.

WE'VE MOVED!!

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:51:00 +0000

C'EST MOI IS CELEBRATING AN EXCITING MOVE!!

BLOGGER HAS BEEN VERY GOOD TO ME BUT IT WAS TIME (PAST TIME) FOR ME TO MOVE INTO MY OWN HOUSE. C'EST MOI NOW LIVES AT: WWW.CESTMOICITIZENMEDIA.COM

IT WOULD PLEASE ME GREATLY IF YOU STOPPED BY. I DECORATED THE HOUSE, SPRUCED UP, PUT OUT THE BEST LINEN...

COME ON BY NOW AND IF YOU LINK TO C'EST MOI - FIRST, THANK YOU AND SECOND, PLEASE DO CHANGE YOUR LINK TO THE NEW ADDRESS:

WWW.CESTMOICITIZENMEDIA.COM

Technorati Tags:
cest moi, politics, blog, url change, blog move, new url

grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Wed, 30 May 2007 21:36:00 +0000

Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" was apparently dictated around 1904-05; it was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts.

Markos Productions has put together this haunting and intriguing animation based on the Twain work.

You will need approximately 14 minutes to see both parts of the video and I encourage you to do that; it's fascinating, mesmerizing to some extent and will absolutely inspire thought on the philosophy of a "just" war.

Technorati Tags:
Mark Twain, war, the war prayer, Markos Productions

.

Latest Article From Special Guest Writer and Activist, Charles Anderson

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Tue, 29 May 2007 19:27:00 +0000

For those of you who do not know or know of Charlie Anderson, allow me to introduce you to him.

Charlie was transferred to his division’s 2nd Tank Battalion in June 2002. The 2nd Tank Battalion was deployed to Kuwait in February 2003 and was one of the first units to “cross the line” into Iraq at the start of the war. Charlie experienced the archaic supply system that resulted in many American troops lacking basic supplies such as body armor, rations, water, and even ammunition. Charlie was shocked that such conditions were possible in a military that receives more than half of the nation’s tax revenue. Moreover, Charlie was appalled by the destruction and sanction induced poverty that he witnessed among the Iraqi people. Charlie’s experiences in Iraq helped him realize that war is not merely politics by other means and that the actions of governments in foreign lands have far reaching consequences. The vast majority of Iraqis affected by the war were not Ba’ath Party officials or soldiers. Rather they were civilians who were powerless to affect the conditions around them. These innocent civilians were often treated as though they were the enemy by the American military who did not largely understand the culture. This reality formed Charlie’s belief that violence and arrogance are poor foreign policy and that military solutions often compound, not solve problems.

Like 30% of Iraq War veterans he returned to the United States with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. After months of treatment with little improvement, he was medically retired in March 2005 after nearly nine years of active military service. Within days of his retirement, Charlie began advocating for an immediate end to the wholesale slaughter in Iraq. He has appeared on college campuses and at public forums all over the United States including: Virginia, Washington D.C., North Carolina, Maryland, Montana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Ohio, Indiana and Washington State. He was interviewed by CNN in March of this year (see the video of that interview here). He has twice testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Out of Iraq Caucus regarding responsible foreign policy toward Iraq and the need for comprehensive care for America’s Veterans. (See the video here and here)

He is featured in the documentaries Army of None, Soldiers speak out, and the major motion picture The Ground Truth. His writing has been featured on the independent media websites Common Dreams, Truth Out, and The Huffington Post.

Charlie has been an outspoken member of Iraq Veterans Against the War since October 2004. He is co-founder of the Bake Sales for Body Armor, a campaign to purchase needed equipment for our troops. He shares that effort with associate and dear friend, Tammara Rosenleaf (The Homefront War Diaries); an extraordinary woman and activist.

Charlie shares his latest article with us...

The Army That Cried Wolf
====================================================
By Charles E. Anderson

On May 20, 2007 NBC Nightly News aired a report on the ongoing controversy over the body armor American troops are currently issued. The report was the result of months of investigation and alleged that perhaps, America’s armed forces are not issued the best equipment available.

In response, the Army made a bold move: it released documents showing the results of ballistics tests. Next, the army held a series of briefings and press conferences.

“The Bottom line is, we feel that it’s important to clarify, give some context and certainly present facts about the body armor issue, primarily because of the two NBC news pieces,” Brigadier General Tony Cucolo recently told a Blogger’s Round Table conference Call (transcript here). “We are most concerned that it might have shaken the confidence in the current body armor being worn by soldiers in combat, shaken the confidence of spouses and parents of those soldiers,” he said.

It seems logical that the army should make public statements to clarify the record and release crucial facts so that military families and service members can be confident that the gear issued to our military is the best available.

Yet while this is the first time the Army has attempted a full disclosure policy, it is not the first time that concerns over body armor have been voiced. On January 16, 2006, Major General Stephen Speakes, then the Army’s Director of Force Development, pronounced on CNN that when he was in Iraq in the spring of 2003 it was his job “ensure that every soldier who went north had the right body armor to go up into Iraq.” The general made this statement after being told by a member of the National Guard that his unit had not had appropriate body armor.

In March 2006, the Army issued a “Safety of Use Directive” banning privately purchased body armor.

“Because there were reports that soldiers and their families were starting to collect money to buy other armor solutions other than Interceptor body armor,” said Brigadier General Mark Brown.

Far from clarifying the facts surrounding the Safety of Use Directive, the Public Affairs office began making ridiculing statements about the organizers of the Bake Sales for Body Armor campaign. According to one report Pentagon officials accused the organizers, an Army-Wife and an Iraq War veteran, of waging a “mis and dis-information campaign” perceivably against the U.S. Army. Another official callously quipped “I’m sure that the U.S. Postal Service will enjoy the profit that they make.”

Now, thanks to NBC News, the body armor issue is once again in the spotlight. Perhaps, General Brown and General Cucolo are being candidly honest with Military Families, Soldiers, and the American People. But their new candor is a hard sell. In light of the Army’s past deceptions, why should anyone believe them now?

Technorati Tags:
Army, Bake Sales for Body Armor, body armor, Charlie Anderson, DoD, Dragon Skin, Iraq, IVAW, Military, Pentagon, Safety of Use Directive, Troops, War

.

GSA Administrator, Lorita Doan Found To Have Violated The Hatch Act

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Thu, 24 May 2007 07:01:00 +0000

The Office of Special Counsel has announced its findings on the first leg of their investigation surrounding the US Attorney firings and the GSA involvement in asserting inappropriate and illegal political influence.

That aspect of the investigation was focused on a January 26, 2007 meeting at the GSA where GSA Administrator, Lorita Doan, along with some 30 of her employees met with Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings who made PowerPoint presentations on the elections titled "2008 House Targets: Top 20". At that meeting, Doan was found to have asked GSA political appointees how they could "help our candidates" win the next election.

The Hatch Act restricts executive branch employees from using their position for political purposes.

"Her actions, to be certain, constitute an obvious misuse of her official authority and were made for the purpose of affecting the result of an election," investigators said in a copy of the 19-page OSC report. "One can imagine no greater violation of the Hatch Act than to invoke the machinery of an agency, with all its contracts and buildings, in the service of a partisan campaign to retake Congress and the Governors' mansions."

In sworn testimony to the OSC investigators, Doan's defense consisted of the following:

1. She was not paying any attention to the presentation or comments because she dislikes PowerPoint presentations, she was uninterested in the topic, and she does not care about polls.

2. She was not paying any attention to the presentation or comments because she was busy during the entire meeting reviewing and sending e-mail on her Blackberry.

3. Doan also said that GSA political appointees who gave testimony to investigators were biased. "There is not a single one of those who did not have somewhere in between a poor to totally inferior performance," Doan said in her statement.

OSC investigators pulled the personal and GSA e-mail records for Ms. Doan and found her statements about being busy e-mailing on her Blackberry to be completely uncorroborated as there was no email activity seen during the time of the meeting; the nearest e-mail activity being anywhere from 5 - 23 hours before and/or after the meeting.

OSC investigators examined all the performance records for the appointees who gave testimony and were the subject of Ms. Doan's assertions on their performance. Those assertions were found to be "unsupported and contradicted by the documentary evidence," as all of those performance reviews showed a "meeting expectations" level or higher. One or more of those appointees had the highest review rating and one or more of them had received performance awards.

This is astounding. If you re-visit in your mind exactly what the Hatch Act is and protects you realize that Ms. Doan, in making these assertions, violates the Hatch Act---while testifying to the OSC for her alleged violations of the Hatch Act.

During her testimony with the OSC, Ms. Doan was asked specifically about comments she allegedly made in the meeting. This might offer an insight into the tenor of her testimony:

Question: Is your testimony that you never said, how do we help our candiates, or something to that effect? Or is it that you don't remember saying anything like that?

Ms. Doan: I don't understand the difference. I just do not understand the difference that you're trying to make because if you don't remember the comment, how can you ascertain that you made or didn't make the comment? How does this work? I don't understand this.

The OSC report goes on to say, "The veracity of Administrator Doan's testimony that she, an English major, did not understand the difference is suspect in light of her March 28, 2007 testimony before the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform where she had no problem understanding the distinction. Specifically, she was questioned and testified as follows:

Tom Davis: Now, we're told by some witnesses--there are some witnesses that say you said something, some that say you didn't, and it was a long time ago. did anybody at any point say these were inappropriate subjects, where somebody said, "We should move away from this?" Do you remember any of that?

Ms. Doan: I really do not remember anything about this meeting.

Tom Davis: OK. But you don't deny what people are saying. You're just saying...

Ms. Doan: No, no. I'm not denying what they're saying. I'm simply saying there were cookies on the table. I remember coming in late. I remember we had--it seemed like we had quite a few people who were actually missing.

I am honestly not prone to petty arguments but I am continually amazed at the level to which one can rise in our government with no discernable intellect. This is a woman who is the highest ranking official of a powerful federal agency who blatantly used her office, position and subordinates to further a political agenda, in violation of federal law; an act that may very well end her career, and of the meeting where this took place, her only notable recollection is that there were cookies on the table. I suppose we can hope there will come a day when government officials who practice abject stupidity do so in violation of federal law.

In their analysis and findings section of the report, the OSC makes the following statements:

"After conducting a thorough investigation into the complaint, the Special Counsel has concluded that Administrator Doan's actions were in violation of the Hatch Act."

"The GSA Administrator displayed no reservations in her willingness to commit GSA resources, including its human capital, to the Republican Party."

"Because Administrator Doan is a Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate, the President, not the Merit Systems Protection Board, must make any decision regarding imposition of disciplinary action."

"Because Ms. Doan, as the head of GSA, engaged in conduct before her subordinate employees that violated a federal law that is intended to protect the federal workplace from political influence and ensure that government resources are being administered in a nonpartisan fashion, her disregard for such protections and safeguards is serious and warrants punishment."

"Moreover, during his campaign, the President promised to demand the highest standard of ethics from all members of his team and nothing less should be expected from the GSA Administrator."
(emphasis most definitely added)

Technorati Tags:
Office of Special Counsel, Lorita Doan, GSA, Scott Jennings, Karl Rove, investigation, Hatch Act, Bush, White House, testimony, corruption, politics, political appointees

.

"Did you break the law?" Monica Goodling: “I believe I crossed the line, but I didn’t mean to.”

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Wed, 23 May 2007 18:03:00 +0000

Oh, she didn't mean to; thank you everyone, we can all go home now.

In all fairness, it will take much more than this on the part of everyone involved.

I was not able to blog the morning session of the Monica Goodling testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Please see the impressive live blogging done at Firedoglake.

Please return to see our summary of today's testimony when the hearing wraps up.

Technorati Tags:
DOJ, Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney firings, White House, Bush, Karl Rove, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, House Judiciary Committee, Conyers, hearing, testimony, RNC, Scott Jennings, politics, corruption

.

UPDATE: DOJ Responds To Subpoena Late This Afternoon

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Thu, 17 May 2007 01:00:00 +0000

Richard A. Hertling, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General responds via letter to the May 2nd subpoena issued by the Judiciary Committee.

The letter yielded very little. The claim in the letter is that a multi-field e-mail search of Rove, Karl, kr, gwb43.com, georgewbush.com and mchq.org produced one email over the course of 2 1/2 years. The email that came up in that search was on February 28, 2007 forwarding a copy of McClatchy's story on U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. That was sent from (and to) Rove Aide Scott Jennings; to Scott Jennings, Karl Rove, Fred Fielding, Kevin Sullivan, Dana Perino, Kyle Sampson, Jeanie Marno, Christopher Oprison, Courtney Elwood and cc'd to Sara Taylor.

Karl Rove sent the majority of his e-mail over the RNC server. The current claim is that those e-mails were deleted. The RNC has said it will turn over all relevant e-mails to the White House at which point they will determine which of those fall under executive privilege.

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Sen Leahy, Sen Specter, Judiciary Committee, subpoena, Rove e-mails, US Attorney firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, US Attorney General, hearings, testimony, RNC, Scott Jennings, politics, headlines

.

BREAKING: Gonzalez / DOJ Ignores Subpoena - Leahy Draws Line In The Sand

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:17:00 +0000

On May 2, 2007 Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales detailing Gonzales' lack of response to the demand for e-mails from Karl Rove regarding the US Attorney firings. During the Gonzales testimony and in a subsequent letter dated April 25, 2007 requests were made to have the "lost" e-mails turned over the Committee. Having received no response from Gonzales on this, a subpeona was issued and delivered to Gonzales demanding the Rove e-mails be handed over to Congress no later than May 15, 2007.

I contacted the Majority Office this morning and was told they could not make a statement then but should have additional information later in the day. In speaking to a representative in that office about a half hour ago, they did confirm that Gonzales has not complied with the subpeona. Senator Leahy has just added a statement on his website.

Gonzales / DOJ has ignored the subpoena and did not comply by the deadline of 5-15-07 midnight. Senator Leahy and Senator Specter have issued a bipartisan demand for the requested documents that include the un-redacted Karl Rove e-mails. The demand requires the Justice Department to turn over these documents no later than 10 a.m. Friday, May 18.

“You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance,” the senators wrote. “Your action today is in defiance of the Committee’s subpoena without explanation of any legal basis for doing so.”

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Sen Leahy, Sen Specter, Judiciary Committee, subpoena, Rove e-mails, US Attorney firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, US Attorney General, hearings, testimony

.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell Passes Away Today

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:17:00 +0000

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority, passed away 12:40 pm today, shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University. He was 73.

The Rev. Falwell was an enormous figure who drew the religious right together as a cohesive unit, ushering that group's momentum into the political arena.

Philosophically, I have considered Mr. Falwell was a formidable adversary but with death go personal battles and is a time to have and feel only respect for the life and respect for the passing.

May his family and friends love and lift each other to find peace and comfort.

Death is the road.

Life is the traveller.

The Soul is the Guide.
~ Sri Chinmoy ~

Technorati Tags:
Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority, Liberty University

.

There Are None More Qualified To Speak--None Who Have Sacrificed More. We Should Listen

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Sun, 13 May 2007 18:47:00 +0000

There are many BushSpeak mantras; few as frequently and robotically chanted as "We need to listen to our Generals on the ground". It makes perfect sense that this would be among his favorites. Our Generals possess the greatest authority with which to speak, and they are forced to say only what the President tells them to say. What a sweet and twisted little deal for this president; to make propaganda machines of some of the most honorable men in our nation.

General John Batiste served loyally for 30 years and was nearing his third star and the number 2 position in Baghdad when he made the painstakingly difficult decision to quit; unwilling to spend another day compromising his principles.

General Batiste is among many of those "we should listen to" who have escaped the confines of this administration and dedicate themselves to the truth.

The videos below demonstrate the effort underway by several retired senior military officers who detail a litany of lies, ill conceived war rationales, mismanagement, a marketing plan to go to war that was more important than validity, and a complete unwillingness to "listen" to those genuinely qualified.

Let's practice what the President only preaches.

In a targeted ad, financed by VoteVets.org, Retired General John Batiste openly challenges President Bush on his management of the war.

General John Batiste (Ret.) frankly discusses the realities of the Iraq war and the sacrifices he made to side with the truth.

In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years.

The VoteVets.org ad done by General Wesley Clark (Ret.) with Iraq veterans - "Because Of Iraq"

General William Odom (Ret.) reviews some of the very real global consequences of this war.

General Tony Zinni discusses the WMD lies and a created war rationale with no strategic understanding of what they were getting us into.

Major General Paul Eaton was finally appointed to organize security in Iraq on May 9, 2003, almost 2 months AFTER the invasion began.

General David Petraeus, who by all accounts appears to be an exceptional and gifted military officer and strategist, is currently the President's "point to guy". What seems more likely? That when General Petraeus retires, he uses his regained freedom of speech in continued championship of this war -- or that we begin to hear the many truths he holds and has witnessed throughout this preposterous occupation of Iraq?

Technorati Tags:
Bush, President Bush, military, war, Iraq, General John Batiste, General Wesley Clark, General William Odom, General Tony Zinni, Major General Paul Eaton, war planning, war strategy

.

The C'est Moi Interview With The Office of Special Counsel

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Thu, 03 May 2007 23:43:00 +0000

3 May, 2007

The following interview was conducted via phone and e-mail correspondence by Megan Donovan with Mr. Loren Smith, Director of Congressional and Public Affairs for the Office of Special Counsel.
The Office of Special Counsel has recently launched an investigation surrounding the U.S. Attorney firings and specific GSA activity with regard to possible executive violations of both USERRA and the Hatch Act.

M. DONOVAN: A lot of people are probably not familiar with the Office of the Special Counsel. Can you briefly explain what the role of the OSC is?

L. SMITH: The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is an independent watchdog agency established in the late 70’s as part of the post-Watergate reforms. We have four main areas of statutory responsibility involving federal employees and applicants.
1) safeguarding and facilitating whistleblower disclosures,
2) investigating and prosecuting certain employment complaints known as Prohibited Personnel Practices, with a special focus on whistleblower reprisal,
3) enforcing the civilian job rights of military service members under a law known as USERRA, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, and
4) enforcing the Hatch Act, the law that restricts certain political activity by government employees.

M. DONOVAN: Can you explain exactly what the Hatch Act is? Who is it primarily meant to protect?

L. SMITH: The Hatch Act is a law enacted in 1939 to prevent the machinery of government from being used for partisan political purposes. It is designed to protect taxpayers, including federal workers, from having their government resources used to advocate in partisan elections.

M. DONOVAN: The L.A. Times has claimed that the current investigation stems from two separate investigations your office launched within the last few weeks. The first one concerns former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. The second concerns a series of Power Point presentations given by aide to Karl Rove, J. Scott Jennings, and made at the General Services Administration this year. Is this correct?

L. SMITH: Essentially, yes. Regarding the second investigation, it would be more precise to say that we’re investigating that event at GSA, including the comments made by GSA Administrator Lurita Doan. I must also add that we have other matters, not yet public, that dovetail with these two investigations and contributed to the determination to initiate the broader investigations.

M. DONOVAN: Can you elaborate on how the original complaints were initiated?

L. SMITH: Mr. Iglesias filed with our agency on April 3rd, alleging violations of both USERRA and the Hatch Act. In the GSA matter, we also received a complaint.

M. DONOVAN: What led you to expand the investigation into one with a broader scope? Is Karl Rove a focal point for your investigation?

L. SMITH: It became apparent that OSC would be shirking its responsibilities under the Hatch Act if we failed to examine the possibility that unlawful political activity was occurring elsewhere within the executive branch. As to the focal points, everyone within the executive branch is covered by the Hatch Act save the President and the Vice President, but mainly we are focused on Mr. Iglesias’ complaint and the events surrounding the briefings by the White House Office of Political Affairs. It would be premature for us to say we are targeting individuals at this point.

M. DONOVAN: The OSC is defined as an "independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency." Does the agency have complete autonomy? Can you make clear for us how the OSC handles the disposition of cases? - Be they civil remedies or criminal findings.

L. SMITH: OSC is autonomous, although we depend on Congress and the President for our annual appropriations. Under the Hatch Act, we have the authority to investigate any allegation of wrongdoing as defined by the statute. Then, if we believe we can substantiate a violation, we file for disciplinary action with the Merit Systems Protection Board. The presumptive penalty under the Hatch Act is removal, although that could be lessened to a suspension.

An exception is the category of individuals who have received Senate confirmation, known as PAS – Presidentially-Appointed, Senate-confirmed. This would include cabinet heads as well as many agency heads, including that of GSA. In these cases, OSC would still investigate, but rather than filing with MSPB, we would send a letter with our Report of Investigation to the President informing him of our findings and recommendations.

In either category (PAS or non-PAS), if we find coercion of federal employees with regard to political activity (see title 18, section 610 of the US Code), we could also refer the case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

M. DONOVAN: What are your first steps in this investigation; we understand you have subpoena power, can you anticipate when that phase of the investigation might begin, and can you tell us today who will, at least initially, be subpoenaed?

L. SMITH: We do have subpoena power, although we hope to avoid issuing subpoenas by receiving positive and timely responses to our initial information requests. Regarding the timeline, I cannot comment – both due to the sensitive nature and the unpredictable nature of such investigations.

M. DONOVAN: How is testimony to the OSC handled? Is this deposition style sworn testimony?

L. SMITH: Generally, statements are taken under oath.

M. DONOVAN: The OSC has already come under some scrutiny regarding The Office of Personnel Management's investigation into the OSC. What would you say to your critics on the merits of that probe and on your ability to thoroughly and objectively investigate this matter unimpeded by it?

L. SMITH: OSC is the agency charged with enforcing the Hatch Act – as I mentioned before, we would be derelict if we failed to perform these investigations. The OPM Inspector General investigation is an unrelated matter; however, it is worth noting that the task force we have created to investigate this matter is led by a career employee, and is composed entirely of career employees.

M. DONOVAN: Can you tell us: If congressional testimony continues, would any witnesses appearing there be free to testify on matters that are a part of an ongoing investigation by your agency?

L. SMITH: Yes. Please note that our investigation is independent and not coordinated with any other investigation of these matters.

Mr. Smith allowed us to submit these brief follow-up questions:

To his previous response:

L. SMITH: Mr. Iglesias filed with our agency on April 3rd, alleging violations of both USERRA and the Hatch Act. In the GSA matter, we also received a complaint.

M. DONOVAN: (AS A FOLLOW UP): Are you able to tell us who filed the complaint regarding the GSA matter?

L. SMITH: No - OSC almost never comments on the identities of those who file with our agency. Mr. Iglesias is an exception because he released OSC from our obligations under the Privacy Act.

To his previous response:

M. DONOVAN: (AS A FOLLOW UP): Are you able to tell us if any such requests for information have been made to date?

L. SMITH: In general, we won’t be issuing comment on specific details of the investigation, including the status of information requests.

We extend our appreciation to Mr. Loren Smith for his candor and for being so generous with his time.

Technorati Tags:
OSC, office of special counsel, U.S. Attorney firings, investigation, David Iglesias, Loren Smith, Scott Bloch, Karl Rove, Lurita Doan, GSA, Gonzales, USERRA, Hatch Act, White House, executive branch, OPM

.

C'est Moi Citizen Media Is Granted Interview With The Office of Special Counsel

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Thu, 03 May 2007 02:33:00 +0000

The Office of Special Counsel, the independent investigative agency that has launched an investigation in recent weeks surrounding the U.S. Attorney firings and possible executive violations of both USERRA and the Hatch Act, has graciously agreed to an interview with C'est Moi Citizen Media.
The interview is being conducted via phone and email.

Mr. Loren Smith, OSC Director of Congressional and Public Affairs candidly answers our questions regarding this critical investigation.

We will be publishing the interview tomorrow evening,
Thursday, May 3, at approximately 8:00pm.

Former U.S. Attorney Iglesias Spurs Investigation - Presidential Appointee Promises To Leave "No Stone Unturned"

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:32:00 +0000

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has launched an investigation surrounding the firing of at least one U.S. Attorney, Karl Rove's missing e-mails as well as Rove's possible involvement in putting pressure on the Justice Department to fire U.S. Attorneys who did not adhere to a politically motivated form of justice.

This investigation was, at least in some part, spurred on by a complaint filed with the OSC by former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Iglesias filed a complaint with the OSC on April 3 alleging the reason for his firing, constituting a violation of the Hatch Act, was due to his unwillingness to succumb to improper political influence. Also, that he was criminally discriminated against in the Gonzales testimony regarding the reason for his firing. AG Gonzales made a statement under oath that Mr. Iglesias was fired because he was an "absentee landlord"; implying his position in the military reserve made him derelict in his duties as U.S. Attorney. This discrimination against military personnel is a crime under The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. They are not able to actually bring criminal charges, but have subpoena power, provide civil remedies, and make criminal recommendations.

On June 26, 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Scott J. Bloch for the position of Special Counsel at the Office of Special Counsel. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Mr. Bloch on December 9, 2003. Mr. Bloch said of this OSC investigation he is spearheading, "We will not leave any stone unturned."

In David Iglesias' remarks during his call in interview on MSNBC's Hardball, he indicates the reason for going to the OSC with this is simply that this case is directly in line with the stated goals of the OSC. Mr. Iglesias appears to feel confident that Karl Rove was the source of pressure on the DOJ to have that office and its U.S. Attorney's approach cases, not on their merits, but based on sought political outcomes.

Subpoenas will likely be forthcoming in this wide-reaching investigation. With Karl Rove as a focal point, he could be at the top of that list. Another critical element of this investigation would be Monica Goodling. Goodling was senior counsel to Gonzales and the DOJ / White House liaison. In that capacity, she would be best suited to shed light on how deeply Rove and others in President Bush's team were involved in the firings. Goodling asserted her Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying before Congress and had also rejected demands for a private interview with a House committee. She submitted a three-sentence resignation letter to Gonzalez on April 6th.

This is an unavoidable and expanding problem for the Bush administration especially in the growing consensus that the White House is the source of these ballooning scandals and suspicions.

The OSC is completely independent. If they sink their teeth into this, and suspicions of a ruse prove false, look for a relentless gloves-off battle.

Blog Discussion On This:
Think Progress - Iglesias Reveals He Filed Complaint Against Rove, Leading To Special Counsel Probe
Poli-Blog - The USA Issue Heats Up, as New Investigation Begins
Crooks and Liars - Rove Investigation Launched
TIME: Swampland - Connecting the Dots

Technorati Tags:
David Iglesias, discrimination, DOJ, Fifth Amendment, firings, Gonzales, Hardball, Hatch Act, hearings, investigations, Karl Rove, LA Times, missing e mails, Monica Goodling, Msnbc, office of special counsel, OSC, President Bush, RNC, Scott J. Bloch, subpoenas, testimony, White House

.

Gift For The President’s Veto Pen Should Hit His Desk This Week

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:48:00 +0000

A final and compromised version of the spending bill has passed in committee yesterday. It is expected to pass both houses and by the end of this week, it should be on the desk of President Bu…I will veto anything that denigrates my self-appointed position of all-knowing deity.

There were compromises made that included a bit of pork trimming. We can’t be sure if critical votes were lost in that trimming, but good money is on this being a passable bill.

We have information on the particulars of the new spending bill but reports seem to contradict each other on one issue. It is unclear as to whether the withdrawal dates are binding or non-binding. It is possible the bill reads with the beginning withdrawal dates as binding and the final withdrawal date as non-binding. That could certainly be seen as ineffectual. If the bill does not specify troop numbers to withdraw at the initial date, and there is no binding final date, then I suppose one troop could be sent home with no real withdrawal for an indefinite period of time.

Here are three mainstream media accounts of the date issue.

According to the Washington Post:
But once the president made it clear a veto was inevitable, Democratic leaders decided to stick to binding dates, at least for the initial troop pullouts.

According to Reuters:
…this new version merely establishes next March as a nonbinding date for withdrawing, the approach favored by the Senate.

According to the New York Times:
Congressional Democrats agreed Monday to ignore President Bush’s veto threat and send him a $124 billion war spending bill that orders the administration to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1.

The bill specifies certain dates that are floating deadlines based on progress. The bill stipulates that pullout must begin no later than October 1 with final withdrawal by March, 2008 (and by some accounts, April, 2008). However, withdrawal would have to begin as early as July 1 of this year if Bush cannot certify certain benchmarks are being met.

Some of these benchmarks include:

Leaders must ensure troops are adequately trained, equipped and rested before going into combat. Bush is given an avenue by which he can waive this but only if he offers a compelling and public reason for the waiver.

Iraq establishment of programs to disarm militias.

Reductions in sectarian violence.

Easing of laws that keep former Baath Party members out of the government.

Passage of an oil revenue-sharing law.

Simply, if Bush can show progress here, we defer to the October 1 withdrawal to be finalized by March 1. If progress is not made, troops would begin heading home July 1 to be completely withdrawn by the end of the year.

Date specific is not what one would call this bill. If President Bush honestly feels progress is being made, he should see this bill as an easy path to validation. But this isn’t Camelot and we are not dealing with Arthur here. It appears Bush will not be moved on this issue no matter the will of the American people; no matter the legislative bi-partisan positions to the contrary; no matter the disastrous condition of his occupation in Iraq; and no matter the rising level resistance from Iraqi citizens and now it’s government.

We all feel pretty confident about how this week will play out. The real questions present themselves when the bill heads back to the Hill in ribbons.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Congress, house bill, Iraq, Military, occupation, senate bill, spending bill, Troops, Veto, War, withdrawal

.

Vermont Senate: The People Have Spoken And The Word Is Given--IMPEACH

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:00:00 +0000

Yesterday, April 20, 2007, Vermont became the first state to approve a resolution calling on the U.S. House to launch proceedings to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney.

This is a promising example of power to the people. In a time when we might feel overwhelmed and powerless, this precedent setting event should spur our faith in the power of each individual American voice.

Brattlerouser with vtimpeach.com, a resource for the Vermont Impeachment Movement says, "When we were told by the Democratic leadership in the Vermont legislature that there was no chance of impeachment action being taken by them, we refused to acquiesce and instead flooded the Statehouse demanding that they listen to their constituents and honor the Constitution."

Published: Friday, April 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Representative Peter Welch issued the following statement in regard to the Vermont Senate's impeachment resolution:

"As Vermont's representatives to Congress we fully understand and share the frustration and anger of Vermont legislators and many Vermonters with the Bush administration - one of the worst and most destructive in American history.

"Currently, for the first time since President Bush has been in office, there are a number of investigations taking place regarding the actions of the Bush administration, including how and why we invaded Iraq, no-bid contracts, the firing of U.S. attorneys by the attorney general, the assault on constitutional rights and the use of Republican Party emails in the White House. Before we talk about impeachment, it is imperative that these investigations be allowed to run their course and we should then follow wherever the facts lead.

"In the meantime, in our view, the people of Vermont want us to focus our attention on such issues as ending the war in Iraq, protecting the needs of our veterans, raising the minimum wage, addressing the crisis of global warming and providing health care to all of our citizens."

The underlying message in the delegation responses falls in line with the American demand for accountability but their "view" of what Vermont wants does not need to be re-worked or re-worded. Vermont's message here is made abundantly clear. Certainly, there are precursor investigations and although all of these are requisite actions, there is one ultimate recourse to use against a criminal administration. The number of American citizens willing to settle for nothing less is growing expedientially.

Those voices are being lifted up with the help of several amazing organizations. One of them is A28: Nationwide Impeachment Protests April 28, 2007. A28 hosts an interactive community of Americans demanding accountability. On April 28th they intend to have their voices heard. You can use their ImpeachMap to see actions already scheduled across the country. You can join an action in your area or start your own. These can be as small as making the IMPEACH statement by writing it on the sidewalk in chalk or as large as organizing 2,000 people on a beach to make a human mural. The theme of the day will be IMPEACH and the A28 community intends to spell it out across the nation on April 28th. There is still nearly a week to get involved. Visit A28 today and most importantly, reclaim and exercise your power.

Vermont now serves as a proof that it works. Impeachment resolutions are currently active in Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey, and Washington. We can grow that list. Those who desire accountability need only be reminded that it starts with one unwavering voice, strengthened by a chorus of voices, empowered by a community united in voice, then a legislature that can no longer ignore it.

Where to go for regular updates and information:
A28
VTimpeach
Democrats.com
ImpeachForPeace
Impeach07
AfterDowningStreet

C'est Moi Citizen Media is launching Americans For Accountability^TM as its mechanism for tracking the national impeachment movement. Look for articles and resource information in our Americans For Accountability regular weekly feature.

Technorati Tags:
impeachment, Bush, Cheney, Vermont, Senate, House, resolution, high crimes, war of aggression, impeachable offenses, politics, news, headlines

.

So, what you are saying is...

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:56:00 +0000

Summary points of AG Alberto Gonzales' testimony today.

So if I understand you correctly...

You know nothing improper happened but you don't recall any of the events pertaining to this issue.

Yes, they were fired due to poor performance and mismanagement and you made that determination without ever reviewing their performance reports.

You don't recall the list, how the names got on the list, who suggested they be on the list, the reasons they were on the list but after going back and reviewing the documents, you have created a scenario that you absolutely stand by as completely truthful and ethical.

Senator Feinstein reviews a memo that details the "talking points" to adopt when the political firestorm over this starts. That plan was to say only that the administration made the decision, to not ever name a particular person in the administration and to not ever name a particular person in the DOJ. So Mr. Gonzalez, you detailed a clear plan of obfuscation and then when you stick to that orchestrated plan, we are meant to believe it's the truth?

Today you cannot recall what you didn't know in your previous misstatements and what you have come to know by studying the documents but still cannot recall---right?

Our nation's chief law enforcement officer offered more than 5 hours of testimony where the only detail he could recall with any level of clarity was his name.

And the statement from the White House:

President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General's testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the Senators' questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. Attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses.

The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he appreciates the work he is doing at the Department of Justice to help keep our citizens safe from terrorists, our children safe from predators, our government safe from corruption, and our streets free from gang violence.

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, testimony, Congress, hearings, US Attorney, firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, loyal bushies, attorney general, Karl Rove, Iglesias, Lam

.

Shouldn’t Gonzales Be Judged By These Same DOJ Standards?

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:17:00 +0000

The Gonzales testimony continues.

At approximately 2:54, The glaring question is asked. Sen. Coburn asks Mr. Gonzales how he can justify the firing of these attorneys for supposed mismanagement, and then not feel his actions should be judged by the same standard. Mr. Gonzales attempts to justify his position by stating that he had made mistakes and steps are being taken to correct them. Sen. Cobun counters with "It is my opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you...and it is my belief that you should suffer the same consequences."

Some of the other testimony continuing after the lunch break:

2:36 - Sen. Grassley

"I feel on many occasions this administration has gone out of its way to try to thwart my oversight." "We shouldn't be getting conflicting statements from the Attorney General. "We expect nothing less from our top law enforcement official." "Why are there so many inconsistencies?"

(A) "First of all, I regret the inconsistencies. I made statements that were over-broad. The main reason for that was because I had not gone back and looked at the documents. I felt a tremendous need to come out quickly with statements."
(Q) "Who came up with the plan for this review?"
(A) "Sir, I did"

3:04 - Sen. Whitehouse

Sen. Whitehouse articulately discusses the importance of structure, tradition, process and policy. And notes that he cannot find "anywhere in this tragic record" any evidence of consideration and careful thought to process.

(A) "I think it's important as well, Senator"

3:13 - Sen. Kyl

Sen. Kyl's approach to this critical testimony is to ignore the reason for the hearing and to discuss how he might work with Mr. Gonzales on Internet gambling. A rather surprising divergence from the purpose of the hearing.

3:22 Sen. Leahy

Mr. Gonzales literally stammered through responses to these questions fired from Sen. Leahy:

(Q) "What do we have to do to obtain Rove's email regarding the plan to replace US Attorneys...?”
(Q) "What is the policy regarding the use of RNC servers for government communication?"
(Q) "Did the President ever tell you to fire a specific US Attorney?"
(A) "Not that I recall"
(Q) "Which is accurate testimony? He goes thru all the dates and statements Mr. Gonzales has made, "Which is the accurate statement?"
(A) "Those were misstatements and I take responsibility for them."

3:40 Sen. Feinstein

"I do not understand how this list was compiled." Feinstein goes over testimony and interviews with key personnel where they state they had no involvement in putting recommendations on the list. Some said they didn't even know there was a list.

The Senator reads from a memo that goes over what the talking points for the potential political firestorm will be. In that memo, it says "We will say it was the administration's decision and no specific person at the white House or specific person at DOJ. She directs to Gonzales "And to this day, we still do not know the person who actually put these names on the list". "Who?"

Gonzales responds only with, "I would like to know, I would like to ask that question". "I received the recommendations."

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, testimony, Congress, hearings, US Attorney, firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, loyal bushies, attorney general, Karl Rove, Iglesias, Lam

.

The Much Anticipated Gonzales Testimony Begins

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:48:00 +0000

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Firing of U.S. Attorneys

9:33am - Opening Statement - Sen. Patrick Leahy

With the cameras diligently focused on Alberto Gonzales, we listen to Senator Leahy's statement while watching Mr. Gonzales shake his head through much of it.

Leahy says, "If nothing improper was done, then people need to stop hiding the truth. If there is nothing to hide, the White House should stop hiding."

"Just any answer won't do any more."

9:44 - Opening statement - Sen. Arlen Specter

"You come to this hearing with heavy burden of truth."

Specter reviews methodically, the previous statements by Gonzales that have since been directly contradicted. "This is your opportunity, Mr. Attorney General to tackle this heavy burden of truth and to re-establish your credibility."

"Until we hear from you, I am going to regard these as allegations."

Leahy grants two minutes of opening to Sen. Schumer and Sen. Sessions

9:52 Sen. Schumer

"I hope and expect we won't get meandering answers that take up time and don't answer the questions"

9:55 Sen. Sessions

"Your ability to lead the Department of Justice is in question"

9:58 Alberto Gonzales is sworn in

9:58 Opening statement - Alberto Gonzales

Mr. Gonzales had submitted a 26 page opening statement in writing. The committee made that a part of the record and Mr. Gonzales makes a far more brief opening statement comprised of a portion of his written statement.

"I regret how they [fired US Attorneys] were treated"

"These attacks on my integrity have been very painful to me" I understand how my statements caused confusion."

"While the process was flawed, I firmly believe nothing improper occurred."

He does state several times that he feels nothing improper occurred, and that he takes responsibility for his misstatements and the unfortunate mismanagement of this issue.

10:04 - Sen. Leahy

"Do you recall when you had the conversation with Karl Rove on concerns over US attorney not perusing voter fraud?"

(AG) "I believe it was the fall of 2006"

When asked for more details on these meetings regarding those concerns, Gonzales says "I now recall there was a meeting with the President on these concerns - voter fraud"

(Q) "When was that?"
(A) "I have reviewed my calendar and I now know that meeting was on October 11th"

Sen. Leahy devotes some time to reviewing the exact circumstances surrounding the firing of Iglesias.

10:14 - Sen. Specter

Sen. Specter also reviews previous statments made by Mr. Gonzales as well as his written opening statement that contradict the actual events.

(AG) "I have already said that I misspoke." "I have already conceded that I misspoke in that press conference."

Specter says, "Now, I know you have prepared for your testimony here...

Gonzales interrupts - "I prepare for every hearing senator"

Specter is visibly annoyed at this and begins drilling him "do you prepare for you press conferences?" Gonzales stumbles. Specter "Do you prepare for you press conferences?"
Gonzales, appearing to notice his misstep here winds up apologizing to the Senator.

10:26 - Sen. Kennedy

"In your opening statement you indicated that you had limited involvement, and then you say my decision is justified and should stand. Since you apparently had limited involvement how can you justify your decision?"

Gonzales begins by saying "Good question Senator" but then launches into "I believe the record shows nothing improper was done..."

Kennedy stops him and presses Gonzales on how he can stand by his decision and testify to nothing improper happening when Gonzales states he had limited involvement only, that it was not a vigorous process and it was a task he gave Sampson.

AG - "Since then, I have reviewed all the documents."

10:36 - Sen. Brownback

Sen. Brownback indicates his desire to run down the list and get a reason for each of these firings.

(Q) Daniel Bogden, why was he terminated.
(A) "since going back to review the documents, I understand the concerns were a matter of energy level."
(Q) Paul Charlton in Arizona
(A) "What I recall knowing of his poor judgment in pushing forward a recommendation on a death penalty case.
(Q) Kevin Ryan
(A) "I was not surprised to see Mr. Ryan on the list. I was aware of poor management in that office."
(Q) Margaret Chiara
(A) "Same issue. I have since learned that this was a similar case of poor management."
(Q) "Bud" Cummins
(A) "Mr. Cummings is someone who was on a different track. He was asked to resign on June 14th. Because there was another qualified individual that the white house wanted to go into that office."
(Q) John McKay
(A) "Generally I recall there being serious concerns about his judgment. We were concerned about the way he pursued an information sharing project."
The Senator does not ask about Iglesias and Lam.
10:47 - Sen. Kohl
"What is the rationale for remaining as US attorney general...Why is so important that you remain in this office?"
(A) "This is not about Alberto Gonzales...I have admitted mistakes in managing this issue but the department in general has not been mismanaged." "I believe I am still effective in my role as Attorney General, I ask myself that every day. The moment I believe I can no longer be effective in my role as Attorney General, I will resign."

11:05 Sen. Feinstein

"Whose idea was it to change the law ... to add in conference, an amendment which effectively gave you the ability to appoint US attorneys without senate confirmation? Whose idea was that?

(A) "I don’t recall specifically the genesis. I will say this, I did support the change not to avoid senate involvement, but I don't agree with the Senate deciding who serves on my staff."
(Q) And you are saying you made these decisions [on firings] without reviewing the performance reports"
(A) "Senator (pause) yes again, that is correct."

11:18 10 minute recess

Great Blog Talk On This:

Captain's Quarters - Gonzales Hearing: Live Blog
Firedoglake - Just Warming Up?

Technorati Tags:
Alberto Gonzales, testimony, Congress, hearings, US Attorney, firings, Bush, White House, DOJ, loyal bushies, attorney general, Karl Rove, Iglesias, Lam

.

Disenchanted

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:52:00 +0000

Hypocrisy
Rationalization
Immaturity
Aggression
Megalomania
Entitlement
Sycophancy
Ignorance
Degradation
Fraudulence
Pretentiousness
Indulgence

I'm not comfortable living in an America where:

Loud trumps reason
Our top leader's only talent is political posturing
Our founding principle of dissent is declared evil
Individual thought is sacrificed to political hypnotism
We create evil-doers to crucify while allowing true evil to run rampant
We wage wars of aggression
Lives are sacrificed for skewed agendas
We denigrate those who seek balance between human existence and our life-giving planet
We (in Salem Witch Trial form) create public enemies and destroy them
Great minds are silenced
Debate is drowned by defamation
Bickering is more appealing than learning
Listening is a sign of weakness
Freedom is a relative notion
Issues are no longer progressed by fascinating discovery
Media of the moment defines reality
Hunger for scandal supersedes human compassion
Morality is measured by church
Wisdom of the ages is abandoned
Power is held by position and not the people
Power trumps principle

Technorati Tags:
government, power, big brother, humanity, compassion, politics, media, planet, earth, religion, debate, war, freedom, scandal, news, headlines

.

Our Culture Of Pre-Packaged Apologies

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 07:14:00 +0000

In an era of Politically Correct overload, it is easy to grasp the appeal of a public personality like Imus. His enormous audience is indicative of the fact that we long to have small slices in our day where careful, PC, and ever guarded language is left at the door for a moment. It’s a needed release in a somewhat repressed society. As with all things there is a limit.

Imus has a long history of indiscriminate acerbic comments. Just a few examples are: Imus or his cast have called Colin Powell a “weasel,” New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson a “fat sissy“. He and his colleagues also called the New York Knicks a group of “chest-thumping pimps.” He has also had such memorable quotes as, “Watchin’ Dan Rather do the news, he looks like he’s making a hostage tape. They should have guys in ski masks and AK-47s just standing off to the side.” And, “My goal is to goad people into saying something that ruins their life.”…something he may well have succeeded in doing to himself.

The distinction is that as rude and caustic as those might have been…they were not racist. The cries for apologies can be heard far and wide. Those of you who know me know that I am sick of all this apology nonsense. Some pencil pusher sits in a dark room and decides if an apology is needed, where and how it should be delivered, if it should be strong or contrite and their most important task is a cost -vs- benefit analysis on the offending remark and the orchestrated apology. What’s that quote? “The secret is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” I am not saying Imus himself doesn’t deeply (and sincerely) regret what he has done. I feel confident he does. But let’s face it, the damage control is a calculated and fiduciary decision. We can pull our chair up to the buffet and gleefully gobble up all the fake sincerity dished out in huge portions, or we can address the issue of responsible speech and the consequences if we are incapable of exercising it.

If you have an audience, you have a responsibility. If you don’t want that burden, then exercise your choice to have a more private existence. Thankfully, we no longer live in a society where racial slurs are acceptable. If Imus were to resign, it would be a clear recognition of unacceptable behavior, an understanding of consequence, and an unfeigned statement that having the loyal attention of so many is an honor; and abusing it made him less deserving of the privilege.

On the other hand, do we judge a man’s life of career and personal achievements on the basis of a single moment? Many have opined (and opined, and opined) that this was just “more of the same” from Imus. Untrue. Imus has spent his career delivering what nearly a half a million people came to expect from him - that small slice in their day when they can forget being careful and guarded and freely get a kick out of anyone and everyone being “roasted”. Imus has no history of racist remarks at all, so let’s stop lying about the man (Michelle Malkin) and stop turning the volume up. That only detracts from the singular problem as if to say, “Well, doing this once isn’t scandalous enough, let’s lie and say he’s been doing it for 30 years.” I have an idea, let’s send a message that ONCE is one time too many.

I will also say something similar to what I said regarding the Mel Gibson episode–Imus is not now the enemy; the picture of hate. But there are consequences. It is beyond my powers to decide what those should be, but must we reduce this to yet another opportunity for Sean Hannity to scream for apologies?

The Blog Talk On This:

Wizbang - NBC Suspends Imus
The Moderate Voice - Don Imus’ Show Suspended From CBS Radio And MSNBC
Crooks and Liars - Imus Suspended for 2 Weeks: Updated
Obsidian Wings - Unfair To Trains

Technorati Tags:
apologies, ethical journalism, Imus, Media, Michelle Malkin, Msnbc, politically correct, racism, Sean Hannity

.

O'Reilly Once Again Setting The Bar For Reason By Imploding On The "No Sanity Factor"

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:14:00 +0000

You can see this just about anywhere today but I couldn't resist.

And the LEFT is UNHINGED?

Mr. ~~phone sex~~ traditional values; I suggest you take a vacation,
get medicated, take a few anger management courses...
Do something
because you are losing it, buddy.

Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera duke it out over drunk driving - From Wizbang Pop!
Victim’s father calls O’Reilly ‘disrespectful.’ - From Think Progress
O'Reilly speaks to the Associated Press on the knock-down, drag-out with Geraldo

Technorati Tags: Bill O'Reilly, Spin Factor, Immigration, Geraldo, VA, drunk driving, YouTube, FOXnews

Major Changes In The Iraq Embed Opportunity - We Remain Determined

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:00:00 +0000

We have heard from the DoD today who notified us that the Iraq embed trip has been "indefinitely postponed". Upon further conversation with Mr. Holt with the Deparment of Defense, I understand the trip, via military transport, is now off the table due to "operational requirements". This is a new program born in an ever-changing environment; I certainly understand how this can happen. In order to be embedded in Iraq, I will have to go via commercial flight. Our contact for the embed is also changing and I am awaiting that new information. When I make the first contact with them, I will have much more to report in the way of details and possible dates.

It seems likely that RedState will go forward even with this restructure as they have exceeded their fund-raising goals. I have tried writing them to get more information but they have yet to respond to either of my messages. I will state here what I would have said to RedState. If this hurdle in the plans to go to Iraq does not stop or delay you, we are happy for you, be safe, and for the sake of the medium, it is our hope that you make a respectable blogger/new media showing.

But because it is imperative to have the liberal blogger voice coming out of Iraq...We are soon to be there as well. I am moving forward with my plans to go to Iraq. Given that the time frame appears to be at least 60 days out, Alex with the GTL will likely go as well. The one major benefit to this change is that my trip to Iraq is no longer date specific so I have the time I need to prepare.

I plan to post another update within 2 days. Please look for the joint C'est Moi / GTL fund-raising launch and consider supporting our efforts to put an objective citizen media voice on the ground in Iraq.

Technorati Tags:
RedState, Pentagon, embedded journalist, citizen media, Gun Toting Liberal, bloggers, right blogosphere, left blogosphere, journalistic integrity, reporters, Iraq, war reporting

.

Ahmadinejad Pardons The 15 Sailors & Marines

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:59:00 +0000

During a press conference President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held in Tehran this morning, he announced that even though Iran has the legal right to try the hostages, he has decided to pardon them in honor of the birthday of the prophet.

According to translation, Ahmadinejad says "After our meeting they will go to the airport and be with their families."

We are also seeing evidence of the diplomatic strides behind the scenes. Concerns are already coming to the surface that Britain has capitulated in apologizing for going to the UN. Other concessions that appear to have been made are the release of an Iranian diplomat being held in Iraq as well as allowing Iranian personnel to meet with the five Iranian men taken by U.S. forces in Irbil.

Is this capitulating or is it a testament to effective diplomacy?

We are awaiting some footage of hostages at the Iranian airport as proof that they are on their way home. I join a collective sigh of relief at their release.

UPDATE:

It seems the 15 sailors held hostage in Iran for 13 days will be turned over to the British Embassy in Tehran and travel home tomorrow (Thurday).

In a celebratory atmosphere, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shared smiles and goodbyes with the nearly released Britons.

An interesting side-note is that Syria, while hosting a visit with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, claims a key role in the release. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that his country had "exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem."

The Blog Talk On This:

The Moderate Voice
Dr. Sanity
Middle Earth Journal
Captain's Quarters

Technorati Tags:
Ahmadinejad, Iran, hostages, british marines, Tony Blair, diplomacy, UN, british sailors

.

First DOD Conference Call Set For Tomorrow - Discussions Continue On Embedding In Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:57:00 +0000

As a follow-up to my previous post, I was prompted to call Mr. Jack Holt with the Department of Defense. I did have a conversation with Mr. Holt to further review what opportunities exist in recognizing the blogosphere as a valid force in today’s media.

I found a great ease in my conversation with Mr. Holt. He was accommodating and very generous with him time. He appeared to be a staunch supporter of the blogosphere and recognized our penchant for getting past the "talking-point" questions to reach deeper into an issue.

He has now approved my being embedded in Iraq, be it on this first trip or the next one. Thanks to Mr. Holt's approval, here are the opportunities I will be involved in.

On The Conference Calls

This is quite an exciting opportunity for certain bloggers and I am thrilled and honored to be involved. It is the hope of the DOD to hold these calls on a weekly basis but precise scheduling is still being set. They would like to allow no more than 5 bloggers on each call and Alex with the GTL and I will be on the call this week. The interview on Wednesday will be with Major General William Caldwell, Multinational Forces in Baghdad. Each representative will be allowed at least one question and one follow up. I'm very much looking forward to it and I will be sharing it all here and at the GTL!

On Being Embedded In Iraq

Mr. Holt hopes to be scheduling several of these embed opportunities for bloggers and the first one is now set for the end of this month. I have completed all the required paperwork that was sent to me and am, in many ways, quite ready to go that soon. But there are a few important items that may not be possible in the relatively brief time left before the first trip. We are coming to the table here very late in the game but we are doing all we possibly can to be a part of that initial trip. As Alex over at GTL has indicated, even with considerable effort, he is not able to rearrange his schedule to allow for this two week embed in Iraq. As I have said, being able to go on the first trip presents similar problems for me - logistically. The decision has to be made almost immediately so I am in the process of seeing if ANY possibility exists for me to make the first trip. If not, we have been assured of a reserved slot for the next trip and Alex and I will both go then.

I could not possibly overstate the enormity of this event - from a social - political standpoint or from a cultural standpoint as it relates to the public perception of "media". There is a measure of validation here that should not escape any of us.

It's a very proud moment for those who do what we do.

Technorati Tags:
RedState, Pentagon, embedded journalist, citizen media, Gun Toting Liberal, bloggers, right blogosphere, left blogosphere, journalistic integrity, reporters, Iraq, war reporting, Jack Holt, General William Caldwell

.

Embedding Bloggers In Iraq Begins In Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:16:00 +0000

It appears a fascinating opportunity exists for our community of citizen journalists to request an embed in Iraq, facilitating real-time reporting on the war in Iraq from the unique blogger perspective.

RedState broke this with an article that stated the following: RedState has been invited by the Pentagon to go to Iraq. The end of that article includes an "Attention Update" to "Lefty morons". With that said, you can imagine the relief I felt warming over me at the prospect of RedState countering the typical media bias.

My concerns are two-fold

This is further validation of the broadening reach of the blogosphere. If this opportunity truly comes to fruition, we should feel proud; we should be unwaveringly dedicated to the objective and ethical treatment of the information we gain access to. If we sway from that mentality in the slightest, I submit we are no better that our bickering politicians who are dedicated only to portraying the "other side" as stupid, know-nothing school yard bullies. Didn't we bloggers get to where we are by bringing something more valuable to the table? You get one chance to make a first impression. It was botched in our [a blogger's] first participation in the White House press room. I find it deeply disconcerting that we are now on our way to botching the blogger's first steps as war-front embedded citizen media.

Then there is the misleading statement - RedState has been invited by the Pentagon to go to Iraq. If RedState hoped to deliver a sucker punch to the left blogosphere, it did...temporarily. With help from Confederate Yankee, it was fairly quickly discovered that RedState was not singled out and "invited" by the Pentagon. They, in actuality, spent months attempting to gain approval to do this, being vetted much in the manner any media outlet would be. By the time discussion and debate began at The Gun Toting Liberal on RedState's "invitation" and the fact that no liberals were headed to Iraq, RedState began backpedalling slightly and more clearly stating how the Iraq embed opportunity really came to be. The impression meant to be made was clear---that RedState was "invited" without an equal opportunity for a liberal blogger to be "invited". Since that was not the case, the statement was, at the very least, a narcissistic embellishment by RedState; at worst it was an outright lie regarding the actions of the Pentagon. A serious and unfortunate error in judgment as far as I am concerned. Likely more important for RedState to realize is that they now begin this extraordinary occasion inspiring little confidence as to their ability to deliver what separates us from the mainstream media---honor, integrity and objectivity.

I would love to applaud RedState for their tenacity in discovering this process and pursuing it, and on some levels I do. But that is so far overshadowed now by the manner in which they have chosen to handle it and the misleading statements presented to the blogosphere.

BLOG DISCUSSION ON THIS:

Michael Linn Jones, a co-author at the Gun Toting Liberal has written an article on this subject that might very well be one of the most exquisitely written articles I have read in some time. Please visit - Half Truths Hurt, Too

Thank you to Daily Kos for picking up the discussion! - RedState Fibbing?: When an Invite isn't Exactly an Invite

The Two Malcontents - Liberal Blogger Steps Up To Accept Challenge By Volunteering For Iraq Embed Duty

Middle Earth Journal - Blogger Embedding In Iraq

Technorati Tags:
RedState, Pentagon, embedded journalist, citizen media, Gun Toting Liberal, bloggers, right blogosphere, left blogosphere, journalistic integrity, reporters, Iraq, war reporting

.

Kyle Sampson, Gonzales Former Chief Of Staff Testifies Before Senate

noreply@blogger.com (Sapphoria / Megan) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:49:00 +0000

Mr. Sampson presents himself as contrite at 10:32am this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He opens reminding the committee of his dedication to public service.

Sampson says he was responsible for overseeing possible US Attorney firings beginning in 2004 when there were suggestions to replace all of them. He describes a long period of time devoted to information gathering. He would compile recommendations from senior staff on individual US Attorneys.

He makes clear his strong opinion that there were no improprieties in the firings saying "decisions were properly made but poorly explained." He takes full responsibility for his role in the department responses to this situation and that is why he offered his resignation.

....

Mainstream Media Watch:

MSNBC - Live coverage - intermittent
CNN - Live coverage - intermittent
FoxNews - No coverage

UPDATE: 1:30PM

Arlen Specter states the need for testimony. "It has to be written down, that is the essence of our judicial system"

Jeff Sessions speaks on the office of AG and his pride in serving in that position. "Emails indicate you understood very well the difficulty in removing these US attorneys. Sessions points to inconsistencies in the emails Sampson authored, making particular reference to emails from Sampson that openly discusses the use of the new provisions in the Patriot Act allowing for US attorney replacement without the process of confirmation.

Sampson is asked "Have you met with the president since 2004?" (Answer) "No". (Question) "Are you aware of any presidential decision regarding US attorneys?" (Answer) "I am not aware of any."

Back to Arlen Specter who presses on the connection in asking Carol Lam to resign and investigations being pursued by her office. (Answer) "The real problem with her office was the immigration enforcement" (Question) "Regarding the US attorney in New Mexico, your emails show his name was not added until 11-07-0 which was the day of the election and after certain calls were placed, was he asked to resign because he refused to carry out investigations of voter fraud. Are you prepared to state under oath..." (Answer) "To my knowledge, they were not." (Question) "AG Gonzales says on 3-13 that he was not at all involved in discussion on this, but emails show...was your email correct about AG Gonzales being present?" (Answer) "I don't think the AG statement that he was not involved was accurate. I think he has recently clarified." (Question) "So he was involved in discussions?" (Answer) "Yes sir."

Sen. Schumer goes over Gonzales' statement on 3-13, "Is that statement accurate?" (Answer) "I don't think it's entirely accurate. We did discuss it as early as Jan 2005 before he even took his office. I remember discussing it with him on an ongoing basis." (Question) "The AG says the mistake was that you did not share information, is that true?" Sampson profoundly struggles in answering this and makes a couple attempts to sidestep a direct answer. Schumer continues to break in requesting a direct answer. Sampson finally answers "I don't think it's accurate."

Feinstein then rather dramatically presents a letter signed by Director of Field Operations of US Customs. A letter of commendation written regarding the performance of Carol Lam US attorney and that office's 100% performance in pursuing immigration cases. Feinstein holds that against the email from Sampson and his earlier statement here that Carol Lam was replaced for not bringing immigration cases. Sampson begins an answer on how his work was based on senior DOJ recommendations when Feinstein addresses a short list of specific cases being brought or investigations being initiated by fired US attorneys. Sampson continually denies particular recollections of these issues.

Jeff Sessions drives home and interesting point in this question, "This idea to remove a number of us attorneys - did the AG object to removing any us attorney?" (Answer) "No." Sessions responds to that with "You know, the Attorney General is the country's lawyer and sometimes they just have to say no."

Upon questions of US attorneys "making the list" because of complaints on pursuing voter fraud cases, Sampson testifies that he recalls the "AG coming to him with complaints from Karl Rove on US attorneys in three districts."

Sen. Cardin addresses the issue of no documentation. With puzzled angst, he questions Sampson on how there could be no documentation to reflect his 2 years of work on evaluating US attorneys. (Answer) "It wasn't scientific and wasn't well documented." (Question) "Do you see a perception problem here?" (Answer) "In retrospect, I do. I want to take responsibility for that. I acknowledge it was a failure on my part and others [pause] for not realizing the perception problem that could result.

Sheldon Whitehouse quickly fires questions. "Who have you discussed your testimony with?" (Answer) "Noone." (Question) "Who has it been coordinated with?" (Answer) "Noone." (Question) "Did you keep one file?" (Answer) "Again, just sort of a drop file in my desk drawer." (Question) "Did someone keep it for you?" (Answer) "There really was no documentation to this, just [pause] notes."

<Recess>

UPDATE 3:24PM

SAMPSON SAYS IT WAS HIS SUGGESTION TO USE NEW PROVISIONS IN PATRIOT ACT TO CIRCUMVENT THE SENATE.

Under questioning by Schumer Sampson says that yes - he was articulating a plan to use the new provisions in the Patriot Act to circumvent the senate. He takes responsibility for that as a "bad idea on a staff level."

Sampson admits to suggesting Fitzgerald be fired as a means of cutting a lifeline to the case Fitzgerald had against members of the executive - but then says he has absolutely no recollection of considering adding US attorneys to the list of those to be fired based on the cases they were prosecuting or avoiding.

5:39pm

Sampson - "Looking back on all of this, I wish we could do it over again. In hindsight I wish the department had not gone down this road at all."

Discussing This:

First Read - MSNBC
Washington Post
Think Progress
Firedoglake
at-Largely

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Congress, Senate, Judiciary Committee, hearings, testimony, Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, Patriot Act, firings, US Attorneys, Washington Post, Carol Lam, David Iglesias, Leahy, Schumer, Fitzgerald, prosecutions, voter fraud, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, White House, executive, confirmations

.