Presidential Signing Statements 2001-2006 & links

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/FAQs.htm


Presidential Signing Statements
2001-2006
George W. Bush

FAQs
Read About Presidential Signing Statements
click to see date of last update

1. WHAT ARE PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS?

2. WHERE CAN SIGNING STATEMENTS BE FOUND?
2.a. Where can I get signing statements issued by presidents other than George W. Bush?

3. HOW MANY SIGNING STATEMENTS HAS GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED?

4. WHY IS GEORGE BUSH'S USE OF SIGNING STATEMENTS CONTROVERSIAL?
4.a. Read Widely
4.b. Core Concepts; Miniature Civics Lesson for Laypersons
4.c. Are Only Two Branches of Government Affected?
4.d. Are Signing Statements the Whole Paper Trail?

5. ESSENTIAL READING: THE LINKS

6. WHAT'S NEW ON THIS SITE?

1. What are presidential signing statements?
When a United States President signs or vetoes legislation enacted by Congress, he may issue a written statement commenting on his actions. Here's a very brief explanation from Cheryl Nyberg, at the University of Washington School of Law. Here's Wikipedia's entry. (Caveat: This Wikipedia entry erroneously says that a signing statement is a type of proclamation, even though presidential proclamations and presidential signing statements are two distinct types of documents. The article should have used a word that is not a legal term of art, such as "comment" or "pronouncement" to describe the statements, rather than "proclamation." Otherwise, the Wikipedia entry is good enough to get you started.)


2. Where can I find presidential signing statements?
This webpage exists because: (1) most non-lawyers find it difficult to locate the text of presidential signing statements; and (2) even lawyers will find this site more convenient than pecking about for the individual documents. Bloggers and media commentators have remarked on how difficult it is to locate presidential signing statements.

The University of Chicago Law Library has published a very helpful guide to locating presidential documents, including signing statements. However, most of the resources listed there are more easily accessed by attorneys than by members of the public. Most of the sources are inaccessible to laypersons because: (1) access to the source (e.g., print publications by West, or subscription-only online legal databases such as Westlaw or LEXIS-NEXIS) is expensive; or (2) a reader must both visit a law library and have the skills necessary to navigate legal materials; or, (3) when statements are online, they either are spread out among many documents or are not in searchable formats.

This website is certainly not the only place to locate signing statements. The American Presidency Project has the signing statements of all United States Presidents since 1929. (Thanks to Bill Ford, of the University of Chicago Law School and the ELS blog, for this link.) While the American Presidency Project provides text of the signing statements of all presidents, it does not provide the text of the laws affected by the signing statements. This website posts only George W. Bush's statements, but it also links directly to the full text of the Congressional enactments affected by George W. Bush's signing statements.
In sum, if you want to see Bill Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's signing statements and don't need access to the text of the affected laws, the American Presidency Project's website is a better choice. If you want to read George W. Bush's statement upon signing, for instance, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005" and to see the text of that law, use the annotations on this website. This website also places all of George W. Bush's signing statements in one large HTML document to make it easier to search the text of the signing statements (and text excerpted from the affected laws).

The signing statements are available, for free, on the official White House website. However, unlike Executive Orders, Proclamations, or press releases, presidential signing statements are not numbered, grouped, or neatly indexed on the White House website. Nor are they uniformly titled. Further, because the documents employ language that is typically familiar or useful only to scholars and attorneys, plain language word searches (such as "torture" or "Sarbanes-Oxley") do not bring up signing statements relating to that topic. Signing statements are presented in a more orderly fashion in the "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (WCPD)," published by the Government Printing Office (GPO). However, to locate all of the signing statements indexed in the WCPD between January of 2001 and June of 2006, one must examine about 290 files.

This website triple sources the signing statements: it sets out the full text of each signing statement, provides a link to the same statement at the White House website, and provides a link to the GPO's online WCPD. Triple-sourcing is provided for two reasons. First, it helps readers verify the text of the signing statements. Second, the exact number of statements is controversial, and providing all sources may help resolve the controversy.
The signing statements comment on legislation enacted by Congress and refer to the legislation by bill and resolution numbers. The statements can be difficult to understand without the laws to which they refer. Therefore, this website also provides links to the full text of all legislation subject to the signing statements. Links to the text of Congressional enactments appear only on the annotated signing statements page. The annotations also provide legal citations to the session laws (the United States Statutes at Large) and to public law numbers. This helps serious researchers: (a) track the laws in the three major codifications of federal statutes (i.e., the United States Code, the United States Code Annotated, and the United States Code Service), and (b) cite the laws.

3. How many statements has George W. Bush signed?
Two types of "metrics" have surfaced in news articles and web and media comments. One approach is to count the documents identified as "signing statements" that President Bush has issued when signing Congressional enactments. The second is to count the number of laws challenged in those documents.
a. Counting the Documents Identified as "Signing Statements"
Even this number is somewhat uncertain. On June 27, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings concerning George W. Bush's use of signing statement. Office of Legal Counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle Boardman, who identified herself as the Department of Justice's expert on signing statements, represented the Bush administration at the hearing. Ms. Boardman's remarks to the Committee were somewhat unclear, but she seems to have indicated that there were 110 signing statements (or, by an alternate reading of her words, perhaps as many as 126). See, e.g., John Dean, The Bush Administration's Adversarial Relationship with Congress -- as Illustrated by Its Refusal to Even Provide the Number of Signing Statements Issued by President Bush, FindLaw (July 14, 2006). The question became a bit clouded by attempts to categorize the statements as "rhetorical," or "constitutional," etc. See also, Bush blocked probe, AG testifies: Senate examines wiretap program (Boston Globe, July 19, 2006) (Attorney General Gonzales contesting number of signing statements.)
By my count, on June 27, 2006, President Bush had issued 129 documents expressly identified as signing statements in the GPO's WCPD or on the White House website. I've found two signing statements (2001-02, 2004-17) that have been published in the WCPD but cannot be found at the White House website. I have found one document (2002-08) on the White House website that has not appeared in the WCPD. This statement (2002-08) is probably not a signing statement; it is difficult to say, because the White House does not title, segregate, or index signing statements in the uniform, systematic manner that it presents Executive Orders and Proclamations. The WCPD is systematic in its labeling and grouping, and it does not identify 2002-08 as a signing statement.
On July 11, 2006, George W. Bush signed an additional statement, bringing my count to 130 (assuming that 2002-08 is not a signing statement). I cannot assure the public that this is all of the statements. However, I am confident that I have found all of the signing statements that have been made public on the White House website or have appeared in the WCPD from January 19, 2001, through July 11, 2006.
b. Counting the Number of Laws Challenged in Signing Statements
A single signing statement may comment on several provisions of the Congressional enactment to which it pertains. Some people count each statutory (or non-codified) provision affected by a single document as a separate statement. Under this metric, a single document that challenges 40 laws is counted as 40 signing statements.
Months ago, Charlie Savage, of the Boston Globe, and Christopher Kelley, Ph.D, a political scientist at the University of Miami, examined the signing statement documents existing at that time and found challenges to about 750 Congressional enactments within those documents. For instance, Professor Kelley has found challenges to about 50 laws in a single bill signing statement (the statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004). By Professor Kelley's latest count, the documents called "signing statements" collectively challenge just over 800 Congressional enactments.
Many media and web sources have not updated their numbers since the early counts and do not distinguish between the signing statement documents and the number of laws challenged. Therefore, reports that there are 750 statements are common. At this point, it is probably a bit more accurate to say that, to date, 130 signing statements challenge about 800 federal laws.
c. In Sum

Treating the GPO's WCPD as authoritative, I conclude that 130 documents called signing statements have been issued since President Bush was inaugurated. This assumes that all of the signing statement documents have been made public, either on the White House website or in the GPO's WCPD. I have not counted the number of laws challenged in these documents. However, I have provided the exact text of all Congressional enactments affected by all 130 signing statement documents. The text of the affected enactments is available on the annotated signing statements page.
All of the signing statements that I have located are presented here (unannotated) or here (annotated). The index is here. If you believe you have located additional statements that do not appear here, please notify me. To see how I have defined and identified signing statements, click here.


4. Why is George Bush's use of presidential signing statements controversial? What are scholars, attorneys, government officials, and the media saying about presidential signing statements?
A. Read Widely
There is no simple way to summarize the concerns of scholars, lawyers, and members of Congress regarding George Bush's use of signing statements. Many have called the issue a constitutional crisis and believe that the Bush administration's use of signing statements is recalibrating the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government, or laying the groundwork for Supreme Court precedent that could rewrite the law controlling the respective powers of the three branches.
The best way to learn about this issue is to read; thus, the links below.
B. Core Concepts and Short Civics Lesson for Laypersons
But before you launch into these materials, be aware of an idea that continually surfaces in the writings to date. The idea is that President Bush is using signing statements to expand presidential power at the expense of Congress's powers. Our government has three branches. The Legislature's primary powers are to enact laws, and to control and disburse federal dollars. The Executive's primary powers are to administer (or carry out) the laws, and to command the military. The Judiciary's primary powers are to apply law to individual cases and controversies, and to ensure, by nullifying laws and government actions that offend the Constitution, that government officials do not exceed their powers. All three branches must, in practical and logistical terms, interpret the Constitution, case law, and statutes to perform their duties faithfully. However, final interpretation belongs to the Judiciary. The Constitution directly addresses the Executive's power regarding Congressional enactments that the Executive does not favor: the President can veto any law that Congress presents for signing. Congress has the power to override that veto by re-enacting the law by a super majority. (U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 7, Clause 3) Throughout our history, this has generally been the end of such controversies. Whenever Congress can muster a super majority to re-enact a law, the President must accept and administer that law, unless the courts rule that the law is unconstitutional. When a President fails to challenge in court a law that he dislikes, and fails to veto the law, and, instead, signs it -- while expressly stating that he is not bound by the law (or portions of it) or intends not to administer it as written -- has he seized power that our Constitution gives to the other branches of government? Has he defeated Congress's clear power to override vetoes? Can this be squared with the President's constitutional duty to "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed?" (U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 3)
Note, as you read the Bush signing statements, how many of them pertain to appropriations bills. Is President Bush using signing statements as a substitute for a presidential line item veto? Appropriations bills are the primary way that Congress exercises its spending power -- its power to control federal money. To many, these signing statements seem to bring the President's national security and defense powers (U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2) into stark conflict with both Congress's national security and defense powers (U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8) and Congress's appropriations powers.
Signing statements are one cornerstone of a controversial legal theory called "the unitary executive branch." In the 130 signing statements issued to date, President Bush makes 114 claims to the power of the "unitary executive." The Supreme Court case, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), is mentioned 35 times.
The possibility that a president is using signing statements to expand the power of the Executive at the expense of Congress is important enough that, on June 6, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) announced the formation of a "Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine to examine constitutional and legal issues raised by presidents of the United States attaching legal interpretations to federal legislation they sign." The ABA Task Force is set to release its report on Monday, July 23, 2006. In addition, on June 27, 2006, the Judiciary Committee of the Republican-led United States Senate conducted hearings on President Bush's use of signing statements.
C. Are Only Two Branches Affected?
So far, the discussion about signing statements has revolved around the balance of power between the Executive and Congress. There is an emerging and separate discussion about diminishing the power of the Judiciary. This discussion often surfaces in comments about "court-stripping" and "judicial activism." As far as I know, no one has analyzed the effect of signing statements on judicial power. It should be done.

"Court-stripping" and attacks on "judicial activism" are separate issues from how much weight the judiciary gives to presidential signing statements. In the Hamdan decision, issued by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2006, three dissenters voiced strong opinions about the president's power to interpret Congress's enactments. Justice Scalia rebuked the majority for "ignoring" the president's signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act; Justice Thomas made strong statements about "Executive unity." Both justices read their dissents from the bench. Justice Alito also expressed strong support for a powerful Executive. It seems possible that the Supreme Court's view of the effect of presidential signing statements may come down to one vote on the Supreme Court.
D. Are Signing Statements the Whole Paper Trail of the Advancing Unitary Executive Theory?
The links below should demonstrate that signing statements are only one cornerstone of the "unitary executive theory."
At least one legal commentator claims that George W. Bush is also using Executive Orders to advance the idea of the unitary executive. I have not collected or reproduced Executive Orders because they are widely available, free, on the internet, and their legal import seems to be well-settled under law. For the text of Executive Orders at the White House, click here. They are also available at the GPO website in the Federal Register and in the WCPD. I am adding Executive Orders to the annotations if they are relevant to law affected by signing statements.

There are certainly other Executive branch documents that publicly advance the unitary executive. I am adding them to the annotations as I find them.


5. Essential Reading: The Links
If you find additional writings, please send them along.
American Bar Association (ABA)
Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities
Elisa Massimino and Avidan Cover, While Congress Slept (Winter, 2006)
Doug Cassel, Washington's "War Against Terrorism" and Human Rights: The View from Abroad (Winter, 2006)
News Release
ABA to Examine Constitutional, Legal Issues of Presidential Signing Statements (June 5, 2006)

ABA Journal
ABA Task Force To Examine Signing Statements: Group to Study Separation-of-Powers Implications of Presidential Comments on Laws (June, 2006)
Hearing of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Concerning Presidential Signing Statements
Committee Member Statement
Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee, Hearing on Presidential Signing Statements (June 27, 2006)
Testimony and Statements Given to the Full Committee
Michelle E. Boardman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice (June 27, 2006)
Bruce Fein, Partner, Fein & Fein (June 27, 2006)
Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (June 27, 2006)
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center (June 27, 2006)
Christopher S. Yoo, Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School (June 27, 2006)
Prepared Statement
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (June 27, 2006)

NEW
Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Vice President's Remarks to the Traveling Press, Air Force Two (en route to Muscat, Oman) (December 20, 2005) (speaking about his view of the Constitutional powers of the Presidency)
Vice President's Remarks at the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize Luncheon Followed by Q&A (June 19, 2006) (including remarks about the "unitary executive" and reference to House Minority Report on Iran-Contra)
Samuel Alito
Memorandum to the Department of Justice's Legal Strategy Working Group (Feb., 1986)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi)
Harman And Conyers Demand Administration Rescind Patriot Act “Signing Statement” (March 27, 2006)
Gary Hart
Rushing Towards a Constitutional Crisis (May, 2006)

Patrick Leahy, US Senator (D-Vt)
Leahy: President Strikes Again In PATRIOT Act Bill Signing Statement; Suggests He'll Pick And Choose Which Parts Of Law To Follow (March, 2006)
Edward Kennedy, US Senator (D-Mass)
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration (June 28, 2006)
United States Department of Justice
The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements: Memorandum for Bernard M. Nussbaum, Counsel to the President (Nov., 1993)
Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President (Jan., 2006)
NEW
William S. Sessions (comment in the San Antonio Express News) (Member of the ABA Task Force on Signing Statements)
Comment: Congress fails to rein in Bush (July 9, 2006)
NEW
Mickey Edwards (comment in The Nation) (Member of the ABA Task Force on Signing Statements)
Lawyers Challenge Bush (July 13, 2006)
The Erosion of American Constitutional Principle (July 18, 2006)
Phillip Cooper, Ph.D, Portland State University
George W. Bush, Edgar Allen Poe, and the Use and Abuse of Presidential Signing Statements (Sept., 2005)
Jack M. Balkin, Professor of Law, Yale University Law School
President Bush: "It's Not Law Unless I Say So (And Even If I Said So)" (May, 2006)
John Dean (at Findlaw.com)
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration (Jan., 2006)
Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers: His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11 (February 10, 2006)

Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
NEW
The problem with presidential signing statements (July 16, 2006)
Executive Signing Statements (June 16, 2006)


Jennifer Van Bergen
The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? (Jan., 2006)
Why the Bush Doctrine Violates the Constitution: The Unitary Executive (Jan., 2006)
Eric Alterman, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
Think Again: Signing the Constitution Away (May 3, 2006)
Law Review Articles
Tillman, A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Virginia Was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha Was Wrongly Reasoned, 83 Tex L. Rev. 1265 (April, 2005) © University of Texas Law Review, 2005 (reprinted here with permission of the author and the University of Texas Law Review)
Yoo, Calabresi, & Colangelo, The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2001, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 601 (2005)
Christopher Kelley, Ph.D., Political Scientist, University of Miami
A Comparative Look at the Constitutional Signing Statement: The Case of Bush and Clinton (April, 2003)
The Unitary Executive and The Presidential Signing Statement (Doctoral Dissertation, 2003)
Rethinking Presidential Power -- The Unitary Executive and the George W. Bush Presidency (April, 2005)
Boston Globe (Charlie Savage)
NEW
Scalia's dissent gives 'signing statements' more heft (July 15, 2006)
Hearing set on signing statements: Senate panel will probe rationale for Bush actions (June 22, 2006)
Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges (June, 2006)
Cheney aide is screening legislation: Adviser seeks to protect Bush power (May, 2006)
Hearing vowed on Bush's powers: Senator [Arlen Specter] questions bypassing of laws (May, 2006)
Examples of the president's signing statements (April, 2006)
Bush challenges hundreds of laws: President cites powers of his office (April, 2006)
Chicago Tribune
Senate panel accuses Bush of diluting laws (June 26, 2006)
Dallas Morning News
Bush not shy in asserting right to defy law (May, 2006)
Der Spiegel (Germany)
Eavesdropping on America (May, 2006)
Forbes (AP's Laurie Kellerman)
Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress (June 27, 2006)

Jurist (University of Pennsylvania Law School)
Specter presses Bush administration on domestic spying, signing statements (June 16, 2006)
Knight-Ridder
Bush using a little-noticed strategy to alter the balance of power (Jan., 2006)

Monsters and Critics -- UK
American Bar Association to look at Bush exceptions to law (June 4, 2006)
National Public Radio (audio reports)
Bush and the Presidential Signing Statement: Political Scientist Andy Rudalevige explores Presidential Signing Statements (Jan.8, 2006)
Expanding Executive Power Via Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)
Specter Challenges Presidential Signing Statements (June 28, 2006)

New York Times
Cheney Defends Eavesdropping Without Warrants (December 21, 2005)

New Yorker
The Hidden Power: The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror (July 3, 2006)
Cheney's Cheney (June 26, 2006)
Open Source, Chris Lydon (audio report)
Presidential Signing Statements (May, 2006)
NEW
PBS (Frontline)
Cheney In His Own Words: An overview of the vice president's views on presidential power and covert action that shows a remarkable consistency from the 1980s to today
San Francisco Chronicle
Feinstein accuses Bush of abusing presidential power 'Signing statements' usurp authority of Congress, she says (May, 2006)
U.S. News and World Report
Cheney's Guy: Barely known outside Washington's corridors of power, David Addington is the most powerful man you've never heard of (May, 2006)

Wall Street Journal
Court Pick Endorsed Theory of Far-Reaching Authority; Tenet of Bush White House (Jan., 2006)
Washington Post
A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed: Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries (Jan. 29, 2006)
Specter to grill officials on Bush ignoring laws (June 21, 2006)
Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power (Jan., 2006)
Andrew Cohen (Washington Post)
The Biggest Story You've Probably Missed (June 27, 2006)

Dahlia Lithwick, slate.com
Sign Here: Presidential signing statements are more than just executive branch lunacy (Jan., 2006)
Daily Kos
On Torture, ScAlito and Presidential Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)
My Direct Democracy, David Singer
Cheney's Office Behind Unprecedented Signing Statements (May, 2006)
The Federalist Society at Yale Law School
Presidential Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)

Jacob Weisberg, slate.com
The Power-Madness of King George: Is Bush turning America into an elective dictatorship? (Jan., 2006)

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15106725.htm http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12465 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/edwards http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072206A.shtml http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/aba-to-investigate-bush-signing.php http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/04/bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/ http://www.acsblog.org/separation-of-powers-2951-on-president-bushs-signing-statements.html http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015017.html http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-a-a-ajul11,0,4350989.story http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news060506.html http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060721/21signing.htm

07/24/2006 Jerry Earwood

The Ballad of Dumb George

1686381, The Ballad of Dumb George
Posted by WilliamPitt on Thu Jul-20-06 04:57 PM
Revised to get the pig thing in.

===

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.

- "The Ultimate Flame," author unknown

George W. Bush is a good man, word has it. He's plain-spoken, they say. A regular fella. A good guy to have a beer with, except he supposedly doesn't drink anymore.

I wish, more than anything, that he was drinking. I wish he was drinking all the time. I wish, oh how I wish, that he was stand-up-fall-down-ralphing-down-his-shirt loaded every minute of every day. It would be a comfort, simply because it would explain a great many things. Having a drunk for a President is, after all, a fixable situation. Put him to bed at Camp David for a few weeks and surround him with Secret Service agents. Let his body clean itself out. Problem solved, and really, would anyone actually notice his absence?

I don't believe Bush has gotten off the sauce, if truth be told. I know more than a few boozers who, like George, periodically show up with odd wounds on their faces they got from falling over or running into walls. The injuries that appear on George's mien from time to time can perhaps be explained away - maybe Dick Cheney is stalking the halls with a shotgun loaded with rock salt and blasting anyone, even the boss, who gets in his way - but if "George still drinks" was up on the big board at the MGM Grand sports book, I'd take the bet no matter what the oddsmakers had to say.

Having a drunk for a President is manageable. Having a stone bozo for a President, on the other hand, is a calamity of global proportions.

Let's take a walk through the last few days. George winged off to Russia for trade talks at the G-8 summit , and managed in the course of 100 hours to embarrass himself and our entire country. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is smarter than Bush by several orders of magnitude, insulted George in front of the international press corps with a tight quip about "democracy" in Iraq. No trade deal got done. The whole thing was a humiliating waste of time, captured best by all the photos of Bush and Putin together. In each and every one of them, Putin is looking at George with an expression that somehow conveyed disgust, disdain and awe simultaneously.

Putin's disgust and disdain are easily understood - the poor guy was trapped in a room with our knucklehead President for hours, after all - but the awe requires notice. What, Putin must have thought, is this fool doing running a country?

After that came the much-noted open-mike gaffe, during which George dropped an s-bomb while discussing the Middle East crisis with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The cussing doesn't trouble me - those who know say John F. Kennedy swore like a sailor whenever he talked shop - but the rest of the scene was like something out of a high school cafeteria. Bush sat there, talking with what looked like seventeen doughnuts stuffed into his gob, while poor Tony tried to discuss matters of life and death.

You have to listen to the audio to get a full grasp of what transpired. It wasn't just the dialogue. It was the tone in Blair's voice. He sounded, for all the world, like a teacher attempting to explain something to an exceptionally dull student. His tone suggested infinite patience and a touch of true sadness, as if he could not quite believe he was speaking this way to an American president.

"It takes him eight hours to fly home," said George at one point during the open-mike massacre. "Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China." He was, presumably, speaking to someone about Chinese President Hu Jintao's travel requirements, but really now. Huffington Post writer Cenk Uygur captured the unbelievable vapidity of the discourse.

"Russia's big and so is China?" exclaimed Uygur. "This guys sounds like a third grader. Do you know anyone who would have a conversation like this with their neighbor, let alone a business associate, let alone a world leader? Who's proud to know that Russia is big and so is China? If someone is this ignorant, they're usually embarrassed and try not to talk much. But this guy is so dumb he has no idea how dumb he is. This sounds like a conversation you might have with a child, a mentally challenged child. Johnny, do you know how big Russia is? How about China? This would all be unfortunate if George was your dentist, or worse yet, your accountant. But he is the leader of the free world. This man makes life or death decisions every day. If you say you're not scared about that, you're lying."

Then came the pig-roast thing. Newsday described it best: "As Israeli warplanes were preparing an attack on Lebanon Thursday afternoon, and a Lebanese militia was aiming a rocket at the ancient Israeli city of Safed, President George W. Bush was bantering with reporters in Germany about a pig. Bush kept bringing up the roast wild boar he was about to dine on at a banquet that night, even when asked about the swelling crisis in the Middle East, where pig meat is forbidden to religious Jews and Muslims. 'Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed?' a reporter asked. 'And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war?' 'I thought you were going to ask me about the pig,' Bush replied blithely. Then he brought the pig up again -- for the fifth time -- before giving a long answer that ended with his saying Israel needed to protect itself."

After this came the moment when George tried to give German Chancellor Angela Merkel a back massage while she was speaking to someone at the summit table. He sidled up behind her and just started rubbing. Merkel's reaction was instantaneous and dramatic: she flinched, flailed her arms up and basically waved the President of the United States away from her. Her reaction would have been no different if Bush had dropped a live catfish down the back of her shirt.

What's next? Will George go to the United Nations, sit on Kofi Annan's head, and fart like some bratty brother tormenting a sibling? Will the cameras catch him playing penny hockey during Mideast peace negotiations? You can't say it'll never happen. It reminds me of the scene from "Caddyshack" where the golfers are hiding in the bushes and betting on whether the Smails kid picks his nose. It is not to farfetched a concept to believe that the other G-8 leaders were doing something very similar while watching Bush.

There were, by my count, no less than twenty different moments in the last few days where George brought shame and disgrace upon this country. He did not do this by being too tough, or too soft, or too strident. He did this simply by being himself. His head is an echo chamber where very stupid bats roost. He has the intellect of a bag of rocks. Maybe it's impolite to say this, but it has to be said.

And yeah, Mr. Uygur, it is really, really scary. I wish the man was a drunk. I'd sleep better, and so would the world.


07/21/2006 KENNA /Jerry Earwood

Wife of Al-Jazeera Journalist Files Lawsuit Against Bush, Rumsfeld

http://www.arabnews.com/ http://www.arabnews.com/
The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily

Friday, 14, July, 2006 (18, Jumada al-Thani, 1427)



Wife of Al-Jazeera Journalist Files Lawsuit Against Bush, Rumsfeld
Barbara Ferguson, Arab News —

WASHINGTON, 14 July 2006 — Dima Tahboub, the widow of Tareq Ayyoub, has announced she is suing the White House and the Pentagon for $30,000,000 over her husband’s death. Ayyoub, a 35-year-old Palestinian who lived in Jordan, had traveled to Baghdad to report the war for Al-Jazeera five days before he was killed when US bombing shattered their bureau in Baghdad. His widow told reporters from her home in Jordan, that she was unable to comment on the lawsuit.
Hamdi Rifai — Tahboub’s lawyer — told Arab News in a phone interview yesterday that prior to the bombings in 2003, Al-Jazeera had provided the coordinates of their bureau in Baghdad to the US military “to ensure there would be no accidental bombing, particularly in light of the fact that the US allegedly accidentally bombed in Kabul, Afghanistan in 2001.” He said Al-Jazeera was aware “there was anti-Al-Jazeera rhetoric coming from the US Administration at that time.” Rifai said more facts “will be revealed as the case proceeds, demonstrating with clear and convincing evidence of the US Administration’s intent to bomb Al-Jazeera in Baghdad.”
Rifai also referred to ‘The Number 10 memo,” which he said showed the US Administration’s efforts to seal the content of that memo, and the discussions where Bush suggested the bombing of Al-Jazeera to Blair.” It is because of these facts, said Rifai that: “We proceeded with filing of the notice of claim, pursuant to the tort claims act, under US federal law, to enforce the Geneva Convention protocols for the protection of civilians within areas of armed conflict.”
Rifai said the Bush Administration — the lawsuit specifically names President George W. Bush as the Commander in Chief, and Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense — has six months to respond. “If they fail to respond, we will proceed with the filing of the lawsuit in the federal district court in Washington D.C.”
On April 8, 2003, US forces bombed the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera, killing Ayyoub. Moments later and less than a mile away, another explosion, reportedly from US artillery, damaged the offices of Abu Dhabi TV trapping as many as 30 journalists in the debris. A US tank then fired on the Palestine Hotel, where almost all the international journalists were staying. A Ukranian cameraman with the Reuters news agency Taras Protsyuk, and Jose Couso, who worked for Telecinco Spanish televison, were killed.
Pentagon officials adamantly maintain US military forces “absolutely did not” target the journalists. At the time, a US military spokeswoman denied the missile strike was intentional. “We did not target Al-Jazeera. We only target legitimate military targets,” said Maj. Rumi Nielson-Green at US forward headquarters in Qatar. Al-Jazeera accused the US military of deliberately targeting its offices and recalled that the station’s Kabul bureau had been hit in November 2001 during the US-led assault on Afghanistan.
Last November, in what is has become know as the “Downing Street Memo,” the Daily Mirror, a British newspaper, reported that President Bush had also wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Doha, Qatar. The memo allegedly reported that during a 2004 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush discussed the bombing. Blair allegedly talked him out of it.
The meeting between Bush and Blair occurred as US troops were engaged in brutal combat in Fallujah (west of Baghdad) — an offensive aired with all its gore by Al-Jazeera but mostly sanitized in the United States. Bush was reportedly outraged that Al-Jazeera was reporting the high number of Iraqi civilians killed in the assault.
The Bush Administration described the Daily Mirror’s report as “outlandish.” After refusing to comment on the story for close to a week, Blair called the Mirror report a “conspiracy theory.” Blair then responded to a parliamentary request whether he had any information on the Bush administration’s plans to bomb Al-Jazeera. Blair’s written response was one word: “None.” The British government then banned the British media from disclosing the memo’s contents. It also pressed charges against two former government officials for leaking classified government information.



07/18/2006 Jerry Earwood

SATURDAY BREAKFAST

SATURDAY BREAKFAST MEETINGS OF "THE DENTON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CLUB"
Please join our Democratic candidates for breakfast in a non-smoking venue. Please come and express your views on anything related to our party or current politics. All Democrats are welcome. Please contact me for a list of guest speakers or to schedule a guest speaker.
Please add the following Denton County Democratic Club dates to our website and your calendars:

We are reading TRUTH and DUTY by MARY MAPES.


July 22, 2006 8-10 AM
Highland Village Grill
2250 Justin Rd. Ste. 130
Highland Village, TX 75067
(972) 317-3390 Mgr. Judy

August 26, 2006 8-10 AM
The Golden Corral
4625 Hwy. 121
The Colony, TX 75056
(972) 668-7550 Mgr. James Gearhart

Democratically Yours,
Jerry Earwood
President - The Denton County Democratic Club
yellowdog@dentondemocrats.org
940-383-4431

07/18/2006 Jerry Earwood

Triumph of the Authoritarians

Triumph of the Authoritarians
By John W. Dean
The Boston Globe
Friday 14 July 2006
Contemporary conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest - none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical.
For more than 40 years I have considered myself a "Goldwater conservative," and am thoroughly familiar with the movement's canon. But I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon "imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.
What true conservative calls for packing the courts to politicize the federal judiciary to the degree that it is now possible to determine the outcome of cases by looking at the prior politics of judges? Where is the conservative precedent for the monocratic leadership style that conservative Republicans imposed on the US House when they took control in 1994, a style that seeks primarily to perfect fund-raising skills while outsourcing the writing of legislation to special interests and freezing Democrats out of the legislative process?
How can those who claim themselves conservatives seek to destroy the deliberative nature of the US Senate by eliminating its extended-debate tradition, which has been the institution's distinctive contribution to our democracy? Yet that is precisely what Republican Senate leaders want to do by eliminating the filibuster when dealing with executive business (namely judicial appointments).
Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in "conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.
Candid and knowledgeable Republicans on the far right concede - usually only when not speaking for attribution - that they are not truly conservative. They do not like to talk about why they behave as they do, or even to reflect on it. Nonetheless, their leaders admit they like being in charge, and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe. This is what I gleaned from discussions with countless conservative leaders and followers, over a decade of questioning.
I started my inquiry in the mid-1990s, after a series of conversations with Goldwater, whom I had known for more than 40 years. Goldwater was also mystified (when not miffed) by the direction of today's professed conservatives - their growing incivility, pugnacious attitudes, and arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their thinking. He worried that the Republican Party had sold its soul to Christian fundamentalists, whose divisive social values would polarize the nation. From those conversations, Goldwater and I planned to study why these people behave as they do, and to author a book laying out what we found. Sadly, the senator's declining health soon precluded his continuing on the project, so I put it on the shelf. But I kept digging until I found some answers, and here are my thoughts.
For almost half a century, social scientists have been exploring authoritarianism. We do not typically associate authoritarianism with our democracy, but as I discovered while examining decades of empirical research, we ignore some findings at our risk. Unfortunately, the social scientists who have studied these issues report their findings in monographs and professional journals written for their peers, not for general readers. With the help of a leading researcher and others, I waded into this massive body of work.
What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.
Authoritarianism's impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they've often been supplanted by authoritarians.
John W. Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, just published his seventh nonfiction book, Conservatives Without Conscience.

07/18/2006 Bob Huffaker / Jerry Earwood

US Congress District 24: Gary Page

US Congress District 24: Gary Page
by: John McClelland
Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 19:56:50 PM MDT
Hello again. More of the DFW perspective is here!
US Congressional District 24 has a rematch from 2004. Democratic candidate Gary Page is taking on incumbent Republican Kenny Marchant.
Below the fold you will find a recap of the race history and an interview with Gary Page. Watch the final chapter of the Marchant soap opera unfold. And find out why we have a district that slips along the county lines in the Metroplex!
John McClelland :: US Congress District 24: Gary Page

I think I wrote all I need to about the family connections of the Marchants on my previous candidate race profile about Amy Manuel. As a result of the Marchant's power in the Texas GOP, Kenny Marchant got to draw his own district.
Now if you are like me, snaking a district down 3 counties [Dallas, Tarrant and Denton (it is not Collin as the photo suggests)] and roughly 15 (give or take) suburban cities roughly equates to gerrymandering. But I suppose I am wrong. But, Rep. Marchant was part of the redistricting board that made these districts possible. He made sure to get his own.
Enough of Marchant, let us get to Gary Page's story. Enjoy the interview (answers in bold)!
What is your background?
I was born in San Antonio Texas into an Air Force family. I grew up
around military bases in San Antonio, Taiwan, Germany and Maryland
until my father retired in Central Texas. I went to the University of
Texas on a Navy scholarship, worked in a variety of trades until I got
a programming position. I moved around the United States on
programming contracts until I settled into a permanent job in Dallas.
What do you think the most important issue to run on is?
One party rule. I believe the Framers of the Constitution intended
that our democratic form of government would not represent the
"tyranny of the majority". Fifty percent plus one should not be a
mandate to promote an agenda over the objections of the minority. The
system of "checks and balances" and the principle of the separation of
powers were mechanisms to prevent "mob rule"
and protect the rights of the voting minority community. As the
ultimate minority is the individual voter, the Democratic Party needs
to maintain focus on civil rights, transparency and fairness in voting
systems, equal representation for all Americans in their pursuit of
happiness.
What do you think you can do to represent the views of the people in the
24th District?
By actually representing the people of District 24 over an established
ideology. The Republican party has a specific agenda and promotes
candidates supporting that agenda. Therefore, citizens are only
represented if they subscribe to the ideology. I run as a Democrat
because I support the principles and values of the Democratic Party.
If elected, I would be obligated to represent and provide access to
all of my constituents. My job as Congressman would be to faithfully
represent my district in accordance with the Constitution and protect
individual rights and privacy. Once in office, I need to accept the
reality that I am an American first and a Democrat second. I needed to
say this as I am sick and tired of partisanship replacing patriotism.
The needs of the country and the people should always outweigh
political posturing and pandering.
Why did you switch from the Green Party to the Democratic Party when you ran
in 2004?
I ran as a Green Party candidate in 2002 for the Congressional seat
vacated by Dick Armey. I received [virtually] no support for my
campaign and the Democrat ran to the right of the Republican. During
the campaign, many Democrats had expressed their wish that I was their
candidate due to my position on issues. Immediately following the
election, I contacted the local county Democrat party chair to ask
about their choice of candidate in the race. They had no choice; he
was the only one that showed up. I asked if they would have any
problem with me as their next potential candidate. No. From that
point, I began working with the local Democrat party to rebuild for
the next election. While I had shared values with the Green Party,
their ability to be a force for change was compromised by their
inability to consolidate any political force through building voting
blocs and coalitions. I have disagreements with some Democratic
policies (namely campaign financing and targeted races), but still
agree with the majority of the Democrats platform. In reality, the
Democrat Party is the only political force capable of reinstalling
checks and balances, restoring true democracy and minimizing the
threat of one party rule. I want to see change in my lifetime and the
Democrats are in the best position to make this happen.
You received 34% of the vote in the 2004 loss to Marchant (who had 64%).
What do you think it will take to turn that around and win in 2006?
Get out the voters who didn't show up in 2004. Democrats had a problem
getting out their vote, even though it was a Presidential election
year. Many Democrats felt that their vote for President wouldn't
matter in Texas, so they didn't turn out. Candidates need to finda way
to motivate these voters. With the "Culture of Corruption" and the
current state of the polls in regard to incumbents, voters will either
be turned-off or motivated for change. Candidates with strong
positions on minimum wage, health care, civil and voting rights may
prompt some of these voters to get involved. These messages can only
be conveyed in person
for full effect, so my presence in public settings will be necessary.
Also, the Hispanic community is becoming a political force and needs
to be seriously considered.
Marchant has given money to the DeLay defense fund and has received money in
2004 from TRMPAC. Will you use the Tom DeLay connection against Marchant?
People are so tired of negative campaigning. I really don't want to
use my opponent's name as I feel it gives him presence and publicity
in my campaign. He will be defending himself against policy
differences and his record, not against Gary Page, Democratic
candidate. It does not make sense for me to provide another venue for
his talking points. I want to directly address the issue of campaign
finance corruption and indirectly associate him through TRMPAC and the
other Republican based Leadership PAC's. In addition to campaign
finance reform, I want to concentrate on lobbyist reform and minimize
the influence of lobbyists on legislation through large campaign
contributions. I want to promote my version of campaign finance
reform: A candidate can only receive money from a person who can vote
for them. PAC's would be limited to issues and voter
education/turnout. This one rule would minimize the corrosive
influence of money on our democracy and return more authority and
influence to the American voter.
Do you think Marchant's support of all things "George W Bush" will help or
hinder him this time around?
"Proven leader for George W. Bush" may not help him much this year.
But, the fact that he is running in his own custom-built Congressional
seat may not give him any cause for concern. Once again, I don't want
to run against the people but against the policies. Most of the
Republicans are just rubber-stamps for their ideological agenda. I
want to stay focused on that one issue as it reflects a style of
governance (majority rule) that many people do not support.
A lot of people have asked you: Why are you running in such a strong Republican district that you "can't win"?
First, any district is winnable as long as there is more than one
candidate on the ballot. All of the rhetoric, letter writing,
speech-making, message-building ... is completely meaningless without
candidates for the people to vote for. The ballot is the ultimate
reality check. When the Democrat Party does not run candidates on the
ballot and contest races, voters get disgusted and apathetic to the
voting process. Democracy is all about having a choice on the ballot.
By their votes, the people can define the American culture to
ourselves and the world. The Texas Republican platform has defined the
conservative view of the future of our country. My vision and desire
is to return our country back to a community of diverse individuals
with a common set of shared values and goals. I want a country that
believes in: health care for all; an education system that allows
anybody to reach their potential; an energy policy which transforms
the fossil fuel paradigm with conservation and renewable energy
production; an environmental policy which focuses on the renewal of
our air and water supply; a business policy which treats capital and
laborequally; and a government which is our partner in creating this
model of America.


07/18/2006 Jerry Earwood

Trans Texas Corridor Meeting in Denton

DentonDemocrats] Trans Texas Corridor Meeting in Denton
Tuesday night I attended the Denton meeting concerning the Trans Texas
Corridor to hand out fliers by Hank Gilbert, candidate for Agriculture
Commissioner, opposing the toll road, and calendar cards for Fred Head,
candidate for Comptroller. There was an important message for
Democrats
to learn from that meeting: the Republicans are just as angry about
the
road as the Democrats. (Gilbert was at a similar meeting 35 miles away
in Decatur.)

Much of the testimony here was given by some of the most influential
Republicans in Denton County, and all of it was negative. County
Commissioner Cynthia White is the incoming Chair for the NT Regional
Transportation Council, a group of elected officials from throughout
the
area who studied in depth how transportation in the area can be
improved.
Their alignment for recommended roads is much like the current I35E
and
I35W, only further to the east and west; she urged this route be
adopted.


She was followed by County Judge Mary Horn, who said that the North
Texas
Council of Governments also supports the NT RTC route, which saves
sixty
miles of freeway from being built since the TxDoT route goes so far to
the east. [This would, of course, save drivers 120 miles on a round
trip.] Horn pointed out that Carole Strayhorn, who was the first
speaker and gave a rip-roaring speech against the TTC, in her 2001
Performance Review of TxDOT said they should build more toll roads and
use more private companies to build and operate them.

Later, Charles Emery, an TRC member from Lewisville, expressed his
concerns about the route. Jack Miller, former Denton Mayor, repeated
that the TRC plan was well thought out and that governmental bodies
should work together on planning; their recommendations should be taken
"very seriusly." Several of these speakers, and Brian Mitchell?
Bishel?
suggested we instead upgrade I35 and other current roads. As plans
stand, there will be very few exits or cross-overs, thus cutting off
access from area cities, some of which may be split apart. Paying toll
to cross on these overpasses has even been suggested. This will ruin
the
farms the TxDoT route goes through; it will also cause serious problems
for volunteer fire departments and similar entities.

John Paul Eddy, UNT Professor Emeritus and former member of Denton
County's Transportaion Committee, pointed out that we need more limited
access highways and more rail lines, "but it must be done with a Texas
approach, not a foreign approach." He wants no outsourcing; Texas
should get the money. In addition, the environmental and agricultural
impact of the TTC is unknown.

Tom Collins, with the Christian Network, went so far as to point out
that
Spain was fascist in the past and this is an example of industrial and
military interests conducting public policy as in fascism. The
hearings
don't ask "if or when, but where we should place this plan." Going
even
further, John Campbell referred to a March 23, 2000, meeting in Waco of
Bush, Fox of Mexico, and Martin of Canada which a web site,
www.humaneventsonline.com, refers to as "fundamentlly an agreement to
erase our borders with Mexico and Canada," and "to establish a North
American Union" by 2010 without Congressional assent. Richard
Wilkinson
of Ponder pointed out that we helped bring on very low prices for crops
in Mexico, causing the U.S. to be flooded by Mexican workers. This
will
cause them to flood communities along the road even more.

Kevin James, who spent 16 years with the Environmental Health Agency,
urged everyone to find a copy of the "Executive Summary" leading to the
recommendations. Among items not evaluated, says the Summary, are "air
quality, river basins, land values, wet lands, wild life . . ." since
these cannot be easily quantified. On p.43 the interim effects of
"degradation of surface and subsurface waters" are said not to be
evaluated. His own summary: "Not an environmental impact study; this
is
a traffic study." James has begun growing wine grapes in Cooke County,
one of four counties (including also Montague, Fannin and Grayson)
designated by the Agriculture Dept. as uniquely suited to viniculture.
He pointed out the area includes some of the last stands of post oaks
from the Eastern Cross Timers--and we're "going to put a drag strip
through it?" And what is Oklahoma doing about extending the road?
Anything?

Other good points were made by Steve Stone, a Denton Real Estate
broker,
who "loves development" but believes this is "being driven down our
throats" and we will lose too much tax base; Chlo Stern, who also
desires a Texas contractor and believes that the "Lord gave us the land
to be used, not abused;" and Richard Muir of Sanger, who will lose old
family land on either the eastern (preferred) or western route and
fears
the payment for it after having lost some land to Lake Ray Roberts.

Shirley Spellerberg of Corinth, a power in the local Republican Party,
served on the Republican Platform Committee. They were very opposed
and
urged repeal of HB3588, since the road will cost $180 billion, remove
146
acres per mile of the richest farmland in the state (584,000 acres
total)
from the tax base, put the government-seized property in competition
with
private business, and increase pollution. The 200' utility zone,
carrying essential services such as telephone, electricity, cable, gas
pipes, etc., will become a "prime target for terrorists."

Chris Bell has put out two excellent statements on the topic, available
at and
. We must
publicize his views, but we must also enlist the support of
Republicans.
In Gainesville the night before more people were turned away than the
allowed seating of 455 persons, and there will be another meeting there
Friday night for those who couldn't get in the first time. Hank
Gilbert
told me of the long-time Republican Precinct Chair there who says he
will
do a fund-raiser for Gilbert and vote for him--anything to fight the
Trans Texas Corridor.

Edra Bogle, Denton

07/18/2006 Jerry Earwood

Camp Casey in Crawford

Camp Casey in Crawford
Monday, August 14 - Saturday, September 2
Join Cindy Sheehan, Gold Star Families for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, the Crawford Peace House and hundreds of other beautiful people of conscience as they set up camp outside of President Bush's ranch this summer to demand an end to the war on Iraq. Volunteers will be needed every weekend between now and August 14 to prepare for camp -- call the Crawford Peace House at 254-652-0090 or 254-486-0099 to volunteer.
Plain Text Attachment
--------- OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS --------

The Peace Action Denton Steering Committee has begun planning for the
2006 Peace-In, and we would like to hear ideas for workshops and
speakers. What peace and justice issues are you interested in learning more
about? Let us know by sending an email to peaceactiondenton@gmail.com

We look forward to hearing your ideas.

--------------------------------------

Peace Action Denton has copies of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
and Loose Change 2nd Edition available for a small donation of $5.00.
For more details, please see our website or contact
peaceactiondenton@gmail.com

--------------------------------------

Please visit our website for news and updates about your local Denton
peace movement!

http://www.peaceactiondenton.org

07/18/2006 Jerry Earwood

Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP

Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP, DeLay, Cornyn, and warns of the "beginnings" of dictatorship
Retired Supreme Court Justice hits attacks on courts and warns of dictatorship
RAW STORYPublished: March 10, 2006
Top of Form 1
Bottom of Form 1
Print This Email This
Via NPR. Rush transcript by RAW STORY. Listen to the audio report here.
Supreme Court justices keep many opinions private but Sandra Day O’Connor no longer faces that obligation. Yesterday, the retired justice criticized Republicans who criticized the courts. She said they challenge the independence of judges and the freedoms of all Americans. O’Connor’s speech at Georgetown University was not available for broadcast but NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg was there.
Nina Totenberg: In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O’Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. O’Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents or the Congress or governors, as she put it “really, really angry.” But, she continued, if we don’t make them mad some of the time we probably aren’t doing our jobs as judges, and our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won’t be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation’s founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, said O’Connor, as the founding fathers knew statutes and constitutions don’t protect judicial independence, people do.
Advertisementhttp://a.tribalfusion.com/i.click?site=RawStory&adSpace=Blogs&size=336x280&requestID=934616366
And then she took aim at former House GOP leader Tom DeLay. She didn’t name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case. This, said O’Connor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress’ onetime only statute about Schiavo as it was written. Not, said O’Connor, as the congressman might have wished it were written. This response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint, said O’Connor, her voice dripping with sarcasm, was that the congressman blasted the courts.
It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn’t help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didn’t name him, but it was Texas senator John Cornyn who made that statement, after a Georgia judge was murdered in the courtroom and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge’s home. O’Connor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms, recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges, stripping the courts of jurisdiction and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decisions that political leaders disagree with.
I, said O’Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Posted by:
Jerry Earwood
07/12/2006

Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address

Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address - WikisourceDemocratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union AddressFrom WikisourceRevision as of 09:21, 1 February 2006; view current revision←Older revision Newer revision→Jump to: navigation, search Democratic Response to the Sixth State of the Union Address by Timothy M. Kaine This is the text of Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine's speech in response to the sixth State of the Union speech, as it was prepared.

My fellow Americans, good evening:I'm Tim Kaine, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's an honor to give the Democratic response to President Bush on behalf of my Commonwealth, my fellow Democratic governors and the Democratic Party.I worked as a missionary in Honduras when I was a young man and I learned to measure my life by the difference I can make in someone else's life. Coretta Scott King embodied that value and tonight, as a nation, we mourn her passing. Our faith and values teach us that there is no higher calling than serving others.The federal government should serve the American people. But that mission is frustrated by this Administration's poor choices and bad management. Families in the Gulf Coast see that as they wait to rebuild their lives. Americans who lose their jobs see that as they look to rebuild their careers. And our soldiers in Iraq see that as they try to rebuild a nation.As Americans, we do great things when we work together. Some of our leaders in Washington seem to have forgotten that.I want to offer some good news tonight-there is a better way.In Virginia - and other states - we're moving ahead by focusing on service, competent management and results. It's all aboutbringing people together to find common sense solutions toour commonproblems. That's how Virginia earned the ranking of America's "Best Managed State."No matter what political philosophy you hold, or what state you call home, you have a right to expect that your government can deliver results. When there's a crime or fire, you expect that police and firefighters have the tools to respond. When there's a natural disaster, you expect a well-managed response. When you send your children to school, you expect them to be prepared for success. And, you have a right to expect government to be fiscally responsible, pay the bills and live within its means.Tonight, we heard the President again call to make his tax policies permanent, despite his Administration's failure to manage our staggering national debt. Over the past five years, we've gone from huge surpluses to massive deficits. No parent makes their child pay the mortgage. Why should we allow this Administration to pass down the bill for its reckless spending to our children and grandchildren?There's a better way. Two years ago in Virginia, Democrats and Republicans worked together to reform our budget. By focusing on results, we were able to keep the budget balanced, preserve Virginia's strong credit rating, and protect the essential services families rely on: education, health care and law enforcement. States all across this country are doing the same thing, as the federal government falls further and further into debt.Think about what's occurring in education. The Administration's No Child Left Behind Act is wreaking havoc on local school districts across the nation. Despite the insistence of Democrats in Congress that this program should be funded as promised, the Administration has opposed that funding and is refusing to let states try innovative alternatives. Now, the Republican leadership in Washingtonis cutting billionsof dollars from the student loan programs that serve working families, helping get their children to college.There's a better way. Last year, governors from across the country worked together in a bipartisan fashion to reform the last year of high school, making it serve our students better. Many states are working to make high quality Pre-Kindergarten accessible to every family.Congressional Democrats have a plan to educate 100,000 new engineers, scientist and mathematicians in the next four years. In Virginia, Democrats and Republicansworked together to make record investments in education. The results: more accredited schools and better student test scores.Look at what's happening in health care. Skyrocketing costs are hurting small businesses and pushingmillions of working Americans into the ranks of the uninsured. The White House has made efforts to cut Medicaid funds for our most vulnerable citizens. Seniors were promised that the new federal Medicare drug plan would make it easier and cheaper to obtain their medication. Instead, many are falling victim to the program's poor planning. They find getting their medicine to be more complex, more expensive, and less reliable.There's a better way. Health care reforms must focus on making the system serve consumers better. Many states, following the lead of Illinois, have set up simple ways to help our seniors purchase safe, American-made prescription drugs from other countries at a fraction of the price they would pay here. The Administration actually fought against thatDemocraticeffort! In Virginia, we have worked to provide health insurance coverage for nearly 140,000 children who weren't covered four years ago. And Republicans and Democrats alike have banded together to fight the Administration's efforts to slash Medicaid and push more costs on to the states.The President called again tonight for our commitment to win the war on terror and to support our troops. All Americansembrace those goals. We can, and we must, defeat those who attack and kill innocent people. While the images of the World Trade Center are seared in the minds of all Americans, so too are the memories of those who died on sacred ground in Virginia in the attack on the Pentagon. Our commitment to winning the war on terrorism compels us to ask this question: Are the President's policies the best way to win this war?We now know that the American people were given inaccurate information about the reasons for invading Iraq. We now know that our troops in Iraq were not given the best body armor or the best intelligence. We now know that the Administration wants to cut tens of thousands of troops from the Army Reserves and National Guardat the very time America is facing new and dangerous threats. And we now knowthe Administration wants to further reduce military and veterans' benefits.There's a better way. Working together, we must give our troops the tools they need to win the war on terror. We can do it without sacrificing the liberty we have sent our troops abroad to defend. Our support has to begin at home. That's why we in Virginia - Democrats working with Republicans - have reformed and enhanced our Department of Veterans Services to help our veterans and their family members access the benefits that they have earned. And, we are working to provide state re-enlistment bonuses to honor Virginians who stay in service to Commonwealth and Country.When it comes to energy, Americans are using more than ever, paying more for it, and are more dependent on the Middle East than ever before.There's a better way. Last summer, I joined Democrats in Washington and in other states in calling on oil companies to share in our sacrifice and return some of their record-breaking excess profits.Democrats at both the state and national levels are leading the way on energy reforms, calling for greater public investmentsforalternative, advanced energy technologies. These investments will promote energy independence, boost our nation's economy, create jobs, and strengthennational security.The failure of the federal government to implement and enforce a rational immigration policy has resulted in a confusing patchwork of state and local efforts. We should welcome those who seek to lawfully join and contribute to our American family. At the same time, we must ensure that our homeland defense efforts begin with consistent federal action to protect our borders.The Administration is falling behindin other critical areas;preserving our environment, keeping our workplaces safe, protecting family farms, keeping jobs in America. Our communities are left to deal with the challenges and consequences of those failures without a reliable federal partner. But, we manage to find a better way.The better wayis to focus on service. It's about measuring what we do in terms of real results for real people. It's not about partisanship or political spin. It's about protecting the rights endowed by our Creator;fulfilling the principle of equality set out in our Declaration of Independence; ensuring that the light of liberty shines on every American.If we want to replace the divisionthat grips our nation's capital, we need a change. Democrats are leading that reform effort, working to restore honesty and openness to our government, working to replace a culture of partisanship and cronyism with an ethic of service and results.Our greatest need is for America to heal its partisan wounds and become one people. You know, those are the words Thomas Jefferson wrote after being elected President. They ring as true today as they did in 1800. Tonight we pray, earnestly and humbly, for that healing, and for the day whenservice returns again as the better way to a new national politics.We ask all Americans to join us in that effort.Together, America can do better.Thank you for listening and God Bless the United States of America.Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democratic_Response_to_George_W._Bush%27s_Sixth_State_of_the_Union_Address"ViewsArticle Discussion Edit History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation Main Page Community portal Scriptorium Recent changes Random page Help Donations Search Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link
Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License. Privacy policy About Wikisource Disclaimers

posted by:
Jerry Earwood
07/12/2006

DAVID ADDINGTON aka Cheneys Cheney

Cheney’s Cheney
Issue of 2006-07-03Posted 2006-06-26
BLAKE ESKIN: Most people have never heard of David Addington. Why is he important enough to be the subject of such an in-depth piece?

JANE MAYER: Addington has been the single most influential legal thinker, according to other Administration lawyers, in shaping the Bush Administration’s legal response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He has left almost no paper trail, and has avoided all public scrutiny—as far as I know, he’s granted no interviews to reporters, and he even avoids having his photo taken by the press. It seemed important to me to hold the creator of these policies accountable, so that the public could understand better who is behind them and how he thinks.
How did David Addington get to know Vice-President Cheney, and how long have they worked together?
They met on Capitol Hill in the mid-eighties, when Cheney was a Republican congressman from Wyoming and Addington was a young staff lawyer working for the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. So they have worked together for about two decades. Their partnership was cemented when they worked together on the Minority Report on the Iran-Contra affair. Both Addington and Cheney took the idiosyncratic position that it was Congress, not President Reagan, that was in the wrong. This view reflected the opinion, held by both men, that the executive branch should run foreign policy, to a great extent unimpeded by Congress. It’s a recurring theme—pushing the limits of executive power and sidestepping Congress—in their partnership. One example is their position that the President, as Commander-in-Chief in times of war, had the inherent authority to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in an effort to make sure that Presidents don’t violate citizens’ right to privacy by spying on them without warrants.
After meeting and working together in Congress, Cheney and Addington continued their partnership at the Pentagon, where, during the Presidency of George H. W. Bush, Cheney was Secretary of Defense and Addington was his special assistant and, later, general counsel. There, Addington was known as a powerhouse, a stickler who controlled access to Cheney and marked up others’ memos in red felt-tipped pen, returning the memos for rewrites that would make them sharper—and more protective of executive power.
At the Pentagon, the two exhibited a similar pessimism about world affairs, in particular about the possibility that Mikhail Gorbachev represented true change, and also an unusually deep interest in “continuity of government” planning—how the government survives in the event of a doomsday attack. Addington kept the constitutional provisions for Presidential succession in his pocket at all times, a colleague told me.
Yet you write that some people—including some conservative Republicans—question whether Addington really respects the Constitution.
Some constitutional scholars have questioned whether Addington, in his eagerness to expand the powers of the Presidency, which he and Cheney see as having been unduly diminished since Watergate, gives enough weight to the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Some have suggested that he has aggrandized the powers of the President in such a way that the executive branch ignores the system of checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers, so that its actions are unchecked and unaccountable. Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, told me that he regards Addington as an adequate lawyer but an inadequate student of American history, because he believes that Addington has failed to understand that the Founders designed the U.S. government specifically to insure that the executive would not have unlimited power. Fein suggests that the Founders, unlike Addington, understood the perils of concentrated power. They had seen in George III, among others, what tyranny meant.
What is the New Paradigm?
It’s a shorthand term that comes from a memo signed by Alberto Gonzales but believed to have been written in part by Addington, in which the authors articulated that the attacks of 9/11 required a legal response beyond the confines of ordinary criminal law and ordinary military law. Instead, they said, a “new paradigm” was called for, allowing the government to emphasize detection and prevention of crime, at the expense of more traditional notions of due process. Their aim was to stop terrorist attacks before they were perpetrated. To do so, they felt they needed to interrogate, detain, and try terrorist suspects in ways that would not be permissible under U.S. or international law. The New Paradigm has come to refer to all of the novel legal policies that the Bush Administration has forged in its approach to the global war on terrorism.
Following the September 11th attacks, the Bush Administration released memos asserting the President’s right to decide, among other things, how to wage war and treat prisoners. How much of this came from Addington?
Some lawyers in the Administration believe that, as one told me, “It’s all Addington.” While Addington, of course, could not have written every memo, his “fingerprints,” as Lawrence Wilkerson, the former assistant to Colin Powell, put it, were all over these policies.
Addington was merely the legal counsel to the Vice-President until last fall, so it is curious that he exercised so much influence. But, according to other lawyers who deal with national-security issues in the Administration, Addington exercised enormous influence in part because he was seen as Cheney’s representative, and Cheney was the epicenter of power on these matters.
Addington also had a forceful, aggressive, and, some say, bullying style that allowed him to dominate legal debates. In interviews, other lawyers told me how he dismissed their views, mocked their softness if they championed international law, and worked secretively and, one of them said, viciously, to outmaneuver critics.
Another reason Addington gained so much influence after 9/11 was that, unlike many other top Administration officials, he was not only a lawyer but also an expert on national-security law.
You argue that the September 11th attacks did not change Cheney and Addington’s expansive views of the power of the executive branch so much as allow them to implement their long-held views. What led you to this conclusion?
At least fifty sources were interviewed for this story. And those who knew Cheney and Addington during the Vietnam War and Watergate told me that, ever since then, both men have wanted to correct what they saw as a weakening of the Presidency. Cheney has participated in the writing of two reports reflecting this view, and he talked about it in a recent press conference. In many ways, 9/11 gave Addington and Cheney the chance to implement their views on the need for a stronger Presidency, since in times of war the President’s powers are greatly augmented.
Other Presidents have taken extraordinary legal measures during wartime—the suspension of habeas corpus under Lincoln, the internment of Japanese-Americans under F.D.R. Is there anything different about the Bush Administration’s assertion of executive power?
All Presidents, it is said, overreach during wartime, but, according to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., whom I had the pleasure of interviewing for my article, the Bush White House has done this differently. While earlier Presidents have, as you say, suspended ordinary laws, he suggests that earlier Presidents did not assert that this was their inherent constitutional right. In contrast, Schlesinger says, the Bush White House has taken these infamous aberrations and woven them together into a doctrine of Presidential power.
Last week, the U.S. Army recovered the bodies of two American soldiers who had been tortured. How does the Administration’s position on torture affect its ability to respond to such brutality?
Torture and abuse are perennial problems in all wars, but one could argue that, because the Bush Administration has blurred the lines concerning what sort of treatment of captured enemies is permissible, they have forfeited some of the moral high ground that the country could ordinarily occupy on this issue. It’s harder to condemn the outrageous treatment of our soldiers now that we are accused of treating detainees deplorably.
David Addington doesn’t speak to reporters, and he refused your interview requests. After speaking to many people about Addington, what would you like to ask him now?
I’d like to ask him whether, in his view, there is anything that the President cannot legally do in the service of national security. Bruce Fein, the Republican legal activist, suggests that, in Addington’s view, the President could kill someone in a public park if he deemed the person to be an enemy combatant. I’d like to hear Addington’s thinking about why such an extreme view might be justified, and also why it is that, according to colleagues, he sees no political downside to these extreme views. For instance, he has repeatedly argued that there have been no political costs associated with Guantánamo Bay. Yet even President Bush has acknowledged that the Defense Department’s camps there have hurt the image of the U.S. abroad. It would be interesting to hear why Addington doesn’t agree with the President on this.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?060703on_onlineonly01 http://www.newyorker.com/printables/online/060703on_onlineonly01 http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=david+addington&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501902_pf.html


posted by :
Jerry Earwood
07/12/2006