Monday, July 02, 2007

Fidel Castro Ruz: 'They will never have Cuba'

Published Jul 1, 2007 11:19 PM
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/cuba-0705/

June 17—I hope that no one says that I am gratuitously attacking Bush. Surely they will understand my reasons for strongly criticizing his policies.

Robert Woodward is an American journalist and writer who became famous for the series of articles published by the Washington Post, written by him and Carl Bernstein, and which eventually led to the investigation and resignation of Nixon.

He is author and co-author of 10 bestsellers. With his fearsome style he manages to wrench confessions from his interviewees. In his book “State of Denial,” he says that on June 18, 2003, three months after the Iraq war had begun, as he was on the way out of his White House office following an important meeting, Bush slapped [Lt. Gen.] Jay Garner on the back and said to him:

“‘Hey, Jay, you want to do Iran?’

“‘Sir, the boys and I talked about that and we want to hold out for Cuba. We think the rum and the cigars are a little better. ... The women are prettier.’

“Bush laughed, ‘You got it. You got Cuba.’”

Bush was betrayed by his subconscious. It was in his mind when he declared what scores of dark corners should be expecting to happen and Cuba occupies a special place among those dark corners.

Garner, a recently retired three-star general who had been appointed Head of the Post-War Planning Office for Iraq, created by secret National Security Presidential Directive, was considered by Bush an exceptional man to carry out his war strategy.

Appointed for the post on Jan. 20, 2003, he was replaced on May 11 of that same year at the urging of Rumsfeld. He didn’t have the nerve to explain to Bush his strong disagreements on the matter of the strategy to be pursued in Iraq. He was thinking of another one with identical purpose.

In the past few weeks, thousands of marines and a number of U.S. aircraft carriers, with their naval supporting forces, have been maneuvering in the Persian Gulf, a few miles off the Iranian territory.

It will very soon be 50 years since our people started suffering a cruel blockade; thousands of our sons and daughters have died or have been mutilated as a result of the dirty war against Cuba, the only country in the world to which an Adjustment Act has been applied inciting illegal emigration, yet another cause of death for Cuban citizens, including women and children; more than 15 years ago Cuba lost her principal markets and sources of supply for foods, energy, machinery, raw materials and long-term low-interest financing.

First the socialist bloc collapsed followed almost immediately by the USSR, dismantled piece by piece. The empire tightened and internationalized the blockade; the proteins and calories which were quite well distributed despite our deficiencies were reduced approximately by 40 percent; diseases such as optical neuritis and others appeared; the shortage of medicines, also a result of the blockade, became an everyday reality. Medicines were allowed to enter only as a charitable act, to demoralize us; these, in their turn, became a source of illegal business and black-market dealings.

Inevitably, the “special period” struck. This was the sum total of all the consequences of the aggression and it forced us to take desperate measures whose harmful effects were bolstered by the colossal media machine of the empire. Everyone was awaiting, some with sadness and others with oligarchic glee, the crumbling of the Cuban Revolution.

The access to convertible currency greatly harmed our social consciousness, to a greater or a lesser degree, due to the inequalities and ideological weaknesses it created.

Throughout its lifetime, the Revolution has taught the people, training hundreds of thousands of teachers, doctors, scientists, intellectuals, artists, computer engineers and other professionals with university and post-graduate degrees in dozens of professions.

This storehouse of wealth has allowed us to reduce infant mortality to low levels, unthinkable in any Third World country, and to raise life expectancy as well as the average educational level of the population up to the ninth grade.

By offering Cuba oil under favorable terms of payment at a time when oil prices were escalating dramatically, the Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution brought a significant relief and opened up new possibilities, since our country was already beginning to produce her own energy in ever-growing amounts.

Concerned over its interests in that country, the empire had for years been planning to destroy that Revolution, and so it attempted to do it in April 2002, as it will attempt to do again as many times as it can. This is why the Bolivarian revolutionaries are preparing to resist.

Meanwhile, Bush has intensified his plans for an occupation of Cuba, to the point of proclaiming laws and an interventionist government in order to install a direct imperial administration.

Based on the privileges granted to the United States in Bretton Woods [monetary and financial agreements for the post-war period signed by the Allied countries in 1944—WW] and Nixon’s swindle when he removed the gold standard, which placed a limit on the issuing of paper money, the empire bought and paid with paper tens of trillions of dollars, more than 12-digit figures.

This is how it preserved an unsustainable economy. A large part of the world currency reserves are in U.S. Treasury bonds and bills. For this reason, many would rather not have a dollar crisis like the one in 1929 that would turn those paper bills into thin air.

Today, the value of one dollar in gold is at least 18 times less than what it was in the Nixon years. The same happens with the value of the reserves in that currency.

Those paper bills have kept their low current value because fabulous amounts of increasingly expensive and modern weapons can be purchased with them; weapons that produce nothing. The United States exports more weapons than anyone else in the world. With those same paper bills, the empire has developed a most sophisticated and deadly system of weapons of mass destruction with which it sustains its world tyranny.

Such power allows it to impose the idea of transforming foods into fuels and to shatter any initiative and commitment to avoid global warming, which is visibly accelerating.

Hunger and thirst, more violent hurricanes and the surge of the sea is what Tyranians and Trojans stand to suffer as a result of imperial policies. It is only through drastic energy savings that humanity will have a respite and hopes of survival for the species; but the consumer societies of the wealthy nations are absolutely heedless of that.

Cuba will continue to develop and improve the combative capacities of her people, including our modest but active and efficient defensive weapons industry, which multiplies our capacity to face the invaders no matter where they may be and the weapons they possess. We shall continue acquiring the necessary materials and the pertinent fire power, even though the notorious Gross Domestic Product as measured by capitalism may not be growing, for their GDP includes such things as the value of privatizations, drugs, sexual services and advertising, while it excludes many others like free educational and health services for all citizens.

From one year to the next the standard of living can be improved by raising knowledge, self-esteem and the dignity of people. It will be enough to reduce waste and the economy will grow. In spite of everything, we will keep on growing as necessary and as possible.

“Freedom costs dearly, and it is necessary to either resign ourselves to live without it or to decide to buy it for its price,” said [José] Martí.

“Whoever attempts to conquer Cuba will only gather the dust of her soil soaked in blood, if he does not perish in the fight,” exclaimed [Antonio] Maceo.

We are not the first revolutionaries to think that way! And we shall not be the last!

One man may be bought, but never a people.

Fate decreed that I could survive the empire’s murderous machine. Shortly, it will be a year since I became ill and, while I hovered between life and death, I stated in the Proclamation of July 31, 2006: “I do not harbor the slightest doubt that our people and our Revolution will fight until the last drop of blood.”

Mr. Bush, don’t you doubt that either!

I assure you that you will never have Cuba!


Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/cuba-0705/

U.S./NATO bombs slaughter Afghan civilians

Published Jul 1, 2007 11:25 PM
Worker's World Article

Long-range attacks by U.S. and NATO forces, both air strikes and artillery fire, killed more than 100 Afghan civilians—mainly women, children and old men—in a 10-day period in late June.

These deaths have caused such a fury among the Afghan people that Hamid Karzai, the president installed by the U.S. with the blessing of NATO, had to call a press conference on the lawn of the presidential palace to denounce the attacks.

Karzai said, “You don’t fight a terrorist by firing a field gun from 37 kilometers away into a target. That is definitely bound to cause civilian casualties. You don’t hit a few terrorists with field guns.”

Before Karzai was anointed president of Afghanistan, he was a consultant for Unocal, the U.S. oil company that wanted to build a pipeline linking Turkmenistan and Pakistan, which would allow billions of dollars of natural gas from what used to be part of the Soviet Union to be sold on the capitalist world market. Karzai was such a U.S. creation that the bodyguards protecting him until 2005 were U.S. mercenaries, who didn’t leave until they had trained a special group of Afghans to take over.

All throughout his reign in Kabul from 2002 on, Karzai has protested against U.S. and NATO “excesses,” but not to much avail, since they still continue. Even the Associated Press reported on June 23 that U.S. and NATO forces have killed at least 203 civilians so far this year, while the Afghan resistance has killed 178 civilians.

This report was picked up by over 1,300 newspapers throughout the world. There are now contingents from over 37 countries in Afghanistan, though few of them are soldiers on the ground. The U.S. and other NATO governments are pressuring other imperialist powers and also client states to provide additional troops. The ruling group in Japan, whose constitution prohibits sending its armed forces abroad, has indicated it is willing to change its constitution.

The oil and natural gas resources in Central Asia, including those of the Caspian Sea, are largely unexploited but are believed to be the second largest in the world after the Persian Gulf. The governments participating in the occupation of Afghanistan are looking for a share of those resources.

Canada is one of the largest oil exporters in the world. It has sent significant forces to Afghanistan, which has aroused a significant protest movement within Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has allied closely to the U.S., nevertheless had to promise that “this mission will end in February 2009,” while speaking on June 23 at a public ceremony in Quebec City to send a new Canadian brigade to Afghanistan.

Of course, Harper would like Canada to stay in Afghanistan because he wants a share in what is at stake there. Washington insists that all who want to get a share in imperialist plunder of the region share in the military intervention, from Britain and Spain to Germany and even Poland, all of which have contingents in Afghanistan.

Wall Street’s economic and financial stakes in Afghanistan, namely grabbing the vulture’s share of these reserves, are so high that the Pentagon has maintained a sizable force there—10,000 to 18,000 troops—even though its ground forces are stretched to the maximum with the occupation of Iraq.

The geostrategic position of Afghanistan is also highly significant and this area was an area of imperialist interest and contention even before oil was involved.

As long ago as the middle of the 19th century, imperial Russia and imperial Britain were competing for control of Central Asia. Frederick Engels, who with Karl Marx founded scientific socialism, wrote an article in 1858 that is still relevant. Describing the British invasion of Afghanistan from its Indian colony, Engels said: “The conquest of Afghanistan seemed accomplished [in 1839] and a considerable portion of the troops was sent back. But the Afghans were no ways content to be ruled by the European infidels, and during the whole of 1840 and 1841, insurrection followed on insurrection in every part of the country.”

The costs of the occupation proved to be so high that the British had to cut back on their payments to the local chiefs, now called warlords.

The very day that W. McNaghten, the executive assistant to the British governor general of India, did this, “the chiefs formed a conspiracy for the extermination of the British, and thus McNaghten himself was the means of bringing about the concentration of those insurrectionary forces, which hitherto had struggled against the invaders singly, and without unity or concert; though it is certain, too, that by this time the hatred of British dominion among the Afghans had reached the highest point.”


Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/afghan-0705/

Taking Mike Gravel Seriously

I really like Mike Gravel. He filibustered the military draft to death in '71. He was instrumental in bringing the Pentagon Papers to light. To watch the talking heads naysay and belittle him makes me like him even more, they being mere tools of their corporate paymasters. If we had Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation in this allegedly democratic nation, I would surely vote for him, because I dread having to vote for the vile, corrupt HRC or the DLC machine candidate Obama.--Pete

By Matt Hutaff
Jun 26, 2007

In my last column I promoted no-nonsense presidential candidate Ron Paul, Republican Congressman from Texas. He's the Internet's champion (and recipient of the coveted "Colbert Bump"), and his platform—abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, ending our wars abroad, and canceling a host of bloated social programs the government is ill-suited to operate—is something a lot of war-weary Americans can agree with.

But what if you like subsidized health care and Social Security? What if, God forbid, intractable fears of voting outside party lines force you to look at Democratic candidates? Well, friends, you're still in luck. Mike Gravel, former senator from Alaska, has the credentials to bring reform to the steps of Capitol Hill without abandoning the New Deal society that's emerged from the ashes of World War II.

Students of history recall Gravel as the man who both single-handedly filibustered an end to the military draft in 1971 and brought the Pentagon Papers (which Wikipedia laughably reduces to "a large collection of secret government documents pertaining to the Vietnam War") the widespread attention it deserved. An ardent opponent of war, Gravel has signaled his intent to bring American troops home and secure our borders from invasion and illegal immigration. He has no love for the IRS, either; expect it to fall by the wayside should he win the presidency.

But while Gravel and Ron Paul agree on many things, they differ on the role of government in everyday life. Like many classical Republicans, Paul believes in a strictly limited government that doesn't interfere with how foreign nations conduct themselves or how we as citizens manage our health. To him, government should be limited to essential services only a federal body can provide, leaving states the right of self-determination on issues ranging from education and welfare to abortion.

Many people, fairly, don't like that. Having birthed three generations since Roosevelt forged his social compact, the United States has accepted welfare, Medicaid, and Social Security as a part of life. And, ideally, these programs sound pretty great: federally-secure pensions, managed health care, education for children, and food and housing assistance for the poor. But we don't live in an ideal world, and Gravel acknowledges these programs are in disarray. His agenda to repair the tattered fabric of America, then, includes:

  • Universal Health Care vouchers giving every American the ability to seek medical care on their own terms, from whomever they want, relieving businesses and individuals of the costs;
  • Restructuring NAFTA to clear up trade imbalances that have led to unprecedented illegal immigration over the past decade;
  • Instituting a Fair Tax that generates revenue from a progressive national Sales Tax on new products and services;
  • Funding Veterans Affairs so, for once, they're treated like human beings by the government they've given their lives to defend;
  • Decriminalizing marijuana;
  • Granting same-sex unions the same privileges given to normative couples;
  • Upholding abortion rights granted under both the 14th Amendment and Roe v. Wade; and
  • Ceasing war with Iraq, and opposing future conflicts in the Middle East (namely, Iran).

It's an impressive list of goals, to be certain. And I like the candor Gravel promotes when talking about these issues. Frankly, I'd like to live in the world he talks about, and if you do, too, he's definitely worth a moment of your consideration.

The cynic in me, however, dismisses Mike Gravel because it just sounds too good, too broad in scope to imagine coming to fruition. And I have serious issues with his stance on gun registration, global warming, and taxation, to say the least. But I confess, if Gravel can pull off even a fraction of what he wants to do—namely, give equal rights to the gay and transgendered, roll back our military/industrial complex, and treat our veterans with the respect they deserve—I'll applaud him.

The battle for the Democratic nomination is an embarrassing hodgepodge of career politicians who've done little but prop up the status quo until it suits them to levy charges against it. I'd more or less written off the group, but Gravel's recent pounding on Hillary Clinton, "Why Hillary Scares Me," shows there are Big Government proponents with a soul. As Gravel says himself:

...[W]e can continue to compartmentalize ourselves from the truth, remove the troops and blame the rubble on the Iraqis. We can feed the collective fantasy that our good intentions and heroic efforts were thwarted by the cowardice and incompetence of others. But if that's what we take from our experience in Iraq, we will never learn the true lessons and we will be condemned to repeat the same mistakes. The inability to admit a mistake and assume responsibility is not just a morally bankrupt way to walk through life; it is a dangerous and deadly way to lead a nation.

Gravel's fellow contenders may have the polling numbers, but they're prepared to continue the U.S. on its current trajectory, one where core values are abandoned in favor of ruthless bloodshed and religious demagoguery. Social programs favored by Democrats are bankrupt financially and morally because they refused to make a stand against the executive office. Mike Gravel is an outsider, a maverick politician from a bygone era that recognized government should better our lives, not itself. Of those running on the Democratic ticket, he's the only one who doesn't see Janus when he looks in the mirror.

It boils down to this: Popular candidates are not in our best interests. They weren't in high school, and they sure aren't in Washingtonian politics. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are taking the difficult stance that the United States is wrong, and we need to make it right quickly. If you think the best way to go about this involves retooling our limitless supply of socialist programs, let Mike Gravel lead the way. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may be media darlings, but they're dangerously disconnected from what makes a good leader, and they certainly have no clue what it takes to implement broad stroke visions like, oh, ending the war in Iraq.

Or making gays feel like regular citizens.

Or even picking campaign songs that don't bring bile to the tip of your tongue. (Although they do have what it takes to make picking a campaign song into a newsworthy event.)

Mike Gravel is a true Democrat. If that's how you vote, he should be your only choice.



Copyright © 1998-2006 TheSimon.com
View this story online and more at: http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01410_taking_mike_gravel_seriously.html

Poll shows Republicans not as conservative as they (we?) think they are

Via The Hill

AARON BLAKE, THE HILL
- A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn't be the United States' top foreign policy goal.

The poll, conducted by GOP consultant Tony Fabrizio 10 years after he conducted a similar study, also casts some doubts on the conventional wisdom about moral-issues voters, thought to be the key constituency for President Bush in 2004. It showed that the group hasn't grown significantly in recent years and is surprisingly willing to vote for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani despite his differences with it on social and moral issues.

The survey of 2,000 self-described Republican voters, titled "The Elephant Looks in the Mirror 10 Years Later," showed that 71 percent consider themselves conservative, a 16 percent increase over the 1997 numbers.

Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. . .

Nearly four in five Republicans said that U.S. foreign policy should be based on protecting economic and national security interests, versus 16 percent who preferred basing it on spreading democracy.

Bosses, Democrats and Single Payer Health Care

Which Side Are You On, Michael Moore?

By CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER


Via Counterpunch

Michael Moore has made a great movie.

Sicko.

Everyone should see it.

And take the kids.

The movie's message in a nutshell -- we need single payer.

In the United States.

Now.

But Senate Democrats are trying to co-opt the message.

On Capitol Hill today, SEIU held a rally for a couple of hundred health care workers.

The group was addressed by six Senators.

None support single payer.

Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) -- does not support single payer.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) -- does not support single payer.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) -- does not support single payer.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) -- does not support single payer.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) -- does not support single payer.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) -- does not support single payer.

We asked Dawn Lee, a spokesperson for SEIU, whether SEIU supported HR 676 -- the single payer bill in the House.

She said SEIU takes no position on that bill.

SEIU -- does not support single payer.

At the SEIU rally, all spoke in favor of "universal health care."

That is code for -- keep the insurance companies in the game.

Single payer would take them out.

Martese Chism was at a similar rally in Chicago last month.

Chism is a registered nurse at Cook County Hospital in Chicago.

She also sits on the board of the California Nurses Association (CNA).

CNA is pro-single payer.

Chism was attending an SEIU rally in Chicago in support of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's "universal health care" bill that would keep the insurance companies in the game.

Chism says that the SEIU members who gathered for the rally were being actively misled by SEIU.

"SEIU members are being led to believe that universal health care means free health care for all -- single payer," Chism told Corporate Crime Reporter. "But it doesn't mean that. It means keeping the insurance companies in the game. I had to leave because I couldn't take it anymore. The insurance companies and SEIU are misleading people."

CNA president Rose Ann DeMoro is a touch less subtle.

"Rather than being on the side of the workers, SEIU continues to be on the side of the bosses," DeMoro told Corporate Crime Reporter. "And it's a disgrace."

"And the problem is that SEIU is giving cover to these Senators -- it makes them look like they are accomplishing something when in fact they are accomplishing nothing. These legislators are gutless, and the SEIU is giving them cover."

DeMoro is using the movie Sicko to generate public support for single payer around the country.

Unfortunately, the powers that be in the Democratic Party are working -- with SEIU and other unions -- to undermine public support for single payer.

And soon, Michael Moore too will have to choose.

Between single payer -- and the corporate Democratic Party's candidate for President.

That candidate will be -- if past is prologue -- opposed to single payer.

And the question will remain, as always -- which side are you on?

Corporate Crime Reporter is located in Washington, DC. They can be reached through their website.

The Impeach Cheney Movement Gains More Congressional Support

By Guest Blogger
Posted on July 2, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/55731/

This post, written by Michael Roston, originally appeared on Raw Story

A Democratic Congressman from Washington state became the latest Member of Congress to add his voice to the calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. The move came the same night that House Democrats failed to unite their party around a measure to cut the funding for the Office of the Vice President in response to Cheney's declaration that his office was not a part of the executive branch.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) declared in an address on the House floor Thursday night that he was in favor of impeaching the vice president.

"It is time for a new exit strategy, one that removes the Vice President of the United States from office, voluntarily, if he chooses, but by impeachment if he stonewalls," said the Seattle Democrat and Progressive Caucus member. "I have struggled mightily with this matter for a long time...Since the President permits the flagrant disregard of the Constitution, it is up to the Congress to act and defend the American people. With each new revelation, America has seen only glints of what has been done totally in secret."

McDermott said that he was adding his name to H.Res. 333, the Articles of Impeachment introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and already supported by nine additional Congress members. But he also made it clear that he was concerned with crimes beyond those called out in the Ohio Democrat's legislation.

"The Vice President holds himself accountable to no one," Rep. McDermott argued. "He ordered the Secret Service to destroy visitors logs, and we have learned in the Washington Post recently, that the Vice President circumvented every check and balance inside the White House to force through his own agenda, to spy on Americans through illegal wire traps, creating the gulag at Guantanamo, and subverting civil liberties and free speech at every turn."

Note: Text and video of McDermott's speech are available at the Congressman's website.

In a conference call on Thursday afternoon, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made it clear that the decisions of Democrats like McDermott were not enough to change her mind on impeachment, which she continued to insist was off the table.

"It's a choice that has to be made," she said. "I made a decision...one year ago that impeachment was something we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their shortcomings. The president isn't worth impeaching. If it were the beginning of his term, people might think of it differently, but he's at the end of his term...the last two years of his term, we just want to be rid of him."

Rep. supports impeachment, but funded Cheney's office

While McDermott announced Thursday night that he was in favor of impeaching Cheney, he also lined up with 23 Democratic colleagues to defeat an amendment that would have cut all funds for the Vice President's office in the next fiscal year.

RAW STORY had reported on Thursday that some Democratic leaders expected a party line vote on the amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill. But a curious assortment of Blue Dog Democrats, Congressional Progressive Caucus members, House Committee chairs, and others banded together to produce the 209-217 vote against Rep. Rahm Emanuel's (D-IL) amendment.

Reps. David Obey (D-WI) and John Murtha (D-PA), powerful members of the House Appropriations Committee who cast a rare vote with Republican lawmakers on the measure, could not be reached for comment Friday.

But McDermott's spokesman told RAW STORY that he didn't think the amendment was appropriate.

"Rep. McDermott shares the frustration of others with the vice president's office, but there really was a constitutional question of whether that was possible," said Mike DeCesare, the Seattle-based Communications Director for the Congressman.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), another Progressive who voted with the Republicans on the measure, also questioned the usefulness of the measure.

"Congressman Capuano believes firmly that the Vice President's actions warrant investigation," said spokeswoman Alison Mills in an e-mail. "Nevertheless, he did not support eliminating funding for the Office of the Vice President. He viewed this as merely a symbolic measure that would not produce the results we all desire. Defunding would not make the Office of the Vice-President transparent or accountable."

While the measure was defeated, a spokesperson for Rep. Emanuel, the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, still claimed victory.

"Democrats forced the Vice President to abandon the assertion that he was not part of the executive branch," the spokesperson told RAW STORY in a statement. "Democrats will continue to hold the Vice President accountable and fight to ensure our government is open and honest."

But while Emanuel's office claimed the Illinois Democrat's measure had whipped Cheney back into line, the Vice President's office spun it as a bipartisan victory of their own.

"We are pleased to see a bipartisan majority reject this political stunt," Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn told the Associated Press on Thursday night.

Michael Roston joined Raw Story in June 2006. After a brief hiatus to work at the United Nations in the fall, he rejoined the website in his current position as Associate Editor in December 2006.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/55731/

How to Make Ann Coulter Disappear


By Guest Blogger
Posted on June 29, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/55554/

This post, written by Bill Scher, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

How to deal with a noxious but prominent commentator like Ann Coulter? Confront her bigoted remarks and outright falsehoods? Or ignore her in hopes of dimming her spotlight?

It would seem to be a lose-lose proposition.

Getting a rise out of her political opponents is her job, so challenging her on the merits only helps her sell books, which keeps her on TV.

But unless you buy out Rupert Murdoch and control your own media empire, dimming her spotlight is seemingly impossible, no matter how tightly you shut your eyes and close your ears.

Bob Borosage notes that TV producers, desperate for ratings, have no shame in booking the vapid Coulter. And I'm not holding my breath waiting for shame to arise.

Coulter's train wreck qualities practically guarantee a ratings bump for all audience-starved newstainment shows -- both from hard-core fans and disgusted opponents.

So can anything stop her from filling the national discourse with more hate and lies?

Yes. If she loses her fans.

That's not as crazy as it sounds.

After she called Muslims "ragheads" at the 2006 Conservative Political Action Conference, and John Edwards a "faggot" at the following year's conference, open letter posted on several conservative blogs last March said:

Coulter's invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking. CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Sage advice.

Coulter is arguably as much of a personification of the failure of conservatism as George W. Bush.

While Bush epitomizes the substantive failure of conservative policies, Coulter represents the failure to speak to the daily concerns of most Americans.

Her protestations that no one listens to her ideas mask her clear preference for insults over ideas -- the more hateful and sophomoric, the more she can claim persecution by political correctness.

As a liberal, am I afraid of Coulter? No. Read the last five years of my writings, she barely comes up.

There are hundreds of conservatives that work harder, influence more news, and generate far more unchallenged misinformation for me to worry about.

But she's a distraction who impedes a serious engagement over ideas.

Conservatism is headed towards its nadir, and conservatives can deal with that reality in two ways.

They can choose to enable Coulter, lash out at the world and wallow in a persecution complex.

Or they can choose to let her rants languish on the shelves.

When her sales drop, so will her bookings. With her off the stage and ceasing to be a distraction, conservatives will better able to engage in a factual debate over the direction of our country.

It's up to conservatives to decide if that's what they really want.

Originally posted at the Campaign for America's Future blog

Bill Scher is the executive editor of LiberalOasis.com and the online writer/editor for Campaign for America's Future.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/55554/

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Three Words for Bush and His Judges

Truthdig article

Posted on Jun 29, 2007

By E.J. Dionne

WASHINGTON—Just say no.

The Senate’s Democratic majority—joined by all Republicans who purport to be moderate—must tell President Bush that this will be the answer to any controversial nominee to the Supreme Court or to the appellate courts.

The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush’s next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.

And no Bush nominee to a lower court deserves any deference now that we learn that U.S. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh may have misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings. Kavanaugh claimed he was not involved in administration discussions about setting the rules for the treatment of enemy combatants. The Washington Post reported that he actually was.

Although a spokeswoman for Kavanaugh insisted that his testimony was “accurate,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy said, “I don’t believe that he was truthful with us.”

As for the Supreme Court, we now know that the president’s two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, are exactly what many of us thought they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution. Thursday’s 5-4 ruling tossing out two school desegregation plans was another milestone on the court’s march to the right.

Even after he was confirmed, Roberts was talking about something other than the 5-4 conservative court we saw this year on case after case. In a speech at Georgetown University Law School in May 2006, Roberts rightly argued that “the rule of law is strengthened when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is.” It’s a shame this quest for broader majorities had so little bearing on the 2007 Roberts-led court.

Especially troubling was the opinion offered by Roberts and Alito this week eviscerating the rather modest restrictions on sham “issue” ads in the McCain-Feingold law. The provision, which applies for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, is aimed at preventing large amounts of corporate and union money from getting around campaign finance restrictions.

Three conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, were willing to admit that in voiding the law they were overturning a precedent set by the court only four years ago. But Roberts and Alito pretended to follow the earlier ruling while ripping its guts out. Scalia called this “faux judicial restraint.”

“The court (and, I think, the country) loses when important precedent is overruled without good reason,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the dissenters. Exactly. But upsetting precedent, directly or indirectly, is a major goal of this new conservative majority.

As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute noted this week in Roll Call, the issue-ad decision demonstrated “not a careful, conservative deference to Congress” but instead “a willingness by Roberts to toss aside Congress’ conclusions to fit his own ideological predispositions”—the very definition of judicial activism.

If another conservative replaces a member of the court’s moderate-to-liberal bloc, the country would be set on a conservative course for the next decade or more, locking in today’s politics at the very moment when the electorate is running out of patience with the right.

That’s why a majority of senators should warn Bush now that they will not take up his nominee unless he strictly construes the Constitution’s provision that he appoint justices with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” The rule should be: If advice isn’t taken, there will be no consent.

And if conservatives claim to believe the president is owed deference on his court appointees, they will be—I choose this word deliberately—lying. In 2005, conservatives had no problem blocking Bush’s appointment of Harriet Miers because they could not count on her as a strong voice for their legal causes. They revealed that their view of judicial battles is not about principle, but power. When they went after Miers, conservatives lost the deference argument.

Much has been written about how the judicial confirmation process is “broken.” A more accurate view is that the ideological struggles in our politics have moved to the courts, and that the formal processes of the Senate don’t deal well with such conflicts.

It would be far better to be honest about what’s going on. The Senate should be unapologetic in saying no, upfront, to loading the bench with conservative judicial activists. If Bush is given this warning and still refuses to engage in serious consultation, the burden will be on him.

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

U.S. Border Fence Protrudes Into Mexico, naturally...


AP Photo
AP Photo/Guillermo Arias




COLUMBUS, N.M. (AP) -- The 1.5-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border was designed to keep cars from illegally crossing into the United States. There's just one problem: It was accidentally built on Mexican soil. Now embarrassed border officials say the mistake could cost the federal government more than $3 million to fix.

The barrier was part of more than 15 miles of border fence built in 2000, stretching from the town of Columbus to an onion farm and cattle ranch.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman said the vertical metal tubes were sunk into the ground and filled with cement along what officials firmly believed was the border. But a routine aerial survey in March revealed that the barrier protrudes into Mexico by 1 to 6 feet.

James Johnson, whose onion farm is in the disputed area, said he thinks his forefathers may have started the confusion in the 19th century by placing a barbed-wire fence south of the border. No one discovered their error, and crews erecting the barrier may have used that fence as a guideline.

"It was a mistake made in the 1800s," Johnson said. "It is very difficult to make a straight line between two points in rugged and mountainous areas that are about two miles apart."

The Mexican government was notified and did what any landowner would do: They sent a note politely insisting that Mexico get its land back.

"Our country will continue insisting for the removal (of the fence) to be done as quickly as possible," the Foreign Relations Department said in a diplomatic missive to Washington.

When the barrier was built in 2000, the project was believed to cost about $500,000 a mile. Estimates to uproot and replace it range from $2.5 million to $3.5 million.

Michael Friel, the spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, said the barrier was "built on what was known to be the international boundary at the time." He acknowledged the method used was "less precise than it is today."

The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint Mexican-American group that administers the 2,000-mile border, said the border has never changed and is marked every few miles by tall concrete or metal markers.

Sally Spener, a commission spokeswoman in El Paso, said the agency is generally consulted for construction projects to ensure that treaties are followed. The commission is working with the Department of Homeland Security "to develop a standardized protocol" for building fences and barriers.

"We just want to make sure those things are clear now," Spener said.

New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman asked Customs and Border Protection officials to build a new fence on U.S. soil before the old one is torn down.

Bingaman said he was concerned about security issues in Las Chepas, the small Mexican village where most area residents live. New Mexico once sought permission to raze the community because it was known as a popular staging area for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

Back at his farm, Johnson said he doesn't understand why the placement of the barriers has become an issue now since his family's fence went unquestioned for more than a century.

"The markers are in the right place, and the fence is crooked," Johnson said. "But for 120-plus years it was agreed upon that that fence was the border."

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Let's talk about so-called "activist judges", shall we?

In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right

WASHINGTON, June 30 — It was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared.

By the time the Roberts court ended its first full term on Thursday, the picture was clear. This was a more conservative court, sometimes muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its majority sometimes differing on methodology but agreeing on the outcome in cases big and small.

As a result, the court upheld a federal anti-abortion law, cut back on the free-speech rights of public school students, strictly enforced procedural requirements for bringing and appealing cases, and limited school districts’ ability to use racially conscious measures to achieve or preserve integration.

With the exception of four death penalty cases from Texas, where the state and federal courts remain to the right of the Supreme Court and produce decisions that the justices regularly overturn, the prosecution prevailed in nearly every criminal case, 14 of the 18 non-Texas cases.

Fully a third of the court’s decisions, more than in any recent term, were decided by 5-to-4 margins. Most of those, 19 of 24, were decided along ideological lines, demonstrating the court’s polarization whether on constitutional fundamentals or obscure questions of appellate procedure. The court’s last-minute decision, announced on Friday, to hear appeals from Guantánamo detainees required votes from at least five of the nine justices.

Of the ideological cases decided this term, the conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., prevailed in 13. The court’s increasingly marginalized liberals — Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer — prevailed in only six, including the four Texas death penalty cases.

The difference depended on how Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted. Remarkably, he was in the majority in all 24 of the 5-to-4 cases. In the 68 cases the court decided by signed opinions, Justice Kennedy dissented only twice.

The statistics underscore what case after case demonstrated as the term unfolded: Justice Kennedy’s role in the position that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once held at the court’s center of gravity. “Kennedy is very much the median justice now, as Justice O’Connor was, and he is to her right,” said Steven G. Calabresi, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law.

NYT Article

Re: "Terrorist" attacks in Britain

It seems to me that the attacks of the last two days in Great Britain have been somewhat amateurish. I'm waiting for the smoke to clear and information to flow, but I have a funny feeling about these failed car bombs, although I'm quite sure that we will see more of them in the future, and in the US as well.

More on this as the news becomes clearer.--Pete

Protest briefly shuts ICE jail

Direct action! Yes, yes, y'all! Doin' it to it in real time! Love those passionate activists!

Let's raise those black flags, citizens, because Dancing With The Stars won't help us reclaim the republic and reconstruct the open, civil society that we worked so hard for so long to build!--Pete

Published Jun 29, 2007 10:51 PM

Just after dawn on June 4, two young Houston activists shut down the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Houston for three hours. They chained and locked themselves to the only two gates that allow vehicles into and out of the jail.

Ashley Turner, shown here, and Ben Browning
U-locked themselves to the gates of the
detention center in solidarity with immigrants.
Photos: Houston Indymedia

Ashley Turner and Ben Browning used bike locks and chains to attach themselves to the automatic rolling gates in front of the jail, which holds 950 people. Not only could the shift not change, but none of the vans bringing in people rounded up in early morning raids could enter either.

A phalanx of Houston cops joined the ICE cops and finally told the two activists they had five minutes to get off the property. One of the dozens of people joining in the protest and supporting the civil disobedience told the cops they had five minutes to release all the people in the detention center. The standoff began.

It took three fire trucks and dozens of police and firefighters over two hours to figure out how to get the bike locks off. Turner and Browning were led to the cop cars as their supporters cheered. They were bonded out and now face a misdemeanor charge of trespassing and a felony charge of possession of a criminal instrument.

A newly formed group, Houston Sin Fronteras, which Turner and Browning are working with, has called for another demonstration in front of the ICE Detention Center on the Fourth of July at 8 a.m. to show solidarity with all those incarcerated while U.S. authorities profess to celebrate freedom and independence.

A statement released by participants after the arrests linked this action to others happening around the world during the G8 summit:

“This week the leaders of the richest and most powerful eight countries in the world are meeting in Germany for the Group of 8 (G8) conference. During the G8 gathering these leaders will continue to strategize and promote the economic and political policy of neoliberal ‘globalization.’ These eight nations, which compose 65 percent of the global economy, have pushed for an economic system which impacts the whole world, making the rich richer, and impoverishing millions.

“Today, June 4th, the Dissent! Network in Europe has called for a Global Day of Action for freedom of movement and equal rights for all!

“We here in Houston, Texas, USA, have heard this call to action and share the same concerns as our brothers and sisters in Europe and all over the world who are taking action today in solidarity with migrants and refugees of the global economy.”

For updates, see www.houston.indymedia.org.


Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2007/us/ice-0705/

Police beat, arrest civil rights attorneys

Published Jun 28, 2007 9:40 PM

A long-time civil rights and people’s attorney, Michael Tarif Warren, and his partner Evelyn Warren, also a lawyer, were beaten and arrested by police on June 21 in Brooklyn, N.Y. The Warrens, who are both Black, were held for several hours at the 77th Precinct before being released.

Michael Tarif Warren addresses crowd
outside Brooklyn’s 77th Precint
at June 23 protest rally.
WW photos: Arturo J. Pérez-Saad

Their statement to the press on being released later that evening, following a long ordeal and after both having been attacked by a cop, was: “What we experienced tonight happens every day in our communities. What happened to me was the result of doing what is right—speaking out against wrongdoing.”

The doing “what is right” was to observe and try to offer assistance to a young Black man who had been chased by cops. After having caught the young man, they began kicking him while he had his hands behind his back and was on the ground.

Larry Holmes
at June 23 protest.

The following are excerpts from an article entitled “NYPD Brutalize Human Rights Attorney” written by Amadi Ajamu, an organizer with the December 12th Movement:

“Warren, a high profile attorney who has been practicing law for 28 years, said, ‘We saw a young kid being chased by a horde of policemen across a McDonald’s parking lot. They tackled him and immediately put handcuffs on him. Then Sergeant Talvy, who appeared to be in charge, began kicking him in the head and ribs, and stomping him on the neck.’ The other police officers followed suit. ‘They literally gave this kid a beating which was unconscionable.’

Charles Barron
at June 23 protest.

“‘Not only as people of conscience and moral decency, but as lawyers, we said this is outrageous.’ They arrived and stood ‘more than 10 feet away,’ he said. Mr. Warren told Sergeant Talvy they were lawyers, and told him to stop and just take the young man to the precinct. In response, he said, ‘Talvy shouted, ‘I don’t give a f**k who you are, get the f**k back in your car!’

“They returned to their car, and Mr. Warren began to write down the license plate numbers of the police vehicles as they watched them put the bleeding young man in a car. ‘Then Talvy comes to my car and viciously attacks me, repeatedly punching me through the window. Shouting, “Get out of the car!” he dragged me out of the car, ripping my shirt and pants. My wife, very upset, asked him, “Why are you doing this?” He then punched her in the face.’ Both were arrested and taken to the 77th precinct charged with obstruction, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.

“Michael Tarif Warren has handled many police misconduct cases in the black community, including the shocking police murder of graffiti artist Michael Stewart, and Yvonne Smallwood, who was beaten to death by police in the Bronx. He also handled the case exonerating the five young black teenagers falsely convicted of raping the white bank executive ‘Central Park Jogger.’”

Arrests outrage community

Perhaps the cops didn’t know who they were attacking, maybe they did. It is entirely possible, though, that the cops thought the two were a “regular” Black couple and that, like countless other times that play out in every city around this country, they would simply get away with it.

The community might hear or read of the incident, and then again, they might not. There could be a press conference, a few rallies, outrage, marches calling for justice, but at the end of the day, just as many times before, the police chief, mayor and the corporate media outlets would speak of the difficulty of police work.

There would be no suspension, no dock in pay, no firings and cops still celebrated as heroes in popular media.

This time, though, the cops picked on two Freedom Fighters, two well-known heroes and supporters of liberation struggles around the world. This time the cops attacked people who not only have the know-how and determination to fight back, but also the popular support that comes with having been in the struggle for years and with being loved for their work, compassion and humble demeanor.

There is no greater evidence of those assets than what happened the night of their detainment.

It undoubtedly goes without utterance or written word that no cop at the 77th Precinct expected that there would be a minor rebellion, albeit a peaceful one. But that is what happened in the late evening of June 21.

As soon as word got out about the Warrens’ arrests, the call was sent out by e-mail, WBAI-FM public radio and by phone to gather at the 77th Precinct where they were being held. In just a couple of hours, the precinct was packed with political and community leaders and activists, including this writer.

Those who immediately came to the precinct were Brooklyn-based city council member Charles Barron; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the December 12th Movement; FIERCE!; CAAAV; WBAI, which broadcast the incident on the airwaves; the Jericho Movement; the Safiya/Nuh Foundation; CEMOTAP, the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition; representatives from the Muslim and Haitian communities; the International Action Center; Workers World Party; and other organizations and concerned individuals.

There was barely room to move and still more people waited in the stairwell and outside in the rain. When one cop asked if the people could make room, someone in the crowd retorted, “As soon as you let Michael and Evelyn go, we’ll give you all the room you want.”

Because of the mass of people, there was nothing the cops could do, not even when the cop who attacked Michael Tarif and Evelyn Warren was pointed out, and not even when shouts of “Michael Warren/Freedom Fighter,” resounded.

Those gathered along with the leadership, from Viola Plummer of the December 12th Movement to Charles Barron, had already decided that the night could not end without the freedom of Michael and Evelyn.

Darkness would have passed into day as nature goes unimpeded, but the masses gathered seemed to have made up their mind.

Eventually, after the summoning of the borough chief and deputy chief, before midnight, Michael and Evelyn walked out of the precinct, surrounded by throngs of supporters who chanted loudly.

Michael Warren’s clothes were torn and both had scrapes and looked tired, but were surprised and glad to see so many admirers. After giving a statement, they got in their vehicle, flanked by supporters, and drove away. From there the people marched and chanted. The cops looked on, helpless. People from the neighborhood looked out their windows, seeming to revel in the victory, though maybe not even aware of what transpired.

Another anti-police-brutality rally took place at the precinct on June 24.

This battle is not yet over, however. Michael Tarif Warren and Evelyn Warren have a court date on July 25 in Brooklyn to respond to desk appearance tickets. Supporters are asking that the courtroom be packed to show the city that justice is demanded, that the charges be dropped and once again, the cops have to be put on trial for their brutality.


Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php site promotion
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2007/us/warren-0705/

Friday, June 29, 2007

THE INVISIBLE HAND

From Harper's, June 2007

From a December 22 dialogue between James J.

Cramer and Aaron Task on "Wall Street Confidential,"
a video feature of TheStreet.com, a financial
news site founded by Cramer, a former hedge-fund
manager and the host of CNBC' s Mad Money. Research
in Motion, a Canadian company that markets
BlackBerry wireless communication devices, experienced
growth of more than 60 percent in its stock price
over the past year.

AARON TASK: Again today we have a misdirection
from the futures. Is this just because of
the holiday season?
JAMES J. CRAMER: When I was short at my
hedge fund-meaning I needed the market
down-I would create a level of activity beforehand
that could drive the futures. It
doesn't take much money. Or if I were long,
and I would want to make things a little bit
rosy, I would go in and take a bunch of
stocks and make sure they were higher,
maybe commit five million in capital to do
it, and I could affect the market. That's a
strategy very worth doing. I would encourage
anyone who is in the hedge-fund business to
do it, because it's legal, and it's a very quick
way to make money, and very satisfying. It's
a fun game, and it's a lucrative game. By the
way, no one else in the world would ever admit
that, but I don't care.
TASK: That's right, and you can say it here.
CRAMER: I can. I'm not going to say it on TV.
TASK: Well, on a related note, there are so
many more hedge funds today than when
you were managing your hedge fund. Does
that make it tougher?
CRAMER: You've really got to control the market.
You can't let it lift. When you get a Research
in Motion, it's really important to use
a lot of your firepower to knock that down,
because it's the fulcrum of the market today.
You can't create, yourself, an impression that
a stock's down. But you do it anyway, because
the SEC doesn't understand it. So, I
mean, that's the only sense that I would say
it's illegal. But a hedge fund that's not up a
lot really has to do a lot now to save itself. So
this is different than what I was talking about
at the beginning. This is just blatantly illegal.
But when your company may be in doubt because
you're down, I think it's really important
to foment an impression that the Research
in Motion isn't any good, because
Research in Motion is the key today. So you
would hit this guy and that guy, and when
you would see a guy who's bidding, you would
wipe out that guy very quickly. It would be
fabulous, because it would beleaguer all the
moron longs who are also keying on Research
in Motion. When your company is in survival
mode, it's really important to get the
people talking as if there's something wrong
with RIM. Then you would call the Journal
and you would get the bozo reporter on Research
in Motion. And you would feed him a
rumor that Palm's got a killer it's going to
give away. These are. all the things you must
do on a day like today, and if you're not doing
it, maybe you shouldn't be in the game.
TASK: Okay, another stock that a lot of people are
focused on right now seems to be Apple-
CRAMER: Yeah, with Apple it's very important to
spread the rumor that both Verizon and AT&T
have decided they don't like the phone. That's
a very easy one to do because-you also want
to spread the rumor that it's not going to be
ready for Macworld-and this is very easy, because
the people that write about Apple want
that story, and you can claim that it's credible
because Apple doesn't-
TASK: Right, they're not going to comment.
CRAMER: You just create an image that there's
going to be news next week that's going to
frighten everybody. This is what's really going
on under the market that you don't see.
TASK: And that nobody else talks about except you.
CRAMER: Right, but what's important when
you're in hedge-fund mode is to not do anything
remotely truthful, because the truth is
so against your view that it's important to
create a new truth, to develop a fiction.
TASK: SO you're talking about the mechanics of
the market-
CRAMER: Well, the mechanics are much more
important than the fundamentals.
TASK: Well, okay, but in terms of the fundamentals-
CRAMER: Who cares about the fundamentals?
Look at what people can do. The great thing
about the market is that it has nothing to do
with the actual stocks. Now look, maybe two
weeks from now buyers will come to their senses
and realize everything they heard was a liebut
then again Fannie Mae lied about their
earnings for six billion dollars, so you know-
TASK: Right, and Bristol-Myers lied.
CRAMER: It's just fiction and fiction and fiction.
I think it's important that people recognize
that the way the market really works is to
have that nexus: hit the brokerage houses
with a series of orders that can push it down,
then leak it to the press, and then get it on
CNBC-that's also very important. Then
you have sort of a vicious cycle down. It's a
pretty good game, and it can pay for a percent
or two.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

White House Is Subpoenaed on Wiretapping

Bear in mind that the subpoenas were refused on the old "executive privilege" stonewall, but all Congress needs to do is assert that it is investigating a federal crime to get around that bullshit. For this, spines will be required and Congress has shown precious little of those (well we got minimum wage bumped up to poverty level, right?!).--Pete


The move put Senate Democrats squarely on a course they had until now avoided, setting the stage for a showdown with the Bush administration over one of the most contentious issues arising from the White House’s campaign against terrorism.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the committee, said the subpoenas seek documents that could shed light on the administration’s legal justification for the wiretapping and on disputes within the government over its legality.

In addition, the panel is seeking materials on related issues, including the relationship between the Bush administration and several unidentified telecommunications companies that aided the N.S.A. eavesdropping program.

The panel’s action was the most aggressive move yet by lawmakers to investigate the wiretapping program since the Democrats gained control of Congress this year.

Mr. Leahy said Wednesday at a news conference that the committee had issued the subpoenas because the administration had followed a “consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection” in dealing with Congressional efforts to scrutinize the program.

“It’s unacceptable,” Mr. Leahy said. “It is stonewalling of the worst kind.”

The White House, the vice president’s office and the Justice Department declined Wednesday to say how they would respond to the subpoenas.

“We’re aware of the committee’s action and will respond appropriately,” said Tony Fratto, White House deputy press secretary.

“It’s unfortunate that Congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation,” Mr. Fratto added.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney said his office would respond later, while a Justice Department spokesman said, “The department will continue to work closely with the Congress as they exercise their oversight functions, and we will review this matter in the spirit of that longstanding relationship.”

Under the domestic eavesdropping program, the N.S.A. did not obtain warrants before listening in on phone calls and reading e-mail messages to and from Americans and others in the United States who the agency believes may be linked to Al Qaeda. Only international communications — those into and out of the country — were monitored, according to administration officials.

The Senate panel’s action comes after dramatic testimony last month by James B. Comey, former deputy attorney general, who described a March 2004 confrontation at the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft, then attorney general, between Justice Department officials and White House aides over the legality of the wiretapping program.

Before Mr. Comey’s testimony, the White House had largely been able to fend off aggressive oversight of the N.S.A. wiretapping since it was first disclosed in December 2005. The Republican-controlled Congress held hearings last year, and even considered legislative proposals to curb the scope of the eavesdropping. But Mr. Cheney repeatedly pressured Republican Congressional leaders to pull back.

When the Democrats won the 2006 midterm elections, many observers predicted that the N.S.A. program — which a federal judge declared unconstitutional — would be one of the first Bush administration operations to undergo new scrutiny. But in January, the administration announced that it was placing the program under the legal framework of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a move it had previously refused to consider.

The Democrats have largely focused on objections to the Iraq war in their first months in power, and have appeared reluctant to take aggressive steps to challenge policies on harsh interrogation practices, secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons and domestic wiretapping for fear of being labeled soft on terrorism.

For instance, at a confirmation hearing on June 19 for John A. Rizzo as general counsel of the C.I.A., no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee directly challenged the agency’s secret detention or harsh interrogation practices.

Mr. Rizzo successfully dodged tougher questions by saying he preferred to answer them in closed session. The Senate Intelligence Committee has conducted closed-door oversight of the wiretapping, but it has not been as aggressive as the Judiciary Committee in publicly challenging the administration over it.

But Mr. Comey’s testimony has given Democrats an opening to argue that they are focusing on the legal issues of the program, rather than on the merits of monitoring the phone calls of terrorist suspects.

“The Comey testimony moved this front and center,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is a member of the Judiciary Committee. “Alarm bells went off. His testimony made it clear that there had been an effort to circumvent the law.”

The Senate panel has been asking the administration for documents related to the program since Mr. Comey testified. But the White House had not responded to a letter from Mr. Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the panel. As a result, the panel voted 13 to 3 last Thursday to authorize Mr. Leahy to issue the subpoenas, with three Republicans voting in favor of issuing them. Separately, the House Judiciary Committee has also threatened to issue subpoenas for the same documents.

The wiretapping is just one of several legal issues on which Congress and the administration are squaring off. For example, the White House is under pressure to respond to subpoenas issued two weeks ago by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for witnesses and documents related to the dismissal of federal prosecutors. Thursday is the deadline for the White House to turn over documents linked to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara M. Taylor, the former White House political director.

If the White House fails to produce the material, the House and Senate could begin a process leading to contempt resolutions to force compliance. Meanwhile, Mr. Cheney is in a separate standoff with Congress and the National Archives over his office’s refusal to follow an executive order concerning handling of classified documents.

Mr. Cheney declared that his office did not have to abide by the order that all executive branch offices provide data to the Archives about the amount of material they have classified. His office said that he is not a member of the executive branch, because he is president of the Senate.

David Johnston and Scott Shane contributed reporting.