A hard look at the news, media, and the people who are talking about them. Today's Stories in News and Media Blog...

Current News and Media Videos

A hard look at the news, media, and the people who are talking about them. Today's Stories in News and Media Blog...

This is a tale of two presidents. One past, one future. In the words of others.

First, George W. Bush. I say he’s history though he is the current chief. Some have called him a lame-duck president. That’s too kind. It doesn’t do justice to the English language and it’s an insult to other lame-duck presidents of the past. Imagine how Jimmy Carter must feel being equated to G.W.B. What a real slap in the face!

In actuality, George W. Bush is a dead-duck president. His entire administration has been rocked with scandal, stupidity, bad judgments, and just plain ridiculous thought processes filled with non sequiturs, leaps of logic, and synaptic misfires. His war may have been based on bad intelligence, but his legacy of one of no intelligence and it won’t be hard for the next president to look good.

Hear what Kos has to say:

The Congress is about to severely expand the already too-extensive authority of the president in surveilling the citizens of this nation. In doing so, it is ignoring the fact that the government has become a law breaker and made the telcos accessories to the crimes.

OK, so he’s talking about Congress. But he’s inadvertently talking about President Bush, the chief lawbreaker in the land. But he isn’t the first. FISA itself was passed as a result of abuses perpetrated by Richard Nixon. It essentially replaces the Fourth Amendment with a new law of the land with a stamp of approval by the legislative body and the courts.

It’s hard to believe that Congress could actually be less curious and more secretive than than the Bush/Cheney administration in trying to keep this information from ever seeing the light of day.

No, it’s really not hard to believe. Look at their track record.

President Bush has done nothing but subvert the law and replace it with his. Of course, he could not have done that had Congress not fallen asleep. Do I expect changes? No. Not in this lifetime.

And, now, on the future President Obama:

Obama has long been comfortable talking about his moderate to liberal Christianity, and has long been very much at ease with the social Gospel and mixing religion with politics.

Brilliant observation. And the result?

If that happens (and I can’t see how it will because of Obama’s abortion record), we’re talking about a historic landslide. But if only a fifth of them move over to the Democrat, we have a serious realignment - and possibly real movement in a few Southern states.

Yes, if Obama is elected it will be because evangelical Christians have decided that’s who they want to be the next president. But what kind of record does the Church have on picking presidents? Well, let’s see:

  • Richard Nixon (criminal)
  • Jimmy Carter (ineffectual)
  • Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra)
  • George H.W. Bush (liar)
  • Bill Clinton (scumbag)
  • George W. Bush (warmonger)

Is there any reason to be optimistic?

June
27
2008
5:21 pm
Tags:
Post Meta :

I like Andrew Sullivan, but “any time soon?”

How about never.

June
23
2008
1:47 pm
Tags:
Post Meta :

Enjoy!

Lawyers for The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times and The Associated Press filed a motion requesting the Supreme Court to order the Cook County Circuit Court to unseal court records and transcripts related to R. Kelly’s pornography case.

The R&B icon pleaded not guilty to charges that he videotaped himself having sex with an underage girl. Judge Vincent Gaughan (GAWN) has said he’s “trying to protect Kelly’s rights and prevent information from influencing prospective jurors”.

R. Kelly’s trial is scheduled to start May 9th in Chicago. This isn’t the first time R. Kelly has been charged with allegations that he has sexual relations with a minor.

Governor Mike Easley
Photo courtesy of newsobserver.com

The News & Observer and nine other North Carolina news organizations sued Gov. Mike Easley on Monday over his administration’s deletion of e-mail, which they say violates the state’s Public Records Law.

The news media coalition accuses Easley’s administration of “the systematic deletion, destruction or concealment of e-mail messages sent from or received by the Governor’s Office” in violation of the law, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Wake County Superior Court.

The Rest of The Story here

The same news media that was all over the impeachment of Bill Clinton barely gives any space or time to impeachment against Cheney and possibly Bush. With Bill Clinton, it involved sex so it sold newspapers and brought in viewers and listeners.

But when it comes to much more serious charges leveled at Bush and Cheney, the backers of impeachment proceeedings have a hard time getting any coverage at all.

MEMORANDUM
To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
From: John C. Bonifaz
Date: May 22, 2005
RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses

The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The following is about The Downing Street Memo;

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “[i]t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”

British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

The Rest of The Story here

The following are articles of impeachment that were drawn up while Donald H. Rumsfeld was still in office;

Articles of Impeachment
Of
George W. Bush, President of the United States,
Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States and
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United States

Part of Article 1:

On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney initiated hostilities amounting to a declaration of war against Iraq without the informed consent of Congress.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included on or more of the following:

1. making, or causing to be made, false or misleading statements to the United States Congress;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from the United States Congress;
3. misuse of the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
4. misuse of the military of the United States;
5. making, or causing to be made, false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into supporting hostilities against the sovereign nation of Iraq, and continuing to make such misstatements.

In all of this, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President of the United States, respectively, and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of United States.

WHEREFORE, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

The Rest of The Story here

This is a more recent and detailed explanation of charges against Bush;

George W. Bush has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Bush’s threat of force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force. Bush has secretly supported preliminary acts of war within Iran with neither approval from nor funding by Congress.

Bush has initiated the development of new nuclear weapons, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the law of the land.

George W. Bush also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war.

George W. Bush also misappropriated funds with which to conduct the preliminary stages of this war, prior to receiving any funding or any form of authorization from Congress.

George W. Bush, in violation of the United Nations Charter, which is the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, launched an aggressive war neither in self-defense nor under authorization of the UN Security Council.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has allowed the U.S. military to violate treaties to which the United States is party and has failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for these abuse.

These violations include the targeting of civilians, journalists, and medical personnel, and the illegal use of a variety of weapons, including:
-Land mines, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;
-Cluster bombs, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;
-Depleted uranium munitions, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol 1, Articles 35.2, 35.3, 48 and 55.1;
-Napalm or Mark 77 Firebomb, used in Iraq in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
-White phosphorous, which Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable confirmed on November 15, 2005 was deployed “as an incendiary weapon” in urban areas of Fallujah, Iraq, where there were high concentrations of civilians, during Operation Phantom Fury (November 2004-January 2005), making the said deployment of white phosphorous a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
-BLU-82B/C-130 “daisy cutter” bombs, used in Afghanistan in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Articles 35, 48, 51 and 55.

has directed or authorized the National Security Agency and various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the statutes Congress has prescribed as the exclusive means for such surveillance, and to use such information for purposes unknown but unrelated to any lawful function of his office; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of electronic surveillance from Congress, the press, and the public.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers.

George W. Bush has formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a “signing statement” to legislation, asserting his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby arrogating to himself powers reserved solely to Congress. George W. Bush has, in several instances, gone on to act on his self-declared right to violate these laws. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by allowing his administration to condone torture, failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

has allowed his administration to fire United States Attorneys in retaliation for the proper performance of their jobs when that performance conflicted with the partisan interests of the President, and has failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this abuse.

has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces of information, funding misleading journalism, producing misleading video reports falsely presented as independent journalism, using the U.S. military to target journalists in Iraq, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.

George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by allowing his administration to reveal the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she worked for, and by failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this security breach.

The following are charges against Dick Cheney;

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

Richard B. Cheney has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Richard B. Cheney’s threat of force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter the law of the land.

These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national security of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Richard B. Cheney has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying a war with false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed choice and thereby undermined democracy.

Richard B. Cheney also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war. Cheney pressured intelligence services to produce false and misleading reports, and Cheney used those reports to mislead the Congress and the people of the United States.

Richard B. Cheney and his subordinates have advocated for a legal theory of the “unitary executive” aimed at placing the President above the rule of law.

has violated the rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process, without charges, and with limited, if any, access to counsel or courts.

Richard B. Cheney has condoned torture, failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refused to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Richard B. Cheney has offended our system of government by attempting to expand executive power at the expense of the other two branches of government.

has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces of information, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.

Richard B. Cheney has abused his power by conspiring to reveal the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she worked for.

has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people.

Richard B. Cheney has allowed a small group of corporate executives to plan national policies in secret, and enacted policies that benefited a corporation from which the Vice President financially profited.

(1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the nation’s energy policy.

(2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

(3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms.

On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the Vice President did willfully disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. In September 2002, and prior thereto, the Vice President did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the aforementioned group. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

The Rest of The Story here

It doesn’t matter if you agree with these charges or not.

It doesn’t matter whether you think they can prove all or part of these charges.

They are serious charges. The charges are much more serious than those filed against Bill Clinton. If you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and do not support the impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, then you are being hypocritical.

Approving of impeachment proceedings does not mean they will be impeached. They could also be exhonerated and found to be not guilty of the charges at all. This would just mean there would be an investigation and a hearing on the charges.

There are a lot of average citizens arrested on less evidence than there is here and they have to stand trial. They are assumed innocent until proven guilty just as Bush and Cheney should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Assumed innocent does not mean that it does not get tried however. There is enough evidence that there should be investigations and a trial or hearing. Impeachment is the process by which we do this with presidents and Vice Presidents.

If you believe Bush and Cheney are innocent of these charges then you should have no problem with there being a full investigation and hearing to clear them once and for all.

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal “War of Aggression” against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using “signing statements” to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a “Unitary Executive Theory” giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

You can sign the petition to impeach bush and cheney here

July
3
2007
2:07 am
Tags:
Post Meta :

The interesting thing about the president’s commutation of Libby’s prison sentence is that the left and right disagree. And the reason that’s news? They’ve flipped sides:

From the liberal Slate:

President Bush’s commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 30-month prison sentence will likely prompt many people with politics similar to my own to cry bloody murder. It will be called a coverup. It will be called a payoff for Libby’s failure to implicate Vice President Dick Cheney, and perhaps even Bush himself, more directly in the Plamegate scandal. It will be compared to President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, and to Bush père’s pardon of former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger a mere 12 days before Weinberger was to go on trial for perjury in connection with the Iran-contra scandal. Both of these actions were wrong. But the comparison is a weak one. What Bush did was just and fair. It was the right thing to do.

And from the Conservative Andrew Sullivan:

Perjury in defense of wartime deception is now okay, as far as the president is concerned. I’m surprised by Bush’s chutzpah. I retained some minimal respect. No longer. We now know full well what his beliefs are: the law is for other people, not himself, his friends or his apparatchiks.

I would usually side with Sullivan on most things related to the president. But with regard to the Iraq War, Sullivan has been on the side of the liberals anyway, and on the side of gay marriage and other liberal “hot button” issues. I like Sullivan because he is an American who respects law and order regardless of who it favors or disfavors, as opposed to most Republicans and a fair amount of Democrats, who seem to favor law and order when it is convenient and disfavor it when it hurts them or their friends. Sullivan just wants justice.

But I like what Timothy Noah had to say and his reasoning makes a lot of sense. He actually has some good points, unlike the Daily Kos, who just wants Libby hung, and the president with him, hung:

Bush’s unprecedented special consideration for his special assistant and the chief of staff for the Vice President is proof positive that this President does not believe in equal treatment under the law.

So what was Noah’s brilliant reasoning? Here it is, in a nutshell:

What’s the matter with that? Two words: Bill Clinton. No fair-minded person can deny that the previous president committed perjury about Monica Lewinsky while serving in the Oval Office. The country knew it, and it let him get away with it. Does that mean no government official should ever again be prosecuted for perjury? Of course not. But it does mean Walton should have wondered whether he was imposing a double standard in treating Libby more harshly because Libby worked in the White House. Is it really fair to treat White House aides more harshly than presidents?

I was actually leaning more toward Sullivan’s and Kos’s point of view until I read Slate. I changed my mind. Clinton should have been punished more harshly for his perjury. I’ve always said that. If he had been then I’d say let’s cut Libby no slack. Give it to him hard. But in light of the fact that Republicans wanted to lambaste Clinton and send him back to Arkansas as somebody’s girlfriend, it is quite conveniently hypocritical that they have been asking the president to pardon their old friend and form veep aide.

Of course, neither Noah nor I think Libby should be pardoned. That would be too lenient. And Bush has issued fewer pardons than any other president in history. This guy has no frickin’ mercy. I wonder if he’d even pardon his mother were she convicted of a crime. Given his lack of interest in commutations and pardons, it makes sense that Bush would be reluctant to pardon Libby. Maybe he thinks that would be too obvious - he’d be right. But a commutation - that actually makes sense. For the future, however, I say come down hard on presidential administration officials when the commit a crime - whether they be Democrat or Republican.

News and Media Blog

June
22
2007
5:13 pm
Tags:
Post Meta :

Dick CheneyAt left, a picture of the most ridiculous man in America.

Because of Dick Cheney, the U.S. entered into a war and waged an illegal, immoral, and unjust attack on another nation without good cause. We’ve then occupied that nation to its own detriment and ours and made the world less secure and safe by effectively training a new generation of terrorists, which we will surely be at war with for the next century. The Executive Office has expanded its power (again!) even while claiming to be operating Constitutionally without any clear evidence that it understands the Constitution. Now, the vice president of the United States is claiming that it is not a part of the Executive Branch of the federal government for the sole reason that the Big Dick wants to operate in total secrecy without any oversight.

Cheney’s vision for himself and his office is shortsighted and without precedent, and if allowed to continue, will turn the Oval Office into a historical circus for the rest of America’s future. The Second Article of the U.S. Constitution defines the Executive Branch of the government as the president and the vice president. I believe Dick Cheney needs to learn how to read, and for God’s sake, before we elect another Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber to the highest office in the land, perhaps we should give them a test of their reading skills and their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps we can then at least know, before they take office, that we’re in for a few years of childishness and exuberant stupidity.

News and Media Blog

June
17
2007
1:21 pm
Tags:
Post Meta :

Just one day after a news that an internal audit found that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times, a federal judge ordered the agency Friday to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency’s use of a powerful, but extremely secretive investigative tool that can pry into telephone and internet records.

It’s about time. When you have a presidential administration passing rules that it breaks as soon as they hit the paper, you have a government out of control. Our federal government has grown too big and too nasty for its own good. The Executive Branch believes it can control every aspect of people’s lives and disobey the laws that it passes and is sworn to uphold. And people wonder why the majority of the people in the U.S. today don’t trust their government. George W. Bush and his foreign and domestic policies are the perfect reason why. Never has their been a president who gave us more reasons to hate our government. This is the true legacy of the man whose favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ.

News and Media Blog

May
4
2007
12:04 pm
Tags:
Post Meta :

I hate it when news presenters editorialize. It happens more and more often in all media - television, radio, newspapers, and even the new media of Internet news. It’s all about presenting a particular point of view without apology or even trying to establish a veneer for another motive. Here’s an example from the International Herald Tribune on last night’s debate:

Giuliani, who has said he supports abortion rights, gave conflicting signals on the issue. He joined the other nine in saying he would not be upset if the Supreme Court voted to overturn the decision that legalized abortion. But later he endorsed a woman’s right to make a decision on whether to have an abortion.

“It would be O.K. to repeal,” Giuliani said. “Or it would be O.K. also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as a precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.”

I didn’t watch the debate. I’ll say that right now. I didn’t particularly care to be entertained by a cast of bozos crawling all over each other’s backs to impress upon viewers how much like Ronald Reagan they are. The GOP should just let the man rest in peace, already. None of them are like the Gipper nor will they ever be, and if there was a candidate even remotely like Ronald Reagan he shouldn’t be elected. It’s not that I don’t (or didn’t) like Reagan, it’s just that he didn’t do enough for Constitutional causes (notice I didn’t say conservative?). What I mean is, we still have federal involvement in state-run education, arms control, over stretches of authority at all levels of government, etc. etc.

OK, back to Giuliani …

(more…)

older »