Vichy Democrats

Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC
CQ Politics

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

Harman declined to discuss the wiretap allegations, instead issuing an angry denial through a spokesman.

If they are not true, then why issue a denial through a spokesman? This is all going to come out Jane, and your collusion with criminals will be punished, probably not in court, but certainly at the ballot box. You had one out, you could have claimed blackmail, but now you have nailed your colors to the mast and will have to stick by this lie.

I am WAY to cynical to think that the Obama Justice Department, er, I mean the Obama "Retribution Department" will prosecute Harman, Israeli lobbyists, or Gonzalez.

This explains so much about Harman, one of Bush's most reliable supporters.

Nelson Backing Off Proposed Stimulus Cuts
Huffington Post

Sen. Ben Nelson, a centrist Democrat from Nebraska, is backing off of cuts he recently proposed to the economic stimulus package.

"Centrist Democrat" = "Republican Collaborator"

A House Republican aide provided the Huffington Post with a copy104 of Nelson's proposed cuts. The draft calls for billions in funding cuts for education, law enforcement and aid to states, among other suggestions. The cuts total nearly $80 billion

Nelson's draft is a window into the thinking of moderate and centrist Democrats. It would cut $5.185 billion dedicated to wellness and health care prevention; $15 billion from education, including cuts to Head Start; $150 million from the Violence Against Women Act; $50 million from the Victims of Crime Act; $100 million dedicated to upgrading law-enforcement wireless communications; one billion from energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and $4.5 billion from a loan guarantee program to encourage use of greater energy-efficiency technology.

Totally from the GOP's playbook. Nelson needs to decide once and for all who's side he is on, and it sure as Hell isn't the voters.

Democrats to seat Burris?
Politico.com

Democratic aides are disputing reports that there is a deal to seat Roland Burris, even as Burris sits behind closed doors negotiating with Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin.

The Associated Press reported a deal had been made, but two Senate Democratic aides, in interviews with Politico are disputing the report that there has been a deal. The report is "wrong," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. In a press conference this morning, President-elect Barack Obama declined to take a position on whether to seat Burris. Burris himself is planning two more press conferences today – one at the Hyatt on Capitol Hill and one back in Chicago after he flies home to testify in the impeachment proceedings against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Who do we believe? AP or the man who has capitulated on every single issue of importance in the last 4 years?

Stay tuned!

Panetta Is Chosen as C.I.A. Chief, in a Surprise Step
New York Times

Leon E. Panetta, a former congressman and White House chief of staff, has been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to head the Central Intelligence Agency. The choice, disclosed Monday by Democratic officials, immediately revealed divisions in the party as two senior lawmakers questioned why Mr. Obama would nominate a candidate with limited experience in intelligence matters.

He was nominated as the only person with no blood on his hands in Washington intelligence circles.

Among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the choice was Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ms. Feinstein, who would oversee any confirmation hearing for Mr. Panetta, issued a statement that signaled clear disapproval and said she had not been notified about the choice.

“My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she said.

And by "professional" she means criminal thug who will continue torturing people. DiFi is a torture apologist, enabler, and advocate.

A second top Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the departing chairman of the Intelligence Committee, shares Ms. Feinstein’s concerns, Democratic Congressional aides said.

And this is her co-conspirator on the issue.

The fact that both of these freaks are pissed at the appointment bodes well for law and human dignity. I hope Obama doesn't back down and this is his way of telling the Freak Twins that their sick way of thinking is now out of fashion.

Democrats let Lieberman keep key chairmanship
Boston Globe

Senator Joe Lieberman, who angered many Democrats by publicly and enthusiastically backing Republican John McCain for president, kept his committee chairmanship yesterday after Senate Democrats declared that punishment was less important than unity.

They voted 42 to 13 by secret ballot that Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, should not be stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security panel, but they condemned statements he made during the campaign criticizing President-elect Barack Obama.

"This was not a time for retribution; it was a time for moving forward on the problems of this country," Senate majority leader Harry Reid told reporters, adding, "We need to be unified."

Unified in capitulation, that's our Democrats. Jane Hamisher gets the quote of the day with her take on this decision to forgive Judas Joe:

I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world.

No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.

Agreed. I had refrained from commenting on this before the vote since their were so many stories floating around. I had started to feel optimistic after the election that indeed, things would begin to change. With the Dems enlarging their majorities and winning the White House, surely now, they would start setting things right and cleaning house. Joe Lieberman was their first test and they failed miserably.

The proper response to Judas Joe's threat to join the Republicans was thirty pieces of silver and a copy of Noose Tying for Dummies. Instead, 42 senators lined up on their knees to kiss Joe's ass and beg him to stay.

Disgusting.

Folks, this is what we have to look forward to. Four more years of the Democrats giving the Right everything it wants. Four years of excuses about why we are not going to prosecute war crimes, blatant violations of the Constitution and base corruption. Here are the excuses you will hear in no particular order:

1) We have more important issues to address and we can't be distracted from them by holding investigations or senate hearings.

2) We can't appear to be vindictive.

3) We don't have the votes (which will be true when Judas Joe and his cronies like Evan Bayh will help the Republicans block Obama's judicial appointments.

One thing you will be able to count on is that the Republicans will obstruct every step of the way, and that Harry Reid or whatever other spineless coward takes his place will capitulate at every step, ever the epitome of senate collegiality.

Lieberman fears for country if Senate Dems get to 60
The Hill

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he fears that America will be hurt if Democrats achieve a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate as a result of the elections.

Lieberman, who was Al Gore’s running mate on the 2000 Democratic ticket and sought the party’s nomination four years later, became an Independent after losing in the 2006 Connecticut primary. He still caucused with Democrats in the 110th Congress and gave his old party a slim majority in the Senate. However, the rift between Lieberman and his colleagues widened when he not only endorsed Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), but also repeatedly slammed Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

His remarks Tuesday could further damage his relationship with his former party. The Democratic base is already calling for him to be stripped of his chairmanship. However, it could also be an indication that Lieberman could deny his former party the 60-seats it seeks.

Lieberman was asked on the Glenn Beck radio show whether he agreed with GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) that “if we don’t at least have the firewall of the filibuster in the Senate, that in many ways America will not survive.”

Judas Joe goes on a virulent hate-mongers radio show and trashes his former party.

What Joe is telling the Democratic leadership is that he will side with the Republicans in order to thwart the party.

Hey Joe, I hear Israel is much warmer than Connecticut.

While talking to Don Imus, JohnnyMac expounds on past VP candidates:

John McCain called out fellow Republicans who have questioned running mate Sarah Palin’s credentials Tuesday.

“What’s their problem?” McCain asked during an interview with radio host Don Imus.

“She is a governor, the most popular governor in America,” McCain said. “I think she is the most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president.”

OK, let's analyze this to be sure of what is being said:

“I think she is the most qualified of any..."

"Any" certainly means at least two.

"that has run recently for vice president.”

"Has run" is past tense, so he is not talking about Biden and Edwards, he is at least talking about Edwards and Holy Joe Lieberman.

Of course being the sycophantic ass-kisser Lieberman is these days, he'll agree with his man-crush.

By the way, why is McCain talking to racist, anti-Semite, misogynist Don Imus?

Pelosi indicates openness to offshore drilling vote
The Hill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday night dropped her staunch opposition to a vote on offshore oil drilling in the House.

Republicans, reacting to high gas prices, have demanded a vote on additional oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf, where drilling is currently blocked by a moratorium. Until now, Pelosi (D-Calif.) has resisted the idea as a “hoax.” But in an interview on CNN’s Larry King Live, she indicated that she was open to a vote.

“They have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas,” Pelosi said. “We can do that. We can have a vote on that.”

She indicated such a vote would have to be part of a larger package that included other policies, like releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which she said could bring down prices in a matter of days.

No, no, no, no.... Stop playing the GOP's game. Stop helping the enemy. You are not compromising, you are selling us out, and you are selling us dirt cheap.

If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story

Nancy Pelosi
7/28/08

Apparently, war crimes, torture, accessory to murder, obstruction of justice, felony violation of FISA, perjury, corruption, and willful violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments are not crimes in Pelosi's eyes.

If these are not crimes, perhaps Ms. Pelosi could inform me what constitutes a crime in her opinion? People were hanged at Nuremberg for many of the crimes Bush and his cronies have committed.

Give her a buzz at 202-225-0100. Perhaps you can offer to lend her some Perry Mason DVDs.

Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill
Associated Press

Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

We have now moved from a de facto police state, to a de jure police state.

Obama, now that he has the nomination, felt it safe to betray us in order to show his loyalty to corporate America and to pander to the imaginary Bush supporters who he thinks will vote for him.

Other Democratic traitors who chose to nullify the 4th Amendment:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

The Republic is no more.

Lieberman on Abc's This Week, via Think Progress:

That’s up to Israel obviously, but I would say that obviously Israel is first in the line of Iranian fire. And it represents an existential threat to Israel. But you know who is next? The Arab countries in the Middle East and they’re worried about the Iranian program and want us to ask strongly to stop it. And we’re next! Because Ahmadinejad in Tehran constantly leads the mobs in shouts of death to America. And they mean it.

A little reality check, please.

Nuclear weapons possessed:

Iran - 0
Israel - 75-200 (including thermonuclear weapons)
United States - 4000+ (including thermonuclear weapons)

In ten years:

Iran - 6-10 low yield fission bombs (maybe)
Israel - 200+ (including thermonuclear weapons)
United States - 4000+ (including thermonuclear weapons)

Who is a threat to whom again?

I have not posted for several weeks as I have been absolutely overwhelmed by the Democrats caving on issue after issue, moving itself to the Right for purely (perceived) political gain.

Despite evidence beyond all question of illegal activities by the Bush administration, the Democratic leadership not only categorically refuses to prosecute, or even investigate it, they are determined to become accomplices in the criminality.

Let's examine a few of these issues, shall we?

• George Bush ordered illegal wiretaps on thousands of citizens in CLEAR violation of FISA, the law of the land on covert surveillance. The law has very specific requirements, and even allows for warrantless wiretaps in "emergency" situations, which itself is a loophole big enough for most criminal politicians to take advantage of. But Bush is not satisfied with any law he can break on a technicality. He wants to make it absolutely clear that he has violated even aspect of the law, up to and including the punctuation. Then he wants (and is getting) the congress to declare it all legal after the fact.

• The Bush administration overtly, and with total deliberation, replaced prosecutors with partisan loyalists who would carry out Republican ideological agendas, regardless of criminality, or damage to the interests of justice. This was done for three reasons: 1) To replace US attorneys who refused to pursue illegal, politically motivated prosecutions of Democrats. 2) To replace US attorneys who had prosecuted or were investigating Republicans. 3) To install US attorneys who would avoid enforcing laws the administration disapproved of (civil rights, environmental, labor, violations of the Hatch Act, etc), and enforce laws in an strictly partisan manner which allowed the administration to punish its enemies.

• The Bush administration has removed a judge from trying a Guantanamo case because he ruled against the administration, and showed every sign of ruling based on the law and the evidence, not simply upon the word of the Bush's cronies. I do not see how something as blatant as this can be overlooked, but it is. The excuse offered for the judge's removal was vintage Stalinesque, the kind of thing we used to laugh at, and point to as proof of the superiority of the American system of justice. Today such excuses are completely accepted by our leaders, by the media, and, sadly, by most of the public.

• Via the "Military Commissions Act", the Bush administration, with the collusion of the Democratic Party, agreed to ignore basic Constitutional liberties and safeguards while tacitly endorsing torture. Such actions are not only "high crimes and misdemeanors" but "war crimes" as well.

• Secret prisons are being used to hide people accused of crimes by the Bush administration. These people have no right to challenge their detention, and the evidence suggests that they are subject to torture, which is one reason the prisons are kept secret. Again, the use of such places is a defining hallmark of a police state.

• The administration is currently refusing to enforce clean air standards the Supreme Court has ordered them to enforce. It has done this by simply reusing to read a report from the EPA and by ordering the EPA to create a report which interprets the facts in a manner completely at odds with reality. This action endangers not just Americans, but potentially the entire ecosystem of the planet.

• The administration has deliberately used bogus terror alerts to aid in passing laws favorable to its usurpation of power and to distract from its own criminal activities.

• The administration has used "faith-based initiatives" to funnel money to its religious partisans, who then use it to prop up Right-wing ideologies which twist, ignore, or contradict established scientific fact while propagating hatred and ignorance. In some instances, the money creates a tacit endorsement of Christianity as an official state religion.

• The administration has repeatedly appointed unqualified individuals to sensitive positions in government who can then be relied upon to run the agency as a political agency, rather than as a civil agency. This is done at the expense of human life.

• The administration has paid members of the media (like Armstrong Williams) to write articles praising the administration and its policies. Again, a clear violation of US law, and another standard tactic of a police state.

• Bush himself has made it plain, via "signing statements" that he intends to violate, or simply ignore, various laws which he find inconvenient, unprofitable, or which don't give him the authority he believes he should have.

• The administration killed an investigation of Alberto Gonzalez's role in permitting illegal wire-tapping simply by denying the investigators the security clearance they needed to conduct the investigation.

I could go on, seriously, there are about 40-50 more examples I could cite, but attention spans are only so long.

And what has the Democratic party done to address this long list of crimes?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Oh, please, don't EVEN start with "they are holding hearings" and "Congressman Wexler wrote a letter", and "John Conyers issued a subpoena". When all of prissy posturing and amateur dramatics are dispensed with, the actual end result is bupkis.

And please spare me, and the families of the dead and maimed, the sad excuse about not having a big enough majority to make a difference.

The Leadership has had sufficient majority to filibuster for the last eight years, and never has. Instead, seven senior Democrats even joined with the Republicans to form the "Gang of Fourteen" to assure the Bush administration a filibuster-free hand in their criminal activities. So, not only have the Democrats failed to hold Bush accountable, they have made the entire party an accomplice to those activities.

We have had a sufficient majority to completely sabotage every Bush program and prevent it from becoming law. Hell, for the last two years we have controlled the legislative agenda.

Folks, history will not judge us kindly. And by "us", I mean the American people. We are destined to join the German people of the 30's and 40's who will be looked at by future school children who will ask "Why did they allow this to happen?" Unlike the German people, we will not be able to plead ignorance of what our government was doing. We know about the secret prisons, the concentration camps and the bogus military tribunals. We know about the murders, the torture, and the secret kidnappings. We know about the lies used to justify the illegal invasion and destruction of another country. We know about the fake terror alerts and the use of fear to manipulate the public. We know about the collusion between the corporate media and the Bush administration to sell this war, and to smear any and all who opposed it. We know about the illegal use of napalm, and effects of depleted uranium on the civilian populace, the slow murder we are committing by destroying a country's entire water, sewer and electrical grid. We know about the rapes, not just of the Iraqis, but of our own people by the mercenaries who treat Iraq as their own personal "Thunderdome". We know about war profiteers who currently squeezing every dollar they can out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a way that would make I.G. Farben envious.

We know all about these crimes. We are smart enough to know that far worse has happened, and it, like the Nazi death camps, will eventually surface.

And yet, the Democratic leadership does nothing. Well, actually, that's incorrect. They are helping the administration with its crimes. They are helping it cover-up and retroactively legalize what it has done.. They are helping shield the corporations who are making billions of dollars grinding the Iraqi people and American soldiers into a bloody slurry to grease the war machine that Bush has unleashed.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: The United States of America is a de facto police state. For any American to look upon this country and claim otherwise would be the same as a German looking upon Dachau and claiming to see a children's Summer camp.

Again, the question that will be asked is "Why?"

Why do we continue to support these people? Why do we keep voting for these people? Why do we make excuses for people who knowingly, willfully collaborate with a criminal regime, then lecture us about "political reality" as an excuse for becoming accomplices in murder?

So far, "they were better than the alternative" seems pretty damned lame.

Top Lieberman Campaign Official: We Begged Obama For Help In 2006 -- And He Came Through
Talking Points Memo

Now that Joe Lieberman has emerged as John McCain's lead attack dog against Barack Obama -- even going so far as to suggest that Obama's judgment could pose a danger to our safety -- there's some very interesting behind-the-scenes back-story to the Lieberman-Obama relationship that you should know about.

Specifically, a top official on Joe Lieberman's 2006 Senate reelection campaign tells me that Lieberman's staff practically begged Barack Obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment -- requests that Obama agreed to, helping Lieberman minimize the damage from challenger Ned Lamont's recent entry into the contest.

This back-story is particularly relevant right now in light of Lieberman's harsh assaults on Obama's national security credentials.

The issue is relevant because it illustrates why Obama should have backed Lamont, instead of Lieberman. If Obama had listened to sensible Democrats (i.e. liberal bloggers) and campaigned for Lamont, then there is a very good chance Lamont would be in the senate and we would not have been continuously dicked over by Lieberman for the last two years.

When will people learn?

Wasserman Schultz: Judiciary Committee Willing To Arrest Rove If He Doesn't Testify
The Hill

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said that the House Judiciary Committee would be willing to arrest Karl Rove if the former White House official doesn't testify about his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said that the House Judiciary Committee would be willing to arrest Karl Rove if the former White House official doesn't testify about his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

Wasserman Schultz, in an interview on MSNBC Tuesday, echoed the demand of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) that Rove would not be allowed to invoke executive privilege to avoid testifying. Rove could not invoke the privilege since he said he did not have conversations with the president about the attorneys' firing, Wasserman Schultz said.

Asked by MSNBC host Dan Abrams if the committee would go far as having Rove arrested, Wasserman said it would.

"Well, if that's what it takes," she said. "I mean we really cannot allow the co-equal branch of government, the legislative branch, to be trampled upon by the executive branch. The founding fathers established three branches of government. We are a co-equal branch, and this is an administration that essentially has ignored and disrespected the role of the legislative branch for far too long."

Talk like this might give me hope except for the fact that this is the same woman who refuses to campaign against Republicans in her district because they are her friends. This type of grandstanding might play well with the rubes, but until Rove is in a jail cell, call me skeptical.

Joseph Lieberman To Headline Upcoming Pastor Hagee Summit
Huffington Post

Senator Joseph Lieberman is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee's 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee's invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. Last year, when Lieberman spoke at Hagee's summit, he compared the Texas televangelist to the biblical prophet Moses, dubbing him "an Ish Elochim," or "a man of God." Unless he rescinds his pledge to appear at this year's summit, Lieberman can be expected to deliver another soul-stirring tribute.

Here's what John Hagee has said about Jews:

Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the Holocaust. Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone who comes with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says - Jeremiah righty? - “they shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks”, meaning: there's no place to hide. And that will be offensive to some people. Well, dear heart, be offended: I didn't write it. Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, “my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come BACK to the land of Israel”. Today Israel is back in the land and they are at Ezekiel 37 and 8. They are physically alive but they're not spiritually alive.

Interesting "God" this fellow worships. Hitler is one of his henchmen.

And this is the person that Lieberman wants to praise?