The March of the Straw Soldiers (NYT editorial re: spying))

[struggle4progress]

Editorial
The March of the Straw Soldiers

Published: February 2, 2006
President Bush is not giving up the battle over domestic spying. He's fighting it with an army of straw men and a fleet of red herrings.

In his State of the Union address and in a follow-up speech in Nashville yesterday, Mr. Bush threw out a dizzying array of misleading analogies, propaganda slogans and false choices: Congress authorized the president to spy on Americans and knew all about it ... 9/11 could have been prevented by warrantless spying ... you can't fight terrorism and also obey the law ... and Democrats are not just soft on national defense, they actually don't want to beat Al Qaeda ...

The president also said the spying is reviewed by N.S.A. lawyers. That's nice, but the law was written specifically to bring that agency, and the president, under control. And there already is a branch of government assigned to decide what's legal. It's called the judiciary. The law itself is clear: spying on Americans without a warrant is illegal.

One of the oddest moments in Mr. Bush's defense of domestic spying came when he told his audience in Nashville, "If I was trying to pull a fast one on the American people, why did I brief Congress?" He did not mention that some lawmakers protested the spying at the briefings, or that they found them inadequate. The audience members who laughed and applauded Mr. Bush's version of the truth may have forgot that he said he briefed Congress fully on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know how that turned out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/opinion/02thu2.html?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_5&oref=login

[bleever]

1. "If I was trying to pull a fast one on the American people..."

:puke:

And I use that icon on only the barfiest of occasions.

[enough]

2. k&r

[stop the bleeding]

3. so true n/t

[redqueen]

4. "We know how that turned out."

Yep. And some of us actually understand that "fool me once" saying.

[Trevelyan]

5. The sad thing is the wingnuts will buy this and look for this latest BS to

be posted by FReeper trolls everywhere.

NYT Editorials supported John Kerry but did everything possible to knock him down even in photoshopped pictures showing him at a distance from hands of voters reaching towards him with dark space in between Kerry photographed from unflattering underneath shot, no faces on the voters just their arms reaching across a vast space to Kerry. Someone on Kerry's blog mentioned it and was puzzled why the NYT would endorse Kerry then print a negative, obviously photoshopped picture.

Why does the NYT and WaPo give with one hand and take away with the other?

[PurpleChez]

7. I've always known that the whole "liberal media" thing was a crock

While many reporters may indeed have leftward leanings, the media as a whole has long seemed to hold Dems and Liberals to a more exacting standard. Twenty years ago, Reagan was falling asleep and fumbling with jelly bean jars at international summits, and the collective response was something like "he's just a loveable grandfather type." But I'm nonetheless amazed at how it's all intensified with Chimpy 'n' Friends. As I remember things, there were indeed those news sources who might have been softer on Reagan than others were (and the same for Bush I, candidate Dole, Speaker Gingrich, etc.) but I don't remember feeling that there were entire segments of the media that seemed devoted to defending, promoting, apologizing for, etc., an entire administration. Even the sainted Reagan didn't get that kind of treatment -- there were not entire networks dedicated to explaining why it was a Good Thing that the president endorsed apartheid and central american death squads. So why now? Why has such special treatment been saved for a preznint of such questionable abilities and qualifications? In general I accept the idea that * is the puppet of cheney et al, but sometimes I wonder why they didn't install Jeb instead -- he has the same name recognition; sure, he's a good bit brighter and he wouldn't have been as easy to manipulate, but given his PNAC status I don't think anyone would have had to manipulate him into advancing a platform that he'd helped to author. Sometimes I wonder if a lot of it isn't that people are sheep and just want to be led. Good Lord I hope we can elect a dem congress in november.

[farmbo]

6. The unwillingness of the electronic media to point out Bush's deceptions..

...Is utterly chilling.

All well and good that the print media is reporting on the sheer audacity of Bush's campaign of deception. But why won't the Katie Courics and Chris Mathews' point out the blatant logical fallacies behind his arguments?

Oh well...answered my own question.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/26.html#a6871

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/19/chris-mathews-bin-laden-_n_14128.html

[NoAmericanTaliban]

8. Oh No! Anything but the Red Herrings...they leave such a stink...

this is an orchestrated damage control strategy. They are using multiple justifications for their actions just like the reasons why we are in Iraq. Goes like this - launch multiple explanations through multiple media outlets. The opposition will be split by having to counter each of these reasons. When the logic of one reason is exposed simply replace it with another & the game starts over. Meantime, keep repeating the illogical & false reasons in sound bites over & over until they become truths.

Had discussion with right winger at work & he is parroting - Bush is making us safe; didn't want enemy to know what we are up to, etc.

My counter was - anything he did could have gone through legal channels just as FISA - they would have given the warrants if legit. He was too busy going after dissenters, & while he is busy spying on Quakers Al Qua-da could be slipping in. This is making us less safe.

Also, keep calling it Domestic Spying - because that is what it is. They are being orwellian in trying to change the topic name to Anti-Terrorist watching. The goal is to remove the word - Domestic.

[johnnybaseball]

9. Also...

Wouldn't any evidence gained as a result of his unConstitutional actions be suppressed in court? Won't that make prosecuting actual terrorists (if he is actually listening to any, which I doubt) nearly impossible?

[sharky]

11. such an ignorant comment to make

you doubt he (actually it would be 'they') are listening to any terrorist and gaining information? you think they care what you can your aunt sally have to say to each other? how many international phone calls do you make weekly?

[johnnybaseball]

12. Well then,

Why has every lead that this "program" lead to been a dead end? They certainly seem to be catching a TON of terrorists, definitely. Besides, wouldn't the unconstitutional nature of this program lead to any evidence gained being suppressed in a court?

[sharky]

13. unless...

you work in the intelligence community, how would you know about every lead? You think they make a public statement saying "yep, we found the terrorist and we know he is doing this and that etc etc", no way dude. no way in hell. so as far as every lead being a dead end, i think that is BS. as far as the evidence, evidence gained could be indirect, maybe leading to more openings or talk of something else, not necessarily direct evidece where the US could say "we heard you say this on the phone". rather indirect evidence would lead more concrete information.


and catching a TON of terrorist isn't like hunting down a convenience store burglar, it isn't going to be on the 10 o'clock news.

[johnnybaseball]

15. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

The doctrine says that any evidence gained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and all derivative evidence will be supressed. But, come on man, haven't you been reading? There have been several stories out recently where people who DO work in intelligence said exactly what I said. There is too much information, and all the leads have lead to innocent Americans. But, there's no problem with that, right? Innocent Americans SHOULD be spyed on, because a bunch of GOP whiners feel scared.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

18. Welcome to DU johnnybaseball !

Is that Johnny Bench? I'm a big baseball fan. Love the Atlanta Braves.

[johnnybaseball]

28. Actually, I'm a Mets fan ...

... so we're baseball-enemies. My name is John, so I took the name from John Olerud, who stole it from Don Mattingly (only with Don, instead of John lol)

[NoAmericanTaliban]

41. at least we agree that Bush is a jack ass..

I like John Olerud, very good player & person. I think he is under rated in baseball, but is starting to get his share of respect. Dangerous hitter at bat - wouldn't hit the long ball but is not an easy out & can drive in runs. Great fielder too.

[sharky]

19. GOP whiners

and your not scared?? whats your problem? I'm voting Democrat in 2008, there, you got me, just so i can say "i told you so".

several stories about dead leads mean nothing to me. Several "terrorist" have been let out of GTMO for inadequate evidence. what about the 100s still there? what about the several leads that may go somewhere. call it wishful thinking, whatever. but the NSA is not spying on every phone call. its international calls, of which i receive 2 to 3 a week. i have no problem with it. What is wrong with Americans making one small sacrifice for their safety, compared to the unmeasurable sacrifice that our military makes (my father is a vet of OIF and OEF)? we aren't throwing people into internments camps! we aren't changing their daily lives! we are listening on 1 out of 100 phone calls made from known terrorist overseas into the US. Will you admit there is a war on terrorism? or are you one of the libs that thinks it doesnt even exist?

[johnnybaseball]

26. Well,

despite your assurances, without congressional/judicial oversight, we dont KNOW what they're using this power for. That is the point. I dont need to know who they're listening to, nor do I believe that wiretapping is illegal. It just needs to be done in a way that assures that innocent people don't have their freedoms violated.

What is the big issue with that?

Oh, and no, I don't believe there is a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic designed to make the weak look strong. It cannot be defeated, and no matter what we do, we can't win. I don't accept the word "war" for what we're doing, and I believe it is highly counterproductive to keeping Americans safe. In addition, I am extremely reluctant to grant unlimited "wartime" powers of search and seizure during an undeclared "war" that has no objectives or ending.

[sharky]

29. well said

this comment made much more sense than all the others.

as far as terrorism goes, i don't know if we can win either, but there are definetly ways to suppress it and it is a huge issue that my generation is going to have to deal with. I am also reluctant in granting unlimited 'wartime' powers of search and seizure it this complicated situation, however, i do not think that the warrantless wiretaps would fall under search and seizure.

[johnnybaseball]

31. I suppose that is a matter for the court.

Clearly, I feel that the expectation of privacy in one's home is very high. I believe you have to have a good reason to violate that privacy. And, when I say "good reason," I dont mean the generic "fighting terrorism," I mean the specific "we have reason to believe that this particular person is involved in a crime."

To me, that means probable cause.

[Contrary1]

34. Okay...

"...we are listening on 1 out of 100 phone calls made from known terrorist overseas into the US."

First of all, how do you know that to be fact? Secondly, if terrorists are calling other terrorists that are already in the US, why is the government allowing these calls to continue rather than arrest them?

I assume Bush and Co. would be thumping their chests publicly if arrests had been made.

But, then...I, in your words from another thread, am just another "anti-war puke".

[Gronk Groks]

39. It isn't a small sacrifice to lose your 4th Amendment rights...

It is NOT just the liberals that believe so! New York Metropolitan Police are suing New York City for similar abuses. Read the NY Times article linked below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/nyregion/03police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=c5017246a80932b2&hp&ex=1138942800&partner=homepage

I'm a veteran too, I did my 6 years in the U.S. Navy. Did you ever do military service? I spent 6 months cruising in the Indian Ocean, waiting for Jimmy Carter to declare war on Iran. Have you ever been overseas?

We do NOT know who the NSA is spying on. Bush has lied so often that he has NO credibility left.

As for internment camps, didn't the last Defense bill give Halliburton $235 million to build a detention facility? Do YOU know where that is? Apparently it wasn't in Iraq...

[ktlyon]

46. drip drip drip

If you let them take away our right a little at a time, one day you will look around and the Bill of Rights will be a footnote in history. Wake up and support the constitution, it will set you free. The rule of law is the basis of our country and our rights if Repugs are allowed to violate the laws with no punishment then our whole legal system will become a joke. Justice is why I think me must impeach, no one is above the law. The process must be saved.

[freefall]

47. In support of what you are saying johnnybaseball, I read that the FBI was

complaining about the thousands of leads the NSA was making them follow up on each month that lead to absolute nothing. The FBI felt they were wasting time, effort and money based on the lack of results. Evidently, data mining isn't yet well developed enough to produce actionalble intelligence. The really scary thing is that this administration has demonstrated a willingness to act whether they have actionable intelligence or not.:scared:

[Gronk Groks]

16. He had the authorization under the FISA statue to go after terrorists...

...had up to 72 hours AFTER they started tapping the phone to get a Court authorized warrant.
What happened to the false leads? The had to destroy the taped conversations.

This is NOT about terrorism!!!
This is about taping Americans who oppose the Bush Administration on ANYTHING!!!

War Protesters? Check.
Political Opponents? Check.
Critical Media? Check.

This is ILLEGAL. This is DOMESTIC spying.
America is turning into a Police State...
...welcome to George Orwell's 1984. He just missed the date by a couple of decades...

[sharky]

22. actually

not even FISA grants him this authority.

FISA gives the president the authority to do so in a "declared war", of which the War on Terrorism is not. Though, it is hard to have such a war against an enemy with no rules, no uniform, no country, just faith.

[Gronk Groks]

36. Bush HAS declared war on Terrorism...

...may not be the most conventional declaration, but NOBODY was going to object.

FISA does NOT state that we have to be at war with a foreign country to be used. It applies to any FOREIGN agent or criminal organization, at any time. This is one of the RW talking points that is obviously false if you read the statue.

FISA was written to protect Americans from being spied on by their own government. It was passed because Nixon was spying on his political opponents. It authorized over 15,000 warrants with only 5 denied in a span of 25 years. Thats about 600 approvals a year with only 1 denial every 5 years. They would even authorize totally DOMESTIC calls if done by a suspected foreign agent.

The only thing they would stop is spying on Americans who did not belong to a criminal organization and was not a foreign agent. So if shrub is bypassing the FISA court...

Bush is lying, as usual.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

17. Welcome to DU sharky !

[sharky]

21. why thank you

i dont want to come hear to cause trouble, just to expand my horizons and learn more, get both sides of the story, so just let me know if i get out of line!! thanks

sharky

[NoAmericanTaliban]

27. Having open disagreements can be fun & a learning experience

I thought that we should have gone after - assassinate - OBL after the USS Cole - it was clear then that he had declared war on us, but we didn't recognize it then. The move into Afghanistan was correct, but the main goal was squandered when OBL wasn't captured. Poor planning is making Afghanistan dangerous again - & most of that has to do with the distraction in Iraq.

Bush isn't being completely honest about the domestic spying - reasons & excuses keep changing, number of whistle blowers, resignations of judges on FISA court, etc. Bush is lumping all dissenters as Terrorist & using Patriot act on domestic dissenters as well as real terrorist which dilutes are resources & focus. Makes us less save in the end.

[ktlyon]

48. I think that the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong and also illegal

First, the diplomatic option was not at a dead end, in fact they where about to turn OBL over. The reason we invaded was because George was mad at the Talaban for not allowing his gas pipeline. The plans for invasion were finished before 9-11.

Second, the chasing and capturing of a fugitive on foreign soil does not mean you get to overthrow a government and occupy their country.

Third, you do not get to kill innocent people for any reason.

[politicaholic]

20. It would seem the constitution can screw off in times of war...

if the soldiers aren't fighting for our freedom then what are they fighting for?

I'm personally not a wuss, I would take the chance of getting hit by a terrorist bomb then release one granule of my freedom.

There are people who would burn the constitution to avoid the chance of getting hit by a terrorist (which is less of a chance than getting hit by lightening or winning the lottery), but yet they get in their cars and drive every day and more people die of vehicle related deaths every year than died on 9/11. It doesn't make any sense! Is this nation nuts?

[sharky]

23. and...

more people die in Detroit in gang related killings monthly than soldiers do in Iraq. More people die of vehicle deaths than do in Iraq. The reason you have a greater chance of getting hit by a lightening bolt or winning the lottery is becuase the NSA wiretaps. Because we don't hold back any punches. And the soldiers are fighting for our freedom, Iraqi freedom, and every soldie i've talked to is proud to be over there and proud of what they have done.

[Gronk Groks]

37. We are not talking about deaths is Iraq...

...we are talking about losing our Constitutional rights at home. That is a "Bait & Switch" argument.

As for soldiers fighting for our freedom, then they should of been in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. NOTHING!!! OBL and Saddam were enemies. Saddam did NOT have WMD. He was NOT an "imminent" threat to the U.S.A., hell he was having enough trouble simply keeping Iras under his control.

Our soldiers are not fighting for "Iraqi Freedom". The Iraqi's want us out, as numerous polls have shown. We are fighting for Halliburton and the oil companies (not necessarily in that order).

As for every soldier being proud to be over their, talk to Paul Hackett running for the senate in Ohio. He was proud of his men and disgusted with the policy that got them there. In fact there are now 10 soldiers from our most recent Iraqi adventure who are running as Democrats for congress and against shrub's policies.

[ktlyon]

49. you need to speak to more soldiers

try the ones in the hospital that had no body armour. Soldiers must be very careful what they say, when they went into the service they gave up some of their rights. They are not allowed to speak against the command. That is why when one does speak-out they need to be heard and taken seriously.

[johnnybaseball]

24. Actually

It seems like there is an inverse relationship between the likelihood of a deadly event occuring, and the fear caused by that potential event. People are all scared about like, flesh-eating viruses, but have no problem flying in an airplane, and even less scared of riding in an automobile.

And, of course, I dont need to tell you that NO ONE in this country is afraid of sitting in the bathtub with a plugged-in toaster, despite the death that is certain to cause. :silly:

[sharky]

25. right on man

no one is afraid, because we don't live in a country such as Isreal, where attacks are daily. we are fortunate and i don't want to have that happen one day, so therefore im willing to let the NSA listen in on a few international phone calls to make sure it never happens!

dont you watch 24!! hahaha, just playin'.:toast:

[johnnybaseball]

30. I get where you're coming from ...

... I just disagree. I dont believe it is necessary, and I dont believe it is legal. And, even if I believed it WAS necessary AND legal, I still wouldn't trust the Bush Administration with that kind of power. They have not done anything to prove that they are trustworthy, IMO, and therefore I am reluctant to give them REGULAR power, much less expanded "war-time" power!

[politicaholic]

33. lol...really man, are you going to compare Israel to the US?

It's not as if Mexico has vowed to destroy us all.

Really, if there's a terrorist cell in the US they're doing things such as trying to collect materials for their operation, learning how to fly a plane, laundering money, lots of things that numerous non-terrorist AMERICANS get caught for every day. Just last month a guy was caught 50 miles south of me stockpiling pipebombs and guns. Did he make the national news? No. He was an American.

Do you really think that the plans haven't been set prior to the terrorist cell arriving in this country? What is stopping Osama from sending the instructions in the mail? What happened to stopping people at the border?

This whole Domestic Spying thing is a complete ruse! Don't you get it? It is Illegal and it doesn't do anything other than VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

40. Not all attacks can come from OBL - lets not forget the Anthrax

attacks. I agree with you. Still no one caught there - who did it, where's the investigation at, what are we doing to prevent it, why isn't this failure discussed in the news, could this happen again??? :shrug:

Bush & Co are looking at Quakers, Green Peace, Code Pink, Vegans not neo nazis, skinheads, KKK - heck they made a deal with Rudolf - though we don't negotiate with terrorist. By spying on dissidents they are ignoring real threats. There was no logical reason to by-step FISA, unless they are trying to hide something...

[ktlyon]

51. I'm not playing this is serious shit

if it is legit then get a warrant. End of story.

[Fovea]

55. I am willing to let the NSA be as intrusive

as FISA will let them be. Not a bit more.

And make no mistake, FISA is a sieve, not a wall.

The issue is not whether the NSA, CIA, or other intel units can spy on calls with a domestic recipient, but whether there is to be any oversight whatsoever.

And if that is to be, then calling America free is false advertising at best, and immoral at least.

[worldgonekrazy]

42. If my Aunt Sally is a member of a peace group, then yes

I think they would care very much what I had to say to her.

Also if she was a Democratic Senator or Congresswoman.

Also if she were a special prosecutor looking into one of the many treasonous crimes committed by this administration.

Ah, but as Colbert says, (Bush) is just looking over our shoulder because he's got our back.

[OnyxCollie]

44. You are correct.

I heard on NPR that the guy who was arrested for planning to cut through the cables of the Brooklyn Bridge is now asking that his case be thrown out because he was illegally spied upon without warrant. How he knows he was spied upon, I'm not sure and NPR didn't elaborate.

[ktlyon]

45. in a word yes

The few that have been arrested are looking into this defense

[Higans]

57. I don't think they are spying on actual terrorist

If they were, then why havn't they caught the guy who sent Anthrax to the Democrats, and killed postal workers??? Could it be because it was the Repug Admin. that ordered it???

Welcome to DU Jonny.

[Trevelyan]

32. It is hard to keep smacking down the lies like Gorgon's head grows two

more outrageous excuses everyone you nullify.

Rep. Hinchey has a great, strongly-worded rebuttal to SOTU. He was the one who wrote to Fitz with 30 other Congresspersons to ask him to help with the Senate investigation of the Niger documents and Rep. Hinchey met with Fitzgerald just before his press conference announcing the indictment of Libby but never heard what Fitgerald's answer was. Hinchey supports the St. Patrick's Four who are serving jail sentences for pouring blood at a military recruitment station...found the site from the courageous people at http://www.WitnessToTorture.com who marched to Guantanamo Concentration Camp and spent several days protesting outside the barbed wire to visit with the victims but Bushco would not allow. The hunger-strikers at Gitmo are being tortured with the forced feeding without anesthetics and British doctors have said that force feeding is against International law and that they would be arrested for assault if they did this horrific act.

"January 31, 2006
Hinchey Statement On President Bush's State of the Union Address

"Washington, D.C. - Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) tonight issued the following response to President Bush's State of the Union address.

"Once again, President Bush demonstrated in his State of the Union address that he is out of touch with the American people. The president largely failed to offer real solutions for those problems he's willfully ignored over the past five years, much less those he actually had a hand in creating. Despite President Bush's misguided and inadequate efforts, I am certain that the American people still have the resolve and determination to return to more peaceful and prosperous times.

What we saw tonight was a president who is out of touch with reality. This is the same president who declared 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq less than two months after the start of the war, only to later see the reality that he completely miscalculated the entire operation. More than 93 percent of U.S. deaths in Iraq have come after the president made that arrogant declaration. Saying that the United States is making progress, when more and more American troops and civilians are being killed, severely injured, and kidnapped on a daily basis, is an indication that President Bush is out of touch with reality..."

[speedoo]

10. Better late than never, I suppose (NYT).

I will never forgive the NYT for allowing Judy Miller to help move this country into an unnecessary war with her lies.

But we need the NYT and other MSM in order to put things right, so I have to welcome this.

[politicaholic]

14. Look! It's the NYT!...oh...the editorial section...ok, disclaim away...

As riveting and true this article is, as much as I think the author has touched on something, until the media actually backs it up and states, "We're going to get to the bottom of these lies and expose them for what they are." (otherwise known as 'journalism') then these carrots they dangle are impotent and may as well have Jayson Blair in the bi-line.

[Virginia Dare]

35. I'm frustrated with these labels.

I think we need as a people to get beyond the labels "liberal" and "conservative". When people hear those terms they think "Democrat" and "Republican", and the analogy doesn't always fit. It may have been true in the past that for the most part journalists considered themselves "liberal", but the media has always been controlled by corporate interests, which really don't fit into either of those categories. They have their own agenda, and very little of it works in our best interest. We need to start holding them accountable first, before we're ever be able to hold the politicians accountable, or effect any real change in this country.

[wrate]

38. I don't see why * even bothers to try to make the warrant less spying seem

as if though it was/is legal and legitimate.

The fact is that it wasn't either and everyone knows it. The FISA law is clear and it was broken, and most important of all, there is no one who will enforce it and bring this criminal to justice.

[jwirr]

43. I have just finished a novel placed in the French

Revolution and am damn depressed. The author was describing the Committees for Public Safety and their "work" and I couldn't help noticing the similarity between them and today's spying - torture - hysteria and that era. In this depressed mood I then watched "The Constant Gardener". We are in trouble here!

[freefall]

50. You are so right. We are in terrible trouble. But if there is to be

any hope at all we have to not let the depression overcome us and prevent us from taking action. There is still hope as long as we continue to act againt the forces of evil on the loose today. These words are for myself as much as for you, jwirr. Somedays I have to impose news blackouts on myself just so I will have the energy to keep going. You might want to read a gardening book next. :)

freefall

[jwirr]

53. Thank you. We are really falling into their trap when we forget

that we must keep on fighting.

[nolabels]

52. If the punk ass papers would just have reported the news he wouldn't......

even be in office. So after the news (just like this story) is YEARS old, you fucking worthless shits called News media want us, the ordinary folks, to get all excited. You piece of crap newspapers and what the hell ever..........:mad: you are part of the problem inexorability

I at least for one will hold you, your unaccountable un-reporting and misleading worthless corporate ass-licken contemptible maggot infected carcasses in for their come-up-pence in my own personal way when the time comes x(

Btw this is an old story, a very old story, so don't get excited, the corporate world is just trying to separate themselves from bushco by outing him but they can't they no longer, they are married at the hip :evilgrin:

[bush_is_wacko]

54. NY Times again. Why can't they publish in the Baptist weekly or something

The article does point out that * lied to Congress on the WMD's and Iraq and that is information that many people need to hear to be able to decipher the meaning behind his words. Unfortunately, most of the people that need a reminder don't read the NY Times. How are the midwestern papers skewing this issue?

[Trevelyan]

56. Huffington Post - Dems latest betrayal of US citizens:

"Why Are the Democrats Helping to Derail the Abramoff Investigation?"

Seven days ago, after I wrote that Bush was trying to interfere with the Abramoff scandal, we learned the Democratic Senators are now exercised by the possibility that Bush will appoint his own man to take over the investigation.

As you may remember, Noel Hillman, the federal prosecutor was offered a New Jersey Federal Judgeship by Bush.

The Democrat Senators in New Jersey wanted Susan Wingenton to have a New Jersey federal judgeship. Bush said no, I will appoint her only if Hillman is removed as the Abramoff prosecutor. I propose a deal says Bush, if you agree to remove Hillman, I will appoint Ms. Wingenton to the federal bench along with Mr. Hillman.

The two New Jersey Democratic Senators say yes and the deal is sealed.

Hillman works for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who has the right to appoint his successor. The Democrats, seemingly only recently came in grips with the fact that they have no control over Hillman's successor. They are crying for a special prosecutor which may or may not happen.

The Republicans oppose it, there will be a war. The Democrats did not make, as a condition of the deal, that they have any say in deciding on Hillman's successor. Why did the Democrats put themselves in this position? Was it foolishness or something else?

==

"Why Are the Democrats Helping to Derail the Abramoff Investigation?"

Hmmmm....?

Maybe because every Democratic senator has taken money through Abramoff but five. John Kerry received $98,550, Harry Reid $70,000, Charles Schumer who in 2003 paid a $130,000 FEC fine and for campaign violations has received $30,000 from Abramoff. Hillary Clinton, who is paying $35,000 in fines for "falsifying campaign filings" received $12,900 in Abramoff cash and has only agreed to give $2,000 back. The list goes on.