We're on the road today, so here's an open thread to discuss the Bush-Cheney hearings, which won't be televised and are not being conducted under oath.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will meet jointly with the commission beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT for what is expected to be several hours of questions. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and two members of his staff also will be present. One of the most pressing issues is the allegation that the administration failed to make terrorism a top priority in the face of what CIA Director George Tenet has said was a system "blinking red" with warnings.
Unlike the commission's televised hearings that produced some sharp exchanges, Thursday's meeting will not have cameras or a stenographer in the room and there will not be any record of what was said beyond note-taking...."If they thought it would help him, they'd televise it," James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, said of White House advisers. "And obviously they don't think it will help him, and so they are not."
For the second month in a row, we've exceeded our very generous 24,000 MB a month bandwidth allotment and there are two days left in the month. If any of you are able to chip in, we'd really appreciate it. Just click on one of the buttons below. Amazon is anonymous, paypal is not. Many thanks.
The folks running ReDefeatBush.com just put up a Firesign Theatre/SNL-style Flash parody of tomorrow’s Bush/Cheney hearings here.
In anticipation of Bush and Cheney's 9/11 Testimony, and given the lack of recordings or even transcripts, ReDefeatBush.com has produced the version we'd like to hear. Take a look at ReDefeatBush.com's first installment of ReDefeatBush Theater. Premiering Thursday April 29th between 7:00A and 8:00A on WJFK-FM in Washington during the Howard Stern Show, along with a couple of more traditional radio commercials. Our television ads start Friday on WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington.
Hat-tip to BB who writes in:
The parody’s pretty funny -- the Bush voice is dead-on -- but the topic of Cheney’s potential involvement in an oil deal gone wrong (the launch-point of the parody) sure isn’t. RDB does link from the SWF to a pretty good backgrounder. More grist for the how-crazy-were-they mill …
The Center for American Progress today formally launched a massive searchable database, Claim v. Fact, "that charts conservatives' distortions, lies and dishonesty, and refutes them with well-documented facts.The Center is soliciting the public to help grow the database, asking citizens to submit entries that are not yet documented in the system." Submit your entry here.
John Kerry has begun the process of getting background checks on his potential Veep candidates--including Dick Gephardt and John Edwards. Another is said to be Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. [link via Political Wire.]
Please, Mr. Kerry, pick Mr. Edwards. He will get the Democrats enthused and engaged in a way that the others won't. He will bring in the youth vote in a way the other's won't. He'll bring in the South and the blue collar workers. He's a great and tireless campaigner. He's telegenic. He's real. He connects with people. Choose him.
Two and half days of hearings in the Kobe Bryant alleged sexual assault case ended today with no rulings on the admission of the accuser's sexual history or the suppression of Kobe's statements to sheriff's investigators. However, the Judge did set May 10 as a date for Kobe to plead "not guilty". This is the date that will start the speedy trial clock running.
Our source in the courtroom tells us that the Judge pressed the accuser's attorney quite hard on why he chose to file a public motion for his client seeking an accelerated trial date--with a letter attached from the accuser's mother. Our source says the questioning was so pointed s/he was left with the impression the Judge was accusing the accuser's lawyer of grandstanding for the public.
In a twist from the usual practice, it seems the Prosecution has filed several motions in limine to prevent the defense from presenting certain expert witnesses. Usually, it is the defense that tries to exclude evidence. What doesn't the prosecution want the jury to hear?
If you're by a tv, tune in to '60 Minutes II' tonight. It will be airing photos of alleged abuse of Iraqi POW's by U.S. Troops:
U.S. military police stacked Iraqi prisoners in a human pyramid, and attached wires to one detainee to convince him he might be electrocuted, according to photographs obtained by CBS News which led to criminal charges against six American soldiers. CBS said the photos, to be shown Wednesday night on "60 Minutes II," were taken late last year at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, where American soldiers were holding hundreds of prisoners captured during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
We wrote about the case against the GI's here.
[Ed. There have been so many hits on this post via Google that the comments have gotten out of hand. We are closing them, and will be deleting those that have used profanity or engaged in namecalling.]
by TChris
The Supreme Court heard argument today about the administration's authority to detain without counsel or trial American citizens accused of being enemy combatants. You can listen to the arguments here (Hamdi) and here (Padilla).
From the argument by Jennifer Martinez on behalf of Jose Padilla:
"We've had war on our soil before, and never before in our nation's history has this court granted the president a blank check to do whatever he wants to American citizens."
From the argument by Frank Dunham on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi:
"We have never authorized detention of a citizen in this country without giving him an opportunity to be heard, to say, 'Hey, I am an innocent person."
Justice O'Connor, often the swing vote, voices doubt about the Bush position:
"But have we ever had a situation like this where presumably this warlike status could last for 25 years, 50 years, whatever it is?"
Denying that courts should have any oversight authority over the executive's desire to do as it pleases with those it tags as enemy combatants, the government's lawyer assured the court that the president would always make appropriate decisions. Justice Ginsberg wondered whether it is wise to be so trusting as to give a president unlimited power. Cross your fingers that four of her colleagues see her point.
by TChris
Borrowing a term that has become popular within the blogosphere, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) denounced VP Dick Cheney as "the lead chicken hawk cackling about John Kerry." He used visual aids to illustrate his point.
Lautenberg pointed to a poster with a drawing of a chicken in a military uniform that defined a chicken hawk as "a person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it."
"They shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of the chicken," he said.
(256 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
by TChris
Earlier today, TalkLeft reported that New Hampshire Gov. Craig Benson will probably veto a bill that would eliminate the death penalty for people who were juveniles when the offense was committed. Human Rights Watch sent a letter to Gov. Benson today making a persuasive case for signing the bill. If you live in New Hampshire, you might want to send the Governor a similar letter.
by TChris
People who answer questions in front of Senate Committees often find it difficult to formulate a truthful answer, but one of the biggest whoppers told in recent weeks came from Brett Kavanaugh, who has been nominated for a judgeship on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Kavanaugh has played a key role in the Bush administration's effort to pack the federal courts with conservative judges. Yet Kavanaugh testified that the White House does not consider the ideology of judicial nominees.
Oh really?
"So can you name five pro-choice judges he has put forward?" Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, demanded. When Mr. Kavanaugh hesitated, Ms. Feinstein said: "Can you name four? Three? Two, or even one?"
There's no mistake about Kavanaugh's own ideology. As Ken Starr's deputy, Kavanaugh wrote the report to Congress opining that grounds existed to impeach President Clinton.
by TChris
TalkLeft has written (most recently, here and here) about the federalization of crimes that could and should be handled by state and local prosecutors. William Anderson and Candice Jackson write about ill-advised federal prosecutions "that illustrate how federal criminal law has overstepped its proper bounds, prescribing draconian punishments for offenses that should be handled at the state level or that should not be considered crimes at all."
The bottom line in their thoughtful analysis:
During the last century, especially in the last three decades and in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Congress has made federal crimes out of an astonishing array of behavior, much of which is already prohibited by state law, could be better addressed with civil penalties, or is considered wrongful not because it violates anyone’s rights but only because Congress says so.
| << Previous 12 | Next 12 >> |
