Before a crowd of 100 people today (boy, he sure knows how to draw a crowd!), Newt Gingrich equated bilingual education with the "language of living in a ghetto."

No commentary from me necessary....I'll just let Newt's bigoted words speak for themself.

From an Associated Press article:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich equated bilingual education Saturday with "the language of living in a ghetto" and mocked requirements that ballots be printed in multiple languages.

"The government should quit mandating that various documents be printed in any one of 700 languages depending on who randomly shows up" to vote, said Gingrich, who is considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. He made the comments in a speech to the National Federation of Republican Women.

"The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," Gingrich said to cheers from the crowd of more than 100.

Gingrich decries bilingual ballots

So today, Bush said that Alberto Gonzales is "honorable and honest."

Dear Leader commented "He is providing documents for Congress to find the truth. He will testify in front of Congress. And he will tell the truth. I will remind you there is no credible evidence there has been any wrongdoing." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors;_ylt=AsB8uWdbd55TTsbDSBnRpp6s0NUE)

So let me see if I've got this straight.

The very same man that helped Bush keep his DUI arrest quiet, when Bush was called for jury duty while Governor of Texas. That man is "honorable and honest" in Bush's opinion.

The very same man who failed to provide Bush with critical information (such as ineffective counsel, mitigating evidence, and actual evidence of a person's innocence) when Bush had to decide on clemency petitions as Governor of Texas. That man is "honorable and honest" in Bush's opinion.

The man who has lied about the depth of his role in the firing of 8 prosecutors for seemingly purely political reasons. That man is "honorable and honest" in Bush's opinion.

Refreshing, isn't it, that Dear Leader has clarified for us, what he defines as being "honorable and honest."

Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testifed before Congress today that during a meeting with then White House Counsel Harriet Miers, he suggested that they consider firing prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who of course was the prosecutor in the CIA Leak Case, and successful prosecuted Scooter Libby for his role in the case.

But Sampson told Congress that he wasn't really serious in suggesting the removal of Fitzgerald.  He says maybe he did it to see what kind of reaction it would get!  (Spare me!  Can this guy be any more of a joke?)

From MSNBC:

D. Kyle Sampson, the former top aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday that he suggested removing prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who oversaw the CIA leak case involving White House staff, from his post.

Sampson said he made the recommendation during a White House meeting with Harriet Miers, former counsel to President Bush.

Sampson's statements on Thursday came amid controversy over U.S. attorneys who were fired without warning. His testimony for the first time put Gonzales at the heart of the firings amid ever-changing Justice Department accounts of how they were planned.

Miers and her deputy, William Kelley. "I remember on one occasion in 2006 in discussing the removal of U.S. attorneys ... and I raised Pat Fitzgerald."  Sampson said that as soon as he raised Fitzgerald at the meeting he regretted it: "I knew that it was the wrong thing to do. I knew that it was inappropriate."

Fitzgerald served as special counsel in the trial over who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, which ended in a perjury and obstruction conviction for Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Wilson is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

When quizzed by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., how Miers and Kelly reacted to the suggestion that Fitzgerald be added to the list of U.S. attorneys slated to be fired, Sampson said, "They looked at me like I had said something totally inappropriate, and I had."

"Why did you say it?  Why did you recommend or at least suggest that he be removed as U.S. attorney?" Durbin asked.

Sampson said he wasn't sure, but he thought "it was maybe to get a reaction from them." He added that he "never seriously considered" putting Fitzgerald on a list and that Fitzgerald never appeared on any list.

CIA leak prosecutor’s job was threatened

Ex-Gonzales aide says in testimony he suggested removing Fitzgerald

On today's Meet The Press, one of the prosecutors fired by Bush detailed the political questioning he was subjected to by White House officials, before his firing.

John McKay (from Washington State) had refused to bring any voter fraud charges in Washington State's hotely contested gubernatorial election, in which a Democrat was victorious.  And McKay said today that during a meeting with then White House Counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, he was asked by them "why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."

From the Washington Post:

One of the eight former U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration said yesterday that White House officials questioned his performance in highly partisan political terms at a meeting in Washington in September, three months before his dismissal.

John McKay of Washington state, who had decided two years earlier not to bring voter fraud charges that could have undermined a Democratic victory in a closely fought gubernatorial race, said White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, "asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."

McKay said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the question -- which he took as a challenge to his 2004 decision -- surprised him because the issue had been reviewed by his office and supported by the FBI's office in Seattle. "We expected to be supported by people in Washington, D.C., when we make tough decisions like that," McKay said.

Ex-Prosecutor Says He Faced Partisan Questions Before Firing

Breaking News this evening...

Newly released documents contradict Alberto Gonzales' claim that he was not closely involved in the firings of the 8 prosecutors.  I'm shocked, I tell ya.  Just shocked!  (NOT!)

From the Associated Press:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.

Documents show Gonzales approved firings

According to the website Politico.com, there is a gap (from mid-November to early December) of emails and other memos in the attorney purge investigation. 

From Politico.com:

In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.

Hmmm..hearing about this gap in the emails and other documents, reminds me of Alberto Gonzales' 12-hour gap in the Valerie Plame case.   I discussed it here on the blog before.  Before Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General and he was still the White House Counsel, he had received word from the Justice Department that it had launched an investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame.  Gonzales waited 12 HOURS before telling White House staff that they had to preserve all of their documents in the Valerie Plame matter. 

GOP Braces For Testimony Fight, Likely Gonzales Exit

Bush Aide Learned Early of Leaks Probe

As I was listening to C-Span's re-broadcast of Bush's comments today regarding the firing of the 8 U.S. attorneys, this one line stood out at me.

Bush said "I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who resigned. I appreciate your service to the country."

Of course, these attorneys did not resign because they wanted to. They resigned because they were told to. They were fired. So today, Bush, in all of his arrogance and cold heartedness, basically told them you're fired but thanks for your sevice!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070320-8.html

After having watched Valerie Plame's testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, one thing in particular that she said, has stayed with me, and I think should stay with every American and send shivers down our spines.

Yesterday, Plame testified that she always expected that she might be outed by some foreign government, but she never expected her cover to be blown by her own government.

In her own words, from yesterday's testimony:

"The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave but I can't provide details beyond that in this public hearing.

But the concept is obvious. Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents who, in turn, risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence.

Lives are literally at stake. Every single one of my former CIA colleagues, from my fellow covert officers to analysts to technical operations officers to even the secretaries, understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them.

We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies.

It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover."

Valerie Plame Wilson: I worked on secret missions

Here's a memo to some of the clueless Republican apologists making excuses for George W. Bush's purging of 8 prosecutors in the middle of his 2nd term.

I know you're so eager to use the 'Clinton did it too!' defense.  But before you make yourself look even more ignorant of the facts, let me save you from yourself.  Because I love you, I'm going to keep you from comparing apples with oranges, and give you the FACTS! (Which I know you have no use for.  The facts can be a very inconvenient thing).

Bill Clinton fired most of the prosecutors when he first came into office in 1993, as many Presidents do.  George Bush did it himself when he assumed office in 2001.  It is quite customary for new Presidents to select U.S. attorneys of their own choosing once they assume the presidency.

What is NOT customary, is for a President to start purging prosecutors that they selected in the first place, and for purely political reasons.  When he was selected President by the Supreme Court, George W. Bush dimissed attorneys from the Clinton administration, and make his own selection of people he wanted to serve as U.S. attorneys.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  Ronald Reagan did it as well.

The problem comes in when George W. Bush dismissed the very same attorneys that he had asked to serve in the first place, and for what appears to be purely political reasons.  One U.S. attorney, David C. Iglesias was fired for not indicting Democrats for voter fraud, when he found no evidence of voter fraud to indict them on!

It's also interesting that another purged attorney, Carol Lam, had successfully prosecuted former Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham on curruption charges.

 

Seems like Congressional Republicans may be starting to abandon the sinking ship that is Alberton Gonzales.

Rep. Dana Rohrbacher has become the third Republican to say that Gonzales needs to get his walking papers as Attorney General.  Rohrbacher said "Even for Republicans this is a warning sign … saying there needs to be a change," said Rohrbacher. "Maybe the president should have an attorney general who is less a personal friend and more professional in his approach."

Gee Mr. Rohrbacher...what was your first clue that Gonzales was too personally connected to Bushie?  After all, we're talking about the same Alberto Gonzales who helped Bush keep his DUI quiet when Bush was called to jury duty while Governor of Texas.

Strategist Says Gonzales Is "Finished"

Senate Investigation Heats Up Amid Calls For Attorney General Gonzales' Ouster

 

 

Newly released emails reveal Bush's Brain, Karl Rove, was smack dab in the middle of the Bush Administration's purging of prosecutors.

From MSNBC:

White House political adviser Karl Rove raised questions in early 2005 about replacing some federal prosecutors but allowing others to stay, an e-mail exchange released Thursday shows.

"Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.,'" Colin Newman, a staffer in the office of counsel to the president, wrote to a colleague.

The one-page document, which spans e-mails between the White House and the Justice Department in January 2005, also indicates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was considering a range of options in dismissing U.S. attorneys early in President Bush’s second term.

E-mails show Rove role on prosecutors’ future

Gonzales also described as weighing options in early 2005

As we continue to focus like a laser-beam (and rightly so) on the firing of the prosecutors for purely political reasons, we must not forget how the Bush Administration politicized another critical entity within the Department of Justice---that being DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

This information about BushCo.'s politization of DOJ's Civil Rights Division first started coming to light last year, but didn't receive the true attention it deserved in the MSM. Maybe now is the time to help get this story back out there.

Last January, we learned how the Bush Administration was politicizing the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

From the Washington Post:

The Justice Department's voting section, a small and usually obscure unit that enforces the Voting Rights Act and other federal election laws, has been thrust into the center of a growing debate over recent departures and controversial decisions in the Civil Rights Division as a whole.

Many current and former lawyers in the section charge that senior officials have exerted undue political influence in many of the sensitive voting-rights cases the unit handles. Most of the department's major voting-related actions over the past five years have been beneficial to the GOP, they say, including two in Georgia, one in Mississippi and a Texas redistricting plan orchestrated by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) in 2003.

The section also has lost about a third of its three dozen lawyers over the past nine months. Those who remain have been barred from offering recommendations in major voting-rights cases and have little input in the section's decisions on hiring and policy.

-snip-

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his aides dispute such criticism and defend the department's actions in voting cases. "We're not going to politicize decisions within the department," he told reporters last month after The Washington Post had disclosed staff memoranda recommending objections to a Georgia voter-identification plan and to the Texas redistricting.

The 2005 Georgia case has been particularly controversial within the section. Staff members complain that higher-ranking Justice officials ignored serious problems with data supplied by the state in approving the plan, which would have required voters to carry photo identification.

Georgia provided Justice with information on Aug. 26 suggesting that tens of thousands of voters may not have driver's licenses or other identification required to vote, according to officials and records. That added to the concerns of a team of voting-section employees who had concluded that the Georgia plan would hurt black voters.

But higher-ranking officials disagreed, and approved the plan later that day. They said that as many as 200,000 of those without ID cards were felons and illegal immigrants and that they would not be eligible to vote anyway.

Then last July, we learned that the Bush Administration was busy filling the permanent ranks of DOJ's Civil Rights Division, with lawyers who had strong conservative credentials (read: loyalty to the Republican Party) but with little civil rights experience.

From the Boston Globe:

The Bush administration is quietly remaking the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights, according to job application materials obtained by the Globe.

The documents show that only 42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003, after the administration changed the rules to give political appointees more influence in the hiring process, have civil rights experience. In the two years before the change, 77 percent of those who were hired had civil rights backgrounds.

In an acknowledgment of the department's special need to be politically neutral, hiring for career jobs in the Civil Rights Division under all recent administrations, Democratic and Republican, had been handled by civil servants -- not political appointees.

But in the fall of 2002, then-attorney general John Ashcroft changed the procedures. The Civil Rights Division disbanded the hiring committees made up of veteran career lawyers.

For decades, such committees had screened thousands of resumes, interviewed candidates, and made recommendations that were only rarely rejected.

Now, hiring is closely overseen by Bush administration political appointees to Justice, effectively turning hundreds of career jobs into politically appointed positions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2... /

Perhaps the MSM can redeem itself and begin to ask questions about the politization DOJ's Civil Rights Division, as they continue to cover the firing of the prosecutors. Even more importantly, the new Congress can bring this into their purview and oversight.

As an African-American, I believe that Rev. Al Sharpton was exactly right in his recent comments on the presidential candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama.

On background, Sharpton commented that Obama should not take the votes of his fellow African-Americans for granted next year. He said "Why shouldn't the black community ask questions? Are we now being told, 'You all just shut up?'"

Rev. Sharpton, I believe, is absolutely correct when he says that we need to ask the tough questions of Sen. Obama (just as we would any other candidate of any other race). And as Rev. Sharpton often says, just because someone looks like me, doesn't always mean they are my kind (meaning they don't necessarily represent my values or my interests).

It would be a tremendous failure on our part, if we were to simply endorse Sen. Obama's candidacy largely on the basis of his race, and our desire to see the first African-American President of the United States.

As much as I love radio personality Tom Joyner and his advocacy on behalf of important issues (such as our HBCUs), I have been extremely disappointed thus far in how he has treated the Sen. Obama's candidacy.

He interviewed Sen. Obama shortly before the Superbowl, and did not ask a single policy question of him. Moreover, Tom Joyner has let it be known loud and clear that he endorses Obama's candicacy, saying recently "He's black enough for me."

Comments like "He's black enough for me" do a tremendous disserivce to the African-American community. It suggests that we would be willing to make judgements about someone (and even more specifically vote for them) largely based on their race. That kind of thinking, goes against everything that people like Martin Luther King and four little girls in Alabama died for. And I feel quite confident in saying that if members of the Caucasian community said that Sen. Clinton or Sen. John Edwards were white enough for them, we would rise up in indignation.

So this evening I heard a soundbite of Newt Gingrich and his I HAVE SINNED moment on James Dobson's show.

And he justified standing in judgement of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, WHILE he was having his own extracurricular activites, by saying that he may have had an affair, but he didn't lie about it under oath.

Oh, okay....I guess it's ok to cheat on your wife, as long as you don't have to testify about it in a court of law?

A few things stand out at me. One, you see Republicans like Gingrich trying to compare sins....Oh, I was bad, but this person was worse.

Secondly, you see them trying to say that the Clinton impeachment was not about sex, but about lying under oath. Make no mistake about it, the Clinton impeachment was all about sex and nothing but.

Just read the Starr report. See how many times the word cigar is mentioned, vs. the number of times Whitewater is mentioned. It's a 9 to 1 ratio.

Well color me surprised here!  Newt Gingrich hasn't exactly been a model husband himself.  Who knew?! 

Newt Gingrich has admitted to Focus on the Family's wingnut James Dobson, that he was carrying on his own extramarital affair, during the very same time that he was sitting in judgement of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Sounds to me as though Newt is going to run for President in '08, and he's coming before those so-called GOP "values voters" (many of whom really don't have many values at all) to tell them he has sinned and ask for their forgiveness.

Gingrich had affair during Clinton probe

"This administration is frankly unable to run a two-car parade."

- Senator and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, in announcing that she will propose a new GI "Bill of Rights."

Clinton calls for GI 'Bill of Rights'

 

 

Next week, Valerie Plame, who is of course the former CIA covert operative whose identity was exposed by the Bush Administration, will testify before the House Oversight And Government Reform Committee. The committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, will be examining how the lawless Bush Administration handled Plame's identity.

Patrick Fitzgerald,  who successfuly prosecuited and one convictions against Scooter Libby for his role in Plame outing, has also been invited to testify, but he has not provided an answer to the committee yet.

Valerie Plame to testify before Congress

Some of the prosecutors recently fired for no apparent reason by the Bush Administration, are going before Congress to to tell their story.

Today, one of those former prosecutors told how he received a phone call from Sen. Pete Domenici , and how Domenici just hung up on him, when he told him there would likely be no indictments in a corruption case involving Democrats, before the elections.

From CNN:

A fired federal prosecutor told a Senate committee Tuesday that he felt "leaned on" and sickened as Republican Sen. Pete Domenici hung up on him in disgust last fall when told that indictments in a corruption case against Democrats would not be issued before the fall elections.

"He said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?' " former federal prosecutor David Iglesias, one of eight U.S. attorneys summarily fired in recent months, told the panel. "I said I didn't think so. And to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead."

The Bush administration also applied a heavy hand after the firings of eight prosecutors became public and some of the dismissed U.S. attorneys had been quoted in media, according to one of those ousted, Bud Cummins of Arkansas.

Ex-prosecutor says lawmaker tried to leverage him

Of course, the biggest news item of the day is the conviction of Scotter Libby (Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff) in the CIA leak trial.

Libby was convicted on 4 out of 5 counts, including obstruction of justice, making false statements to the FBI, and perjury before the grand jury.  In other words, today justice was served for former CIA covert operative Valerie Plame (whose name we, the American public, should not even know).

After the announcement of the verdicts, one of the jurors spoke out, and had something very interesting to say.  They convicted Scotter Libby because they believed him to be guilty, based on the evidence.

But also, they felt he had been set up by the Bush Administration to be their "fall guy."  And they said that they often wondered where some of the bigger guns were, like Karl Rove.

From MSNBC:

“I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,” said the juror, Denis Collins, a former newspaper reporter.

“It was said a number of times: ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ ” Collins said, referring to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who was identified during the investigation as one of the senior officials who revealed the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame, to journalists.

‘Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’

Juror says Libby was guilty but was set up to take the fall in Plame probe

Some required reading for today:

1.  The website Think Progress has a really interesting read on the White House pulling one of its nominations.  It seems as though the White House has withdrawn its nomination of Tim Griffin, a protege of Karl Rove.  The White House apparently did not want Griffin to have to go before the Senate for confirmation, and have to answer questions about it's plan to supress African-American votes in 2004.

Did White House Pull Nomination To Avoid Questions Over 2004 Minority Voter Suppression?

2.  The Washington Post has an interesting read on the White House's personal involvement in the firing of 7 U.S. attorneys.  Apparently the White House felt the attorneys were not carrying out Bushie's agenda when it came to issues such as immigration.  Correct if I'm wrong here, but the job of U.S. attorneys is to help carry out the LAW, not a President's political agenda.

White House OK’d mass U.S. attorney firings

Targeted prosecutors believed not doing enough to carry out Bush's policies

 

An article in the Washington Post today revealed that officials were indeed aware of the neglect of many outpatients at Walter Reed.  For more than three years, family members of the outpatients, as well as veterans groups and members of Congress, voiced their complaints about the treatment of outpatients.

From the Washington Post:

Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years.

A procession of Pentagon and Walter Reed officials expressed surprise last week about the living conditions and bureaucratic nightmares faced by wounded soldiers staying at the D.C. medical facility. But as far back as 2003, the commander of Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who is now the Army's top medical officer, was told that soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were languishing and lost on the grounds, according to interviews.

Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, said he ran into Kiley in the foyer of the command headquarters at Walter Reed shortly after the Iraq war began and told him that "there are people in the barracks who are drinking themselves to death and people who are sharing drugs and people not getting the care they need."

-snip-

Last October, Joyce Rumsfeld, the wife of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was taken to Walter Reed by a friend concerned about outpatient treatment. She attended a weekly meeting, called Girls Time Out, at which wives, girlfriends and mothers of soldiers exchange stories and offer support.

According to three people who attended the gathering, Rumsfeld listened quietly. Some of the women did not know who she was. At the end of the meeting, Rumsfeld asked one of the staff members whether she thought that the soldiers her husband was meeting on his visits had been handpicked to paint a rosy picture of their time there. The answer was yes.

When Walter Reed officials found out that Rumsfeld had visited, they told the friend who brought her -- a woman who had volunteered there many times -- that she was no longer welcome on the grounds.

-snip-

This week, in a move that some soldiers viewed as reprisal for speaking to the media, the wounded troops were told that early-morning room inspections would be held and that further contact with reporters is prohibited.

Top officials knew of neglect at Walter Reed

Complaints about medical center were voiced for years