Month: October 2005

Poll: Most Folks Not Fooled by Delay

Buck Banks

Straining credulity: Yesterday, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and declared that his indictment last week “is politics at its sleaziest, and people will recognize that and see it for what it is.” But a Newsweek poll released Saturday indicates that a significant portion of the public does not share his opinion.

A 39-percent plurality said the Texas Republican likely “engaged in serious wrongdoing,” while 28 percent said the indictment on charges of conspiracy to violate state election law probably stemmed from political rivals out to “embarrass” him. Less than a quarter weren’t sure, and 10 percent weren’t aware of the charges. Predictably, 60 percent of Democrats doubted DeLay’s innocence, as compared to 21 percent of Republicans.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents said DeLay should return to his leadership post if found not guilty, while 22 percent said he should step down permanently.

Overall, respondents seemed disillusioned with both parties. More than half — 56 percent — said the current Congress will be as equally subject to corruption as previous Democratic-controlled bodies. In addition, 44 percent said the number of ethical lapses in the Bush administration would be the same as previous administrations, while 28 percent said it would be more corrupt and 25 percent said less corrupt.

Respondents gave Bush a 40 percent job approval rating, with 53 percent disapproving. Congress’ numbers were worse, with just 32 percent approving and 56 percent frowning on their work.

Newsweek pollsters also asked the public about the government’s failings following Hurricane Katrina. Twenty-nine percent said the biggest reason for the botched response was “bad management,” while 28 percent blamed the selection of unqualified “political cronies” for leadership posts. Fewer than two in 10 put the onus on government cutbacks during Bush’s tenure.

Conditions for Judy’s Testimony May Indicate Prosecutor’s Focus on Libby

Jon Ponder

Washington Post:

New York Times reporter Judith Miller tried a year ago to make a deal with the prosecutor investigating the leak of a CIA operative’s identity but the prosecutor would not agree then to limit her testimony to Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, her lawyer said on Sunday.

Some lawyers involved in the case said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s decision to reject the deal a year ago — only to agree last week to limit the scope of Miller’s testimony to the subject of Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby — suggested Libby may have become increasingly important to wrapping up Fitzgerald’s case…

Floyd Abrams, one of Miller’s lawyers, told CNN: “I tried to get a deal a year ago.”

But Abrams said that when he spoke to Fitzgerald about it at the time, he would not agree to limit his questions “to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby.”…

One lawyer involved in the case said Fitzgerald’s change of mind “suggests that he doesn’t think he needs to hear about anybody else” but Libby.

GOP Guts Endangered Species Act to Boost Property Rights

Jon Ponder

GOP endangers species: Aren’t conservatives supposed to conserve? There is no limit to the depravity of the rightwing extremists in the Republican Party’s leadership:

Landowners would get major new rights and the federal government would have a smaller role in protecting plant and animal habitat under a House-passed overhaul of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. But Senate approval is far from assured.

“The act has been a failure at recovering species. We have to respond to that and step in and reauthorize the bill, put the focus on recovery and protect private property owners.”
— Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA)

The bill would require payments to property owners if species protection measures foil their development plans, put political appointees in charge of making some scientific determinations and stop the government from designating “critical habitat” for species where development is limited.

The Endangered Species Act, signed into law by President Nixon in 1973, requires the government to ensure its actions don’t jeopardize the survival of 1,268 U.S. species of plants and animals now considered “endangered” or “threatened” by extinction. Those actions can include setting aside habitat for dwindling species that need protected areas to survive and recover; currently, critical habitat has been designated for 466 U.S. species.

The law has helped 16 species — including alligators, deer, falcons and gray whales — recover enough to be removed from the government’s watch list, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fifteen were removed because the data used to justify government protections were later found faulty; nine were taken off because the species went extinct.

“The act has been a failure at recovering species,” said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., the bill’s author. “We have to respond to that and step in and reauthorize the bill, put the focus on recovery and protect private property owners.”

BREAKING: Bush to Nominate a Crony, Harriet Miers, for Supreme Court

Jon Ponder

The AP is reporting that President Bush will nominate one of his cronies – White House Counsel Harriet Miers – to serve on the Supreme Court:

After graduating from law school, Miers worked at Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell (1972-99), eventually becoming president of that company. In 1999 she was named co-managing partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP. In 1992, she became the first woman President of the Texas State Bar. Formerly George W. Bush’s personal attorney, Miers worked as counsel to Bush’s campaign for governor in 1994, and after his win was appointed chair of the Texas Lottery Commission (1995-2000). After Bush was elected President, she became his staff secretary (2001-03), and then deputy chief of staff (2003-04). She replaced Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel in 2005.

Apparently, Miers was running the White House vetting operation for prospective Supreme Court nominees. If so, by selecting her for the position she was vetting, Bush repeats his pattern from 1999 when he chose the man runnning his vice presidential vetting process to be his VP.

Source: Bush, Cheney Were in the Loop on CIA Leak

Jon Ponder

Rotten from the top: Until today, the MSM storyline for the CIA Leak investigation has been that the President and Vice President were out of the loop in the whispering campaign to smear Joe Wilson by outing his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Can you serve as President or Vice President if your security clearance has been revoked?

According to Think Progress, the storyline may be about to change:

Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:

Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this [sic] told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.

This would explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom of it.” As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanageable.

It has been established that top White House officials first learned about Valerie Plame’s identity in July 2003 on Air Force One heading to Africa. Secretary of State Colin Powell and others were seen with a briefing document about Plame marked “Top Secret.”

If Bush officials worked in concert to relay this secret information to the media, it is a violation that is punishable – at the very least – by revocation of security clearances.

Begs the question: Can you serve as President if your security clearance has been revoked?

Crooks and Liars has the video.

Helicopter Ads Offend Moslems, All the Rest of Humanity, and God

Trish


The ad Boeing Co., Bell Helicopter Textron, and the National Journal were forced to apologize for recently isn’t the only one produced by the unholy three. One in particular, so far flying under the radar so to speak, could be worse. AdWeek:

[I]t’s enough to make you anxiously cast your eyes skyward in order to avoid the lightening strike God must surely be sending our way

The image in the Osprey ad is one of several provocative visuals TM has created for print ads that appear in defense industry trade publications. An ad for Bell’s AH-1Z attack helicopter shows the craft rising out of a flaming background heavily armed with missiles. The headline reads: “We made it beautiful. Because it’s the last thing some people will ever see.”

Man. That’s enough to make you anxiously cast your eyes skyward in order to avoid the lightening strike God must surely be sending our way.

The other ad, which was specifically disavowed, was bad enough:

The ad, created by Interpublic Group’s TM Advertising in Irving, Texas, depicted a CV-22 Osprey aircraft delivering troops to the roof of a mosque. The headline read: “It descends from the heavens. Ironically it unleashes hell.”

…The ad for the CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft depicted soldiers rappelling onto the roof of a building, labeled “Muhammad Mosque” in Arabic. The building has a dome, crescent moon and minaret, all common features of a mosque.

The galling thing is how much the parties involved don’t get it, even as the measured apologies and blame issue forth for a “clerical error” that allowed the ad to run after the proofs were supposedly destroyed.

“We recognize that some organizations and individuals may have been offended by its content and regret any concerns this advertisement may have raised,” the Bell statement read.

Concerns? These folks don’t seem concerned in the least. Wonder why they aren’t throwing roses at us in Iraq anymore.

Historic Home Available for Free in NC Mountains

Jon Ponder

Okay, “historic” might be pushing it but the house does have sentimental value to members of the Ponder family.

Ponder House at Mars Hill College

Price: Free (Must be moved)
Square Feet: 1500 approximately
Lot Size: N/A
Location: On Campus of Mars Hill College behind Wall Science Building, Athletic Street, Mars Hill
County: Madison
State: North Carolina
Zoning: N/A
Contact: blovins@mhc.edu, 828-689-1246

This quaint farmhouse built in 1911 by the Ponder Family and donated to the college in 2002, sits on the site of the future Ferguson Science and Math Center, and must be moved by March 2006. It has metal roof, chestnut joists, two fireplaces, central stairway, and all beadboard walls and ceilings. All building systems are original and will need updating. Unless it can be moved to nearby location, it will have to be cut into pieces. House movers have estimated costs to move it locally at $35,000. Please email blovins@mhc.edu or call 828-689-1246 for more information and contact information for serious inquiries.

Area Information: Mars Hill is 18 miles north of Asheville on Interstate 26.

Map: Here.

Bush CIA Leak Investigation May Result in Conspiracy Charges

Jon Ponder
Fitzgerald might charge White House officials with conspiring to retaliate against Joe Wilson by leaking sensitive government information about his wife.

Jeopardy: Now that Judith Miller is out of jail and has testified before the grand jury convened by specical counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to look into the Bush CIA Leak matter, a new prediction about the outcome of the leak investigation has been floated:

[A] new theory about Fitzgerald’s aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

The “two or more officials” would probably include the Administration’s domestic president Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief advisor Scooter Libby. We would toss former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer into the pot as well.

Or, on the other hand, Fitzgerald could conclude the investigation and do — nothing:

“Even assuming . . . that somebody decided to answer back a critic, that is politics, not criminal behavior,” said one lawyer in the case. This lawyer said the most benign outcome would be Fitzgerald announcing that he completed a thorough investigation, concluded no crime was committed and would not issue a report.