Very interesting story from the Associated Press (AP) on how government officials (and their friends in the U.S. Congress) are trying to silence the inspectors general who help uncover waste, abuse and fraud in our federal agencies.

From the AP:

-  The top official of the government's property and supply agency compared its inspector general to a terrorist, hoping to chill audits of General Services Administration regional offices and private businesses.

-  Directors of the government's legal aid program discussed firing their inspector general, who investigated how top officials lavishly spent tax dollars for limousine services, ritzy hotels and $14 "Death by Chocolate" desserts.

-  Administration-friendly Republicans in Congress tried to do away with the special inspector general for Iraq, who repeatedly exposed examples of administration waste that cost billions of dollars. Among the contractors criticized was Halliburton Corp., once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

-  The Pentagon has been making its inspector general use lawyers picked by the defense secretary instead of independently hired attorneys.

Gov't watchdogs under attack from bosses

Gerald Ford admitted (in a recently released interview) that his personal friendship with Richard Nixon played a part in his decision to pardon Nixon for his crimes in the Watergate scandal.

Ford told reporter Bob Woodward (who of course helped uncover Watergate) "I looked upon him as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma."

In other words, Gerald Ford put personal friendship ahead of country, and justice.

Ford: Nixon Friendship Affected Pardon

In a July 2004 interview with Bob Woodward, President Gerald Ford stated his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  But he stipulated that the interview be embargoed and not aired, until after his death.

Ford said "I don't think I would have gone to war." He said he "very strongly" disagreed with the Administration's stated justifications for going to war, and commented that "Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction. And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

Now, the question foremost on my mind is, why did he not want to make his views about the Iraq war known while he was alive? He didn't hesitate to let his feelings on the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle be known (he wrote an op/ed in October 1998 calling for the Congress to "rebuke" Clinton).  Yet, he didn't want his feelings on the Iraq war to be known until after he died?  Interesting...

Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq

 

Awww....what's wrong Bushie?  Are you scared at the prospect that your administration will now have some oversight?

George Bush is preparing for the Democratic takeover of Congress---by hiring more lawyers.

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Bush is preparing for the new Democrat-controlled Congress "by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas."

In other words, he knows that everything from the Iraq war, to warrantless domestic spying, will be under the Democrat's purview.  And poor little Georgie is so scared that he's lawyering up. 

Bush is bracing for new scrutiny

So I've been listening to C-span Radio's rebroadcast of the Sunday morning news shows today.

And listening to Fox News Sunday, it was very obvious that Chris Wallace was in full 'GOP media whore' mode.

- When he introduced Lynne Cheney as his guest, he described her as "one of Washington's original thinkers." When she thanked him, he said "well deserved." As someone who has a degree in mass media arts/print journalism, this kind of editorializing disturbs me. Could he not have just said "Ladies and gentleman, the wife of the Vice-President..."

- He also thanked Lynne Cheney for being invited to her and Dick Cheney's Christmas Party at their residence. And he said he noticed Scooter Libby in attendance as well. And he asked her about their relationship with Scooter Libby.

Immediately, as a journalist, my mind when to the potential conflict of interest. Dick Cheney is being called as a defense witness in Libby's trial. Yet, Cheney invites Libby to his Christmas Party. If I had been interviewing Lynne Cheney, I would have asked her about that. Needless to say, Wallace did not.

This definitely gets my vote as THE headline of the day, lol! 

'I have no future' -- Jeb Bush tells reporters

The man who helped his brother steal the presidency in 2000 says he has no future!  Jeb Bush, who seemed to think he knew better than Terri Schiavo's husband what was best for her, says he doesn't plan to return to public office after finishing his stint as Governor of Florida.

And the nation thanks you, Jebbie, for saving us from one more miserable failure of a Bush presidency.

 

You might recall that at the 2004 Republican Convention, some delegates held up pictures of flip-flops (a swipe at Bush's rival, Senator John Kerry, who the GOP portrayed as a flip-flopper).

Well, seems like dear ol' Bushie is doing some flip-flopping of his own.

Just last month, when asked whether the United States was winning the war in Iraq, Bush said "Absolutely, we're winning."

Now it seems like Bush can't make up his mind whether we are winning or losing. In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Bush said "We're not winning.  We're not losing."

Not winning?  Not losing?  Is there supposed to be something in between?

Well, at least we finally got Bush to admit we're not winning in Iraq.  So I guess he's only half delusional now!  For the Flip-Flopper-in-Chief, that's considered progress!

U.S. not winning war in Iraq, Bush says

George Bush is fond of saying that he listens to the generals on the ground to guide his decisions regarding the war in Iraq, and specifically when it comes to troop levels.

Perhaps he should revise his previous remarks, to say that he only listens to the generals when he likes what they have to say.

Bush admitted today that he is inclinded to send more troops to Iraq, despite the fact that the generals on the ground have some heartburn with this approach.

From an Associated Press article:

WASHINGTON - A White House laboring to find a new approach in Iraq said Tuesday it is considering sending more U.S. troops, an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash.  President Bush said he is ready to boost the overall size of an American military overstretched by its efforts against worldwide terrorism.

The military's caution on shipping thousands of additional troops temporarily to Iraq is based on a fear that the move could be ineffective without bold new political and economic steps.

Commanders also worry that the already stretched Army and Marine Corps would be even thinner once the short-term surge ended. Bush's newly expressed interest in making the military larger would have little impact on that worry because it will take much longer to add substantially to the size of the military.

The generals are talking.  But is Bush listening? Me thinks not!  Especially because he doesn't like what it is they are saying.

Iraq troop buildup idea worries generals

Maybe someone needs to remind incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that we just had an election.  And in that election, the voters sent a clear message: they are not happy with the daily carnage and misery that has become Iraq, under George Bush's failed war.

Considering that his party just won back the majority in both houses of Congress, you wouldn't think that Sen. Reid would need a reminder about the results of the mid-term election, but apparently he does.

Reid announced what is, in my opinion, a very disappointing position of his: that he would be ok with a very brief increase in the number of American troops in Iraq.  Reid said "If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."  He did go on, however, to say that "The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically."

Excuse me, Senator, but if you believe that this war cannot be won military, then why continue to put our troops at risk, in the middle of a civil war in which WE have also become the target?  That is not what the American people voted for on November 7.  In case you miss the point Sen. Reid, the American people will not give the Democrats a free pass on Iraq.  If your party fails to hold George Bush's feet to the fire on Iraq, and if you quiver under Bushie's "stay the course" policy, then the American people will remove you from power, just as they did the Republicans this November.

Meanwhile, former Secretary of State Colin Powell basically says that the U.S. Army is nearly broken because of Iraq, and that there are no more troops to send.  He stated "There really are no additional troops. The current active Army is not large enough and the Marine Corps is not large enough for the kinds of missions they are being asked to perform.''

Reid: Brief troop increase OK in Iraq

Powell Says U.S. Army `About Broken' Because of Iraq (Update1)

Many Americans will recall May 1, 2003.

That was the day when George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier, behind a banner stating "Mission Accomplished," and declared that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Well, it seems like Bushie is revising his previous remarks.

Today, regarding the situtation in Iraq, he said that the enemy is "far from being defeated."

So we've gone from "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" to the enemy is "far from being defeated."

You know Bushie, many of the Iraqi people now think that WE are the enemy.  But I'm just saying...

It is also interesting to note that as Bush was basically admitting defeat in Iraq today, he also said he would "not be rushed" when it comes to deciding on a new strategy for Iraq.  In other words, Bush could care less that people are dying in Iraq, on a daily basis.  The Decider-in-Chief is gonna take his sweet time deciding on a strategy for Iraq.  Never mind that he sent our troops into Iraq without an exit plan or a plan to win the peace in the first place.  He's gonna take his time.  Meanwhile, the White House has planned to host 24 holiday parties this holiday season.  That's right, 24 parties.  No wonder Bush can't decide on a strategy for Iraq. He's too busy partying it up while our troops and the Iraqi people pay the price.

Bush: Iraq enemy far from being defeated

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended

Bush: I won't be rushed on Iraq

White House showcases holiday decorations

24 holiday parties will see traditional look with non-traditional menu

"Like most Americans, this administration wants to succeed in Iraq because we understand success in Iraq would help protect the United States in the long run."

- George W. Bush, speaking after his Iraq briefing at the State Department on 12/11/06

Notice he said "Like MOST Americans, this administration wants to succeed in Iraq.."

Like MOST Americans?

Does George Bush know any American who DOESN'T want us to succeed in Iraq? If he does, I'd love for him to introduce them to me, because I sure haven't met anyone not desirious for success in Iraq. We may disagree with this war. And we may disagree on strategy. But the last time I checked, we all wanted the same thing: a more peaceful, hopeful Iraq.

But I guess for George W. Bush, this really isn't about Iraq or the Iraqi people. It's just more proof that he believes if you are not in lock step with his twisted, sick policies, you are unpatriotic.

Bush Reviews Options on Iraq Policy

What a shocker!  We find out the grown-ups really aren't in charge in Bush 43's White House.  Color me surprised!

One of the main talking points during the 2000 Presidential campaign (on the GOP side) was that if George W. Bush won the presidency, the grown-ups would be in charge again.  Republicans often chided the 20 and 30-year olds in the Clinton Administration for wearing jeans to work in the White House on weekends (the horror!).

Now a former aide to George W. Bush tells us that the grown-ups still aren't in charge!

According to the New York Daily News, the former aide said "The White House is totally constipated. There's not enough adult leadership, and the 30-year-olds still think it's 2000 and they're riding high."

Poor Bush had a week that reeked

In his farewell speech as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan schooled the Bush Administration about maintaining human rights and the rule of law in an age of terrorism.  And he urged the United States at large not to abandon the core principles it has long stood for (at least until Bush 43 became King).

Annan commented "Human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity."  (Read: Bushie, you actually put your country MORE at risk, and increase the chances of terrorism, when you ignore the Geneva Conventions and waterboard people.)

He went on to say that when America "appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused." (Read: Under BushCo., the United States has lost its moral authority and compass, and has become what it despises.)

Annan also reminded us of the example set by President Harry Truman, and how Truman remained true to America's principles and ideals. 

Annan stated "As President Truman said, 'The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world. He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible. That was why, for instance, that he insisted when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations. Against such threats as these, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others." (In other words, Bushie, you are not King.  The United States is not a country unto itself.  You do not live in this world alone.  You are not judge and jury.)

Now the question remains, did George Bush get a clue?  Was he listening? Of course not.

In farewell, Annan scolds Bush administration

U.N. chief warns U.S. not to forget democratic ideals in war on terrorism

Annan chides U.S. in farewell speech

A group of experts who served on a "working group" to the Iraq Study Group (ISG), have concluded that military readiness is at its lowest since Vietnam.

Salon.com reports that some of the experts are fustrated that the White House did absolutely nothing to prevent the "degradation" of U.S. ground forces' readiness.

From Salon.com:

In interviews with Salon, experts who served on the study group's "working groups" explained why: The military is running out of troops and equipment. The cold, hard facts about military readiness and a 1.4 million-strong active-duty force rule out a big increase in the size of the U.S. footprint in Iraq. "We don't have enough is the short answer," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University who served on the military and security working group of the bipartisan commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. Advocating a big increase in troop levels now is just political theater, Hoffman argued. "This is the beginning of the who-lost-Iraq debate," he explained. "No one wants to be a charter member of the club."

-snip-

Some advisors to the study group expressed considerable frustration that the White House never lifted a finger to prevent the predictable degradation in the readiness of U.S. ground forces, now painfully apparent. Among other things, the White House could have worked early on to greatly increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. "We've been whistling by the graveyard without doing anything to solve this problem," said Michael Eisenstadt, a study group advisor from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Wow.  Another one of Bushie's true believers leaves the fold.  What took so long?

Sen. Gordon Smith said yesterday in a speech on the floor of the Senate that he can no longer continue to support the war in Iraq, which he says may be illegal.

Smith said "I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. So either we clear and hold and build or let’s go home."

Oregon Senator says Iraq war is absurd, may be 'criminal'

 

 

In preparation for his expected presidential bid in 2008, Sen. John McCain has hired a campaign manager, according to the Washington Post.

McCain has hired Terry Nelson as his campaign manger.

And as the folks over at Talking Points Memo note, it is the VERY SAME Terry Nelson that was responsible for that awful race-baiting ad against Harold Ford in the Tennesse Senate race from this year.

McCain Continues to Win Over Bush Insiders

McCain Hires Strategist Behind Harold Ford "Bimbo" Ad As Campaign Manager

So I'm sitting here listening to the podcast of Keith Olbermann's show from tonight.

Olbermann had Dana Milbank from the Washington Post on as a guest.  And Milbank recounted how he was told by former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger that Bush asked "Where's my drink?" after receiving the ISG report.

Does Bush think Iraq is some kind of joke?  He laughs at a press conference today after being asked if he truly realizes how serious Iraq is.

And he pontificates on where his drink is after receiving the ISG report on yesterday.

Here's a novel idea, Mr. 'President.' (I do use that term losely when it comes to Bushie).

Instead of wondering where your drink is, how about getting to work on those recommendations from the ISG?  How about a little (actually a lot of) course correction?

While American men and women, not to mention Iraqi men, women, and children, are dying daily in a civil war, George Bush continues to demonstrate that he truly doesn't understand the gravity of the situation.

Check out this exchange from today's presser, courtesy of the White House's very own website:

Q Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's bad in Iraq. Does that help? (Laughter.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061207-1.html

This is what real leadership and American values look like in the U.S. Congress...

The incoming Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate say they will block a pay raise for Congressional lawmakers until Congress passes an increase in the minimum wage.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader-Elect Harry Reid commented "It is unconscionable that members of congress would get yet another pay raise while the minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for the last 10 years. Senator Reid intends to do all he can to ensure that Congress won't get a raise until working families do."

Democrats have put the GOP on notice that they will attempt to add the anti-pay raise measure to a bill that provides funding through February 2007 for most government agencies.

It's called sacrifice; something that the GOP knows nothing about.  For the past 12 years, the GOP-led Congress have been all about what is in their own interests to ensure their political viability.

The Democrats are demonstrating that, under their leadership, Congress will return to a people-first attitude.

Democrats Will Try to Block Pay Raise

Speaking before the press today, George Bush said of the brand new report by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG): "The truth is a lot of reports in Washington aren't read by anybody. To show you how important this report is, I read it."

So what, Georgie?  Do you want some milk and cookies for reading the ISG report?   For good or ill, you are the President of the United States.  You were SUPPOSED to read this report, about a war YOU started and have failed to win.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/a_bushism.html

Oh cry me a river, will you?  Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are complaining about having to work 5 days a week next year.  (Imagine that!)

The incoming Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate have already but lawmakers on notice that they will be working longer hours next year, in order that they might actually do the business of the American people (which, if I'm not mistaking, is what they are getting PAID to do).

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland (who will be the number 2 leader in the House under Nancy Pelosi), is currently writing the schedule for next year, and he says members of the House will be working almost every day in January, starting with January 4.  (As I've reported here on the blog before, traditionally lawmakers come to Capitol Hill the first week of January to be sworn in, and then they recess until the President's State of the Union address).

Rep. Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, isn't too pleased that he might have to actually work for his paycheck.  Upon hearing of the busy schedule that Democrats are planning for next year, he complained "Keeping us up here eats away at families. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

No sir.  What it says is that because the Republican-led 109th Congress has sat on it's laurels this year, there is much more work to do.  Your party is leaving town without finishing up critical spending bills.  Spending bills that they are leaving for the Democratic 110th Congress to deal with.

So you see, you and your fellow Republicans have had your play time. Now it's time to work.

5-day work week is a Capitol Hill culture shock

Democrats seek a businesslike image; many in GOP decry effect on families

If there is any question as to why the United States' standing in the international community has dwindled, this article should put that question to rest.

According to an article in the Washington Post, Canadian officials say they warned the United States that they had no evidence that Maher Arar was an Al Qaeda agent, before the United States sent Arar to Syria, where he was tortured.

Arar was a software engineer in Canada.  He was born in Syria.

Initially, Canadian officals told the United States that he was a person of interest and that he MAY have ties Islamic extremists.  They subsequently told the U.S. that there was no evidence that Arar was tied to terrorists.  Despite that warning, Arar was deported to Syria, and tortured there.

In other words, the U.S. government rendered a human being to another country to be tortured, when they knew there was no evidence that the person was tied to any terrorists.

And these are supposed to be our American values?

Canada: Suspect Tortured Despite Warning

 

 

So of course one of the main news items today is John Bolton resigning from his appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.  Bolton will step down after his recess appointment ends.

I'm almost sorry to see Bolton go, and it's NOT because he's been an effective ambassador working on behalf of U.S. interests.  I'm sorry to see him go because he gives us bloggers such good material to work with!

The folks over at Talking Points Memo have a very interesting read on something that Bolton has done on his way out the door of the U.N.

Next year will mark 200 years since the abolishment of the transatlantic slave trade.  To that end, several Carribean nations proposed a resolution that commemorates this wonderful anniversary.  But leave it to John Bolton. Originally, he refused to sign on to the resolution. 

So what is exactly is Bolton's problem with using a resolution to celebrate the end of the transatlantic slave trade?  Apparently, he wanted to change some language in the resolution.  He wanted "emphasizing" changed to "the emphasis."  Huh?  So because he has a problem with the word "emphasizing," he was prepared to not sign this historic resolution?

It seems as though Bolton changed his mind about not signing the resolution, after members of the Congressional Black Caucus spoke up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Congressional Black Caucus IS the conscience of the United States Congress!

Departing Bolton Held Up Anti-Slavery Measure

There's a very intersting read from the Associated Press today, regarding the coming change in leadership at the Pentagon.

The article notes that little change is expected at the Pentagon, when Robert Gates (who is expected to win Senate confirmation) replaces Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary.

According to the Associated Press, the changes that Gates will usher in, are expected to be more about style than substance. In other words, just more of the same.

It should be clear to this so-called Commander-in-Chief, and those under him, that a 'more of the same' approach at the Pentagon just won't cut it.

The Iraqi people can't afford a 'more of the same' policy from the Bush Administration.  Our troops can't afford it either.

Few changes expected in Pentagon under Gates

As defense chief, ex-CIA director's shifts may be more style than substance

Hmmm...I guess better late than never, huh Rummy?

It appears that, on his way out the door, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may have FINALLY joined the reality-based community (a girl can dream, right?)

The New York Times reports that on November 6 (the day before the Democrats re-took control of Congress), Rummy wrote his boss a classified memo that basically said the administration's strategy in Iraq was not working.  (Geez, what was his first clue?)

In part, Rummy told Bush in the memo "In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."  Rummy offered several options, including troop reduction, although he made no specific recommendation about which option Bushie should choose.

You know things are going bad for the Emperor-in-Chief when one of his last true believers starts telling him things aren't working.

Rumsfeld memo admits Iraq strategy failing