"Whether Democrats will win either of these unfolding battles on surveillance and the contempt citations remains to be seen, but Conyers helped his party throw the first punch in both fights."

I remember when John Conyers was revered on this blog…

The secret first draft of the notorious Iraq dossier that helped to take Britain to war is expected to be released tomorrow, in a victory for freedom of information campaigners.

The early version written by John Williams, then director of communications at the Foreign Office, has been the subject of a three-year legal wrangle amid hopes that it could reveal whether the supposedly intelligence-led dossier was actually based on a press officer's script - and whether it was subsequently 'sexed up' by Alastair Campbell.

The draft is understood not to contain the infamous claim that Saddam Hussein could launch a strike with 'weapons of mass destruction' within 45 minutes, a claim that was central to the final 'dodgy dossier'.

Yesterday Williams attacked the decision to withhold the document for so long. 'If the government withholds a piece of paper, it immediately makes it significant; it almost doesn't matter what it says,' he argued. 'That's what I said at the time: why are we withholding it?'

A former journalist, who left Whitehall in May, Williams said the row was particularly frustrating as he had never wanted the government to produce a dossier. He had argued, he said, that rather than attempting to prove that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, the government should have challenged him to prove he did not: 'I was against the idea of a dossier because I thought it was wrong.'
more here

'Dodgy dossier' was 'wrong', its author says
and here

The passing of the Contempt resolutions and the refusal to rubberstamp Bush's attempt to nullify the Fourth Amendment were laudable efforts on your part. Thank you.

As you know, this is ony the 1st inning of the game, and I, and the millions of others who applauded this rare show of Congressional strength, ask that you stand firm.

This week the President went on national TV and (falsely) accused Congress of leaving America vulnerable to terrorists. Yet, the President's good personal friend, Saudi Prince Bandar ("Bandar Bush") has been accused of "blackmailing" then PM Blair in 2006 with threats of terrorism:

“… Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince” was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists…

"...He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family…”

IMHO, Congress should realize, that in light of the Bandar revelation, and in light of the President's close personal relationship with the Prince, et al, and considering the recent $20B Saudi arms deal, that the President was determined to facilitate, it would seem that it is the President, not the Congress, who should be answering questions.

So you heated up the pan in preparation to fry a couple of small fish. Granted, it's a strong statement. But it's also about the only statement to come out of Congress since the last elections strong enough for BushCo to even take notice. So far, the Democrats have shown themselves to be paper tigers; toothless, clawless, and spineless.

Then all this self aggrandisement today. Are you done flattering yourself?

While politics as usual does occasionally produce some small gems, it usually buries them under piles of crap. There are still real human beings being held "beyond the reach" of the courts - people who have been held without trial or charges for years. There are still people who torture and perform other human rights violations - people holding positions right here in the United States. We're still hemoragging both money and the blood of good honest people who felt patriotic enough to become soldiers. Our economy is failing, our schools are failing, our roads and bridges are failing, our justice system is failing. Meanwhile, our military budget now suprasses all the military spending of the rest of the world combined. Are we planning on attacking the whole world at once? Or are we just soo afraid of our own shadows that we must pauper ourselves for our own protection?

Politics as usual leads us into a dying country with crumbling infrastructure, disintegrated social structure, impoverished and para-enslaved people, and unable to defend anything against anyone as we wage perpetual war on every imagined shadow. Is this America as you envision it Chairman Conyers? Is this the America you want?

From those to whom much is given, must is expected. You have nothing to be proud of, Chariman Conyers. Everything you do should be done because it's what is expected of you. What pride is there in one small gem amidst so much failure? It is America that shall pay the price for this politics as usual, Chairman Conyers. There is no room for self aggrandisement or self flattery. There is only saving America for Americans or helping to destroy it to promote ones self, one's party, one's ideology.

Think about what the DNC is doing Chairman Conyers. After they win control of both houses and the Senate, what are they planning on doing with it? Are they planning on righting all these past wrongs or are they just trying to gather power? Are they planning on setting things right or are they just planning on forgetting everything that has happened?

What are your morals and ethics telling you about your party's actions Chairman? You knew Dr. King before he died. What would he have said to you about letting the injustices of the past go unanswered?

Yes, you are only one man - but so was he.

imagine what they'd name you if you started impeachment hearings.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

2/14/2008: Newly Released FBI Timeline Reveals New Information about 9/11 Hijackers that Was Ignored by 9/11 Commission

Latest Findings Raise New Questions about Hijackers and Suggest Incomplete Investigation

A contributor to the History Commons has obtained a 298-page document entitled Hijackers Timeline (Redacted) from the FBI, subsequent to a Freedom of Information Act request. The document was a major source of information for the 9/11 Commission’s final report. Though the commission cited the timeline 52 times in its report, it failed to include some of the document’s most important material.

The printed document is dated November 14, 2003, but appears to have been compiled in mid-October 2001 (the most recent date mentioned in it is October 22, 2001), when the FBI was just starting to understand the backgrounds of the hijackers, and it contains almost no information from the CIA, NSA, or other agencies. This raises questions as to why the 9/11 Commission relied so heavily on such an early draft for their information about the hijackers.

click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

It seems you're gonna need to get used to being in that limelight.
The FISA debate should be where the following questions becomes clarified:

SINCE WHEN IS WARRANTLESS CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL?

If WARRANTLESS is to be considered legal, then why the need for amnesty from prosecution for violating the Fourth Amendment?

If doing the Patriotic thing means handing over your protection from a form of government that is compelled to invade one’s privacy, then how did the Founders get the Fourth Amendment wrong? What then, is the definition of TYRANNY?

==============
I M P E A C H

As New Hampshire goes, so does the country, Congressman Conyers...

Republican New Hampshire Legislator Wants Bush and Cheney Impeached and Prosecuted
By davidswanson
Created 2008-02-21 13:03

By Dan DeWalt

In a packed hearing room on Feb 19th, under a carved wooden sign reading "Live Free or Die", the New Hampshire House committee of State-Federal Relations and Veterans' Affairs heard testimony on Representative Betty Hall's HR 24, which calls on the U.S. Congress to begin impeachment hearings for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

What was most notable about the four straight hours of testimony was not that opponents of the resolution could only muster two people willing to testify against it, both Republican stalwarts using selected excerpts from Jefferson's parliamentary manual or from the bill itself, whose arguments were embarrassingly empty.

It was not that Kris Roberts, the committee chair, had taken this hearing seriously enough to have researched the law, history and nuances of the subject, and that he used this to inform the proceedings in a reasonably fair manner.

It was not the fact that after the hearing ended, several pro-impeachment witnesses were approached by committee members and thanked for their clarity and useful testimony.

It was not even the novelty of the interjections by one committee member that would periodically steer the conversation abruptly into Rockefeller/Trilateral Commission territory.

The most remarkable moment came late in the afternoon when Republican House member Steve Vaillancourt strode into the room to testify. After passing out copies of the second chapter of Patrick Buchanan's "Day of Reckoning" as supporting evidence, Vaillancourt opened his remarks quoting "fools rush in where wise men fear to tread", and it sounded like a set up to condemn a rush to impeach. But instead he said that Betty Hall is neither fool nor wise man, but is a model of courage and that her impeachment resolution should be supported.

And then the fun began.

Member Vaillancourt then gave a short history lesson, telling the committee that until Bush/Cheney, America had never engaged in an offensive war [sic.], and pointing out that the Truman, Eisenhower. Kennedy and Reagan "Doctrines" had all been based on defense and had not been offensive in nature. Warming to the subject, he delved into the ramifications of Bush/Cheney's actions, saying that their reckless foreign policy has been anti-American, unconstitutional, and ruinously costly to the nation.

He was fairly thundering by the time that he pronounced that not only should Bush and Cheney be impeached, but also they should be tried as war criminals in a Nuremburg style trial for crimes against humanity. He flatly stated that the war in Iraq has provided grounds for war crimes charges against the President and Vice President. And there was not one word of protest from a single committee member. They may or may not support this resolution to impeach, but there seems to be no one left with a credible argument to defend Bush/Cheney.

Vaillancourt said that he spoke not as a Republican, a New Hampshire citizen or an American, but as a member of humanity. His remarks made a common sense plea for an honest appraisal of our current political situation, for the acknowledgement that we have a duty to act as a decent and responsible people, and that principle be the governing factor of our government's actions. These are all values that should, and once did, cut across party lines. If the current political parties have forgotten this, and become so degraded as to allow the lawlessness and criminality of this administration to go unchecked, the people have not.

And at that hearing the people had their chance to speak. One member of the committee remarked that she had never before seen such a wide range of viewpoints as represented by the witnesses, to be so united on one issue.

After deliberation the next day, loyalty to party leadership proved a stronger pull than reasoned argument, for five committee members voted to recommend the bill, with eleven voting against. Now facing an uphill battle to get it passed in a full House vote in March, Betty Hall was still encouraged by the committee hearing and vote. She has received much more support for this resolution than she did with a similar effort last year, and is already working to get grass roots supporters out between now and the vote to get their legislators' attention.

If the grass roots continue to pour out as they did on Tuesday, and if there were a few more politicians like Steve Vaillancourt and Betty Hall, we might see things begin to change. It's instructive to remember that some politicians who are now leading the charge for impeachment did not want to talk about it only a few short months ago. The spotlight is now on the New Hampshire House, the third largest deliberative body on the planet, and arguably one of the more democratic representative systems anywhere as well. These representatives may listen to an outsider's viewpoint on what to do about the Constitution, but they will be influenced most by the neighbors whom they represent.

The question is, is New Hampshire angry enough and organized enough to convince the legislature to call for impeachment? For those outside of New Hampshire the question is, how can we raise the temperature everywhere else, making it all the more plausible that the Granite State will reach the boiling point.
click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

McCain’s Cronies: Rick Davis, Uber-Lobbyist, At The Helm
By: Christy Hardin Smith Thursday February 21, 2008 11:53 am

Here's my first question for all the media types who have been covering McCain: why is it that any negative story about his myriad lobbyist connections gets relegated to the back pages -- the A17 story death knell? Anyone know -- because I'd love to hear the scoop.
John McCain's current campaign chair is none other than uber-lobbyist Rick Davis. A bit of background on Mr. Davis provides some context for how the Straight Talk Express is, and always has been, a sham. To wit:
-- Rick Davis arranged a cocktail meet and greet with McCain and a Russian businessman, Oleg Deripaska, so controversial that the US has revoked his visa -- at an economic conference in Switzerland. Davis' lobbying firm was trying to secure business with the Russian at the time, while the firm was already representing a competing political interest in Ukraine.
Seven months later, in August 2006, Davis was present again at a social gathering that was also attended by McCain and Deripaska, this time in Montenegro, another Eastern European country in which Davis's firm was working. The three were among a few dozen people dining at a restaurant during an official Senate trip....
Afterward, a group from the dinner took boats out to a nearby yacht moored in the Adriatic Sea, where champagne and pastries were served, partly in honor of McCain's 70th birthday.
Salter said neither McCain nor Davis recalls Deripaska being on the yacht after dinner. (emphasis mine)
Cozy.
-- Mr. Davis, while working with the McCain 2008 campaign, also managed to procure a fat internet services contract from the campaign and kept lobbying for clients whose interests were opposed to McCain's own policy pronouncements.
...3eDC, a company he partly owns, had been retained by the campaign to provide Web services. Aides questioned whether Mr. Davis’s role in the company had been fully disclosed and said Mr. Weaver, having learned of the arrangement, had tried to end it.
All told, 3eDC billed the campaign more than $1 million for Web services during the first half of the year. (The amount still owed the company accounts for about a third of the campaign’s debt.) News reports also noted that Davis Manafort, the business development and consulting practice from which Mr. Davis is on leave, had been giving campaign advice to the Ukrainian prime minister, Viktor F. Yanukovich, a favorite of the Kremlin, whose power Mr. McCain often warns against.
Mr. Davis said in the interview that the 3eDC contract had been thoroughly vetted, with his role fully disclosed, and called any accusation that he had been trying to enrich himself “typical smear stuff.” He said he did not fight back against the accusation when it surfaced over the summer because he did not want the back-and-forth to distract from the campaign.
Gee, poor guy. It's all just a misunderstanding I'm sure.
--Or not. It seems that Davis has quite a few money-scandal skeletons in his closet:
Davis is a particularly easy target, having several money-related scandals in his background. A veteran of the Reagan administration, Davis ran McCain's presidential bid six years ago. He also founded a lobbying firm -- Davis, Manafort Inc. -- which has made at least $2.8 million lobbying Congress since 1998.
Over the past eight years, Davis' two roles often overlapped. In 1999, while he was McCain's campaign manager, his firm represented SBC Communications Inc. and Comsat Corp. At that time, both communications companies had controversial mergers pending at the Federal Communications Commission. The Senate Commerce Committee has legislative authority over the FCC, and McCain was chairman of that committee. Both mergers were eventually approved.... (emphasis mine)
But wait, there's more...much, much more to come.
click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

Democratic Radio Address tomorrow

The following release was issued today by the Office of the Speaker of the House:

Congressman John Conyers (MI-14), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, will deliver the Democratic Radio Address tomorrow. In his address, Chairman Conyers will discuss Democrats efforts to work in bipartisan manner to pass legislation that will ensure our nations security while protecting civil liberties.

WHO: Chairman John Conyers (MI-14)

WHAT: Weekly Democratic Radio Address

WHEN: Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 11:06 a.m. (EST)

WHERE: Major radio networks, including AP, ABC, NPR, CBS Radio, CNN Radio, Fox News Radio, C-SPAN, Armed Forces Radio Network, American Urban Radio Network, Voice of America Radio Network, BBC Radio, CBC Radio, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Below are unembargoed excerpts for immediate release:

You may have heard dire warnings about our national security from the President -- but let me assure you that FISA remains in effect today and allows for rapid court-approved wiretapping to collect foreign intelligence information, while protecting Americans civil liberties.

...

In fact, just to be absolutely clear, the expiration of the temporary August legislation does not endanger our national security. In addition, well-established emergency provisions of the current surveillance laws are more than adequate to address any emergent threats.

...

We expect the House and the Senate will produce permanent legislation in the next few weeks. But as we continue to move forward, there should be no question in anyones mind that the United State intelligence agencies have the legal ability to take all actions necessary to protect the security of the American people. For anyone to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and totally inaccurate.

dnc
John Conyers to deliver radio address

Congratulations on being noted a dangerous character. Nice photo. Interesting Gold Trim on flag. But, otherwise, great photo.

I suppose it would be repetitious, were I to mention that America doesn't need to pass the Surveillance Bill, that in the event the Bill fails the status quo ante reasserts - but, of course - Horrors! - The FISA Court would be asking all those inconvenient questions. About everything. Like they are supposed to. Because no one else is supposed to. We are all tuned in to that, Right?

So let the Republicans Filibuster.

And let them win, too.

Then there will be no bill. You can't make something happen with the filibuster, only stop something from happening. And if this bill is stopped: Status Quo Ante. You don't have to give them anything.

=================================================================

Second point : noted story about DoJ looking into who wrote memo authorizing torture. That would, of course be : Jay Bybee. DoJ is still looking into it, tho. Could be at it some time. Not likely to comment on an ongoing investigation....

This doesn't exactly contradict Mukasy in his recent testimony, He said he would not pursue CIA - thus, effectively, protecting CIA from the People, thier Representatives, and the Law for the President using nothing more than the power of the office he may be tossed out of - this investigation is internal. I wonder if Mukasys' testimony should have included mention. That is to say, is the absence of mention of this matter when the AG was sitting there, last week, significant?

==================================================================

Three : found this of interest : Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Rick Renzi, a Republican from Arizona who isn't seeking re-election, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in an alleged scheme to profit from a land deal.

Now theres' a fella bin to journalism school.

Punchlines :

The 35-count indictment, issued in Arizona, includes charges of conspiracy, money laundering, insurance fraud and wire fraud. The arraignment will be on March 6 in U.S. District Court in Tucson, the Justice Department said.

The Renzi investigation was highlighted during a congressional inquiry last year into the Bush administration's firings of nine U.S. attorneys. One of the dismissed prosecutors, Paul Charlton, had been in charge of the probe.

Democrats said the firings may have been carried out to slow public corruption cases against Republicans. Though that was never proved, the scandal drove Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from office in September.

Interesting.
Frosted Flake.

The House Judiciary Committee disclosed Friday that it was considering subpoenaing former Attorney General John Ashcroft to testify about a contract worth at least $28 million that was steered to his consulting firm by the Justice Department.

The committee scheduled a vote next week on a motion authorizing the panel’s chairman, Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, to subpoena Mr. Ashcroft.

Mr. Ashcroft had been invited to appear at a hearing the committee had scheduled for next Tuesday, but that hearing was called off without explanation.

Democratic lawmakers are investigating the circumstances of the no-bid, 18-month monitoring contract, worth $28 million to $52 million, that was awarded to Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm to oversee a settlement between the Justice Department and Zimmer Holdings, a large medical supply company in Indiana. The settlement resolved criminal charges that had been brought by the United States attorney in New Jersey, Christopher J. Christie.

House committee may subpoena Ashcroft

Panel Considers Subpoenaing Ashcroft in Deal