Login Here
As with the run up to the Libby Trial, it seems like a good idea to give you guys some background and foundation in the applicable law so that you will be better able to understand and evaluate the questions and answers you will hear during the Comey testimony.
Let's start with the Constitution, shall we?
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part:
The President shall be the commander in chief of the army and navy .................he may require he opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, ......
...........he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
[emphasis mine]
Remember back when Team Libby tried to get PatFitz thrown off the case by saying that the delegation of authority to him was unconstitutional? Well, the filings that Team Fitz put in, including affidavits from both PatFitz and Comey demonstrated that Special Counsels, like US Attorneys are "inferior officers"/ So, according to the constitution, Congress may set the terms of their hiring and firing.
And Congress did so. Here is a sampling of some relevant statutes.
You will notice in the statues quoted that the terms "serves at the pleasure of the President" or "subject to removal for any reason or no reason" do not appear. Please rest assured, I did not edit them out. They are not present in the statutory framework, so before we all trip all over ourselves accepting these interpretations as gospel; remember, the folks selling those interpretations are only giving you that: interpretations--which are subject to change.
A few terms to get straight US Attorneys, Assistant US Attorneys and Special Assistant US Attorneys. Title 28 of the US Code defines them and specifies how they are appointed:
28 USC § 541 United States attorneys(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a Unites States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by he President.
28 USC § 542 Assistant United States attorneys
(a) The Attorney General may appoint one or more assistant United States attorneys in any district when the public interest so requires.
(b) Each assistant Unites States Attorney is subject to removal by the Attorney General.
28 USC § 543 Special Attorneys
(a) The Attorney General may appoint attorneys to assist United States attorneys when the public interest so requires.
(b) Each attorney appointed under this section is subject to removal by the Attorney General.
In 1868 Congress created a method of filling vacancies that might occur is a USA (or US Marshal)left office.
In the case of a vacancies in the office of marshal or district attorney [the old name for US Attorneys, not to be confused with local DAs] in any circuit, the judge of such circuit may fill such vacancy, and the person so appointed shall serve until an appointment shall be made by the President and the appointee has duly qualified, and no longer ....,
This provision was later codified into 28 USC§ 546. That argument that Gonzales keeps trying to float, that they had to slip that provision into the Patriot Act to allow the AG to appoint USAs w/o having to have them confirmed by the Senate because is might be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers?
Hogwash. Article ii, Section 2 has already told us that inferior officers can be appointed by the courts. What, they didn't teach that section in the Constitutional Law class Alberto took in law school?
Anyway, so they insert that ridiculous change into the Patriot Act and recently Congress purportedly changed it back, only not quite. Under the latest version, the AG still has role in appointing interim USAs. It's a compromise.
28 USC § 546 Vacancies(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for a district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of
(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) The expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
(D) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.
I want you to take note of the use of the permissive word "may" and the compulsive word "shall" as it appears throughout these statutes. There is a big difference in meaning between the two under the rules of statutory construction.
First thing tomorrow morning I will have another post up to get you in the mood for the liveblogging.
Share This 
Spotlight
Just what I feel capable of commenting on this morning!
Madness, Madness, MADNESS!
wow. truth abounds. guess we’ll have to wait for Scarecrow’s post to stew a while. cant wait to see what LHP has here!
I think it’s pretty clear that there are two reasons that impeachment is off the table.
1. With our troops in Iraq, the Republicans would accuse Democrats of leaving our troops in the field without leadership. (What leadership, you say. Well, that’s what the Repugs would say.)
2. The Senate has proven that the Republicans are not going to convict any Republican, not to mention the Grand Poo-Bah. They need 2/3 of the votes. Does anybody for one second think that the Republicans in this Senate, who have sat on Republican and Presidential investigations for the last six years and come up with nothing, are going to change because the evidence is clear? No way. Especially when you add in the fact that, if they try Bush and then say he’s innocent, the Republicans can come off free and clear of all this scandal, claim the Democrats were politicing, etc. etc.
I have to admit that impeachment at this stage looks pretty grim.
That never stopped Ken Starr!
“Comey, one step between the U.S. and fascism.
NPR’s Terri Gross did an interview with Tenet!
I admonish my party. Do not compromise with George Bush on anything.
Mostly I overlook them, but one typo really needs to get fixed: “I want you to take note of the use of the permissive word “my” and the compulsive word “shall” as it appears throughout these statutes.”
That should be “may” — and yes, there’s a big, big difference between “may” and “shall.”
Great post . . . I can hardly wait for the hearing!
Do you see what I see??? Check this out:
There is no mention of… the Air Force! And according to our conservative friends, that can only mean the president has no authority over the Air Force. (They’re the ones claiming that what is not spelled out in the Constitution is not granted.) This is a huge loophole, people! How can we make it work to our advantage?
typo alert
interpreations–which are subject to change
Oklahoma kiddo @
7
I’m with you OKK, the Dems have to frame this as Bush V Democracy, Bush V America.
OH G*D, Jerry Lewis saying Congress cannot hold Bush accountable. Jerry, please read YOUR Constitution.
Is this the American Government or a circus?
one more
(though i quite like the spoonerism)
Comey “Fifth, and last, I expect that you will appreciate and protect an amazing gift you have received as an employee of the Department of Justice. It is a gift you may not notice until the first time you stand up and identify yourself as an employee of the Department of Justice and say something - whether in a courtroom, a conference room, or a cocktail party - and find that total strangers believe what you say next.
- That gift - the gift that makes possible so much of the good we accomplish - is a reservoir of trust and credibility, a reservoir built for us, and filled for us, by those who went before - most of whom we never knew. They were people who made sacrifices and kept promises to build that reservoir of trust.
- Our obligation - as the recipients of that great gift - is to protect that reservoir, to pass it to those who follow, those who may never know us, as full as we got it.
- The problem with reservoirs is that it takes tremendous time and effort to fill them, but one hole in a dam can drain them. The protection of that reservoir requires vigilance, an unerring commitment to truth, and a recognition that the actions of one may affect the priceless gift that benefits all.”
Thank You Comey
I am sending a copy of ‘General Eaton’s letter to the President’ to my Senator and asking him not to send another bill to the WH. When it was vetoed, it was like he ripped it up and threw it away. More money then he asked for too. The WH doesn’t deserve another bill, bring them home now. The troops want to come home and you threw away the check to keep them their. Suffer the consequences.
I may be mistaken, but I think this is exactly what the process was prior to the Patriot Act. The AG may appoint an interim US attorney, but that interim appointment is only good for 120 days or until a permanent USA is confirmed, whichever comes first. If the 120 days comes first, then the district court can appoint someone as interim.
No compromise at all - simply the status quo ante.
lhp - penultimate paragraph - change “my” to “may.” big difference…
OT: Steny Hoyer on CSpan
June 2006 report describes process for confirming AG’s according to Sampson.
Report of Investigation into Allegations Relating to the Selection of the U.S. Attorney
for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands
Special Report
June 2006
Office of the Inspector General
Selection Process for United States Attorneys
After President George W. Bush was inaugurated in January 2001, his administration sought to nominate new candidates to fill the U.S. Attorneys’ positions. Kyle Sampson, who was President Bush’s Associate Director for Presidential Personnel until late September 2001 and is now the Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, described the selection process to the OIG.
Sampson said the White House asked for recommendations from political leaders in the various districts for candidates to fill the U.S. Attorney positions. The recommendations generally were submitted by U.S. Senators of the President’s party to Sampson or to staff in the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA). If no Republican Senator represented a particular judicial district, Sampson or OPA staff contacted whoever OPA designated as the “political lead” for that district. Sampson said the White House generally sought three names for each U.S. Attorney vacancy, although it did not always receive three.
Sampson said the White House forwarded potential U.S. Attorney candidates to the Executive Office for United States Attorney (EOUSA) in the DOJ, with a request that each person be sent an online application form and be scheduled for a panel interview. According to Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis, who participated in the U.S. Attorney selection process, Sampson’s request to EOUSA to send the application to an individual meant that the person had been “named as a candidate” by the White House. The candidates identified in this fashion would be interviewed by a panel that normally consisted of Sampson; Margolis; David Higbee, Deputy Associate Attorney General and the DOJ liaison to the White House; the Director of EOUSA; and Christopher Bartolomucci of the White House Counsel’s office. Sampson described the interview as similar to a regular job interview, with part of the interview focused on whether the candidate had any issues that might arise during the background investigation. After the interviews, the panelists would rank the candidates in order of preference. According to Sampson, if there was only a single candidate, the panel would determine whether the person “me[t] the bar,” meaning that the candidate met the minimum level of qualifications for the position of U.S. Attorney.
According to Sampson, the panel usually developed a consensus regarding the strongest candidate. After the panel agreed on a candidate, the panel would seek concurrence from the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General. If they concurred with the panel’s recommendation, Sampson would seek approval for the nomination from the White House Counsel. Sampson stated that he could not recall any occasion when the Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General, and White House Counsel did not concur with the panel’s recommendation for a U.S. Attorney.
Sampson said that after the White House Counsel approved a nomination for U.S. Attorney, Sampson would send an e-mail to EOUSA asking it to prepare the paperwork regarding the candidate for inclusion in a binder submitted to the President containing names of candidates being recommended for appointments as federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals. Sampson said he would then discuss the U.S. Attorney candidate recommendations with the President. If the President agreed with the recommendation, Sampson would inform EOUSA that the President had expressed his “intent to nominate” the candidate pending the successful completion of the background investigation process. However, the “intent to nominate” would not be publicly announced until after the background investigation process was completed and the candidate’s background investigation was “cleared” by the White House Counsel, as described below.
The Background Investigation and Confirmation
After receiving notification that the President intended to nominate a candidate, EOUSA would ask the candidate to complete the background investigation forms. The background investigation and confirmation portions of the process were overseen by EOUSA and the DOJ Office of Legal Policy (OLP).
Upon receiving the completed background forms from the candidate, DOJ would request that the FBI initiate the background investigation. Background investigations for U.S. Attorneys included interviews of at least six federal, state, and local judges; three attorneys who are associates of the candidate; three opposing attorneys; six representatives from federal, state, and local government prosecutors’ offices; and senators of the state where the candidate would serve. According to Higbee, the FBI generally sought to complete the background investigations within two months. Upon its completion, EOUSA would review the FBI background investigation and prepare a memorandum for Higbee summarizing the results and attaching interview summaries and other material from the background investigation file. Higbee said he would review the memorandum and, if issues arose in the background investigation, discuss them with Margolis. Higbee would then forward the memorandum to Sampson at the White House.
According to Sampson, many background investigation memoranda stated that there were no issues with the candidate. Sampson told the OIG that in such cases the White House Counsel’s office would state that the candidate was “cleared.” If the candidate had issues, Sampson said he would review the memorandum (and sometimes the file as well) before forwarding the memorandum to the Deputy White House Counsel, who would make the determination whether to clear the candidate. If the Deputy White House Counsel cleared the candidate, the White House informed EOUSA, and EOUSA sent nomination paperwork to the White House. The White House would then publicly announce the nomination or the President’s “intent to nominate” the candidate and the White House would forward nomination paperwork to the Senate.2
While the amount of time varied with each candidate, the time from selection and the beginning of the background investigation to the President’s public announcement of his intent to nominate could be substantial.
link
Check out TPM Muckraker for the latest Prosecutor Purge revelation:
I wonder if Mr. McNulty will now understand that he previously told Bogden that performance had nothing to do with his firing?
Amazing that none of these high-level DoJ lawyers can remember the cardinal rule of testimony: tell the truth, it’s easier to remember.
lolo @ 17
Wonder if he’ll own up to his position on the war being in line with the republics?
Thank you for laying this out LooseHeadProp.
I for one, can always use the education. It does help a great deal to understand what is happening and helps give the ability to call BULLSHIT when end runs are attempted at our laws.
And > Ans Congress did so
if > In 1868 Congress created a method of filling vacancies that might occur is a USA (or US Marshal)[add space] left office.
it > because is might be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers?
add an “a” > the AG still has [a] role in appointing interim USAs
may > the permissive word “my“
OT - this is big:
JERUSALEM - Israel’s popular foreign minister on Wednesday called on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to step down and said she would seek to replace him as allies began to desert the embattled premier after a harsh report criticizing his handling of last year’s war in Lebanon.
OT - On Raw Story: According to former British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Vice President Dick Cheney has been calling the shots in Iraq and has even overridden decisions by President Bush and former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Even Republics can’t honestly want this extraconstitutional regime to continue.
OT–
Zach Wamp up. Some name…
LHP, I’ve got an OT question for you, if you don’t mind.
Yesterday in the Sen. Intel hearings re:FISA, one of the panelists was Kenneth Wainstein, Assistant AG for the DOJ’s National Security Division.
He said, in response to Sen. Whitehouse’s comment:
by saying:
Have you heard anything about his division before? In what bill was it created? It it possible that some of its functions are usurping powers once granted to the judiciary?
I suppose I could start digging around, but I thought I’d start by asking you.
litigatormom @ 19
They CAN’T tell the truth. We can’t handle the truth (kidding!) To tell the truth would pull the cover back from the black pit of their RICO conspiracy. Not allowed.
lhp - Since I’m interested in your thoughts about this, I wanted to repost a comment I posted this morning in Scarecrow’s post:
Scarecrow -
Perhaps it would be a good idea to delve further into this concept:
Subversion (politics)
Let’s look at Wikipedia for a minute:
Do efforts to politicize the Department of Justice constitute subversion? If so, what federal statutes, if any, have been violated? What other manifestations of subversion do you see?
Ed*ard Teller @ 23
Livni and Olmert hate each other. She was seen as insufficiently behind the Lebanon invasion last year and Olmert forbade her from going to New York to be present when the UN resolution ending the Israeli invasion was voted on. That said, she is still very hard line.
When I worked on DoD contracts, one point that we NEVER allowed contractors to do in any planning documents was to use “will,” “may,” “could,” or “should.” Everything had to be “shall” statements. Anything less, and we’d given ‘em a loophole large enough to drive a semi through.
OT
Just a reminder that we do have people working for the good of this country.
This is an excerpt of an email I just received,I liked the last line.
Thank God for Comey.
Has anyone seen any report in the MSM that has slanted the veto story in the proper perspective, e.g.: Bush vetoed funding for the troops?
I have not. All I’ve seen says that Bush vetoed a bill for withdrawal of the troops, ergo the Democrats have not provided the funding.
Love Chimpy’s veto /definitely sarcasm.
Badwater @ 24
Link to the entire Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq.....56,00.html
Bustednuckles @
31
I’m guesssing that everyone who signed the petition agains the veto got one of these e-mails.
GeorgeSimian @
4
An unlikely result is no reason for not trying. Hell, Bush&Rove got where they are by continually pushing the limits; there’s no reason we shouldn’t as well. At the very least, any discussion of impeachment should bring out more revelations as well as making current (if lesser known to the general public) knowledge more prevalent. We’re probably not going to change the minds of any true believers, but we can maybe swing some of the lesser believers and more of the independents, thus crippling the Rs even more.
Re McNulty, he was deliberately kept out of the loop. He could tell something was going on or something wasn’t quite right but didn’t have the info to know what it was. It’s why the Judiciary Committee went so easy on him after they found out he hadn’t told them the truth. It’s because people at the DOJ hadn’t told him the truth.
Sort of OT, but:
Condi has lost 3 aides in the last week or so. Look at the positions held by Dina Habib Powell in consideration of Waxman’s request for documents lately from all the departments:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....ina_Powell
Bustednuckles @
31
They need to hear that they have your support, tell your friends and relatives to call/e-mail/fax their Representatives, Senators as well as Majority & Minority Leaders of both Houses. Oh and flood the White House with calls, e-mails and faxes as well.
OT–
Dan Burton doesn’t know what the f*ck he’s talking about.
The Israeli government is always decrying how the Arabs want to push them into the sea. Maybe so. And how does this differ from the Israeli view on the Palestinians?
Biodun @ 40
That’s not a news flash, Biodun. Pretty sure that has been established previously. J/K
Biodun @ 40
again.
Jerry Lewis keeps yielding his time. Think he’s too crooked to think or talk straight?
Badwater@24
Vice President Dick Cheney has been calling the shots in Iraq and has even overridden decisions by President Bush and former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Shocking!
Next, we’ll find out water is wet.
EPU’d:
Burton up:
On behalf of all sane Hoosiers, we *really* apologize.
Olmert, Sharon, Bush. Now there’s an axis.
EPU’d from last thread….
I think we should ‘move on’ from the current Funding Bill, Georgie Boy vetoed it… Let him… it will come back and haunt him very soon…
Put this ‘3 step plan’ in a stand alone Bill and sign it from ‘We The People’,
It is short and to the point.
Yep, present this one next ……
http://justworldnews.org/archives/002321.html
Posted by Helena Cobban at January 8, 2007 02:16 PM
(1) The President makes an authoritative public statement in which he announces,
(a) His firm intention to pull all US troops out of Iraq by a date certain, perhaps 4-6 months ahead;
(b) An assurance that the US has no lasting claims on the land or resources of Iraq;
(c) An expression of the US’s goodwill towards the people of Iraq, and its sympathy for all the harms that they have suffered in recent years; and
(d) An invitation to the UN Secretary-General to oversee the process of negotiating all the modalities of the US troop withdrawal, including the formation of an Iraqi negotiating team of his (not the US’s) choice, and the convening of a parallel negotiation that involves Iraq, the US, and all Iraq’s neighbors.
(2) The clock starts ticking on the timetable announced by the President. That fact and the other new diplomatic realities created by his announcement all act together to start transforming the political dynamics within Iraq, the region, and indeed the US, as well. The Iraqi parties and movements all have a powerful incentive to work with each other and the UN for the speedy success of the negotiation over the post-occupation political order. They and the UN also start planning for the many tasks of social, economic, and political reconstruction that the country needs. Another important function for the UN will be to resurrect and re-stress the principle of Iraq’s territorial integrity and national soveriegnty against all the pressures that its powerful neighbors may exert in this fragile period. In these months the US troops in Iraq might come under some form of UN command (as happened– imperfectly, but with ultimate success– during an analogous process of a negotiated troop withdrawal in Namibia, in 1989.) But anyway, the US troops’ main mission in this period will be to organize and start implementing their own orderly departure from the country.
(3) On the date certain the last US troops leave Iraq and there is a handing-over ceremony.’
I had been wondering why the Patriot Act provisions regarding appointment of the USAs was not violative of the provision that “officers” be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.
But it seems the clause “But Congress may by law vest the appointment … in the heads of departments” shows that the provision, while a politically B.S. maneuver, would have been constitutionally o.k. And it hangs Gonzales on his bogus reasoning.
(I’m sorry, but please clean up the typos…)
Cheers!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 41
Dear Oklahoma Kiddo,
Are you kidding?
No one does “crazy” like Jerry Lewis.
Helen @ 44
Is he managing the debate? If so, he would be given a certain length of time, say 30 minutes, and he would divide it up among those on his side.
Mae @ 50
I am not.
kdh22 @ Hugh:
Great minds think alike–same time stamp too.
Petrocelli @ 51
“Hey, lady!”
A lyric from Janis’ “Me and Bobby McGee” keeps running through my head…
“Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose…”
Don’t know why. Just needed to tell someone.
Ed*ard Teller @ 23
Does this mean they’re ready to get rid of their neocons, or am I being naive and overhopeful?
O.K. Someone please help me out here. There is no comparison between Israel, which recognizes the right of a Palestinian state to exit (since 1948) and Hamas, which continues to say that Israel does not have the right to exist.
what is this - Crazy Criminal Californian Day in the House?
Petrocelli @ 51
Ah c’mon! Patsy did it MUCH better!
Oh, wait a minute. You weren’t talkin’ about the song were you? As Emily said: “Never mind.”
OT–
Duncan Hunter up: Is he still running for president?
This is good news for the 2008 elections.
From The Hill
The Hill
GeorgeSimian @
4
What’s missing from your assessment is that a good many of these Republican Senators are facing re-election next year, and many of them are wondering if charging full speed ahead with the Prez towards the cliff is such a good idea.
Bob in HI
Roddy McCorley @
9
Maybe it will help the head of the AF say “NO” to Bush when he asks them to bomb Iran?
Bob in HI
Josh has a nice of summary of why Bush can’t fire Abu G.
the replacement would have to be a real attorney general.
mui @ 57
The only reason that Olmert has lasted this long is because there is no one on the political scene to replace him, except the even crazier, scarier, and more worthless Netanyahu. And yes, there are still plenty of the Israeli version still around.
mui @
57
no and yes:
Countdown has begun
US, Israel prepare for Iran strike in wake of new intelligence information
Orly Azoulay
Published: 04.29.07, 16:18 / Israel Opinion
Washington: The intelligence information gathered by the Unites States regarding Iran’s technological breakthrough that could lead Teheran to an atom bomb in less than three years bodes well with President George Bush’s political desperation.
The new intelligence indicates that Iran is making accelerated progress in acquiring the required amount of enriched uranium for assembling its first nuclear bomb.
Until recently, American intelligence estimated that this would only happen in 2015. Now US intelligence is falling into line with its colleagues in Israel and is estimating that an Iranian bomb can be expected as early as 2010.
Looks like somebody’s busy creating the next generation of yellowcake forgeries…
Link
EPU’d from last thread, sorry slightly off topic..
I know there are multiple scandals and secrets coming to light, but somebody needs to take a close look at what is going on with this whole funding, arms deals etc in support of Abbas against the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of the Palestinian People.
The people running this little show have dirty hands and an hidden agenda (Iran Contra etc) so if somebody with more knowledge about this stuff could perhaps look into this?
http://conflictsforum.org/2007…..war/print/
Elliot Abrams’ uncivil war
January 7, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Is the Bush administration violating the law in an effort to provoke a Palestinian civil war?
Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams — who Newsweek recently described as “the last neocon standing” — has had it about for some months now that the U.S. is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a “hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.
While those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of Fatah activists have been trained and “graduated” from two camps — one in Ramallah and one in Jericho. The supplies of rifles and ammunition, which started as a mere trickle, has now become a torrent (Haaretz reports the U.S. has designated an astounding $86.4 million for Abu Mazen’s security detail), and while the program has gone largely without notice in the American press, it is openly talked about and commented on in the Arab media — and in Israel. Thousands of rifles and bullets have been poring into Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan, the administration’s designated allies in the program.
In the interest of the last threads urgency
John Edward wants to put up an ad that brought tears to my eyes. Watch it and decide. I cant send much but will send some.
http://johnedwards.com/wethepeople/
BTW I reworked my item on the attorney firings in my scandals list. It’s item 2.
http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html
Bush today on Iraq: “But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we’ll succeed, or we won’t succeed.”
Republics, again, why do you support anything about this guy?
Perhaps a refresher course in who’s land was appropriated in 1948 would help. And if Rachel Corrie were alive, perhaps she would have a different view. What Palestinian homeland? Gaza and the West Bank are not much more than gulags. And incidentally, not gulags invented by the Palestinians. The Palestinians have no say so on anything. Be it taxes, travel or whatever. If it was right to establish a Jewish homeland in 1948, why then is it not right to do the same for the Palestinians today? The suggestion would be to read former President Carter’s latest book on this subject.
Oklahoma kiddo says:
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 am
Mae @ 50
Oklahoma kiddo @ 41
The Israeli government is always decrying how the Arabs want to push them into the sea. Maybe so. And how does this differ from the Israeli view on the Palestinians?
Dear Oklahoma Kiddo,
Are you kidding?
I am not.
Mae says:
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
O.K. Someone please help me out here. There is no comparison between Israel, which recognizes the right of a Palestinian state to exit (since 1948) and Hamas, which continues to say that Israel does not have the right to exist.
Does anyone want to comment?
Hugh:
That’s some “humongous” list–as my son would put it.
Mae @
58
I would encourage you to read Jimmy Carter’s recent book as well as many sites that depict the refugee camps many Palestinians live in.
Words must be followed by actions, not opposed by actions.
Mae @ 50
Well, maybe the Israelis aren’t using that exact language, but it seems plain that they’re using exactly the same strategy as the U.S. used against American Indians (squish’em into itty bitty reservations and hope they go away) except that Israel is NOT pushing for assimilation.
Read President Carter’s book.
Bob in HI
Mae @ 58
sadly, they call it jordan. actions on the ground in the west bank by the israeli gov. (and i understand it’s worse in gaza, but i haven’t been there) do not show respect for the rights of palestinians… not just national rights, but human rights.
happily the israeli government does not represent the views of all israelis… there are israelis like jeff halper who i choose to support.
Petrocelli @ 76
Does Israel have the right to exist?
The real question is ‘who does Blackwater take orders from?’
Mae @ 58
OK, help me out here, Mae. which Israel is Hamas supposed to recognize - this one? or this one? Or perhaps you could draw me a map that Hamas should accept.
Recognition of a nation that takes more of one’s land, water and other resources every month may be more difficult for some to accept than for others. Hamas doesn’t negate the existence of Israel. They seek to redress grievances unresolved since 1947. Sixty years of grievances.
And which Middle Eastern nation is a primary protagonist for attacking Iran, outside this country? And if an attack is launched against Iraq, this will result in a world war.
The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of “the Iraq effect” by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The “Iran effect” would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that “an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III.”
OT–
John Boehner is also full of sh*t.
Biodun @ 82
Terror porn
hackworth @ 32
Well, sort of: the LA Times story:
Bush vetoes Democrats’ Iraq war bill
The president fulfills his threat on a day of political theater for both parties. Lawmakers chart their next moves.
By Noam N. Levey and Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writers
May 2, 2007
WASHINGTON — President Bush vetoed a Democratic war spending bill Tuesday that would have compelled him to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, a move that came exactly four years after he triumphantly landed on an aircraft carrier to announce the end of “major combat operations.”
At least they got the spending bit in first.
Biodun @ 82
Understatement of the century.
My understanding is that the offending provision in the Patriot Act revision, which deleted the need to seek Senate confirmation for “interim” USA’s, has not yet been revoked. Bills to do so passed the House and Senate in late March. I don’t believe a joint bill has come out of conference or been signed by the President.
What about the five dancing Mossad agents who were documenting the World Trade Center attack?
Wow! Hey firedogs, its been so nice sharing with you. I am devastated. I didn’t realize how you all felt. Now I know. And I’m really depressed. Thanks for the memories. Sorry I can’t join you any more.
Up till now, I didn’t realize the anti-Israel sentiment. But now I just feel stupid.
Mae @ 79
my personal opinion (at this moment) is that i don’t care that much about the rights of states - do they even exist?
i do care very much about the rights of ALL israelis (and ALL palestinians)…
does that make any sense? what is your view on this?
thanks for being willing to discuss this issue…
Jack Murtha on CSpan
What’s missing from your assessment is that a good many of these Republican Senators are facing re-election next year, and many of them are wondering if charging full speed ahead with the Prez towards the cliff is such a good idea.
Bob in HI
There are 21 Republican senators up in 08. IMO, they are all vulnerable.
Mae @ 74
I’m told that if Jews no longer had a “special” status within the plot of land now called Israel, then “Isreal would no longer exist.” That is to say, these people tell me that this special status in instrinsic to the definition and existence of Israel.
The Palestinians I’ve spoken with do not see a special status for this or that religion to be intrinsic to a Palestinian state, though many would prefer that situation.