Archive for July 5th, 2007

The Other (Conveniently Forgotten) Quagmire

by- Mentarch … 22:02 EDT

Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the sister of the Iraq War that is barely noticed by the American public, has been dragging on for almost seven years now – with no end in sight. And like it’s younger sibling, this war is rife with incompetent decisions, wrongful approaches and utter failures. Strangely enough, this older quagmire is barely spoken of by the American MSM.


Read Full Post »

by- Suzie-Q @ 1:35 PM MST

Received from Jeane Palfrey on July 5th…



Judge Kessler has lifted the injunction on the phone records.

–Sincerely, Jeane Palfrey

Case 1:07-cr-00046-GK Document 74 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 1 of 8

Read Full Post »

by- Suzie-Q @ 1:30 PM MST

Received from Jean Palfrey July 3rd …

Update # 5:


FYI. The oped piece here was sent to both The New York Times and The Washington Post.

–Jeane Palfrey

If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed. Download the original attachment

Page 1
1629 K Street, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-478-0371 (E-FAX)

July 3, 2007
Via Email letters@nytimes.com
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
Re: Gagged on the Fourth of July
I am the civil attorney for Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a/k/a “The D.C. Madam”, and write to remind that for over one hundred (100) days, she and I have been enjoined from releasing the telephone records of her escort service. That ex parte order was entered on March 22, 2007, upon the Court’s finding that there were “reasonable grounds to believe that harassment of an identified witness exists or that such an order is necessary to prevent such harassment.” The Court then ordered that neither Jeane nor I “shall release, further distribute, or otherwise provide to any person or organization the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates and/or the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.”


Read Full Post »

by- Suzie-Q @ 12:35 PM MST

ThinkProgress has obtained results of a new poll released yesterday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, a conference hosted by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute. The poll finds that voters of all parties are overwhelmingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, believing the United States will fail. The war has distracted from the fight against terrorism and other domestic priorities. Some highlights:

– 82 percent say people in other countries view the United States unfavorably.

– 71 percent say people in other countries now view the American people unfavorably.

– 53 percent of American believe the largest threat facing the United State is from terrorist organizations.

– 83 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should share a leadership role with allies and other countries around the world.

– 63 percent of voters think the U.S. should focus on domestic problems instead of foreign affairs.

– 56 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq is distracting us from the war on terror.

– 67 percent believe the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists.

– 72 percent favor diplomacy to pressure with Iran.

Also yesterday at the festival, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said, “Habeas corpus is coming back, and we’re going to solve that one.”

According to a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll, 68 percent of the American public also wants Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. The Center for American Progress recently released a report called Strategic Reset that lays out a plan for the withdrawal of virtually all U.S. troops within one year and phases out the U.S. “training of Iraq’s national security forces.”

More updates from the Aspen Ideas festival HERE.

Think Progress

Read Full Post »

by- Suzie-Q @ 11:44 AM MST

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., plans to introduce a resolution that would censure President Bush over his decision to commute the prison sentence faced by former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the congressman said Thursday.

“This presidential intervention is an unconscionable abuse of authority by George W. Bush, and Congress must step forward and express the disgust that Americans rightfully feel toward this contemptible decision,” Wexler said in a statement released by his congressional office.

Wexler, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, plans to introduce his resolution when Congress returns from its Independence Day recess next week.

The five-term congressman said Bush’s decision was “nothing short of [a] political quid pro quo, and Congress must go on record in strong opposition.”

The resolution is likely to be introduced first for consideration by the Judiciary Committee before it would be considered by the full House, a Palm Beach Post blog reported Thursday morning. The non-binding resolution simply expresses the sense of the House that Bush acted improperly and does not carry any other penalty.


Read Full Post »

Election Fraud: Where’s the Outrage?

Anthony @ 18:25 BST

by Ernest Partridge
July 4, 2007 at 09:01:13

On March 8, 1994, scarcely year into Bill Clinton’s first term, The New York Times reporter, Jeff Gerth, “broke” the infamous “Whitewater” story, claiming that the Clintons were involved in some sort of cryptic land investment scandal. The story was fed to Gerth by “The Arkansas Project,” a right-wing hit squad whose sole purpose was to “get” Clinton by publicizing groundless accusations. The New York Times, “the newspaper of historical record,” was somehow persuaded that this news was “fit to print.”

The so-called “Whitewater scandal” dogged Clinton throughout his Presidency, as scarcely a week went by without the corporate media “reporting” some allegedly “new” developments in the case.

Six and a half years and some $70 million taxpayers’ dollars later, Whitewater Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr, told the House Judiciary Committee that he lacked the evidence to continue his investigation. During those six plus years, the Washington Post published over 2000 articles about “Whitewater” (Media Matters, Nexis search), but neglected to give prominent space to Starr’s virtual exoneration of the Clintons.

Now compare this extended media frenzy over what turned out to be a non-story, with another story which, if true, strikes at the very heart of our democracy. This is the substantial and unrebutted evidence that the past two presidential elections, along with the intervening congressional elections, were stolen and that, by implication, the United States has, for the past six years, been ruled by an illegitimate government.

Just last month, astonishing new evidence has come forth that in 2004 millions of Kerry votes were “switched” to Bush, and millions more “graveyard votes” were added to Bush’s total. Mainstream media coverage? Nada! Instead the source is the New Zealand website, Scoop , and subsequently other progressive websites. I will return to this remarkable report later in this essay.


Read Full Post »

Waiting For Fitz

by- Suzie-Q @ 6:45 AM MST

Where’s the Paris Hilton judge when we really need him? Remember? When LA’s soft-headed sheriff sprung the developmentally retarded heiress the judge who sentenced her to a month in the slammer hit the roof, called everyone into his court, and sent little miss weepy back to a cell.

The sheriff tried to justify his decision to commute Ms. Hilton’s sentence to home arrest by noting that he felt the original sentence was too severe. The judge disagreed, as did normal people everywhere.

On July 2 Mr. Law-in-order, George W Bush, commuted Scooter Libby’s 30 month sentence, for the same stated reason — too severe. (This from a guy who, when governor of Texas, felt that executing retarded murderers was just fine.)

How? As simple as this:

  1. Impanel a new federal grand jury.
  2. Grant Libby full immunity, meaning he could not take the Fifth, and if he tried he can be jailed for contempt –- just as reporter Judy Miller was for trying to protect her source –- Scooter Libby.
  3. This time call Dick Cheney and put him under oath.

Simple as that. What crime is being investigated? No piddling perjury this time. No sir. This time Fitzgerald should be investigating is conspiracy to obstruct justice. It’s just a suspicion. But that’s what grand juries do for a living –- investigate suspicion that a crime or crimes have been committed.


Read Full Post »


Sudhan@13:40 CET


Oil a factor in Iraq conflict, says Australian defence minister

James Sturcke and agencies
Thursday July 5, 2007

Iraq protest on the Sydney Opera House
Sydney Opera House 2003: Nelson’s comments threaten to reignite anti-war protesters’ claims that the invasion was more a grab for oil than a bid to destroy weapons of mass destruction. Photograph: Chris McGrath/Getty Images

The Australian defence minister today triggered a political storm when he suggested that protecting Iraq’s huge oil reserves was a reason for the continuing deployment of foreign troops in the war-torn country.Brendan Nelson told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that Iraq was “an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world, and Australians … need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq”.

During the interview Mr Nelson insisted oil was not the main reason behind Australia’s decision to remain in Iraq. That was “to make sure a humanitarian crisis does not develop between Sunnis and Shiites and driven by al-Qaida if we were to leave prematurely”.The Australian prime minister, John Howard, rushed to play down Mr Nelson’s comments, which threatened to reignite anti-war protesters’ claims that the 2003 invasion was more a grab for oil than a bid to destroy Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, which proved to be non-existent.

Mr Howard insisted oil had nothing to do with his country’s involvement in the Iraq war.

“We are not there because of oil and we didn’t go there because of oil,” Mr Howard told Sydney Radio 2GB. “A lot of oil comes from the Middle East – we all know that – but the reason we remain there is that we want to give the people of Iraq a possibility of embracing democracy.”

Mr Howard, a close ally in George Bush’s “war on terror”, sent 2,000 troops to support US and British forces in the Iraq invasion.

Australia maintains 1,000 troops in Iraq, supported by 600 air force and navy personnel in the region.

The opposition Labour party, which opposed the war, has pledged to remove most of Australia’s troops from Iraq if it wins elections due later this year.

The Labour defence spokesman, Robert McClelland, accused the government of shifting from its denial that oil was a motivation for the war.

“It’s taken them four years to acknowledge that fact,” Mr McClelland said.

Iraq has the world’s third largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Iran, according to the BP statistical review of world energy 2007. War opponents argued long before hostilities began in March 2003 that the US administration’s main interest in toppling Saddam was to loosen the grip of Saudi Arabia and the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) on global oil prices.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: