![](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4704/454/320/liberty.jpg)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Historically attributed to Ben Franklin (here's an interesting article on it).
BTW, it's Wanda's byline, too!
1. "And the heart that has been broken will be stronger when it mends" - Rainbow Sleeves (sung by Rickie Lee, written by Tom Waits)
2. "Change gon' come - oh yes it will" - Change is Gonna Come
3. "Many rivers to cross
And it's only my will that keeps me alive
I've been licked, washed up for years
And I merely survive because of my pride" - Many Rivers To Cross
4. "Let her cry, for she's a lady - let her dream, for she's a child - let the rain fall down upon her - she's a free and gentle flower growing wild" - Wildflower
5. "Kept some letters by his bed - Dated nineteen sixty-two - He had underlined in red - Every single "I love you" - He Stopped Loving Her Today - George Jones
1. "Ruby, My Dear", Thelonious Monk
2. "Hip-Hug Her", Booker T. and the MGs
3. "Naima", John Coltrane
4. "Machine Gun", the Commodores
5. "Hideaway" (by Freddie King), Stevie Ray Vaughan
1. Led Zeppelin - Tampa Stadium, 1973 - what more needs to be said?4. Top 5 Artists you think more people should listen to
2. Playing a piano in Japan that Beethoven had once played
3. Being asked by Jack Segal ("When Sunny Gets Blue") to sing a song that he wrote at his final concert.
4. Having Carole King jam with a band I was in.
5. Listening to my husband sing for the first time.
1. Eva Cassidy5. Top 5 Albums you must hear from start to finish
2. Rickie Lee Jones
3. Cold Blood
4. David Morgan (my husband)
5. Anne McCue
1. Thelonious Monk's Greatest Hits6. Top 5 Musical Heroes
2. Pearl - Janis Joplin
3. Learning to Crawl - the Pretenders
4. Crosby, Stills and Nash
5. Girl at her Volcano - Rickie Lee Jones
1. Patrice RushenI had a really hard time with this; there's so much left out...
2. Chrissie Hynde
3. Sam and Dave
4. Al Green
5. Gladys Knight
"the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." Because this was illegal, the officials noted, it was "necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."Their first plan was to have the UN issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein in language so harsh that Saddam would reject it, thus giving the US and Britain a 'legal' justification to attack Iraq. However, Saddam did not reject it, and allowed the weapons inspectors in, although the media told us otherwise.
"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.There's something to chew on...
The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.
The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress."
The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying.Sickening.
The data will be managed by BeNow Inc. of Wakefield, Mass., one of many marketing firms that use computers to analyze large amounts of data to target potential customers based on their personal profiles and habits.
"The purpose of the system . . . is to provide a single central facility within the Department of Defense to compile, process and distribute files of individuals who meet age and minimum school requirements for military service," according to the official notice of the program.
Privacy advocates said the plan appeared to be an effort to circumvent laws that restrict the government's right to collect or hold citizen information by turning to private firms to do the work.
• Of course we were not done. About ten members and I proceeded to caravan over to the White House, where we delivered the letter signed by more than 560,000 Americans and 122 Members of Congress demanding answers. There were several hundred protestors at the White House along with least a dozen cameras.. In front of all of these witnesses, the White House staff refused to permit any of us to enter. They did take the petitions, but I would think that sitting Members of Congress deserve a bit more respect.Par for the course, I'd say...
C-SPAN has committed to carrying the U.S. House Judiciary Democrats hearings tomorrow on C-SPAN 3. They will be carried LIVE.
For those who don't receive C-SPAN 3 on their local cable system, the video and/or audio from the hearings should be carried via the Internets right here.
The hearings will also be carried live on Pacifica Radio and via Radio Left.
Yesterday, TrueMajority.org, another very large citizens activist organization, joined in sending Petitions to its members to collect signatures for John Conyers Letter to Bush, to be delivered bu Conyers himself after tomorrow's hearing. TrueMajority.org joins MoveOn.org who last week collected some 500,000 signatures in 48 hours or so.
CALLING ON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH, VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY AND DEFENSE SECRETARY RUMSFELD FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
WHEREAS, the Downing Street Memo shows that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld began planning and executing the war on Iraq before seeking Congressional and UN approval;
WHEREAS, UN weapons inspectors showed prior to the invasion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and
WHEREAS, there is further mounting evidence that the Administration lied or misled about "mushroom clouds," "connections to 9/11," and "war as a last resort" as they sought UN, Congressional, and public approvals;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED, the DPW asks Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
"This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action."Tony Blair was in a bit of a sticky wicket because he had already agreed to back Bush in his determination to go to war three months earlier at a meeting in Crawford at the President's ranch. But it was equally clear that, as things stood, the legal conditions for initiating a war had not been met. The London Times reports:
The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.So, basically, the US and Britain had agreed to try to 'goad' Saddam Hussein into rejecting the UN weapons inspectors, or, failing that, to respond in kind to being bombed by the US and Britain. This contradicts the assertions by Bush and Blair that they were trying desperately to avoid war at all costs. On the contrary, they were doing everything they could think of to maneuver Saddam Hussein into a position where they could find a 'legal' reason, no matter how flimsy, to attack him.
“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.
The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.
June 10, 2005Folks, this is really, really serious.
(Washington, DC) -- Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in her new role as a member of the Judiciary Committee, today witnessed first hand the disrespectful conduct of the Republican majority at a Committee hearing today, requested by the Democratic minority, to hear testimony on civil rights and civil liberties abuses resulting from the USA Patriot Act.
“What happened today was not only an attempt to silence Democratic Members of Judiciary, it was a silencing of Democracy in America,” said Rep. Wasserman Schultz. “As a new member of the Judiciary Committee, I was appalled by the treatment we received today and the disrespect that Minority Chairman Conyers was shown. Minority Chairman Conyers has dedicated over forty years of his life to this country as a member of the House of Representatives --he and the Americans who are deeply concerned about the Patriot Act deserve better.”
The majority acted shamefully today, attempting to silence Democrats at the Judiciary Committee hearing this morning on the impact of the Patriot Act. Throughout the hearing, run by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, witnesses and members were cut-off in mid sentence, the Chairman refused to yield to Democratic members points of order, or points of personal privilege. Finally, the hearing was adjourned by the Chairman, in violation of the Rules of the House and cutting off the microphones of Democratic members while they attempted to speak.
Sixteen provisions of the USA Patriot Act automatically sunset (expire) at the end of the year unless reauthorized by Congress. As such, the Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act.
The hearing this morning was the first time in roughly ten years that the minority on the Judiciary Committee has been forced to invoke its right to continue hearings in order to have its own witnesses.
(no delusions of grandeur here...)I am proud to have Dick Cheney at my side. He is a man of integrity and sound judgment, who has proven that public service can be noble service.
(not anymore, it can't...)Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment. So tonight we vow to our nation. We will seize this moment of American promise. We will use these good times for great goals.
(yeah - who needs all that crummy peace and prosperity?)Tonight, in this hall, we resolve to be, not the party of repose, but the party of reform. We will write, not footnotes, but chapters in the American story. We will add the work of our hands to the inheritance of our fathers and mothers -- and leave this nation greater than we found it. We know the tests of leadership. The issues are joined.
(you heard it here first, folks)To seniors in this country ... You earned your benefits, you made your plans, and President George W. Bush will keep the promise of Social Security ... no changes, no reductions, no way. Our opponents will say otherwise. This is their last, parting ploy, and don't believe a word of it.
George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation.Now, who would you think wrote that? Greg Palast? Molly Ivins? Robert Scheer? Seymour Hirsch? Me?
It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the US. America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.
As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies.
Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused one billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.
Here's the rest...
1. After Downing Street is a Coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. The campaign focuses on evidence that recently emerged in a British memo containing minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.
2. The name is a reference to the Downing Street Memo, a British memo recently made public in the London Times, which contained the minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.
3. After Downing Street reports: In response to the release of the memo, “John Bonifaz, a Boston attorney specializing in constitutional litigation, sent a memo to Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urging him to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Bush. Bonifaz's memo, made available today at www.AfterDowningStreet.org, begins: ‘The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.’"
4. Congressman Conyers is now seeking 100,000 signatures to sign a letter on the Downing Street Inquiry. Information available at Raw Story and dKos.
5. Sign the letter here. Write to your Congresspeople here.
-----------------------
Another important piece of information that has been overlooked in this story, as reported in a recent Salon article by Juan Cole (get the Site Pass), is that Tony Blair had to convince George Bush to go after al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and Bush would only do so in exchange for Britain’s support of the Iraq invasion:
“Astonishingly, the Bush administration almost took the United States to war against Iraq in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11. We know about this episode from the public account of Sir Christopher Meyer, then the U.K. ambassador in Washington. Meyer reported that in the two weeks after Sept. 11, the Bush national security team argued back and forth over whether to attack Iraq or Afghanistan. It appears from his account that Bush was leaning toward the Iraq option.
Meyer spoke again about the matter to Vanity Fair for its May 2004 report, "The Path to War." Soon after Sept. 11, Meyer went to a dinner at the White House, "attended also by Colin Powell, [and] Condi Rice," where "Bush made clear that he was determined to topple Saddam. 'Rumors were already flying that Bush would use 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq,' Meyer remembers." When British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Washington on Sept. 20, 2001, he was alarmed. If Blair had consulted MI6 about the relative merits of the Afghanistan and Iraq options, we can only imagine what well-informed British intelligence officers in Pakistan were cabling London about the dangers of leaving bin Laden and al-Qaida in place while plunging into a potential quagmire in Iraq. Fears that London was a major al-Qaida target would have underlined the risks to the United Kingdom of an "Iraq first" policy in Washington.
Meyer told Vanity Fair, "Blair came with a very strong message -- don't get distracted; the priorities were al-Qaida, Afghanistan, the Taliban." He must have been terrified that the Bush administration would abandon London to al-Qaida while pursuing the great white whale of Iraq. But he managed to help persuade Bush. Meyer reports, "Bush said, 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.'" Meyer also said, in spring 2004, that it was clear "that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions." In short, Meyer strongly implies that Blair persuaded Bush to make war on al-Qaida in Afghanistan first by promising him British support for a later Iraq campaign.”
Finding out if this underreported outrage is true is an important part of the inquiry for which After Downing Street is fighting. That President Bush’s entire presidency has relied on his ostensibly unique ability to “keep America safe,” even though he had to be cajoled into going after the party truly responsible for 9/11, is not only an outrage, but a national disgrace.
HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- NASA's new administrator and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, vow the space agency will have the necessary funding to implement President Bush's vision to send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars.The only way I'll support that idea is if Tommi is on that rocket with a one-way ticket. Heck, why not build one big enough for the whole Bush Administration? I'll pony up for that!