The progressive blogosphere doesn't walk its talk, Think Progress edition

"d" list bloggers deserve respect too...

Dear Think Progress Colleagues:

I sent in a blog post to Think Progress yesterday regarding the omission of the allegation of perjury on the part of General Ricardo Sanchez in media and blog coverage of his recent speech. I waited the requisite four hours and, since I did not receive a response, put up the post on my own weblog. Imagine my surprise this morning when reading The Progress Report to see that you had decided to call attention to that allegation. Imagine my further surprise when I saw my own words printed verbatim.

The Progress Report

"A memorandum written and signed by Sanchez on Sept. 14, 2003, contained as an enclosure the specific interrogation techniques authorized to be used in Iraq, and also noted that these methods were potentially in contravention of the Geneva Conventions."

And, yes, I DO take it personally

"The memorandum written and signed by General Sanchez on September 14, 2003, contained as an enclosure the specific interrogation techniques authorized to be used in Iraq, and also noted those that were potentially in contravention of Geneva."

I find the lack of the simple courtesy of even sending a private email with a thank-you for the tip to be both disappointing and sadly unprofessional. You can be certain I won't make the same mistake twice.

i take great pains to credit all sources whether they be news media outlets or bloggers... the last thing i want to do is try to pretend that all the stuff i put out here is the product of my own fertile mind and diligent research... i don't think it's too much to ask to expect the same treatment in return...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The general who authorized enhanced interrogation techniques for Iraq and perjured himself in 2004, now calls Iraq a "nightmare"

robert parry reports on general ricardo sanchez' october 12 speech...

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq for the first year of the occupation, blamed “incompetence” by President George W. Bush’s national security team for creating a “nightmare” that could last far into the future.

Sanchez, who led coalition forces from June 2003 to June 2004, used an Oct. 12 speech to a conference of Military Reporters and Editors in Arlington, Virginia, to castigate nearly everyone connected to the Iraq War, including the U.S. news media, Congress, the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon.

“There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetence in strategic leadership among our national leaders,” Sanchez said. “They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately relieved or court-martialed.”

general, i do believe the penalty for perjuring yourself in front of the senate armed services committee is a somewhat stiffer penalty than a mere court martial...


first of all, general, here's the memorandum authorizing "enhanced" interrogation techniques that you wrote in iraq in 2003...



and here are the torture techniques that you authorized...

The use of techniques A-CC are subject to the general safeguards as provided below as well as specific implementation guidelines to be provided by the 205th MI BDE Commander. Specific implementation guidance with respect to techniques A-CC is provided in U.S. Army Field Manual 34-52. Further implementation guidance will be developed by the 205th MI BDE Commander.

Of the techniques set forth below, the policy aspects of certain techniques should be considered to the extent they reflect the views of other Coalition contributing nations. The description of the technique is annotated to include some policy issues that should be considered before application of the technique.

A. Direct: Asking straightforward questions.
*B. Incentive/Removal of Incentive: Providing a reward or removing a privilege above and beyond those that are required by the Geneva Convention from detainees. [Caution: Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider that provision and retention of religious items (e.g. the Koran) are protected under international law (see Geneva III, Article 34).]
C. Emotional Love: Playing on the love a detainee has for an individual or group.
D. Emotional Hate: Playing on the hatred a detainee has for an individual or group.
E. Fear Up Harsh: Significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee.
F. Fear Up Mild: Moderately increasing the fear level in a detainee.
G. Reduced Fear: Reducing the fear level in a detainee.
H. Pride and Ego Up: Boosting the ego of a detainee.
*I. Pride and Ego Down: Attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee not beyond the limits that would apply to an EPW. [Caution: Article 17 of Geneva III provides "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider this technique inconsistent with the provisions of Geneva.]
J. Futility: Invoking the feeling of futility of a detainee.
K. We Know All: Convincing the detainee that the interrogator already knows the answers to questions he asks the detainee.
L. Establish Your Identity: Convincing the detainee that the interrogator has mistaken the detainee for someone else.
M. Repetition: Continuously repeating the same question to the detainee within interrogaton periods of normal duration.
N. File and Dossier: Convincing detainee that the interrogator has a damning and inaccurate file which must be fixed.
*O. Mutt and Jeff: A team consisting of a friendly and harsh interrogator. The harsh interrogator might employ the Pride and Ego Down technique. [Caution: Other nations that believe that EPW protections apply to detainees may view this technique as inconsistent with Geneva III, Article 13 which provides that EPW's must be protected against acts of intimidation. Consideration should be given to these views prior to application of the technique.]
P. Rapid Fire: Questioning in rapid succession without allowing detainees to answer.
Q. Silence: Staring at the detainee to encourage discomfort.
R. Change of Scenery Up: Removing the detainee from the standard interrogaton setting (generally to a location more pleasant but no worse).
S. Change of Scenery Down: Removing the detainee from the standard interrogation setting and placing him in a setting that may be less comfortable; would not constitute a substantial change in environmental quality.
T. Dietary Manipulation: Changing the diet of a detainee; no intended deprivation of food or water; no adverse medical or cultural effect and without intent to deprive subject of food or water, e.g., hot rations to MREs.
*U. Environmental Manipulation: Allowing the environment to create moderate discomfort (e.g. adjusting temperatures or introducing an unpleasant smell). Conditions may not be such that they injure the detainee. Detainee is accompanied by interrogator at all times. [Caution: Based on court cases in other countries, some nations may view application of this technique in certain circumstances to be inhumane. Consideration of these views should be given prior to use of this technique.]
V. Sleep Adjustment: Adjustment of the sleeping times of the detainee (e.g. reversing sleep cycles from night to day). This technique is NOT sleep deprivation.
W. False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him.
*X. Isolation: Isolating the detainee from other detainees while still complying with basic standards of treatment. [Caution: the use of isolation as an interrogation technique requires detailed implementation instructions including specific guidelines regarding the length of isolation, medical and psychological review, and approval for extensions of the length of isolation by the 205th MI BDE Commander. Use of this technique for more than 30 days, whether continuous or not, must be briefed to 205th MI BDE Commander prior to implementation.]
Y. Presence of Military Working Dog: Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations. Dogs will be muzzled and under control of MWD handler at all times to prevent contact with detainee.
Z. Sleep Management: Detainee provided minimum 4 hours of sleep per 24 hour period not to exceed 72 continuous hours.
AA. Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong capture shock. Volume controlled to prevent injury.
BB. Deception: Use of falsified representations including documents and reports.
*CC. Stress Positions: Use of physical postures (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone, etc.) for no more than 1 hour per use. Use of technique(s) will not exceed 4 hours and adequate rest between use of each position will be provided.

[Note: Red asterisks - * - indicate techniques which, as noted, may either be excessive or violate the Geneva Convention.

The above interrogation techniques were transcribed from the original documents obtained by the ACLU and maintained in their archives which can be accessed here.]

so, general, i will point out YET AGAIN (here, here and here) that you perjured yourself before the senate armed services committee in testimony you provided on 19 may 2004...

On May 19, 2004, General Ricardo Sanchez testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq Prison Abuse.

U.S. SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI): General Sanchez, today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison.

REED: Is that correct?

LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICARDO SANCHEZ, COMMANDER, MULTINATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ : Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year.

general, you may be able to create an effective smokescreen for some people, but it ain't workin' with me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Arlen Specter is a spineless, worse than useless, excuse for a United States senator

THIS is the kind of elected leadership we're paying good money for... he's not worth the powder to blow him up...

"He was telling only a part of the facts, really playing a cat-and-mouse game with congressional oversight," Specter said. "I do not believe that there is a perjury prosecution in the matter."

Specter then quoted from a Supreme Court decision that warned perjury shouldn't be pursued "simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner so long as the witness speaks the literal truth even where the answers were ... shrewdly calculated to evade."

"Well I think that describes Attorney General Gonzales, where you have a wily witness, who has evaded the information which this Senate oversight committee was entitled to," Specter said. "Now just because it wasn't perjury doesn't mean it's the way the highest ranking legal officer ought to respond to a Senate inquiry."

you don't deserve your seat, senator... you're a disgrace to your constituents and clearly don't give a rat's ass about upholding your oath to defend the united states constitution...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Adding my 2 cents worth to Jim's post

let's get something straight here... you can call it a deepening "political" clash if you have to paint it as a partisan confrontation, you can call it a deepening "legal" clash if you want to, because, after all, it WILL definitely have legal implications, but what it's REALLY all about is yet another attempt to restore the balance of powers and the oversight authority as laid down in the united states constitution...

Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

as much as i would like to see a frog-march and/or a perp walk TOMORROW (or, preferably, even later today), i understand that this is another step that must be taken...

meanwhile, the torrent of bullshit from the white house continues unabated...

In response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do. And Americans are now taking notice that this Congress, under Democratic leadership, is failing to tackle important issues," he said.

there is NOTHING more important that congress could be tackling than restoring our constitution... NOTHING...!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Our trusted media: calls for his head = Gonzales "loses ground"

the entire country is screaming for his firing or impeachment, but gonzales only "leaves senators questioning his candor and honesty...?" c'mon... i'd call it a load of understated crap if it wasn't so completely disingenuous as to defy credibility...

Gonzales loses ground on the Hill
His explanations leave senators questioning his candor and honesty.

WASHINGTON — Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday accused Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales of repeatedly misleading Congress and suggested that he had perjured himself in connection with statements to lawmakers about an anti-terrorism program.

the same thing's happening with bush... two-thirds of the country wants his head on a plate but you'd never know it from reading our proud, tell-it-like-it-is, "FREE" press...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Gonzales: Lie First, Check Later

We can't forget about this crook and traitor, Gonzales. This report has been expected by all of us. Here is the latest from the AP.

Gonzales Knew of Violations, Paper Says
AP
Posted: 2007-07-10 05:53:34

WASHINGTON (July 10) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales received reports detailing legal or procedural violations by FBI agents in the months before he told senators that no such abuses had occurred, The Washington post reported Tuesday.

In April 2005, while seeking renewal of the broad powers granted law enforcement under the USA Patriot Act, Gonzales said, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" from the law enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks.

According to the Post, Gonzales had received a least half a dozen reports describing such violations in the three months before he made that statement. The newspaper obtained the internal FBI documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The violations, the Post reported, included unauthorized surveillance and an illegal property search.

Justice officials said they did not know whether Gonzales had read the reports.(emphasis added)
[...]

The AG ignored the fundamental purpose of his position.
If he didn't read the reports, how could he testify under oath honestly before Congress?
If he did read the reports, he is guilty of perjury, since the FBI later admitted to exceeding their authority under the law.
The behavior of govt officials is so outrageous, I can't hardly believe it anymore.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

E.J. Dionne on Libby: "Getting mad and staying mad"

he makes all the same points that have been made since bush's outrageous decision to commute libby's sentence and draws some of the same conclusions...

[I]s it possible to avoid concluding that this was a one-time-only action rooted not in law but in politics and favoritism for an aide who loyally misled the prosecution in a case that implicated top figures of Bush's own administration?

uh... < scratches chin > no...

As Michael Abramowitz reported in Tuesday's Post: "For the first time in his presidency, Bush commuted a sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department, White House officials said. He also did not ask the chief prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for his input, as routinely happens in cases routed through the Justice Department's pardon attorney." Again: This was a one-time-only ticket for one guy.

[...]

[B]y keeping Libby free, Bush can conveniently postpone a full pardon until after the 2008 election. In the meantime, Libby has no incentive to tell prosecutors anything new about what happened in this case. As liberal blogs have noted [e.g. Daily Kos, here], since he was not pardoned outright, he can use the pending appeal of his conviction to avoid testifying before Congress.

not being one to peruse conservative blogs, dionne points out something that i find a trifle surprising, if not a wee bit encouraging...

"I'm not convinced that the administration should have intervened at all," [Ed Morrissey, a staunch conservative who runs the influential Captain's Quarters blog], wrote. "The sentence fit within the sentencing guidelines championed by Republicans for years as a bulwark against soft-on-crime federal judges, even if it was on the long end of the guidelines by some interpretations. The underlying crimes go to the heart of the rule of law, and those who commit perjury and obstruction should go to prison."

dionne concludes by asking the same question i've been asking just about every other day as some new bush administration outrage is uncovered...

This commutation is an ... outrage because it involves the administration taking steps to slip accountability for its own actions. Are we just going to let this one go by?

well...? are we...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Hunter waxes eloquent on the Libby deal

and, believe me, nobody, and i mean NOBODY, can wax eloquent like hunter...

a teaser...

When seeking clemency for a criminal obstruction of justice, it is always considered a stroke of luck to have committed the obstruction on behalf of individuals with the power to grant such clemency.

read it all...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Now that Libby's a done deal, how about some answers to THESE questions, George?

froomkin...

* Does the president approve of Libby's conduct?

* On whose behalf did Libby act?

* Did the White House make any sort of a deal with Libby or his defense team?

* What did Bush know and when did he know it?

* When did he find out that Karl Rove and Libby had both leaked Plame's identity? Before or after he vowed that any leakers would be fired? Did anyone lie to him about their role? Why didn't he fire them?

* How does the conduct of his aides comport with Bush's vow to restore ethics to the White House? How does the commutation?

* What factors did the president take into account in deciding to commute the sentence?

* What does the president consider an appropriate punishment for perjury and obstruction of justice?

* What was Cheney's role in the commutation?

take your time, george... don't rush... it IS, after all, the 4th of july, the day we celebrate the constitutional principles on which the united states was founded, and you no doubt would like to take some time to observe the day... otoh, do you suppose you could have some answers ready, say, by friday evening...? we know the tradition of the friday evening news dump, and, being a holiday week and all, maybe there won't be so many people crawling all over them then... whaddaya say...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

It's about THEM not wanting to go to jail

when karl emails his talking points (from his blackberry using his rnc email account), he expects them to be USED...

Note the choice words and phrases used by [Washington Post] columnists, editorial writers, and contributors to describe Fitzgerald's pursuit of Libby:

"train wreck"

"silliness"

"A game"

"overblown"

"Tempest in a teapot"

"sideshow"

"an injustice"

"remarkable for its lack of substance"

"a huge, dangerous waste of time"

"nuts"

"bankrupt"

"farce"

"excessive"

" should not have been conducted in the first place"

"an injustice"

"misguided"

"Fitzgerald's Folly"

I'm nervous Post opinion writers are this close to organizing noisy sidewalk protests on Libby's behalf.

boehlert rightly asks why such fervent support for someone who was convicted on solid evidence and speculates on the answer...

But why? Why has the Post gone all-in on a loser of a case like Libby's? Why the waving of the arms, the name-calling, and the almost comical rhetoric in defense of a relatively straightforward white-collar crime? I think the uproar is more cultural than political (or even legal). It's a class thing. The Washington Establishment, which the Post has dutifully represented for generations, identifies with Libby -- empathizes with him -- and is aghast at the idea that he might have to serve jail time for merely practicing the "dark art of politics," as [Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen] described it.

"...the Post has dutifully represented for generations, identifies with Libby..."

i would push that perspective a bit further... just as that very same media outlet in its current series on cheney described the overt maneuvers in late 2001-early 2002 to write presidential directives in such a way as to minimize the chance of war crimes charges, i think the elite ranks in d.c. - pundits, policy wonks, government officials, lobbyists, and even defense contractors - see the very real possibility of being charged themselves as co-conspirators and accomplices in the clearly illegal and unconstitutional actions of the bush administration... they figure if they can pressure bush to pardon libby, it will set a precedent that would be useful should their own deeds suddenly be subject to accountability...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bill Moyers for President

i could have sworn i posted this the other day, but, when i went looking for it, it wasn't there... anyway, here it is again, from one of the very best u.s. media has to offer...

Begging His Pardon

by Bill Moyers

We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset of Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites—the people who took us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraq grows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one of their own from going to jail.

It is well known that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby—once Vice President Cheney’s most trusted adviser—has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice.

Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places—including his boss Dick Cheney—outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered,” wrote the chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton—a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush—called the evidence “overwhelming” and threw the book at Libby.

You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to “free Scooter.”

Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as “a man…of personal integrity”—without even a hint of irony about their collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

“A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and a tireless, honorable, selfless human being,” said Donald Rumsfeld—the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction and who boasted of “bulletproof” evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. “A good person” and “decent man,” said the one-time Pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a “cakewalk.” Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise “the noblest spirit of selfless service” that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would “greet us as liberators” and that Iraq would “finance its own reconstruction.” The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently as president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend. Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness.

The praise kept coming: from Douglas Feith, who ran the Pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press; from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby’s “honesty, integrity, fairness and balance” as he had been about the success of the war; and from William Kristol, who had primed the pump of the propaganda machine at THE WEEKLY STANDARD and has led the call for a Presidential pardon. “The case was such a farce, in my view,” he said. “I’m for pardon on the merits.”

One beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving—“weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness” of Libby's sentence.

And there’s the rub.

None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing “in the nobility of this war,” wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a “casualty”—a fallen soldier the President dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield.

Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks.

There are contrarian voices: “This is an open and shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice,” said Pat Buchanan. “The Republican Party stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators.” From the former Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: “If the public believes there’s one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system.”

So it may well be, as THE HARTFORD COURANT said editorially, that Mr Libby is “a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot…but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn’t matter much.”

going back to a comment from the late, great, much-missed molly ivins from july 2006...

Dear desperate Democrats, here's what we do. We run Bill Moyers for president. I am serious as a stroke about this. It's simple, cheap and effective, and it will move the entire spectrum of political discussion in this country. Moyers is the only public figure who can take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity just by being there.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Scooter to go to jail

reggie walton rules on scooter libby...

He is not a flight risk or danger to the community, but I don’t see the issues raised as close, so I deny his request to be released pending appeal. I will allow him to self report, but unless I am overruled, he will have to report.

I will rule on the obstruction charge sentence to 30 months, to perjury 24 months, to false statements 6 months, all to run concurrently.

Robbins: Ask for a stay the surrender pending filing motion.

Walton: Denied. Mr. Libby, you have right to appeal.

judge walton, obviously pissed, had an interesting comment on the amici curiae brief...

Robbin: Going back to appointments clause. Your honor has received an amicus brief.

Walton: With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish.

Robbins: These 12 scholars believe this is a close question.

Walton: If I had gotten something more of substance from them, maybe.

you do the crime, you do the time...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Jokeline

btd at talkleft can't resist going after joe klein's "blathering..."

Joe Klein just asks for it. Now he blathers on the Scooter Libby sentence:

I have a different feeling about Libby. His "perjury" . . .[why in quotes joe? He was convicted of 2 counts of perjury and two counts of obstruction of justice] would never be considered significant enough to reach trial, much less sentencing, much less time in stir if he weren't Dick Cheney's hatchet man.

Joe Klein's basis for this statement? Why nothing but his own imagination. Lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice are considered serious crimes by every prosecutor I know.

the more i follow people like joe klein, the more i realize that - like broder, novak, and friedman - his brand of so-called journalism is particularly insidious... he's polished, he's articulate, and he's well-placed at a major national news outlet that reinforces his ability to make pronouncements about the national scene... these people are an integral part of keeping the population in thrall and fit chomsky's description of the elites in this country and their masters perfectly...

the boundaries of klein's world - power and privilege - are identical to those of his masters, and he knows full well that taking a divergent or more thoughtful view would jeopardize his status in that world... it's not unlike what i've seen happen to so many people as they rise up the corporate ladder... at one point in their lives, they were ordinary human beings, but, in learning to blend in and play the system, they eventually became detached from their moorings without necessarily being conscious that it's even happened... and, if they are conscious of it, they will smother you in perfectly logical reasons why... but it's a very human response... why would anyone who had worked so hard for their success, repudiate the very system that bestowed it on him...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Obstruction of justice and perjury: a two-fer for Gonzo?

obstruction of justice and perjury were the two thoughts that kept circulating in my head while watching monica’s testimony yesterday… (of course, both have been circulating in my head for months about damn near every stonewalling action undertaken by the criminals that call themselves our country’s leaders…)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) ... said “it is surprising how often a whiff of obstruction of justice has reared its head in the course of this investigation,” adding that the “standard of impropriety that Kyle Sampson and the attorney general and the Department of Justice, through its public spokesmen, have defined is, in effect — tracks almost exactly the standard for criminal obstruction of justice.”

[...]

Gonzales may also be guilty of lying under oath. His conversation with Goodling took place on either March 14 or 15, a week after Goodling found out that she was going to testify before the House committee. Yet on May 10, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had “not gone back and spoken directly with…others who are involved in this process.”

here’s hoping the damn congress will start to move expeditiously and stop their goddam pussyfooting around…

(thanks to think progress...)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments