Cheney, Rove, 9/11-- Does the word shady come to mind.

Hello everyone,

First I wanted to share a video from 1994 that shows Dick Cheney in 1994 talking to the American Enterprise Institute about Iraq. He is talking about what a quagmire would develop if we tried to invade Iraq. He references loss of life and discusses his recommendations to avoid military conflict. Funny how things change:



Next, as you may or may not know Karl Rove is resigning by the end of the month. Probably because he does not want to testify to congress. Here is a list of other Administration officials that have resigned since November, taken from a Terrence Hunt AP article:

"White House counselor Dan Bartlett, budget director Rob Portman, chief White House attorney Harriet Miers, political director Sara Taylor, deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch and Meghan O'Sullivan, another deputy national security adviser who worked on Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was forced out immediately after the election as the unpopular war in Iraq dragged on."

Finally,

I traced back the Cheney video as coming from a very new website cataloging the 9/11 inequities in a new site called Grand Theft Country. Now, I am not certain I believe the 9/11 truth movement, but I know I do not believe the Administration nor the Mainstream Media portrayal of the events. This site has some good links, videos, and information covering the ongoing saga of the 9/11 attacks.

Rove refuses to testify on role in prosecutor firings

"White House senior adviser Karl Rove has rebuked a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena and will not appear Thursday to testify about his role in the firing of nine US Attorneys, Sen. Patrick Leahy said late Wednesday."Humm. Never saw that one coming... I wonder what all this means. Why would he refuse?

read more | digg story

Review of Kyle Sampson's testimony Before the Judicial Committee-Post 1

So, yesterday, John comes to me and says matter of fact, I want you to cover the testimony of Kyle Sampson for the blog tomorrow. I said, make sure you introduce the topic tomorrow, and yet…..Hmmmmmm….I see no topic this morning. Great!!!

Lol, I’m sure all of you who know John or me personally understand exactly why I had to write that joke as my opener. So, I thought how am I going to do this? Looking for a detour to sitting in front of the TV and watching the prelude to the event, I decided I should work out. As I finished my workout, I turned on the TV to watch. MSNBC, the more credible has the same old thing, strategists, who know everything that should be going on. I thought to myself, hmm…..good times to meet with local officials and provide there perspective on our upcoming IPTV Shows. Letting their knowledge flood my mind, I heard there thoughts on what we really know as the public, what was really going to be exposed today, and how much damage could be done by his testimony? It is all speculation of the worst, as is usual with the mainstream media. I wonder, could we balance the worst with the best. Or, could we just wait and see what he will tell us in his testimony, using this time to promote the groups of the local community and how they will be impacted by the testimony. Hmmm……Interesting thought for another time.

So, I come back in from the workout and talk with John’s wife a little. I turn on MSNBC again and they are still reviewing their own thoughts while we are waiting for the proceeding to begin.

While waiting, I did some research on Google about Mr. Sampson. From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — The former Justice Department official who orchestrated the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year plans to tell Congress today that such dismissals are appropriate when prosecutors prove ineffective from "a political perspective." In his first public remarks on the firings, D. Kyle Sampson says the process of identifying underperforming U.S. attorneys "was not scientific nor was it extensively documented," according to testimony prepared for delivery to the Senate Judiciary Committee.None of the prosecutors was asked to resign for "improper reasons," notes a copy of Sampson's statement obtained by The Times, but an unusually broad standard was used to decide on proper grounds for dismissing them
End of quotation from the LA Times...

He didn’t see a difference, it appeared, between firing someone for policy or political differences in any of his opening statement. In his opening remarks, he did make statements that things were mishandled—“poor judgments, word choices...” He talked of a “good faith attempt to carry-out management operations” and then one sentence later, admitted that actions have caused “misunderstandings and embarrassments”. He also indicated that he was not asked to resign, but instead chose to resign his post in an effort to hold himself accountable for what he “could have and should have done to prevent this”. He went on to assure the committee that he genuinely—“honestly and in good faith”—“never sought to conceal...facts...from anyone” within the department. Going far enough to state the “others in the department knew”. But, when discussing what happened in his opening statement, he simply stuck to the language already reflected in the LA Times excerpt above.

Reports from MSNBC say that he is currently being grilled on the language he has chosen to hear. But, they are not covering it live, and neither is CSPAN 1 AND CSPAN 2. I need to find a live feed to the proceeding and I will get our readers more. How does one get a press pass to this stuff, anyway?

Have any suggestions, email or call me.
Jeremy
(614) 519-3026

At first the article in this link pi$$e& me off...

At first I heard our President say:

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honourable public servants,"


But then I read what Patrick Leahy said and felt a little better:

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," he said.
He said Mr Bush's offer "is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome".

Thanks BBC

Then I saw this article and these few lines:

"Republicans forced a delay in a vote on Senate subpoenas a week ago, and it was not clear whether any of the GOP members of the panel were now prepared to support them."

and then this classic deal from Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania:

The Senior Republican on the panel, floated a compromise in which Rove and others would answer questions from selected lawmakers without being sworn in but with a transcription made.

But then Sen. Harry Reid had this to say in response:

"Anyone who would take that deal isn't playing with a full deck,"

and then I saw this article in which the first paragraph said:

A House panel authorized subpoenas Wednesday requiring Karl Rove and four other senior Bush administration officials to testify under oath in the inquiry into the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors.


Further down the article:

“I think the Democrats are overplaying their hand,” said Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi.

[Wow, thank you #2 guy in the Republican party! You are supposed to say that, but that doesn't make it true.]

Well, this can only get better,

Go get 'em Leahy

Pat Leahy announced today that he will go after White House staff to testify. He also said he did not want to have a "private briefing" with the White House. Here is his quote found in the linked yahoo article.

"I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this," Leahy said. "I do not believe in this, we'll have a private briefing for you where we'll tell you everything, and they don't."

Pressure is building on this story.

Can tiny little Vermont ruin this administration?

The link in the title goes to Raw Story and describes with some detail the announcement this morning that Patrick Leahy D-Vermont, wants a comprehensive questioning of all White House administration and Attorney General staffers. He seems pretty adamant that they will either give out all of the details covering arguments that the attorney general's office was carrying out the will of the White House. I also hear there was documented proof of this argument :) Here is the video clip that is available at CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/politics/2007/03/14/blitzer.leahy.interview.cnn


I am sure this story will only get better and I will continue to post as we move forward.