Demand Allard apologize
|
|
Today's email to our network:
Yesterday, in an interview with Clear Channel Denver's Roger Hudson and Fox News Radio, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) accused Senator Russ Feingold (D - WI) of "[siding] with terrorists" by introducing a resolution to censure George Bush.
Senator Feingold's censure resolution seeks to hold the President accountable for authorizing a domestic spying program that clearly violates federal law and for lying to Congress and the American people about the program's existence and its legality.
To question Senator Feingold's patriotism and suggest that he is "siding with terrorists" by seeking to hold President Bush accountable for violating federal law is despicable. Join us in demanding that Senator Allard apologize publicly:
Link
We'll share the demand letter and list of signers with Senator Allard and with state and national media.
Thank you!
P.S. Thanks to Jay Marvin of AM760 for first calling on Allard to apologize. Click on the following link to hear an AM760 audio clip of Allard's attack on Senator Feingold:
Link
Yesterday, in an interview with Clear Channel Denver's Roger Hudson and Fox News Radio, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) accused Senator Russ Feingold (D - WI) of "[siding] with terrorists" by introducing a resolution to censure George Bush.
Senator Feingold's censure resolution seeks to hold the President accountable for authorizing a domestic spying program that clearly violates federal law and for lying to Congress and the American people about the program's existence and its legality.
To question Senator Feingold's patriotism and suggest that he is "siding with terrorists" by seeking to hold President Bush accountable for violating federal law is despicable. Join us in demanding that Senator Allard apologize publicly:
Link
We'll share the demand letter and list of signers with Senator Allard and with state and national media.
Thank you!
P.S. Thanks to Jay Marvin of AM760 for first calling on Allard to apologize. Click on the following link to hear an AM760 audio clip of Allard's attack on Senator Feingold:
Link
Comments are closed for this post.
WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS NOT HELP THE FARMER FOR THE LAST 50 PLUS YEARS FOR FAIR PRICING FOR THE FARMERS PRODUCT THAT IS WHY THE LAND IS BEING TAKEN AWAY WITH EMINATE DOMAIN, ALSO THAT IS WHY MY FATHER IN LAW GETS 434.00 A MONTH FROM SOCIAL SECURITY HIS FAMILY HAS TO PAY HIS EXPENSES?
WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS DO NOTHING ABOUT TERRORISM HIGH GAS PRICES IN THE 1990'S WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE?
I AM LOOKING FOR A REPLY ON THESE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU
DAVID BRADEN
dbraden@courage.org
I fear for our liberty when ignorance such as yours is given such a loud voice.
It is legal now. Go to the above link and read Gen Hayden's remarks on the subject. He was the NSA director. Read and learn.
FISA allowed surveillance first, then 72 hours to get a warrant from the Court.
Still, Bush chose to BREAK THE 1978 LAW that was enacted because Nixon was spying on political enemies, protesters, even Senators.
There is only ONE REASON for BUSH to break a law he actually voluntarily endorsed in several speeches. BUSH HAD/ HAS TO BE SPYING ON AMERICANS WHO ARE NOT TALKING TO TERRORISTS. If the Republicans would allow an open investigation, witnesses would give specifics on WHO is being spied on: QUAKER PEACE ACTIVISTS, STUDENTS, members of CONGRESS, DEMONSTRATORS using their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS...That's why Bush had to avoid FISA CT. No judge would give a warrant to spy on innocent citizens!
Please tell me you've researched this issue just a little bit.
Go to the above link and read Gen Hayden's remarks on the subject. He was the NSA director.
Read and learn.
By the way, it's "hypocrite" - Rush would be proud.
republicans to kill innocent kids in Iraq...but you
are Pro LIfe? You cannot be PRo LIfe and Pro war.
So far as Clinton was concerned, by h aving a
balanced budget, surpluses, peace, jobs..and everything good in this country....he helped the farmers and everyone else.
So far as Social Security...my mother is 93, and
she is only collecting a little over $500 a month...they were likely born during the time of when SS was first started.
As far as terrorism..i have no idea what you are even talking about...Clintons administration caught
the first WTC bombers..the embassy bombers and
went after the Cole bombers...but, the congress
who were all republican..would not allot the money
for it, Trent Lott saying to the reporters that he
was just trying to "Wag the Dog"..rememeber that
little saying. Read about it...it is even mentioned
in the 911 report!
And, this is important, when Clinton left the office,
gas was 1.20 cents a gallon...I would love to put
some of that in my car now!
You need to read!
I support Senator Feingold's call for censure of President Bush. He and his cronies are dangerous to us as a nation and as individuals. Like the fifties and other times past when it was considered " supporting the enemy" to voice criticism , it is now more important than ever that we stand up for our basic rights and those who speak for us.
IF YOU ARE TRULY PRO LIFE, you cannot be pro-capital punishment! All life is sacred.
2) The farm crisis actually began during the Regan administration. This occured when he called the notes in for the low interest loans that many small farmers received during the Carter Administration. In addition, Regan began to favor coporate farms in future legislation. The rest, as they say, is history.
3) The terrorism rates were lower during the Clinton administration than they are now. Clinton had the best track record (even when comparing to Regan) at arresting and conficting individuals responsible for acts of terrorism both domestic (Oklahoma) and international (the first World Trade Center attack). In addition, the Clinton Administration briefed the present administration regarding the threat including a report that warned of the use of airplanes during an attack). Finally, during times of Oil shortage (such as late 1999) Clinton released oil from the strategic reserves to stabalize oil and gas prices. As a result overall gas prices were relatively stable during his time in office.
I hope this is a sufficient reply.
Thanks
Why do Republicans think it's OK to kill 100,000 Americans over the next 10 years from air pollution? Republicans will do anything to protect a fetus inside a womb, but once it's a born kid -- starve him, freeze him, poison him, execute him, and heaven forbid, don't educate him.
Bush says he supports "life", but as Governor of Texas, he executed more prisoners than any other governor since capital punishment became legal again in 1975. Bush even taunted and laughed at some of the condemned prisoners. Yeah, that's just what Jesus would do, isn't it?
Republicans will trust giant corporations to do anything they want w/o public oversight, but they won't trust women to manage their own health care.
And why did the Bush regime ignore warnings of terrorism before 9/11? Why did Bush not read his daily briefings that covered terrorism? (Why is Bush illiterate?) Why did Gen. Richard Meyers command the military to stand down on 9/11 while we were under attack?
When a woman chooses not to sleep with somebody...that was a choice.
I'm pro-choice, keep your legs together if you don't want an abortion...that simple.
Once a woman becomes pregnant, from her willingness to have sex, there is now a third person involved...a child.
Don't want an abortion...don't have sex...pretty simple.
when birth control fails, that is not the woman's choice. when the fetus is found to have grave defects such as anencephaly (no head), or transposition of the great vessels (no oxygenated blood to the body), that will not let it live past infancy, or if it does live, only in a grossly impaired and medically dependent state, that is not chosen by the woman. when a woman's health can not sustain the pregnancy safely, that is not her choice either.
the anti-abortion stance is not about cherishing life. it is about controlling women's uteruses from afar, and about punishing women for any sexuality not pre-approved by the state. it is about granting men license to open any legs they want because it is the woman who must bear the consequences.
And getting back to the original topic, Allard's remarks ally him with tyrants the world over who use foreign enemies to terrorize their citizens, and who call truth treason.
However, what do we do with those cases in which that choice was taken away from her, as in instances of rape or incest? Should she then be forced to bear a child from those abuses? This question is particularly critical if the woman is not a woman, but a minor. Just because her body may have gone through puberty and be physically able to conceive, doesn't mean that it is ready to bear a child--pregnancy is incredibly straining and potentially damaging to the body of a child who is still growing herself. So should she be forced to put her own health at risk to bear a child that was forced upon her in the first place?
Then there's the case of the fetus that is not developmentally healthy, and cannot survive outside of the womb. Should the mother be forced to carry this fetus to term, knowing that it will not live beyond that point anyhow? The loss of a child is a terrible experience, and I can hardly imagine the emotional trauma of having to carry that lost child in my body for nine months, and then give birth to it.
Most of the anti-abortion campaigning and legislation I have heard about condemns abortion altogether, for any reason, without regard for the circumstances of the pregnancy. Along those same lines, your argument about a woman's responsibility for her choices does not apply to all cases, and therefore it breaks down. Any room for extenuating circumstances in your point of view here?
I don't think that your stand that a woman's abstinance is the only solution, and that a woman bears the sole responsibility for pregnancy because she "spread her legs", is defensible. For one thing, it's completely sexist -- you say nothing about a man's responsibility for preventing or avoiding pregnancy, or for being accountable should a pregnancy occur. And as I said above, it does nothing to make allowances for situations in which the woman had no power to choose not to conceive.
And what if she actually took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy, but the birth control did not work? Granted, she still had sex, but did so responsibly. In cases where there was a failure in responsibly taken preventative measures, rather than an outright disregard for the potential consequences, the woman's level of accountability for the pregnancy isn't quite the same.
I think that the issue of a woman's right to choose an abortion is an extremely complicated one, and blanket statements such as the ones you made in your post do not begin to adequately address the issue. Rather, they are devisive and judgemental, which qualities consistently tend to shut down any potential for real solutions to problems, rather than contributing to the solutions. You may want to think through your position on this issue more thoroughly. Certainly your viewpoints are as valid as anyone else's, but when making a public contribution, it seems to me that suggestions coming from your mind rather than your emotions might actually do more towards helping us work out the problems we face in our society. Just someting to think about...
The issue is not precisely whether one party "supports" abortion, but whether the government or the local religous "authority" has the right to intervene. Those who favor the right of a woman, in consultation with her family, her doctors, and her spiritual advisors to make the decision herself. When the issue is frame accurately, most Americans are pro-right to choose--both Republicans and Democrats.
The founding of OPEC and the long lines at the gas pump started with Nixon, not Clinton. If you are concerned about the link between terrorism and oil, you should examine the incestuous relationship between the Bush family and the Saudis, who fund all of it.
The farmer was saved during the Depression [caused in by Republican economic policies during all of the 1920's] by Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, who among other things FOUNDED Social Security and other basic programs that still support family farmers, as well as others in need. This is the same Social Security that your guy Bush wants to privatize -- read rape and pillage -- so that you will never even receive the kind of support your father does. Fortunately even his own lapdog and shameless Congress [you know, the one controlled by the Republicans since 1994, or only two years into the Clinton presidency] didn't have the balls to pull that one off.
As far as eminent domain is concerned, that Supreme Court decision was strongly opposed by Democrats but was rammed through by a REPUBLICAN Supreme Court controlled by Reagan appointees, and if you think the newest justices will be any more compassionate on that point, think again. The decision favors private developers -- do you really think that this blatant giveaway to private financial interests is a Democratic outcome or a Republican one?
The fact is that there has never been [other than maybe Hoover] an administration more incompetent and less interested in helping the working man, and more devoted to the interests of the rich and powerful, than George W. Bush's. It is inconceivable to me that anyone with less than $1 Million of income per year supports this guy. He and his cronies have systematically stripped the Government of protections for the common people, while engaging in a series of income tax giveaways for their rich friends that will bankrupt the country and make all services, including Social Security, much less able to support your father, you, and your children, and me and mine as well. How does that honor our fathers and our mothers?
Normal people are being completed screwed in every way by this Administration. That includes men and women in the military and in veterans hospitals, who get nickeled and dimed at every turn by this Administration. They support no one but their friends. And due to their ruinous financial policies the massive burden for working people and the middle class -- and their children and grandchildren -- will continue for DECADES after they are gone. Those are facts, not opinion or some political position. The numbers, unlike this Administration, don't lie.
We are going to wake up one morning and find that the economics of this country are third world, the government is bankrupt, the middle class is shrinking dramatically and is under attack, that no regular person can buy property, and that more than 90 percent of the wealth in the US is controlled by less than 10 percent of the population, just like some place in South America or elsewhere. Wait a second - sound familiar? It should, after almost 6 years of W. If anyone thinks that people [other than Cheney] are more well off now than they were under Clinton, they are smoking something.
Regarding abortion, it is true that the Democratic party -- as a political party --- has supported the right to choose, which has been the law of the land since 1973 [that is, during the Nixon Administration]. Until recently many Republicans did as well. And Democrats are not all of one mind on this. As a Christian I understand the different sides of this issue but this needs to be worked out in dialog - it is fundamentally a religious problem that Christians need to pray on and solve. I guess my response to you is with another question, if Republicans are so pro life prior to birth, while is everthing about the actions of this Administration and its Republican Congress so anti-life after birth? What are they doing to insure that unwanted children have the best possible chance to succeed and contribute after they are born? Compared to the Democrats, basically nothing.
Finally, this spying on Americans is completely illegal -- Bush has 48 hours after he starts a wiretap to go to the secret court created solely for this purpose and get a warrant. The Government has plenty of lawyers to do this as a matter of course. The fact that he is blowing this off and asking us to trust him is absurd and unlawful. What I don't understand is why conservatives aren't outraged by this blatant attack on our most basic civil liberties. Where are their principles!? What would your position be if Kerry, rather than Bush, was claiming as president that he had the unbrided and completely unsupervised right to use the full powers of the government to snoop on any American he chose? What ever happened to the "jack booted thugs", black helicopters and the memory of Waco?! What do you think is happening now? If Bush succeed in getting away with this one, and creating an imperial presidency with these kind of powers -- you and every other American will rue the day when someone else is President later that you don't agree with. That of course is an inevitability. This shit doesn't go away, and stinks just as much, when the shoe is on the other foot.
The requirement that the President -- any President -- go to court act to get a warrant to spy on our own citizens has no effect -- zip -- on the war of terror, since permission to do the taps can be gotten after the fact. The fact that Russ Feingold, a man of principle who with McCain authored the only campaign finance reform law of any consequence -- is now being accused of being unpatriotic and in league with the terrorists because he points this out and wants to defend our civil liberties is an outrage. This b.s. tactic has nothing to do with the war on terror but everything to do with the politics of power.
How likely is it that every single critic of this Administration is wrong, and that every single decision made by this Administration is right, every time?
Why is every Republican not ashamed -- and on his or her knees asking for forgiveness --- for trying to smear a good man and bring him down, just for power. Bush is not God, he is just an elected official in way over his head. The Bible says that thou shall not bear false witness -- how do the blatant lies and defamation perpetrated against Feingold or any other "Swift Boated" critic of this Adminstration stand up against that Commandment?
I would ask with respect that you consider this, David. God bless.
As a history and sociology major and advid reader of current events, politics, sociology, and history, I found your statements both pertinent and verifyable. However, you are still presenting a most optimistic view.
Throughout most of U.S. history, Democrates have legislated to control corporate rights and power while Republicans have legislated to control individual rights and power. With two powerful corporate leaders as our current President and Vice President, we should expect them to pursue the policies they do.
I invite all to keep their eye on U.S. policies towards Bolivia and on water rights within the U.S. Bolivia recently ousted a U.S. company who owned all water rights for that country. They also ousted a U.S. backed leader who used military soldiers to punish those caught collecting rain water.
Question to Christians advocating for creationism in our schools. "Do you support Darwinism in business?"
Why do Repulicans support subsidies for corporate farming, yet leave working farm families swinging in the wind? Why do they say they want less government and then try to curb states' rights to serve the will of their residents?
People have been censored for thier ridiculous idealism in this county for decades. Women's vote, no child labor, etc. brought conservative cries of "Society will Collapse!", well I say God Bless idealism and the courage to resist the status quo.
My answer--the same reason animal lovers spay their pets, whether the animal is pregnant or not. To reduce misery, pain and euthanasia for unwanted animals.
A very high percentage of those in prisons were abused as children. This suggests that they either were not wanted, or were simply born into circumstances where there was not enough resources, material and emotional, to nuture them into becoming viable, functioning adults. Our prisons are warehouses for those who cannot function in our society and from whom we flee. Their numbers grow every year. The environment they live in is violent, unnatural, impersonal, and rarely leads to their successfully rejoining the outside world. I wonder how many of them would wish their mothers had chosen not to have them.
I was a soldier in Iraq. Am I a criminal? Do you support the troops but not the war?
Is the act of soldiering in Iraq an immoral act, therefore amd I immoral?
Please read Bush v. Gore from the Supreme Court. I bet you haven't even read the writ, because if you did, you wouldn't have said Bush stole the election.
If you're quick to pull the legal trigger, make sure you equally apply the law in your argument. That's what Bush v. Gore was about.
Thanks for serving!!
I too was in Iraq, but as a civilian contractor supporty the Coalition forces. Proudly serving your country in the military does NOT make you immoral. That said, I have posted my thoughts on this blog thread a couple times. I do not agree with Allard's statement of linking Fingold's actions as siding with terrorism, just as I do not link your much appreciated service to immorality.
Do you have a link where I could access the writ? I'd like to read it.
If you are in the business of killing or helping to kill people, you are immoral, regardless of the justification. Especially considering that this war was justified by lies, it is exceedingly immoral. Killing other humans is never necessary, under any circumstances, nor does it solve any problem without creating another one.
By joining the military, one knows that he may be ordered to take lives. Did that appeal to you?
Serving your country? If anything, I feel much less safe as a result of the war. Serving Bush and Co´s economic interests, more likely.
Forgive my bluntness, but I´m sick of people afraid to speak against the troops. The militaristic culture of the US is quite alarming, and it starts with the individual soldier, not the president.
Do you stand by the accusation that Senator Feingold is siding with the terrorists by introducing a resolution to censure President Bush? Shouldn't we, as free citizens of the U.S., let the process play itself out before we accuse our own Senators of siding with the terrorists? You are obviously not aware of the recent polls that show the vast majority of U.S. citizens are very unhappy with the performance of our representatives.
Sincerely,
Steven Dreiling
I am very disturbed about your statement concerning Senator Feingold. This country is based on the rules of law. If the Republican controlled Senate would have the decency to question the NSA wiretapping and to have some oversite and question just what went on, then patriots like Senator Feigold wouldn't have to call for censorship.
You are the person who's patriatism should be questioned. You need to apologize for your outrages remark.
WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS NOT HELP THE FARMER FOR THE LAST 50 PLUS YEARS FOR FAIR PRICING FOR THE FARMERS PRODUCT THAT IS WHY THE LAND IS BEING TAKEN AWAY WITH EMINATE DOMAIN, ALSO THAT IS WHY MY FATHER IN LAW GETS 434.00 A MONTH FROM SOCIAL SECURITY HIS FAMILY HAS TO PAY HIS EXPENSES?
WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS DO NOTHING ABOUT TERRORISM HIGH GAS PRICES IN THE 1990'S WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE?
I AM LOOKING FOR A REPLY ON THESE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU
DAVID BRADEN
dbraden@courage.org
Good luck with that.
You need to apologize publicly to Senator Russ Feingold and to the American Public!
Geo. Bush has recklessly endangered all of us!
To question Senator Feingold's patriotism and suggest that he is "siding with terrorists" by seeking to hold President Bush accountable for violating federal law is despicable.
Mr. Allard needs to puplicly appologize and retract his statements.
WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS NOT HELP THE FARMER FOR THE LAST 50 PLUS YEARS FOR FAIR PRICING FOR THE FARMERS PRODUCT THAT IS WHY THE LAND IS BEING TAKEN AWAY WITH EMINATE DOMAIN, ALSO THAT IS WHY MY FATHER IN LAW GETS 434.00 A MONTH FROM SOCIAL SECURITY HIS FAMILY HAS TO PAY HIS EXPENSES?
WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS DO NOTHING ABOUT TERRORISM HIGH GAS PRICES IN THE 1990'S WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE?
I AM LOOKING FOR A REPLY ON THESE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU
DAVID BRADEN
dbraden@courage.org
Next, during the Clinton Administration made extraordinary efforts against terrorism. The WTC '93 bombers are in jail for life. The Millennium plot was foiled. And members of the Clinton Administration warned the Bush Administration that Al Qaeda was an impending threat. They were ignored and the Bush Administration began a new start of "Star Wars" and seemed to entirely miss that little brief titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U. S."
And about gas prices: In 1998 I remember paying less than a $1 per gallon. And since Bush has taken office the prices have just continued to rise, and I heard a forecast that prices this summer will approach or break record highs.
Finally, as a Colorado resident, I am appalled that one of my Senators suggests that protecting the Constitution of the United States is siding with terrorists. The Constitution needs to be protected from the Bush Administration's assault on the freedoms provided, and its provisions for checks and balances. Senator Allard should apologize for his remarks. The entire NEOCON, right-wing element in this country should apologize for their support in the Bush Administrations assault on the Constitution.
responsibility.
thank you for going so far out of your way to prevent truth and honor from gracing the halls of the senate.
you should resign.
thank you very much for your attention to this important issue.
sincerely,
mike mobbs
I'm aware that Fox News and all of your radical right wing peers will agree with you but I have greater concerns.
First: I'm worried about the voices being silenced in this nation by the policies of this administration.
Second: I can't stand the feelings I have about the growing opinion of this nation around the world. I can't blame the world for thinking of us as the terrorists.
Senator Wayne Allard, all men are created equal on this planet but your view suggests that only one man should have an opinion.
Apologize to Senator Feingold! Retract it "now" so we can work on patching up our worldwide image.
Sincerely,
Dalon Jones
If you receive this, contact me at
jazzara@yahoo.com
Deanna Ball
:)
WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS NOT HELP THE FARMER FOR THE LAST 50 PLUS YEARS FOR FAIR PRICING FOR THE FARMERS PRODUCT THAT IS WHY THE LAND IS BEING TAKEN AWAY WITH EMINATE DOMAIN, ALSO THAT IS WHY MY FATHER IN LAW GETS 434.00 A MONTH FROM SOCIAL SECURITY HIS FAMILY HAS TO PAY HIS EXPENSES?
WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS DO NOTHING ABOUT TERRORISM HIGH GAS PRICES IN THE 1990'S WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE?
I AM LOOKING FOR A REPLY ON THESE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU
DAVID BRADEN
dbraden@courage.org
That's what happens when you don't start wars of choice.
"I am writing to express my disgust with my State Senator, Wayne Allard's remarks suggesting that Senator Feingold is "siding with terrorists."
How dare he equate Senator Feingold's opposition to the President's law breaking and assault on our constitution with support for those who wish to kill or harm Americans! Senator Allard&'s McCarthy-esq statement is over the top, absurd, and reprehensible. It is the height of hypocrisy. I've honorably and proudly served in the US military where fine men and woman have died to uphold the constitution and preserve each American's rights. I would like to remind Senator Allard that he serves in the Senate to do the same. He should do his job!
To accept the President's illegal actions in fear of a future attack desecrates the graves of past TRUE PATRIOTS who have died to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.
Senator Allard owes Senator Feingold and all Americans an immediate apology!
I ask true patriots to support Senator Feingold's censure initiative. It is time to get a spin and speak up for the constitution.
Dave
Parker, CO"
The people of Wisconsin ought to be proud that they have a clear thinking Senator in Congress. It's unfortuante that all you've been is a rubber stamp for the administration.
President Bush has broken our laws. He needs to account for this. The crime needs to be prosecuted.
What does the fact that laws were broken and no one held accountable tell us about the current president of the U.S. and the senate and congress members who not only choose to overlook this crime but have castigated anyone who points out what is clearly obvious to the rest of us? Are we a democracy governed by laws or a dictatorship?
Apologize? Senator Allard needs to remember that he was elected to uphold the laws and represent the people, not the president, not the republican partyline. Senator Allard - your dictator-slip is showing.
Apologize - it is our duty as Americans to question our leaders. It is those who sit quietly by while our rights are slowly whittled away who are not the Patriots!
You should thank God that there are some Americans such as Senator Feingold who are still willing to defend our Constitution and our values, one of which, by the way, is upholding the law.
In this case the score is: Feingold 1, Allard 0.
This admisitration is taking us down the same road Germany went down in the 30's and 40's - toward fascism justified by fear. Every American that abhores tyranny and supports checks and balances to executive power would show their true patritism by supporting Senator feingolds efforts to censure the despotic regime that has taken our government by coup.
You sir, by supporting this administration are supporting global tyranny, you are complicit in instigating a rise in terrorism, you are responsible for ruining our great nation.
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” – Ben Franklin.
I would like to begin my letter to you with the above quote. This is not from some fanatical democrat or group that opposes the president. This is from one of the framers of the constitution. I to would like to add my voice to that of Mr. Franklin. As I ponder the words of our forefathers I begin to wonder what is happening to our republic.
Our first elected president, George Washington, knew of the problems that his and other powerful offices hold. He tells us that "Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it." I think that we are witnessing first hand that love of power. We, the people, and you, a representative of the people, need to check this power and bring the office of President of the United States back to a role of servant of the republic, not of himself and his powerful supporters.
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums in war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, they will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Ceasar."
Does any of this sound familiar? This is the approach that our current administration takes on a regular basis. Vice-President Cheaney has become the master of this particular technique. The Honorable Dick Cheaney has made an art form of denouncing the peacemakers and honest dissenters as being non-patriots. I want to state that this is a dastardly and cowardly approach to dealing with well meaning people with actual concerns. This administration seldom, if ever, engages in true exchange of ideas and opinions, but resorts to name calling and secrets in the cause of national defense. This must stop.
I would like to now turn to some direct concerns that I believe that both the house and the senate must consider and address. (And these are just the ones that I know about; only a supreme being could know all of the despicable things this administration and their august entourage are truly engaged in).
1. Takes the presidency in his first term with out a majority vote.
2. Creates an energy policy by consulting with his industry buddies
3. Grants Halliburton non-compete contracts, in the true spirit of capitalism
4. Decides that the Geneva Convention does not apply to detainees
5. Abu Grab prison scandal (torture). This is just the tip of the ice burg that continues with secret prisons where the administration can perform its unconscionable acts unabated and undisturbed.
6. Cronyism that leads to disaster during a disaster
7. Valarie Plame – the outing of a CIA Agent
8. Increasing spending, cutting taxes to the rich, cutting benefits to the poor.
9. Spying on US Citizens with out warrants, even a secret warrants.
Let us address each of these one at a time.
1. “Takes the presidency in his first term with out a majority vote.”
This was a close election, it came down to Florida. First it is announced that Kerry was the winner, then Bush. It comes down to a recount, and then it is found that there has been some ballot tampering. We find that some people claim that the ballots were unclear, and they were tricked in to voting for Bush. Absentee ballots were ignored. Here a chad there a chad, every where a chad chad. The republican secretary of state calls a halt to the democratic process and appoints George W. Bush the 42nd President of the United States. The Supreme Court upheld this decision.
2. “Creates an energy policy by consulting with his industry buddies”
In the spring of 2002, under order from a federal judge, the U.S. Department of Energy released to NRDC roughly 13,500 pages relating to previously secret proceedings of the Bush administration's energy task force. (President Bush formed the task force in early 2001 to develop a national energy policy, with Vice President Cheney at the helm.) Even though the government heavily censored the documents before supplying them to NRDC, they reveal that Bush administration officials sought extensive advice from utility companies and the oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries, and incorporated their recommendations, often word for word, into the energy plan.
Two of the documents illuminate how the coal industry and an industry-funded think tank helped convince President Bush to renege on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants. Carbon dioxide emissions are a major cause of global warming. The documents in question are two letters to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, one from former Senator Jack Kemp on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and another from a member of the National Coal Council.
NRDC also uncovered evidence showing the Bush administration implemented energy policies requested by Chevron Corporation. The company provided several recommendations, ranging from easing federal permitting rules for energy projects to relaxing standards fuel supply requirements, which ultimately were included in the president's national energy plan.
In a February 5, 2002, letter to President George Bush and copied to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Chevron CEO David J. O'Reilly recommends four short-term actions the administration should take to "eliminate federal barriers to increased energy supplies." The energy task force -- officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) -- included all of Chevron's recommendations in its report to President Bush on May 17, 2001.
3. “Grants Halliburton non-compete contracts, in the true spirit of capitalism”
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson" - Franklin D. Roosevelt
(Halliburton Hearing Unearths New Abuse; Pratap Chatterjee - June 27th, 2005)
Every morning 120 trucks line up at the Kuwait-Iraq border to deliver gasoline from Kuwaiti refineries. The drivers, mostly poor South Asian men from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, must cross at dawn because if they wait too long, the managers from Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Texas-based Halliburton, who operate the border post during the day, will subject them to rigorous checks that effectively shut down the deliveries.
"The only way we can cross the border is to arrive before KBR," says Alan Waller, the chief executive officer of Lloyd Owens International (LOI), a British company which manages 700 trucks from five different sub-contractors.
"For the last eleven months we provided fuel to all of southern Iraq. We have only lost one truck to theft and not one driver has been killed in hostile action. We have responded to civil uprisings in Najaf, Hilla, Karbala, Kut and Nasariya within 24 hours to provide fuel to the public. Our role has become instrumental in normalizing relationships between Iraqi authorities, the population and coalition forces."
All that changed on June 9th, 2005, when a convoy of LOI trucks, on its way to deliver construction materials for a Halliburton dining facility to a United States army base near Fallujah, Iraq, came under attack. Three drivers, two Egyptians and one Turk, were presumed killed and six trucks were abandoned.
When the survivors limped into the Al Taqaddum military base, they were expected to receive support from the Halliburton staff. Instead they got the cold shoulder. When the drivers tried to leave the country, they hit a roadside bomb and another Bosnian staff member was killed.
Reading from an email, apparently sent by a Halliburton manager, Waller said that the company staff were ordered not to help them: "Many people volunteered to help but were told no by management." He also noted that Halliburton had failed to inform them that two other convoys had been attacked in the same area in the previous week.
Waller and his business partner, Gary Butters, a former London police detective, were speaking at an oversight hearing on "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in U.S. Government Contracting in Iraq" conducted by Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee in the United States Senate on June 27th. The two men flew to the United States to testify after they were twice refused an audience with the United States embassy in Iraq to resolve the situation.
When asked by CorpWatch why Halliburton throws roadblocks in their way at every step, Waller refused to speculate. He simply stated that Halliburton managers say that his company does not have a contract with the United States military and thus they do not qualify for preferential treatment at the border.
He did mention that that his company is now doing work for a seventh of the price that Halliburton did one year ago, when the circumstances were much less dangerous.
Via a sub-contractor called Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company, Halliburton delivered gasoline in late 2003 at an average price of $2.65 per gallon. In spring 2004, shortly before the country was handed over to the Iraqis, the contract was canceled by the US military. The new Iraqi government then awarded an identical gasoline supply contract to LOI and their partners, Geotech Environmental Services of Kuwait, who charged just 18 cents per gallon to supply the same sites.
Waller also told the hearing that he had encountered only one Halliburton worker in the last year of his work in southern Iraq (the Texas company still holds contracts to repair oil field infratructure in Iraq). Meanwhile, he said that every fuel distribution station set up provide gasoline to the Iraqi public -- even those that Halliburton was supposed to have fixed -- was in disrepair.
"As Lloyd-Owen delivers fuel to nearly every refinery or depot in southern Iraq, we find ourselves frequently encountering examples of poor equipment, no equipment or complaints from Iraqi staff," said Waller.
Asked to respond to the LOI testimony by CorpWatch, Cathy Gist-Mann, a Halliburton spokesperson, emailed this brief statement: "KBR does not control ANY borders in the Middle East or any other country."
Billion Dollar Overcharges
The LOI testimony was not the only new evidence offered against Halliburton workmanship in Iraq. Henry Waxman, a California member of the House of Representatives, kicked off the proceedings by presenting a new study gleaned mostly from confidential reports done by the Defence Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).
The study estimates that Halliburton has received roughly 52 percent of the $25.4 billion that the Pentagon has paid out to so far to 77 private contractors in Iraq.
This is divided into two major kinds of contracts. Under the first, known as LOGCAP, logistical support like cooking and cleaning are outsourced to civilian workers, Halliburton has so far received $8.6 billion. The company is reimbursed for its actual costs and then paid a premium of 1 percent to 3 percent, depending on performance.
The second contract, known as RIO, was for the repair of Iraqi oil fields in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 invasion and for imports of consumer fuels. This project is now complete and cost the Pentagon $2.5 billion. A second RIO contract is now underway.
The new evidence, released Monday afternoon, shows that Hallliburton:
* overcharged or presented questionable bills for close on $1.5 billion, almost four times the previous amount disclosed.
* lost 12 giant pre-fabricated bases worth over $75 million destined for the troops. The bases could have housed as many as 6,600 soldiers.
* billed $152,000 to provide a movie library for 2,500 soldiers
* billed inconsistently across the board. Video cassette players, for example, were said to cost $300.00 in some instances, and $1000 in others. Likewise, the company charged $2.31 for towels on one occasion and $5 for the same units on another.
Gist-Mann dismissed the Waxman report. "The only thing that's been inflated is the political rhetoric which is mostly a rehash of last year's elections," she said.
"It's DCAA's job to ask questions and it's our job to provide the answers which we have done,” she continued. “Audits are part of the normal contracting process and it is important to note that the auditors' role in the process is advisory only."
"Many of these questions have already been resolved. The figure represented in today's hearing stems from an aggregation of many reviews over a three-year period and the amount is a gross mischaracterization of the true facts," she added.
Spoiled Food and Leftovers
A third witness at the hearing was Rory Maryberry, a former Halliburton
contractor who worked at the dining facilities in Camp Anaconda. Located just north of Baghdad, near the town of Balad, Anaconda is the largest United States military base in Iraq.
Mayberry worked for Halliburton in Iraq from February to April 2004. He claims the company charged the Army for 20,000 meals a day when it was only serving 10,000 during his tenure. Subsequenttly he says he was punished for speaking to auditors by being banished to the more dangerous outpost of Falluja.
In a video-taped deposition shown during the packed hearing, Mayberry
explained how the company would sometimes supply food that was over a year past the expiration date or had spoiled due to inconsistent refrigeration. When the United States military occasionally refused the spoiled food, Halliburton truckers were instructed to take them to the next base in the hope that they would escape scrutiny.
Worst affected were the non-American workers. Mayberry says that Halliburton was supposed to feed 600 Turkish and Filipino meals. "Although KBR charged for this service, it didn't prepare the meals. Instead, these workers were given leftover food in boxes and garbage bags after the troops ate. Sometimes there were not leftovers to give them," said Mayberry.
"Iraqi drivers of food convoys that arrived on the base were not fed. They were given Meals Ready to Eat (U.S. military prepackaged rations), with pork, which they couldn'teat for religious reasons. As a result, the drivers would raid the trucks for food," he added.
"KBR's priority has always been providing the troops the best possible food, shelter and living conditions while they serve in Iraq," said Gist-Mann, in response to Mayberry's allegations.
"KBR is not responsible for purchasing food to serve at its dining facilities throughout Iraq. KBR's dining facilities are thoroughly inspected every month by the Army's Preventive Medicine Services division, and one of the main things they check is the expiration dates on various food products. If at any point food is deemed unfit to serve, KBR follows the government-approved processes and procedures to destroy it," she added.
No Bid Contracts
The witness who invited the most attention at the hearing, however, was
Bunnatine Greenhouse, a former mathematics teacher from Louisiana, who rose to become the highest ranked civilian in the Army Corps of Engineers. As the person responsible for signing contracts, she spoke out repeatedly against superiors who she says forced her to sign no-bid contracts with Halliburton on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.
Greenhouse blew the whistle on the non-bid contracts in October 2004 when the Army tried to demote her. She filed a complaint for harassment on racial and gender grounds (she is African-American) but the harassment has not stopped. On June 24th, three days before the hearing, Pentagon lawyers met with her to try to persuade her not to testify.
"I have agreed to voluntarily appear at this hearing in my personal capacity because I have exhausted all internal avenues to correct contracting abuse I observed while serving this great nation as the United States Army Corps of Engineers senior procurement executive. In order to remain true to my oath of office, I must disclose to appropriate members of Congress serious and ongoing contract abuse I cannot address internally," said Greenhouse.
"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."
Members of Congress, who attended the hearing, called for a bipartisan
commission to review the Halliburton contracts. "This testimony doesn't just call for Congressional oversight -- it screams for it," said Senator Dorgan.
4. “Decides that the Geneva Convention does not apply to detainees”
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison, while a United States Congressman
In a memo, Gonzales demonstrates an enormous talent for justifying setting aside a century of U.S. policy. Highlights of the memo to President Bush (January 25, 2002):
- Gonzales says the "new paradigm" of the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
- Gonzales outlines the pros and cons of applying the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. He is prescient in his prediction that a failure to apply the Conventions across the board "could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries."
- He rejects his own argument, concluding that "our military remains bound to apply the principles of GPW [Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War] because that is what you have directed them to do."
- Gonzales also notes that "It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 (of the US code, the War Crimes Act). Your determination [to bypass the Geneva Conventions] would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."
The response from Secretary Powell – dispatched one day later – takes issue with Gonzales' arguments and conclusions. Highlights of the memo to Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice:
- Powell and his legal adviser William H. Taft IV argue: "It [declaring Geneva does not apply] will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general."
- The memo also says that removing the protections of the Geneva Conventions from certain detainees would undermine U.S. detention policies at Guantanamo Bay and weaken our ability to hold potential terrorists. "The Geneva Conventions are a more flexible and suitable legal framework than other laws that would arguable (sic) apply," the memo contends. "Determining GPW does not apply deprives us of a wining (sic) argument to oppose habeas corpus actions in U.S. courts."
The ABCNews.com report presents unusually stark condemnation by two former JAGs, who argue that their warnings were ignored.
- "'If we – 'we' being the uniformed lawyers – had been listened to, and what we said put into practice, then these abuses would not have occurred,' said Rear Admiral Don Guter (ret.), the Navy Judge Advocate General from 2000 to 2002."
- "'When you say something down the chain of command like, 'The Geneva conventions don't apply,' that sets the stage for the kind of chaos that we've seen,' said Rear Admiral John Hutson (ret.), who was the Navy Judge Advocate General from 1997 to 2000."
So the administration, even with dissenting advice from his Secretary of State and the Navy Judge Advocate General decided to act in a to what amounts to violating the Geneva Convention, if not in the letter of the law then in the spirit of justice that it embodies.
5. “Abu Grab prison scandal (torture). This is just the tip of the ice burg that continues with secret prisons where the administration can perform its unconscionable acts unabated and undisturbed”.
The French, German, and Italian papers have all been describing the affair under the running head "Torture in Iraq."And that's the word that's being used by British papers on both the left and the right. The Red Cross report that was disclosed on Monday hedged that description only slightly when it described the treatment of detainees as "tantamount to torture."
"Torture" has appeared in the American press, too -- when The New Yorker ran a photo of a naked prisoner being threatened by dogs, it captioned it, "torture of Iraqi prisoners." And a few papers have described the events as "atrocities" (for some reason a lot more dramatic than calling them "atrocious").
But most of the American press and political leadership has been more circumspect. When Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about the charges of torture at his news briefing, he said, “what has been charged so far is abuse, which is different from torture.I'm not going to address the 'torture' word." And the majority of American newspapers and news broadcasts have been sticking with generic terms like "abuse" and "mistreatment."
This might be, as is claimed by the administration, an aberration and that it is not the normal or sanctioned behavior. What we have now found is that we are placing prisoners in secret prisons through the world; this is disturbing. Our Allies are furious about this action, thought I suspect that many of the government officials had foreknowledge. But what is the purpose of these secret detention sites? The administration, claiming national security, has deterred congress from investigating these sites. If they are behaving in a legal manor, why not bring them to the US. Hold them in high security prisons, and try them. I believe it is linked with Administrations desire to apply torture. It took congress to act to persuade our beloved President that torture is wrong (or has it just become another state secret).
6. “Cronyism that leads to disaster during a disaster”
Michael Brown, Director of FEMA, a Bush appointee, eminently qualified to manage the department due to his tenure as Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horses Association. Bush was so confident in his people that while victims suffered under Browns incompetent direction George vacationed. Just as steadfastly confident the Vice-president also could not be torn from his time off. Only as the news began to show information about how incompetent Bush’s point man was did the administration act. Bush headed the relief efforts himself, promising money and non-compete contracts to Halliburton (where have we heard this before). How many other jobs are held by men (or women) with similar qualifications?
7. “Valarie Plame – the outing of a CIA Agent”
In what has been called a retaliatory attack on Joseph Wilson, someone in the administration leaked the name of his wife as being an undercover CIA agent. Robert Novak was the first to publish this information. While the administration originally denied that there was any connection between it and this incident, the president even stated he would immediately remove anyone found to have any relation to this issue. That was back peddled as we found out that Skipper Libby and Karl Rove had at least some relation to this issue. To date the President has done nothing to address this issue within his administration.
8. “Increasing spending, cutting taxes to the rich, cutting benefits to the poor.”
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” - Abraham Lincoln (1865)
“Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction." - Thomas Jefferson
Currently we have spent approximately $228,073,960,673 in Iraq for the war. We have lost 2156 American lives and 15881 of our people have been wounded in this endeavor. This may seem enormous, but we still have at least 2 years left to go. The cost of repairing just the New Orleans levy system could reach as high as $32Billion. An additional $200Billion would be required for restoring the city. But with the rising costs of rebuilding and managing a war, the administration wants to cut the taxes of the upper 1% by about $422Billion.
This is a bold step, and as with most bold steps someone has to pay the penalty; in this case it is the poor. To pay for his tax cut to the rich we must cut federal spending. The spending cuts will come from Medicare/Medicaid, Student loan programs, Special education programs, clean water act, WIC, and low income housing assistance. I do not wish to sound cynical, it is very important for the rich to be come richer, and if it cost a few million people there lives, or the quality there of, what a small price to pay. As we do this I believe it will be important to bring back to existence debtors prison.
9. “Spying on US Citizens with out warrants, even a secret warrants.”
"Law is often the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson 1819
The latest scandal to reach the ears of the American people is that our president has authorized spying on citizens with out any checks and balances. No warrants are necessary when the president sites national security as the reason. Bush himself stated that he authorized the spying, and will continue to do so. He claims that his actions are legal (I assume in some perverse interpretation of the law) and have prevented acts of terror. Cheaney spouts this as his new mantra, much as he did the idea of being attacked if we did not reelect the current administration.
Summary
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster
I have great concerns about this administration. We, well the House, impeached the previous president for what amounts to lying about sex. We have a president that deceives us about almost everything, and then tells us it is in the interest of national security that he does so. We have what appear to be a range of short comings, from lapses in judgment to what some might call high crimes and misdemeanors. Appointing an incompetent person to head the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) was at best a lapse in judgment. The outing or being even in the periphery of outing a CIA agent was probably a crime. I am sure that the President is shielded from this however.
Stealing the food from the poor to feed the egos of the rich, while might not be an absolute crime in the legal sense, is a moral abomination. Handing out non-compete contracts is bad judgment the first time, but to repeat this when other actions could have dramatically aided the ravaged areas of southern US is a travesty. This is the Bush legacy.
Finally spying on Americans with out a warrant when there is a procedure in place that would lend to having checks and balances is an outrage. How many crimes can this man commit before we act? If the congress was as aggressive toward finding the truths about all of the life and liberty threatening actions that this administration has engaged in as they was to prove the previous president had oral sex, I think it could put a stop to new and more horrific actions that this presidency seems to dream up every day.
Please stop partisan politics and act now. Ask the questions, get the answers. Don’t take no, or national security for an answer. We need to at the very least reign in this would be master.
Sincerely
Howard Glenn Inman
Could have said it any better.
If Americans can not freely debate issues of concern and it Americans can not live free from
fear of government spying, then the terrorists have already won. You should retract your comments about Senator Feingold who is, from what we can see, a most patriotic American.
Larry Bauer
When you see something is wrong, you try to fix it. When thugs are beating up one of your relatives, you try to stop them.
America's Republican leaders are fascist thugs and they're beating up the country for their own personal gain. This November, America will stop them.
As for rancor, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Search for press clippings with keywords of Bill and Hillary.
p.s. While I don't agree with the phrase "my country right or wrong", I greatly prefer it to the "my country is always wrong" that the left seems to prefer.
As far as your concern regarding the left, no, it's not the country that is wrong as you seem to suggest but the Republican leaders like Nixon and Dubya who have abused their powers and must be held accountable who are wrong. Standing up to those leaders is in line with what our forefathers did, and that is truly at the heart of what America is. Calling him to the mat for illegal wiretapping does not weaken our defenses one iota, therefore, yes, Allard does owe him an apology.
And, to call the act unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch. There are competing clauses in the constitution regarding the subject (that is whether it is called spying or search determines the "constitutionality").
Does the left want the eavesdropping to stop (which would certainly aid the terrorists), or just make sure the process is followed? That to me is the more germain question.
I think the left blames Bush more than the terrorists for terrorism. Terrorists are bad, angry, violent people who seem to be using any excuse to kill innocent people. They kill people over cartoons! These are not normal people that can be appeased. They must be squashed like bugs. If we are creating terrorist faster than we can kill them, then we need to kill them faster. Just like the Cold War, which the left said could not be won, we can win the war on terror, but only if we have the will to win.
The issue -- how many times do I have to repeat the obvious -- is not whether we should monitor terrorists. It's not even about the possibly incidental monitoring of American citizens who have nothing to do with terrorists.
It's about the crass over stepping of boundaries, the ignoring of the courts, the blatant violation of the law. This isn't an "either/or" thing. It's not "either" we support the president's right to break the law "or" we support terrorism. FISA, simply stated, was the law of the land. It did not, in fact, obstruct the executive. It was, if anything, written to make it easy for the executive to get legal authority to do what this president chose to do illegally. Yes, chose to do illegally. Bush and his handlers chose to break the law, to violate the law, as a test of power. If it was left to the Ignorant Right, he would have passed that test easily. Thanks to Sen Feinglold and a few other Democrats, and a few people of the media, the test may fail. I hope it does because, god damn it, I like being a citizen of a free country whose government is kept at least a little sane and rational by the checks and balances of the constitution.
Your comments do not do your office justice. You obviously are taking the partisan stand, and just as obviously do NOT have the best interests of your constituents or the United States whose honesty and integrity you swore to uphold.
I do not need to tell you what you already know--that your somments yesterday were improper and offensive--but I do need to tell you that I am among the many, many people who you have offended, and I simply demand that you apologize.
Respectfully to your office, not to you,
Richard Aamodt
You know what Jeff Davis said was the second worse thing to happen to the South, don't you. of course.
(Well, you know who Jeff Davis was, don't you? Right! The Confederacy's only president.)
Old Jeff said that the worst thing that happened to the South was losing the war; and the second worse thing that happened to the South was Lincoln's assassination. Jeff Davis was not a dumb ass, Lance. He sort of knew a good man when he saw one, Lance. But some people, Lance, wouldn't know a good man if they heard him call for the censure of a lying president who broke the law.
BTW, Fort Sumter, dummy. Who fired first? You really ought to try reading a little history.
My point was that Abe Lincoln's words have become almost sacrosanct in the lexicon of American history, and it is not so clear to me why. An otherwise unremarkable political career and waging a civil war don't seem to justify the reverence. He said some good things, he said some that were not. (It is a similar argument in reverse for the Nazis--while overall bad people, it does not follow that everything they said was wrong.)
- Senator Wayne Allard, April 28, 1999
"Article VI of the Constitution requires that all Senators, Representatives, Members of the State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers of the United States and the States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. The oath of office lies at the center of this impeachment debate.
As George Washington stated in his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1793:
Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony."
- Sen. Wayne Allard explaining why he will vote for conviction of President Clinton, Friday Feb. 12, 1999
Senator, President Bush told the American people that wiretap surveillance would continue as always, with court ordered warrants: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." (Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004)
Should we hold each President up to different standards based on our party alignment Senator?
Based on your comments concerning President Clinton, you should apologize to Sen. Feingold for questioning his patriotism for seeking to hold President Bush accountable for actions taken under his authorization.
Since this man brings NOTHING to any party - other than creating minor dust-ups - he should generally be IGNORED.
This man is an empty suit!
You need to apologize for your comments about Senator Russ Feingold. They are completely inappropriate and untrue and you are a better man than this.
Mike Howerton
If you don't like constitutional government, get out!
But stop this nonsense of attacking those who appreciate our constitutional form of government.
I find it truely amazing, no matter what this administration does, if anyone raises a voice against it, they are a traitor. I can only imagine the uproar, the special prosecutors and the calls for impeachment that would be heard if every thing that has gone on during this administration were the same but the current president was a democrat !
(See General Hayden's remarks on the subject, he was NSA's director at the time.)
NSA has always had the authority to monitor foreign communications if one side of the conversation was in the US, IF AUTHORIZED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. This has been the case for a long time and is used in the war on drugs.
General Hayden notified the President this was a tool we could use in the war on terror. NSA has more lawyers working for it than most people would believe. If it was cleared by these lawyers, you can be sure it's legal.
The fact that congressmen and senators on both side don't know this is sad. Democrats who are using this against the President are ignorant or liars. Trying to censure the President for this makes them scum.
I notice a lot of people on this site say they support the troops. They also say the President has started an illegal war that has killed many innocent civilians. The military is prosecuting the war. You can't support the troops at the same time you say they are intentionally killing innocent people. You have to be retarded to think the men and women of the US military consider that 'support'.
There are legitimate reasons to be for or against the war.
But, none of you gave a crap while hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis were being murdered by Hussein. To blame the President now for innocent Iraqi deaths at the hands of the US military makes you scum as well.
Senator Allard:
I just called your office and left a message to let you know that I consider Senator Russ Feingold a true patriot for speaking out to protect our Constitution and democratic values. It is you who are supporting terrorists when you blindly follow the administration out of partisan loyalites. Your loyalties are to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the American people. It is sad that you are using the same tactics that McCarthy did during the Communist era and the Germans used during the Nazi era. Tarring those that speak out for the common good with the "if you aren't with us, you are against us" label. You might want to stop and think which side the founders of this country would be on in this debate. I am quite sure they would be asking for Revolution yet again against the tyranny of our day, that of a Bush Administration that lies and acts for selfish reasons instead of for the common good. Look in the mirror and decide which side you want to be on.
This a charade they have become very adapt at using. If you now oppose the Iraqi war your not patriotic, if your pro choice your unchristian.
Lets look at abortion and pro choice and the claims of the Christian right that it must not done and we're going to work/insist that it doesn't.
However I don't think thats how jesus handle simular problems .....when the deciple's returned from visiting a certain twon and told Jesus they weren't recieved well. He told to dust off their feet and leave them alone. in otherwords they made their choice . He didn't telll you go back there and insist they see his message "The Good News" his way, but the anti-abortionist just can't see that.
Many Deomcrats are against abortion, but believe thats between God and the person deciding to have an abortiopn.
WWJD
As for the war I support the troops 110% ,but I also support them coming home right now, we're in a mess thats getting worst than Veit Nam.....what are we still there? Fighting for our FREEDOM Yeh right that country is in such a mess they're no threat to our freedom's ...Iran is more a threat than Iraq.
How long are we going to stay until we surpass the total dead of Veit Nam 60,000+. How many politicians kids are over there??????
This is undoubtably the worst corrupt administration in U.S history, and if changes don't come soon the Repubs will sink with us all.
Besides Sen Feingold being a terrorist sympathizer is ludicrus do you reallly think he'd support a group that could end biting his butt and hurting his love ones and friends how stupid is that thinking ...he do an apology.
If you hate Bush, you would have slobbered at the mouth over Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc. Ole Honest Abe shut down newspapers and suspended Habeas Corpus (threw folks in jail with no trial in sight), among other things.
It's time to quit playing politics and recognize who the REAL enemy is - Islamic Fundamentalists who desire to do the same as Hitler - kill all the Jews and imprison or kill all those who don't pledge allegiance to their cause.
Americans realize this and these censure efforts are viewed as Namby Pamby politics. The Dems will see their power further eroded this fall if they don't get a clue.
So it just whenever the President feels threatened now?
Where did you take your history lessons? Yes, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus but he argued his case before congress and Congress then passed a law allowing the suspension. Bush asked congress for nothing. Roosevelt began internment camps but this was also upheld by the supreme court at the time. Are you aware that he supreme court has rejected Bush's assertion of unreviewable authority, twice. But I guess they're just being "activist".
Funny how Republicans are supposed to want small government but will allow their president to freely do as he wishes and abhor checks and balances.
Roosevelt opened everyone's international mail and he also did not go to the court for this authority - he already had it.
It's just history - go back and review. And that's why the Dems are not supporting Feingold!
I believe there's a law called FISA...
it's just history- go back and review...
Some very serious stuff at the heart of this, as the answers to these questions define what kind of -ocracy we really have in this country. I don't know about you, but I look around at people who call themselves "freedom-loving Americans" and cheer on the shredding of the Constitution with the same mouth -- well, in the 1930s jackboots made 'em easy to spot. But the experience is no less frightening.
Excuse me before I get all Jay Bennish on your ass.
But you really believe the president is all powerful during times of "threat"? My God, I've never heard such a soprofic piece of balderdash in my life. Are you a coward, afraid of the kind of liberty that constitutional order brings to this country? Or just suffering from a thickening of the cranial bone? Go, sir, away! Fly thee to a banana republic where you can be servant to a "strong man" dictator who deprives his citizens of any but the meanest of "freedoms". Oh, wait, that would be Saddam's Iraq, wouldn't it? Or Bush's America.
Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican, was one of only 9 Senators who approves of such treatment. Let him know that Colorado says no to torture.
He also has been in favor of not repaying the social security fund and doing away with social security for seniors.
Of all the Senators in Washington, he has been voted the most conservative and is known as being a Bush clone by voting for President Bush's agenda.
Funny how a man who never served in the military and does not see the problems associated with a country uses torture can question the patriotism of others.
The great state of Colorado can certainly throw this douchebag out on his bum.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Perhaps it is Sen. Allard who is the traitor for following blindly the last 5 years.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
I told you recently that I did not agree with the warrantless wiretapping, and you said you felt it was justified. Today I hear that you accused Senator Feingold of siding with the terrorist for trying to preserve the liberties and freedoms our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
If you allow this kind of abuse of power by the White House to continue, actions which are bordering on tyranny, then I submit that it is you who is the traitor to your country, not Senator Feingold. I expect a full and public apology to Senator Feingold immediately.
Senator Salazar,
As a former Attorney General I am confident you can see the deeper implications of what is going on in our country right now, and I expect you to take appropriate ACTION to protect your constituents and the citizens of this country from a threat that is probably even greater than the threat of foreign terrorism.
Take the Great Depression for example. Our country went through a very difficult time because the general populus began abusing a financial system that lacked appropriate rules and regulations...so what happened as a result? Well I'll tell you. We were fortunate to have an intelligent man in power who saw that there were problems and he FIXED THEM.
It's about FIXING PROBLEMS and NOT CAUSING THEM!
And I've had it up to here with all this nonsense regarding this issue or that issue or whether this is 'constitutional' or that is 'unconstitutional.'
Let's rather take a moment to ponder why the constitution was created in the first place because then and only then will we find a guiding light among this disgusting mess of lies, deception, and needless suffering.
Our problem is not a legal one but rather a human one. I think we some times forget this because we get pounded by this legal jargon 24/7 from the media sources.
It's not about being 'red' or 'blue.'
It's not about being 'conservative' or 'liberal.'
It's about wanting to live normal humane lives...
I am not a big fan of FDR, but he did tend to ignore the constitution--most of his programs were declared unconstitutional until he stacked the court. I give him credit for trying, though most of what he did was ineffective.
That is until he declared war on Germany after Japan attacked us. The war saved the economy, not FDR.
Let's not congratulate the good senator too much. He stands to gain much more by his actions than he might lose.
Clever man, but lets not nominate him to stand along side Nathan Hale just yet.
Mr. Allard, you should be ashamed of yourself. The actions you support, the unrestrained spying on US citizens, are the actions dictators claim for themselves, not the legal actions of a U.S. President.
Apologize- then start to uphold our constitution. This is a true crisis- stand and be counted one who supports democracy.
What do you mean dissent is the highest form of patriotism? I thought giving one's live for one's country was the highest form. But, we live in a brave new world, I could be wrong.
Instead of chastising the president, let's all work together to solve the problem--which is how to track down and thwart terrorists.
I feel like I am watching a bunch of junior high schoolers bicker. "He didn't follow the process" "He is a traitor" "He needs to apologize".
People, people--lets focus.
You seem to want to change the subject to anything other than that. Your name calling, Senator Allard's comments, and others on the Right posting here wish to use your tired and true tactic of diverting attention away from the facts.
I agree with one other point of yours [though as a mere childish junior high schooler I should never admit it]. I too believe that "giving one's live for one's country was the highest form," of patriotism. When one does, one does not do so for a President or any individual for that matter. One does so to protect all Americans from any form of tyranny. The framers of our Constitution shuck the tyranny of the King by establishing our try-cameral form of governance which calls for checks and balances and is based on the rule of law. This was not done in hast or without thorough vetting of the issues [read the Federalist papers]. I presume that you would agree and take pride in the resulting Constitution.
In the face of a "threat", real [which terrorism is] or perceived, do we honor those patriots who have giving the ultimate sacrifice protecting our form of government by allow this or any President to unilateral and willfully disregard existing law. Of course not! Do we "aid" the terrorists' goal of weakening America by ignoring our own laws? Yes! Are those that stand for the Constitution, like Senator Feingold, in the face of a threat [both from a Right Wing backlash or terrorists] true patriots? Absolutely!
Lance, stop the name calling. Stop the obfuscation. Stop this President and his erosion of our constitutional government. Lets work together to focus on Presedent Bush's even greater threat to America.
And, I think the call that the action is unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch. The words of the fourth amendment do not seem to address eavesdropping ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")
I think all reasonable people would agree that listening to calls to suspected terrorists is going to help in the war on terror--why not just amend FISA to recognize that?
-- Samuel Johnson
Attacking as "unpatriotic" anyone who dares criticize Bush/Cheney is the only card left in the right-wing deck. They must be forced to play it each and every time until "We the People" see it for what it really is -- and attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- in short, the very foundation of the United States of America.
Apologies should be demanded from the spineless Democrats who have distanced themselves from Senator Feingold. What a pathetic bunch of panderers.
Senator Feingold has been the only voice throughout the pre-meditated implementation of power and control by the Bush/Cheney junta.
Until other Democratic Leaders shed their political shackles and stand up against the current trend of fascism.....we will continue to have no voice.
Thank you Senator Feingold and to hell with the likes of Senator Allard and the Democrats that roll over and piss on themselves.
The American people need to be leaders in the war on terror. We can't do that if we are divided. I'm asking our Congress to please stop partisan attacks. It divides the our nation and damages our integrity. I would also ask our Vice President to consider treating Congress with respect.
Jeanette
"What would von Staufenburg do?"
But, I do know that there is no more unpatriotic act than undermining a country in a time of war. And nothing more traitorous than aiding the enemy.
We are in a war folks, and arguing about whether we should be or not is worse than useless, it is extremely damaging. Bush cannot get re-elected, and it is extremely unlikely he could be impeached in the time left. I am not a Bush-supporter, but I see no value in the petty ankle-biting.
Lets show a little courage and support the efforts in battling terrorism and finishing the war in Iraq. I did not support going there, but I know our only chance of having a reasonable exit is to show a little persistance and support of the effort.
I know you all hate Bush. That is ok, there are lots of reasons for that. But all this nit-shit whining is not helping make the effort in battling terror.
If someone has a plan for moving forward, then lets hear it. Anyone can sit back and criticize. War is a difficult and complicated affair--and unless someone knows a better way, then lets rely on the guy in charge. He is not perfect, but he is our leader, like it or not.
Following the rule of law and upholding the constitution are not mutually exclusive to fighting terrorism [as someone else already noted above]
My comment (above) was not a redirect. It was a directly related to the topic we are commenting on--whether Senator Allard should apologize for saying that Senator Feingold is siding with terrorists. I was merely stating my opinion on patriotism and supporting terrorists--which are consistent with Senator Allard's comments.
I don't believe the left wants to win the war on terrorism. I think their despise for Bush is clouding their judgment.
If you run out of valid arguments, attack, attack, attack. Oh, and redirect attention away from the true issue. Bush broke the law.
You attempt to make logical arguments supporting your position. That is good for democratic debate and I appreciate that. The problem is that in every one of your posts you have to reach into your Republican propaganda playbook.
Your rhetoric is shallow. How about this equally shallow counter; “I don’t believe the right wants to protect the constitution. I think their greed is clouding their judgment.” That doesn’t feel right for me to write. Why? Because it is a blatantly fallacious argument. Republicans’ greed has no logical tie to their disregard for the constitution.
Oh my! There I go. Doing what I detest in posts like your nit-shit wining and petty ankle-biting posts. Hmmm. Where did I go wrong? Guess I’ve been learning too well from the right wing press like Fox and posts like yours.
I apologize. I must remain focused on the issue.
My only request is that you not refer to my responses as coming from the Republican playbook. While I may sometimes be prone to polemics, they are my own thoughts and what I truly believe. Not a playbook I am following.
I used to have more knee-jerk responses, like disagreeing with everything Clinton did. But now I try to take a more nuanced view--and actually found I agreed with a lot of what he did. And similarly, I don't agree with everything Bush does (not by a long shot!).
I certainly vote for more Republicans than Democrats, but that is because I find they tend to agree with my views more closely--not just because they are Republicans. (Though the Republicans are really annoying me with their profligate spending over the last few years.)
In the interest of remaining focused [as you requested] on what Senator Feingold's censure is all about, I'd like to provide the following [adding to the multitude of information already posted here].
See Link
And, the following taken from today's post by SherryB on Talking Points Memo Cafe;
Link
“An article in US News and World report about illegal wiretapping and possible illegal physical searches by the government without warrents, contains this paragraph:
White House lawyers, in particular, Vice President Cheney's counsel David Addington (who is now Cheney's chief of staff), pressed Mueller to use information from the NSA program in court cases, without disclosing the origin of the information, and told Mueller to be prepared to drop prosecutions if judges demanded to know the sourcing, according to several government officials. Mueller, backed by Comey, resisted the administration's efforts. "The White House was putting pressure on Mueller to broadly make cases with the intelligence," says one official. "But he did not want to use it as a basis for any affidavit in any court." Comey declined numerous requests for comment. Sources say Mueller and his general counsel, Valerie Caproni, continue to remain troubled by the domestic spying program. Martin, who has handled more intelligence- oriented criminal cases than anyone else at the Justice Department, puts the issue in stark terms: "The failure to allow it [information obtained from warrantless surveillance] to be used in court is a concession that it is an illegal surveillance."
It appears that Sen. Feingold may have even more ammunition for censure. A storm is still brewing over the White House, it may blow them away.
http:// www.usnews.com/ usnews/news/ articles/060327/ 27fbi.htm”
I ask two simple, focused questions? After reading the above; do you believe Bush broke the FISA law? If not, what logical argument do you use to rationalize your opinion?
What frustrates me about the whole conversation is that we seem to be arguing about whether or not a process was followed--and not on the key issues. The key issues are how can we most effectively prosecute the war on terror without unnecessarily violating the civil rights of our citizenry.
Maybe the way to do that is to follow the process outlined in 1978--but I can't believe, given how technology has changed, as well the nature of our enemies, that it is necessarily the best way.
Yes, Bush has been disengenuous, and quite likely violated the law or at least its intent. Instead of the focus being bringing down a lame duck president, can't it be on winning the war on terror? I don't really care about Bush, what I care about is the country, and I think this debate has lost the plot to a certain extent.
WHY DO DEMOCRATS WANT TO HELP KIDS BUT THEY ALSO BELIEVE IN ABORTION?
David, this may come as a shock to you, but in some cases, abortion DOES actually help kids! Bringing a child into the world is an awesome responsibility, and Republicans take it much too lightly. They would force every unplanned pregnancy to result in a birth, no matter what circumstances that child would face. They could be neglected or abused--many of our people in prisons were unwanted children. Or they could force a family into poverty, adding to the welfare rolls. Republicans never do consider the fate of the kids involved (or, for that matter, how it increases the burden on society!). Sure, making contraceptives more available and more affordable would solve this problem so that women would not have to resort to abortion except for medical reasons, but guess what, Republicans fight this tooth and nail. They strip funding for family planning and they fight research for more effective contraceptives. Senator Allard doesn’t get this important fact anymore than he understands the idea that the Constitution created a system of checks and balances. Would be nice if he educated himself on both these issues.
Well, Mr Allard that is you - you are helping President Bush break the laws of our country by extension of his bullying/ scaring us to death tatics. That's all you have on your agenda for getting the American people on your side...bully tatics....just as the schoolyard bully gets lunch money from another kid.
Mr. Allard, you need to apologize for terrorizing the American people with your scare tatics.
Well, Mr Allard that is you - you are helping President Bush break the laws of our country by extension of his bullying/ scaring us to death tatics. That's all you have on your agenda for getting the American people on your side...bully tatics....just as the schoolyard bully gets lunch money from another kid.
Mr. Allard, you need to apologize for terrorizing the American people with your scare tatics.