The GSA Scandal

I apologize for being a little late to the scene on the latest scandal. In between computer problems and traveling, I forgot to write something on the improper use of an arm of the government to be used for political purposes (except for that whole U.S. Attorney thing, which is so easy to write about). Though when I saw the video of the excruciating, yet amusing testimony of GSA head Lurita Doan, I just had to throw this up.

The basic facts on the story are this: Lurita Doan held a luncheon on government time where Jennings from the White House Political Office did a power-point presentation on how the GSA can help win crucial battles for Republicans in 2008. At the end of the presentation, Lurita was heard by several people (including her own press liaison) that she wanted the GSA to do whatever it takes to help win elected offices for the Republican party. The GSA can be effective in this matter because they dole out federal contracts.

Here we have Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) grilling Doan on her inappropriate use of the GSA:

Now Firing U.S. Attorneys For Political Reasons Is Okay

After vehemently denying that eight U.S. Attorneys were canned for political reasons, Kyle Sampson, the former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is saying that it is perfectly fine. Obviously the 'job-performance issues' approach didn't work so well, now they are going down a different and what looks like to me a more dangerous road. Kyle Sampson will go in front of Congress to testify voluntarily to say that it was a political decisions, but, um, not what you think constitutes a political decision, or something like that.

More on the confusion from Rawstory:

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States Attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said in his prepared remarks, which were posted by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service and are now available at this link.

Critics have defined some of the firings as "political" since, based on many of the documents released, they appear to be based partially on objections by Republican lawmakers. But Sampson, who resigned from his post earlier this month and agreed to testify voluntarily without being subpoenaed, will argue that a U.S. Attorney not being able to "work constructively" with governmental constituencies cannot be "successful" in his or her position.

"A U.S. Attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the Department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district important to effective leadership of the office, is unsuccessful," Sampson will say.

He added, "If he or she...is resistant to the President's or the Attorney General's constitutional authority...then that U.S. Attorney is not performing at a high level."

So what Sampson really means is that if the U.S. Attorney does not perform his political obligations to the President and the welfare of the Republican party, then they are clearly not doing their job. Prosecuting criminals is not enough, they have to be criminals that the President approves of. So Carol Lam, Duke Cunningham was not a criminal, he was just a victim. So David Iglesias, you should have gone after that obscure Democrat down in New Mexico. Who cares if the American people want the Justice Department to work outside of partisan lenses?

The Department of Justice is part of the Adminstration and those that work there serve at the pleasure of the President. It isn't about blind justice, it is about serving the President. The question is, who exactly is the President serving? It certainly isn't the American people. It is time for Gonzales and the President, to be forced out of office, for this and so many other reasons.

It Was Against The Law

Those words aren't just a line in a Simon and Garfunkel song, they are the actions of the Bush Adminstration in the U.S. Attorney scandal that is plaguing our nation. The Department of Justice and consequently the White House continues to boast that the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys was perfectly justifiable because they serve at the 'pleasure of the President.'

The only problem with that statement is in how they were removed. Most people know by now that these attorneys were looking into cases of corruption perpetrated by Republicans in office or not looking at certain Democrats that Republicans like Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson slyly asked U.S. Atty David Iglesias about.

A New York Times editorial looks into the matter:

The Bush administration has done a terrible job of explaining its decision to fire eight United States attorneys. Story after story has proved to be untrue: that the prosecutors who were fired were poor performers; that the White House was not involved in the purge. But the administration has been strangely successful in pushing its message that the scandal is at worst a political misdeed, not a criminal matter.

It is true, as the White House keeps saying, that United States attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the president,” which means he can dismiss them whenever he wants. But if the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid prosecution, or to punish them for not misusing their offices, that may well have been illegal.

In law schools, it is common to give an exam called the “issue spotter,” in which students are given a set of facts and asked to identify all the legal issues and possible crimes. The facts about the purge are still emerging. But based on what is known — and with some help from Congressional staff members and Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University — it was not hard to spot that White House and Justice Department officials, and members of Congress, may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute.

As we continue to hear snippets of information about the scandal, it seems that as more details come out, the evidence becomes increasingly damning against the DoJ and their superiors in the White House. Ultimately, we should not only call for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales, but for the heads of all the perpetrators inside and out of the White House who tried to stop justice from coming to their 'friends.'

When Backed Into A Corner....

They say that is when the dog is most vicious. With its teeth bared and the growl growing in ferocity ever so slightly, the Bush Adminstration is getting pinned from the U.S. Attorney scandal. It isn't pretty to watch, this dog is threatening our constitution after having thrown dignity and accountability out the window long, long ago.

From the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush is offering less than nothing. If you won't submit your statements under oath, there is no way to be held accountable in a court of law. If you are afraid of the law, there must be a lie buried in the actions of Karl Rove and other White House operatives. The Democratic Senate must stand firm and issue those subpoenas and let justice prevail. Bush will go kicking and screaming, but he must not win against a nation founded on laws.

So far the Senate is handling itself well in this matter. Stripping Alberto Gonzales of the ability to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation is a good start. It seems that Senators Leahy and Schumer are staying steadfast in their commitment to see this through. It is already a new day over here in Tel Aviv, I hope to see a new one over in Washington as well.

Who Says Prison Is A Lonely Place?

Hagel Talks Impeachment

Hearing the "I" word mentioned in left-leaning circles is hardly uncommon these days, but from a red-state Republican it is a rare event. What makes it more odd is that the talk is from a Senator who just might be running for the GOP Presidential nomination next year. Chuck Hagel has been a vocal opponent of George Bush and his policy in Iraq for quite some time, but the upcoming edition of Esquire featuring the Senator from Nebraska takes the discourse to a whole new level.

From the Sioux City Journal:

In an interview appearing in April editions of Esquire magazine -- set to hit stands next week -- Hagel suggests that President Bush could be subject to calls for impeachment as the Iraq war drags on. "The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel said in the article. "Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes." Hagel has long been an outspoken critic of the administration's foreign policy and its handling of Iraq, but for a conservative Republican from a firmly rooted red state to mention the "I" word in the same breath with a sitting party president is still shocking. "That's pretty strong," Bykerk said. "It's hard for me to judge whether that sets him up as the anti-war candidate or some kind of superconscience for the Bush supporters of the Republican Party. "He just tells you what he thinks."

What he thinks is highly out of the ordinary of most lock-step Republicans. The party's success is drawn from the effectiveness of the VRWC and how fast the message from on top is delivered to elected officials, right-wing pundits, talkradio hosts and bloggers like those of RedState and Little Green Footballs among others. Hagel has gotten his fame of late from opposing Bush on numerous fronts.

Running for President as a Republican requires the support of the religious right and fiscal conservatives. Although Hagel is definitely a conservative when it comes to his voting record, straying from the Republican meme could have serious implications. In fact a recent AP poll showed that only 37 percent of Nebraskans think he would make a good President. Of course his announcement tomorrow may just be about running for re-election and nothing about Presidential politics, so we will just have to wait and see.

Rove Took Care Of The 'Problem'

In an interview with the McClatchy Newspapers, Allen Weh, the party chairman of the New Mexico GOP had asked Karl Rove to dispose of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias because he was not prosecuting Democrats over a possible voter fraud incident. This poses a big problem to the White House and the Justice Department because so far they have claimed no involvement in the purge other than selecting the new attorneys.

From McClatchy:

In an interview Saturday with McClatchy Newspapers, Allen Weh, the party chairman, said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove and asked that he be removed. Weh said he followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House.

"Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month.

"He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh.

"I probably said something close to 'Hallelujah,'" said Weh.

Weh's account calls into question the Justice Department's stance that the recent decision to fire Iglesias and seven U.S. attorneys in other states was a personnel matter - made without White House intervention. Justice Department officials have said the White House's involvement was limited to approving a list of the U.S. attorneys after the Justice Department made the decision to fire them.

Now we have more damning evidence that the White House was personally involved and that Gonzales, having known the full story of the matter, did in fact lie to Congress when he said that the firings were not political. On top of this confession, we also have Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Dominici admitting to talking to Iglesias about prosecuting certain political cases last year right before the midterm elections. As the pieces of the puzzles continue to fall in place, it is becoming crystal clear that there was serious foul play involved, from the White House on down to the state party apparatus.

Bush Is Anti-Family

Not only is he against gay families, heterosexual couples are under attack as well. You see, when you send troops off to war and force them to do two, three, four or more tours of duty it does irreperable harm to the homefront. Married life comes to an absolute stand still as the one who stays home is alone and the soldier is placed in a completely different world.

Due to the war, the bonds of marriage are easily shattered and the statistics prove it. Nearly 60,000 divorces have been attributed to the war with over a million people being sent to Iraq over the course of four years. Factors that contribute to this number include the effects of PTSD, adulterous relationships and the reality that the bond between two people is undone by being so far apart for so long.

From The Progressive:

Twenty-four hours after Lorin boarded the plane for Iraq, I hung a blue star service flag—denoting an immediate family member in combat—in the front window. Then I closed the blinds, hoping to keep the harbingers of death at bay. They still got in, through the phone, the Internet, the newspaper, and the TV.

(snip)

Two months into his deployment, I got a call from him, and he said, choking up, that there was an “accident.” Two Iraqi children were dead because he gave the order to fire a couple of mortar rounds. Several weeks later, he phoned again, his voice flat and emotionless, to tell me that the men he had dinner with the previous night had been killed by the same Iraqi soldiers that they were training six hours earlier.

Days went by without any communication—anxious hours, restless nights. I swerved between anger and fear.

Emotional isolation is one of the hallmarks of post-combat mental health problems. The National Guard didn’t conduct follow-up mental health screening or evaluations of the men in my husband’s company until they had been home for almost eight months. Nearly a year later, in August of 2006, my husband was informed of his results: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It was obvious that he was suffering, but when I brought it up, he parroted what the military told him: “Give it time.”
(snip)
It was hard to reconnect after more than a year apart, and the open wound of untreated PTSD made it virtually impossible. Lorin is still the best evidence I have of God’s grace in this world, but we just couldn’t find our way back together after the war came home.

I cut up the article as best I could to make the point of what PTSD can do to a couple, but you should definitely read the whole thing. The ravages of war are not bound by the borders of Iraq. I find it hard to believe that any man or woman does not carry what they hear, see and do in a combat zone out of Iraq and into their lives back at home. War is a terrible thing for any human being to endure. Of course war is sometimes necessary due to the crazy world we live in. Yet this war had no business being fought. Sure Saddam was a bad man and what he did to Iraqis was horrendous, but there are plenty of terrible situations going on throughout the globe and we had no business getting involved over there, we need to get out now before we cause any more damage. That goes for the Iraqis and our brave soldiers.