politics/14delay.html

Could DeLay really survive this?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/13/delay/index.html
"Be patient," DeLay said he told the senators. "We'll be fine.". . .

That's the same Tom DeLay who was admonished three times last year by the House ethics committee, the same Tom DeLay whose wife and daughter were apparently paid $500,000 by political organizations he controlled, the same Tom DeLay who, the Wall Street Journal said, "rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government" but "has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits.''

. . . "Everyone seems to be looking for a smoking gun, and nobody has been shot," South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint told the Houston Chronicle.

[NB: Of course, it’s hard to see on this basis what Mr. DeMint WOULD count as evidence]

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_10.php#005434

Nancy Pelosi drops the hammer (read the whole thing, it will do your heart good)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111342125473061955
[Pelosi] The Republican majority promised after the 1994 elections to manage the House in a way that fostered "deliberative democracy," which they defined as the "full and free airing of conflicting opinions through hearings, debates, and amendments." They also pledged in their Contract with America to "restore accountability to Congress" and to "end its cycle of scandal and disgrace." Instead of sticking to their word, they have broken their promises, betrayed the public trust, and abused their power. Specifically, they have undermined the ethics of the House, abandoned any principle of procedural fairness or democratic accountability, and overreached into private family matters and the federal judiciary.

Republicans have created a democracy-free zone. . . Under the current House leadership, floor debate is muzzled, votes are cast with fear of retribution and legitimate amendments never see the light of day. They ram thousands of pages of major legislation through with only a few hours for review. . .

Republicans effectively shut down the ethics process. Republicans made their first order of business for the 109th Congress to attack the Ethics Committee, rewriting many of its bipartisan rules in favor of rules that will make ethics investigations more difficult to pursue. The new rules seriously weaken enforcement by automatically dismissing any ethics complaint after 45 days unless a majority of the bipartisan committee votes to begin an investigation. The GOP rules change allows one party to block the Ethics Committee from investigating the facts of the complaint. The former Republican chairman of the Ethics Committee said: "The rules package adopted by the House in January stands to undermine the committee's mission, not to mention the integrity of the House." (Congress Daily AM, 3/16/05) That the GOP's first priority for the 109th Congress has been to lower the bar of integrity should be a warning to the American people.

Not only did Republicans undermine the ethics process, but they stacked the Ethics Committee. At the beginning of the year, the Republican Leadership dismissed Republican Members of the Ethics Committee, even the Chairman, who had refused to compromise the ethics rules for the party leadership. And then, the newly appointed Chairman unilaterally fired non-partisan Committee staff who assisted in the ethics work in the last session. In a statement to the press, the departing Chairman of the Committee stated "(t)here is a bad perception out there that there was a purge in the Committee and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did," and a replaced Republican Member noted his belief that "the decision (regarding his dismissal) was a direct result of our work in the last session."

Republicans are protecting Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee. Last fall, the House Majority Leader was admonished three times by the Ethics Committee for: offering political support in return for a vote on the prescription drug bill; misusing federal resources for partisan political purposes; and offering special access for campaign contributor, Westar Energy. These admonishments were unanimous and bipartisan. The Ethics Committee also warned DeLay that it had identified a clear pattern of misbehavior by him and would be on the lookout for additional instances when he pushed the bounds of acceptable conduct in pursuing his legislative and political goals.

Media stories are raising new questions about the conduct of Majority Leader Tom DeLay. In recent weeks, newspaper articles have detailed trips DeLay took to Russia and Scotland that he had reported were funded by nonprofit organizations, but which were directly or indirectly paid for by lobbyists or foreign agents. House rules prohibit members from taking trips funded by such entities. In both cases, lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, was involved in these trips. Tom DeLay's extensive ties with special interest lobbyists are raising serious questions about his conduct.

Even the Wall Street Journal has raised questions. In fact, even conservatives have begun to raise questions about the Majority Leader. As the Wall Street Journal editorial page commented, "The problem...is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits. Mr. DeLay's ties to Mr. Abramoff might be innocent, in a strictly legal sense, but it strains credulity to believe that Mr. DeLay found nothing strange with being included in Mr. Abramoff's lavish junkets." They went on to say, "Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign- finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out." (Wall Street Journal, 3/28/05). . .

This is rich: old Tom DeLay quotes

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/13/125928/966
From 1989:
H.R. 3660, the Government Ethics Reform Act, will strengthen and clarify existing House rules. Issues such as the ban on congressional honoraria, limits on gifts and travel, increased financial disclosure, restrictions on outside income, and conflict of interest rules will all be tightened to reflect the growing and changing role of Government service. . . I am especially pleased to support this comprehensive overhaul of House ethics rules and conflict of interest laws because it is an important first step in enhancing the ethical standards throughout Government and adjusting compensation for individuals whose skills are essential to the quality of service Government provides to the American people. It is my hope that honor will be restored to elected offices so that we can continue to work for the values that we have fought for in the past with quality representation in the future.

From 1992:
Now, the House needs new management, and that is Republican management. In my opinion, it will not do any good to get rid of the present Speaker or the present leadership, because what will happen is more will come in and it is the arrogance of power that we are talking about here. What is going on here is arrogance of power. We need a change in management. . .

And 1994:
Mr. Speaker, I just am saddened by these kinds of issues. I believe very deeply in this institution, and I would hope that others do, too, and understand that, No. 1, the Justice Department is another branch of our Government, that we are empowered and mandated to clean our own house. Yet some in this body do not seem to understand that and would rather see mud thrown at this institution than to get to the bottom of problems in this institution.

WH waffling in its support

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2800
Q Scott, you said a couple days ago that, as the President said, he considers Tom Delay a friend. I actually went back -- I never saw the President say that anywhere. He said he had confidence in Tom DeLay. And I also noticed that Tom DeLay said when the President was running for President in 2000 -- or 1999 -- that Bush was not a social friend of his. So does Bush consider --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a number of congressional leaders that he works closely with on the Hill and he considers a friend, sure.

Q And he considers Tom DeLay a friend?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. I mean, I think there are different levels of friendship with anybody, so -- (laughter.)

Negroponte: he’ll get his

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/13/negroponte/
The man chosen by President Bush to be the new U.S. director of national intelligence Tuesday denied that he had covered up human rights abuses when he was Washington's ambassador to Honduras. John Negroponte came under fierce questioning from the Senate intelligence committee as his nomination for the role was considered.

The questioning coincided with the publication of diplomatic cables sent by Negroponte in the 1980s which indicate that he secretly sought to undermine the peace process in Central America and entertained the head of a group trying to violently overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The documents show that he sought to cover up clandestine U.S. involvement in the war in Nicaragua.

Nearly 400 cables and memos sent or received by Negroponte, who was the U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the U.N. before being nominated for his new intelligence position, indicate that he tried to undermine peace efforts, promoted the war against the Sandinistas -- which he referred to as "our special project" -- and gave tips to the State Department on how to cover up the U.S. role.

There is no indication of any concern for the Honduran regime's human rights abuses, or the disappearances of left-wingers at the time, despite much contemporary evidence of atrocities committed by the Honduran military.

CIA contractor aims to prove govt authorization for torture

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2799

Bush rewrites history (again)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49955-2005Apr13.html
President Bush ratcheted up the rhetoric of his revisionist justification for war yesterday at the Fort Hood army base in Texas, calling the taking of Baghdad "one of the great moments in the history of liberty."

"The toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad will be recorded, alongside the fall of the Berlin Wall," he said. . . Then he used a servicemember's words to assert a connection between the war in Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The men and women of the Phantom Corps know why we are in Iraq," Bush said. "As one First Team soldier, Lieutenant Mike Erwin, put it: 'If we can start to change the most powerful country in the Middle East, the others will follow, and Americans 20 years down the road won't have to deal with a day like September the 11th, 2001.' "

"Hoo-ah!" went the troops.

[NB: And the WMD justifications, the false biological weapons and “smoking mushroom cloud” threats, fade into distant memory. . . ]

Bush meets with families of military casualties, and gets an earful. What did they say to him? Don’t bother asking the press office

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2792
Little Scottie (who wasn't at the meetings) remembers "one mother said, you know, 'Finish the job -- that's my message to you.' Another wife was saying, 'We support you.'". . . Of course, some. . .”did have some concerns that they expressed".

Q What type of concerns?

MR. McCLELLAN: It varies. The ones that expressed -- some of them expressed some concerns, you know, it can be anything from the benefits to just the help they're getting from the military. I think I'll leave that to those private discussions. But the President always makes sure that we follow up to make sure those concerns are being addressed as best they can be.

Q Does anybody ever raise any concerns about the lack of armor, for example? Is that the kind of stuff that comes up in these talks?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't hear that in any of these conversations. Obviously, I didn't hear everything that was being expressed because I try to stand back a little bit and let the President visit individually with the families. . .

Justice Dept stiffs Senate request for information on Patriot Act: Arlen Specter “frustrated”

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2794

Amazing: House GOP may still try to pass a Social Security privatization bill

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_10.php#005435
But now it seems a few of the ultras in the House have convinced themselves that it's actually good politics to vote on it, send it over to the senate, and if it dies there blame the Democrats.

More ridiculous and irresponsible fiscal policies from the GOP

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_10.php#005431

Hire this woman (Athenae)

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2797
I want to know what the attack ads in 2006 say and I want to know right now.

Republicans: Too Extreme for America, with footage of the jugglers and snakehandlers outside Terri Schiavo's hospice, with footage of anti-abortion protesters screaming and holding up fetuses in jars.

Republicans: Destroying Social Security. Footage of grandma, stirring a can of Hormel on the one stove burner she can get to work, as Santorum's flying monkey chant "hey, hey, ho, ho, social security has got to go!" and a picture of his rictus grin appears.

Republicans: Can't Be Trusted. DeLay's greatest hits. The ballooning deficit. A house getting bulldozed. Republicans waste your money. A pile of money goes up in flames.

. . . Republicans, they can't protect you. Osama's lieutenants are still casing buildings. My husband works in a skyscraper. Bring a video camera over to my house, I'll give you some footage. Republicans can't keep me safe. Not me, not my family, not my friends. Osama's still out there, and Bush doesn't care. . .

Let's run them in all 50 states in every single district where there's a contested race. Let's raise money for that and let's start right now. . .

Let's introduce the Abortion Reduction Act in Congress. . . Let's ask why abortion rates went up under Bush and let's talk about if you want to get rid of abortion, if that's your kink, then these are the people you vote for. . . Let's then put the faces of every Republican who expresses opposition to this on billboards and on fliers that say "Why do Republicans want more abortions?" and post them in every Catholic church and mail them to every priest. I'll help. I swear I'll stick stamps on anything you ask. . .

Let's put Oliver Willis' Brand Democrat on billboards in Nebraska and Mississippi. I've got $20. It's my last $20, but I'm ready to give it for something like that. I'm ready to hit as hard as they are.

Forty percent of Americans online read political blogs

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/04/13/forty_percent_read_political_blogs.html

Bonus item: Rush Limbaugh, get your head out of the gutter

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111341187213523633

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET FIRED IN THIS TOWN?

Bolton: “serial abuser”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton13apr13,0,2563180.story

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_04/006085.php
[T]oday's testimony against John Bolton from former INR chief Carl Ford was devastating.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000458.html
Watch out. The currents of this nomination may have just changed.

“Kiss-up, kick-down”

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1284

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html

More on Bolton the bully: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001882.html

And a liar

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/opinion/13wed1.html
Mr. Bolton wanted to give a speech saying that "the United States believes that Cuba has a developmental offensive biological warfare program and is providing assistance to other rogue state programs." That sounds scary, but it was not true. Cuba was not doing those things, and U.S. intelligence agencies did not think it was. But according to numerous accounts, Mr. Bolton became enraged when an analyst from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research pointed out the error and tried to have the analyst removed from his post.

Mr. Bolton's attempts to dodge accountability were almost comical. At one point, explaining a trip to the C.I.A. in which he tried to have an analyst for Latin America on the National Intelligence Council removed for a similar act, Mr. Bolton said he had gone there only to learn what the council does. The explanation was not remotely believable from someone with Mr. Bolton's background in national security.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000457.html
John Bolton not only tried to get intelligence agent Christian Westermann "removed" from Bolton's portfolio (read, "fired") at the State Department, he also seems to have recruited help outside the State Department bureaucracy -- from a U.S. Senator in fact -- in trying to get Ambassador Charles "Jack" Pritchard fired from his position as America's Lead Envoy in negotiating with North Korea.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001884.html
Six years ago, back on March 24, 1999, John Bolton told Bill O'Reilly he thought that the US had no business intervening to stop massive Serb ethnic cleansing and killing of Kosovo Albanians.

But it looks like he’ll be confirmed anyway

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=663831

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/12/bolton/index_np.html

The next big confirmation fight: Negroponte

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2776

Another “mandate” – yeesh, don’t they learn?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47077-2005Apr12.html

Negroponte’s past
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006098
Today’s Washington Post has a piece that won't shock those who have followed John Negroponte's rise in the Bush administration. There's still not much information about Negroponte's time as ambassador to Iraq or the UN, but Michael Dobbs has more on that niggling little period in the middle of his long foreign-service career: his time as ambassador to Honduras between 1981 and 1984, and as the acting liasion to the Reagan administration's war on Communism. Just in time for Negroponte's confirmation hearing as national intelligence director, Dobbs has unearthed (via a Freedom of Information Act request) some key cables and telegrams, long secret, that implicate Negroponte. . .

Rummy lectures new Iraq govt

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/12/rummy/index.html

Allawi gradually being pushed off the stage he hoped to dominate

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1281

More on “extraordinary rendition” – a story the serious media refuses to dig into

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010335.html

Videos show that hundreds of Republican convention protestors were arrested illegally; and that cops routinely lied in their testimony

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000696.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/12/protests/index.html

GOP fracturing internally over “nuclear option”

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/04/12/republicans_clash_over_filibuster.html
[WSJ] Republicans have a problem. Even with a 55-seat majority, they currently don't have the votes to change the rules

Bob Dole says don’t do it
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/12/131441/973

Conservative groups say don’t do it
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010350.html

What eliminating the Estate Tax will do (thanks to Josh Marshall for the link)

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253278

DeLay tries to rally support among Senate GOP

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20050412/ap_on_go_co/delay_ethics
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, hoping to hold support among fellow Republicans, urged GOP senators Tuesday to blame Democrats if asked about his ethics controversy and accused the news media of twisting supportive comments so they sounded like criticism. . . Officials said DeLay recommended that senators respond to questions by saying Democrats have no agenda other than partisanship, and are attacking him to prevent Republicans from accomplishing their legislative program. One Republican said the Texan referred to a "mammoth operation" funded by Democratic supporters and designed to destroy him as a symbol of the Republican majority.

Snark: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_10.php#005413

But loses another Republican senator anyway

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/12/113214/619

More bad news for Tom

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/04/12/delays_woes_deepen.html

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006101

And the White House is clearly hedging their bets on this one

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2780

Newt running in 2008?

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/041205/newt.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/12/gingrich/index.html

Jeb still trying to manipulate the Florida voting system

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/vote_fraud_/2005/04/there_they_go_again.php

How to regain electoral advantage

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111333345026055782
[Digby] In order to gain a political majority in this country we need 51%. We have 49%. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006102

Bonus item: a letter to the Washington Post ombudsman

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/12/132047/892
Dear Mr. Getler:

As a reader of the Washington Post, I wish to communicate to you my concerns regarding the reporting of Mr. Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post media reporter. . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***

TELL ME ANOTHER ONE

John Bolton, in the proud tradition of Bush nominees, says whatever the hell he has to, to get through the confirmation process. Then, once he’s in the job, he’ll become another one-man wrecking crew – and just the man for it, too

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-041105bolton_lat,0,362518.story
In his opening statement, Bolton pledged "to fulfill the president's vision of working in close partnership with the United Nations," and cited the administration's desire to reform and restore confidence in the world body.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/04/11/bolton2/index.html
We're used to the John Bolton who says things like "there is no United Nations," and "The mindless creation of the United Nations as something different than what is in the United States' interest to do isn't gonna sell here or anywhere else," and "The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be because the only question -- the only question to the United States -- is what's in our national interest. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact."

A different John Bolton turned up for his confirmation hearing today. The new and improved -- dare we say, "kinder and gentler"? -- John Bolton still had some critical words for the United Nations, but the bombastic oratory was replaced by what we're sure was heartfelt sympathy. Bolton said that, as George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, he would help provide the leadership necessary to make the United Nations all that it can be. "Such leadership in turn must rest on broad bipartisan support in Congress that must be earned by putting to rest skepticism that too many feel about the U.N. system," Bolton said.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/11/123530/148
"Quite frankly I am surprised the nominee wants the job that he's been nominated for given the many negative things he had to say about the U.N., international institutions and international law," Biden added. . .

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116567/
John Bolton, George W. Bush's astonishingly brazen choice to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, came off badly at his confirmation hearings today—bloodless, evasive, and mendacious—in ways that should give senators cause to reject him, regardless of whether they agree with the president's policies or even with the substance of Bolton's views.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006078
John Bolton has not undertaken a run-of-the-mill confirmation conversion -- he's gone for the moon shot. He embraced in his opening statement the ideas of "reforming" and "strengthening" the United Nations. He declared his absolute desire to abide by the wishes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush.

He laid out four principles for the United Nations:
• Promoting and strengthening global democracy;
• Strengthening arms-control agreements;
• Enhancing cooperation against terrorism;
• Resolving humanitarian crisis.

Democrats and some Republicans will certainly question Bolton on his sincerity, since everything he's said today contradicts decades of on-the-record commentary.

For the best roundup of the issues that could still bring Bolton down, see Steve Clemons

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
Sadly, none of the Dems hammered Bolton on this and on his near obsessive personal reading of intelligence intercepts of [IAEA Director] ElBaradei's phone calls to see if there was some substantive reason to get other nations on the then-empty bandwagon to dump ElBaradei.

Secondly, and EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, Lincoln Chafee stumbled into a huge cache of landmines, in TWN's view. Chafee asked Bolton to go into the issue of his 31 July 2003 speech regarding North Korea and our policy in negotiating over North Korea's nuclear pretensions and program. Chafee brought up the name Ambassador Charles "Jack" Pritchard, now a Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.

Bolton essentially said that Pritchard resigned after Bolton's speech because Pritchard was not comfortable with the real, genuine Bush administration policy on North Korea -- as compared to what Pritchard was peddling on behalf of Armitage and Powell. This was incredible...simply incredible. Bolton went so far as to say that Pritchard was not in line with Bush administration policy.

The beaten-up-and-intimidated story of intelligence officer Christian Westermann is certainly important and has generated a lot of smoke.

Jack Pritchard's potential corroboration of Bolton's patterned behavior is the "fire." Bolton may have taken extraordinary steps to try and get others outside of the State Department hierarchy to push Pritchard out. I think someone needs to reach Pritchard -- and just get a chronology and commentary on what he knows about Bolton's behavior.

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006095

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001878.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_atrios_archive.html#111323612992899361
Isn't the mustache reason enough to vote against him?

The only vote that matters

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43504-2005Apr11.html
Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), the panel's only Republican who was seen as a possible vote against Bolton, said he is inclined to support the nomination and send it to the full Senate, where the GOP holds a 55 to 45 edge. . . Although Chafee told reporters that he would have preferred another nominee, he said, "I don't think the Democrats have made as strong a case [against Bolton] as I might have expected."

Why have Bush’s pool numbers tanked?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43180-2005Apr11.html

What’s ahead on Social Security?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006092

Bush keeps sapping other departments’ budgets to fund his pointless road show

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_10.php#005402

The war in Iraq, aside from its massive present cost, is also piling up huge longer-term costs in equipment replacement (thanks to Holden for the link)

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=772587&C=america
The war in Iraq is burning through U.S. military equipment at five to 10 times the peacetime training rate, and the services will have to spend $13 billion to $18 billion to replace it, congressional budget experts say. . . The services have asked for $12 billion in the 2005 emergency supplemental funding request to replace worn-out vehicles and equipment, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said current operations are wearing out vehicles at a rate of $8 billion per year.

More fiscal irresponsbility

http://www.juancole.com/2005/04/us-millions-in-iraq-wasted-i-saw-lewis.html
The true cost of the Iraq misadventure is consistently underestimated by the Bush administration, which does not even include the extra funds in the budget deficit! They even sneak the wounded soldiers back into this country so that the public does not get an accurate sense of the war's human costs for Americans.

So in light of the complete uninterest of the US government in the quality of life in much of the United States, an item like the below is especially maddening.

T. Christian Miller of the Los Angeles Times reports that:

Iraqi officials have crippled scores of water, sewage and electrical plants refurbished with U.S. funds by failing to maintain and operate them properly, wasting millions of American taxpayer dollars, according to interviews and documents. . . Hardest hit has been the effort to rebuild Iraq's water and sewage systems, a multibillion-dollar task considered to be among the most crucial components of the effort to improve daily life for Iraqis. Of more than 40 such plants run by the Iraqis, not one is being operated properly, according to the Bechtel Group, the contractor at work on the project. . . The power grid faces similar problems.

Still acting like we’re in charge

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/international/middleeast/12rumsfeld.html
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld landed in Iraq just before dawn on Tuesday, bearing warnings for the country's new leaders of government corruption and civil turbulence that could delay a constitution and national elections.

More: http://www.juancole.com/2005/04/competent-intelligence-urged-by.html

The latest DeLay defense is “Democrats do it too.” Why that isn’t true

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html

And why it isn’t working (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0412/p02s01-uspo.html
In public, most Republicans say that what's driving the criticism of the House majority leader is politics, not ethics. The Democratic "hit machine" is pouring millions into a campaign to oust the most powerful Republican in Congress. But the real target is the Republican majority and its agenda.

But in private, some senior leaders are saying it's only a matter of time before the most powerful Republican in Congress is forced from office. "Democrats should save their money. Why murder someone who is committing suicide?" said a senior GOP lawmaker, on condition of anonymity.

Got Jesus?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43824-2005Apr11.html
Uplifted by the pope's funeral, President Bush on Friday called the seven reporters traveling with him on Air Force One into his airborne conference room, sat them around a table and talked to them about Jesus.

"There is no doubt in my mind there is a living God. And no doubt in my mind that Lord, Christ, was sent by the Almighty. No doubt in my mind about that," he said.

For 47 minutes, Bush and the journalists had an intimate, friendly chat largely about the pope, his legacy and Bush's own "walk with Christ."

Here's the transcript of Bush's conversation with the pool, the rotating group of reporters who travel with the president when there's not enough room for everyone.

Bonus item: how to read headlines

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/so-which-is-it.html
How easily do headlines shape our opinion of the facts? Here are four newspapers, all providing much the same quotes and facts about Bush meeting with Sharon and discussing the Palestinian question. Given the facts they all shared, which one captured the defining spirit of the event with their headline? Which one is true?

BUSH SUPPORTS PLAN BY SHARON FOR A WITHDRAWAL FROM GAZA -- NYTimes

BUSH PRODS SHARON ON PEACE -- Washington Post

BUSH DEMANDS A HALT TO MORE WEST BANK HOMES -- Times of London

BUSH, SHARON CLASH OPENLY -- LA Times

http://www.juancole.com/2005/04/sharon-defies-bush-ap-headline-gets-it.html
The AP headline gets it right: Sharon dismisses Bush Warning on Settlement Expansion.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***