connecting*the*dots

(brilliance uploaded by xylonets)

Remember, indeed.

Forgive me if I don’t tow the party line completely, but this Chief Wray controversy doesn’t quite feel as open and shut and David suggests — but not as you might think I mean.

After reading the RMA report, I do believe the city had no choice but to fire Wray, as he undoubtedly lied to his superiors, but the sheer amount of managerial issues raised by officers and employees once the investigation began seems to cut across Wray’s deception and his alleged actions into the disturbing territory of GPD management across the board.

(cartoon by Anthony Piraino)

The following quote is from page five in the overview (Section I) of the RMA report:

[…] The City Manager was approached by a contingent of minority police officers who complained of disparate treatment citing the Hinson matter as one of several examples. Officers complained that there was a “secret police” unit that focused on investigating black GPD officers. They also referenced a “black book” that was rumored to contain the photographs of black police officers that was used by the “secret police unit” for alleged inappropriate purposes. Additionally, law enforcement officers representing all ranks, races and genders came forward with complaints regarding the management of the GPD and concerns of mistreatment. […]

If you read that previous line as I did — “the management of the GPD” — it insinuates that there were issues in the GPD deeper than David Wray; he might have given the directions for tactical assignments and the such, but he didn’t manage them to fruition or carry them out by himself.

So while I’d love to close the book on this controversy and feel like the cancer has been removed — once and for all — from my local police department, I can’t. And I also can’t help but to think that the City Managers and Chief Wray agreed to go separate ways, because if they didn’t, the proverbial shit was lining up in droves to hit the proverbial fan… and everyone involved in the face.

Yesterday, after reading the RMA for himself, Ed Cone pointed to John Hammer’s editorial statement on January 26th as an indication of Hammer’s prescience, but the last paragraph of that statement just isn’t sitting well with me:

[…] According to Occam’s Razon, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. In this case the simplest answer is that Wray was, for whatever reason, not honest in his dealings with his boss, City Manager Mitchell Johnson. Any other explanation involves huge coincidences and for people to do things that don’t make any sense.

This report really needs to be released to the public.

UPDATE: The report has been uploaded to Greensboro101.

Next: I’ll read Jerry Bledsoe’s narrative and compare factual assertions.

David has finished reading the “Risk Management Associates” report; I’m pausing to go listen to live music at The Flying Anvil (btw, I didn’t get the report from David).

Tomorrow morning, first and foremost, I plan on completely digesting the entire report. I then plan on reading Jerry Bledsoe’s narrative of events in detail and the numerous reports from The Troublemaker.

And then, as Chief Wray is so eloquently quoted on page 5:

Click to see larger version

I’ll “connect the dots” myself.

(originally uploaded by ConjugalVisitor)

McClatchy Washington Bureau
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft received warning of al Qaida attack before 9/11
By Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The State Department’s disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don’t remember the warning.

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10″ that “connected the dots” in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.

Former CIA Director George Tenet gave the independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission the same briefing on Jan. 28, 2004, but the commission made no mention of the warning in its 428-page final report. According to three former senior intelligence officials, Tenet testified to commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste and to Philip Zelikow, the panel’s executive director and the principal author of its report, who’s now Rice’s top adviser.

[…]

And people called Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace “crazed?” Sounds much more like it was a factual explosion.

Two down…

Lay, Skilling Convicted in Enron Collapse
by Kristen Hays

Former Enron Corp. chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted Thursday of conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud in one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history.

The verdict put the blame for the demise of what was once the nation’s seventh-largest company squarely on its top two executives. It came in the sixth day of deliberations following a trial that lasted nearly four months.

Lay was also convicted of bank fraud and making false statements to banks in a separate trial related to his personal banking.

Lay was convicted on all six counts against him in the trial with Skilling. Skilling was convicted on 19 of the 28 counts against him, including one count of insider trading, and acquitted on the remaining nine.

“You have reflected on this evidence for the last few days and reached a very thorough verdict, and I thank you,” U.S. District Judge Sim Lake told jurors.

He set sentencing for Sept. 11.

[…]

What a fitting sentencing date for two men that played such a major role in the collapse of our economy post-Microsoft hearings, 9/11 and the dotcom crash.

These guys ruined so many people’s lives, they had better not receive a soft-sentence. They may not have murdered anyone, but they do deserve general population in Rikers.

(h/t DeWitt)

The time to resign would be right now.

Pelosi move triggers revolt
by Josephine Hearn

[…]

Jefferson has been the subject of a wide-ranging bribery investigation by the Department of Justice. Pelosi’s call for his ouster came several days after a newly filed court document offered more details on Jefferson’s alleged acceptance of $100,000 from an FBI informant in a sting operation. Days after that purported exchange, the document said, the FBI found $90,000 in Jefferson’s freezer.

The search of his Capitol Hill office has prompted a storm of criticism from congressional leaders from both parties, including Pelosi, who charged that the executive branch had overstepped the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Yesterday’s CBC meeting with Jefferson was well-attended, drawing nearly all of the caucus’s heavyweights — Ways and Means ranking Democrat Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat John Conyers (Mich.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman James Clyburn (S.C.).

Most lawmakers would not comment afterwards, but a CBC aide summed up some members’ frustration, saying, “Congresswoman Pelosi, by preemption without any legal justification, has now created a new precedent for how members are going to be treated. Unfortunately, she’s chosen to single out an African-American for this honor.�

Then the aide added an electoral threat, saying, “The African-American community, which overwhelmingly backs the Democratic Party, will not take this lightly. I hope she enjoys being minority leader.�

[…]

Dude got caught on tape accepting a bribe, the feds then found $90k in his freezer and the numbers on the bills exactly matched the bribe money.

What’s he trying to pull, an Eddie Murphy, “It wasn’t me” act?

The CBC’s reputation has never been good. Whether such a rep is deserving or not, their position in this matter isn’t going to help them at all. What a bunch of schmucks.

UPDATE: zefrank’s position on this mess is actually quite enlightening. Yes, he does think, so I don’t have to.

Oh my… Fitzmas does come twice a year!

truthout.org, Jason Leopold
Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted

Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove’s discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on “wildly speculative rumors.”

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.

Rove’s announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove’s role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

[…]

Let’s recap the legacy of this Republican led government, shall we?

The People

• Karl Rove
• Lewis “Scooter” Libby
• Tom Delay
• Jack Abramoff
• Duke Cunningham
• Armstrong Williams
• Jeff Gannon

The Events

• Iraq War
• Hurricaine Katrina
• Darfur
• Illegal NSA wiretaps
• Illegal phone call data pattern anaysis
• Tax cuts for the rich

I know I’m missing some big ones. Feel free to add them in the comments.

Check it out. Man… heh… #1 is ridiculous!

“I could squish your head if I wanted to… I squish your head!”

Murray Waas - National Journal
Cheney Authorized Leak Of CIA Report, Libby Says

Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, according to Libby’s grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report.
The March 2002 intelligence report was a debriefing of Wilson by the CIA’s Directorate of Operations after Wilson returned from a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger to investigate claims, later proved to be unfounded, that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation, according to government records.

The debriefing report made no mention of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, then a covert CIA officer, or any role she may have played in her husband’s selection by the CIA to go to Niger, according to two people who have read the report.

The previously unreported grand jury testimony is significant because only hours after Cheney reportedly instructed Libby to disclose information from the CIA report, Libby divulged to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper that Plame was a CIA officer, and that she been involved in selecting her husband for the Niger mission.

Both Libby and Cheney have repeatedly insisted that the vice president never encouraged, directed, or authorized Libby to disclose Plame’s identity. In a court filing on April 12, Libby’s attorneys reiterated: “Consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson [Plame] by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else.”

But the disclosure that Cheney instructed Libby to leak portions of a classified CIA report on Joseph Wilson adds to a growing body of information showing that at the time Plame was outed as a covert CIA officer the vice president was deeply involved in the White House effort to undermine her husband.

A spokesman for the vice president declined to comment.

[…]

Okay, so I’m to believe that Cheney told Libby to leak certain aspects of the CIA report, but nothing about Wilson’s wife? I’m sorry, but no man nicknamed “Scooter” would have the temerity to out a CIA agent all on his own, especially within the 2-hour window between receiving his marching orders from his boss and speaking with the press.

How dumb do they think we are?

Patrick Fitzgerald is getting deeper and deeper in this mess and one step closer to the truth. Payday has to be coming around the bend.

Photo by Emily Geoff

Associated Press (Newsvine)
Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK’d Leak

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame’s CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Bush’s political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby’s testimony.

“The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Libby’s testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks — a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration’s launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

If this weren’t such blatent and reckless disregard for our National Security, I’d be fun to watch the right try to spin this bombshell into obscurity.

Bush and Cheney consistently play to the American voter’s fear of a National Security breech, creating a hardline image of them being the “protectors” of leaking classified information to the media.

So when someone else leaks classified information (regarding the NSA warrantless wiretapping program authorized by the President of the United States) they launch a criminal investigation. Fair enough. They wanna play hardball and they have the Justice Department in their pocket to do so.

But I do hope they fully realize that they’ve now set a precedent. If they go after the “leaker” of the NSA program with any degree of vigor, they had better damn well be ready to accept accountability for this authorized leak of classified information.

The difference between the two?

This leak didn’t lead to the uncovering of a questionable government wiretapping program; it directly fed the propaganda machine that greased the skids for launching the war in Iraq.

All I want for Christmas is an article of impeachment.

UPDATE: It looks like the administration is going to argue that when the president tells someone to leak information, the process of declassifying the information is automatic and understood. Or some bullshit like that.

From Robert Greenwald’s upcoming documentary, The Big Guy: How Tom Delay Stole Congress:

… By the time we finish this poker game, there might not be a federal government left, which would suit me just fine…

… I would like to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Energy… (cut out) the National Endowment for the Arts, we ought to zero them out, the National Endowment for the Humanities, we ought to zero them out…

… We’re going to completely redesign our government…

Smug doesn’t even begin to aptly describe this asshole. Now that he’s out of Congress and on his way to jail, the only redesigning smirk boy will be doing will be of his jail cell.

One down, an entire administration to go.

Kirby Dick, you motherfucking rule.

Arab Palestinians have been screwed throughout the course of history, so it’s not hard to imagine how Hamas became the strong-armed, righteous voice of their people. Their tactics as a revolutionary front (social services, terrorism, etc.) are well documented, so now, as the democratically elected, legislative representatives of the Palestinian people, the question at large is how will they lead as a political party?

The transition to an open-political organization is going to be difficult at best, as Hamas’ senior leadership has been in hiding since Israel assassinated founder Sheik Yassin and then his replacement, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, just a month later in the Spring of 2004. They’re probably the most decenralized political organization in the world; the type of organizational change necessary to run legislative politics and foreign policy relationships cannot happen overnight.

And on the other side of the planet, how did the US react to this true democratic expression of change? Yesterday, President Bush awkwardly framed the US perspective:

A few of his comments were very telling (emphasis mine):

…The elections yesterday were very interesting.

On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be a partner in peace, if you advocate the destruction of a country as a part of your platform. And I know you can’t be a partner in peace if your party has an armed wing.

And so, the elections just took place, we’ll watch very closely about the formation of the government. But uhm… I will continue to remind people about what I just said. That uh… if your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you’re not a partner in peace…

First of all, if one doesn’t understand the history of the Jewish-Israeli/Arab-Palestinian struggle, as well as the corruption of the Fatah Party, then there is no way to understand how Hamas has become the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people.

As for this reaction to “an armed wing” of a party, can we please recognize the situation for what it is without the bullshit?

• During it’s foundation years, Israel created Haganah to defend Israeli settlers, which later became the foundation for the Israeli Defense Forces — Israeli’s army
• The outgoing party of yesterday’s election, Fatah, was an armed party, just not as overt as Hamas
• While the US does not have armed political parties, we do have the most powerful armed forces in the world

Everyone at the table is armed, each with an agenda and a stake to claim. Now that we have that straight, I guess the question remaining is who’s going to blink first?

No matter where we go as a community, we have to remember how we got here:

Pick up the documentary today.

(Full disclosure: my brother, Andy, is the documentary filmmaker)

Deborah Howell, the much maligned Ombudsman for The Washington Post, has created a stir; she reported that Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. Whether one wants to believe it or not is not my concern. Her column created an outroar in the blogosphere and incindiary comments began to fill the editor’s blog. Jim Brady, Executive Editor of The Washington Post, tried to deal with the situation:

As of 4:15pm ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we’ve decided not to allow comments for the time being. It’s a shame that it’s come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it’s a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

We’re not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to executive.editor@washingtonpost.com.

Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

So, the ombudsman of an institution can erase comments and lobby to shut down their feedback channel from customers? Can someone please explain to me the purpose of the role again, specifically for an institution that supposedly sheds light on critical matters to the public?

Here’s my email in response:

jim,

people who are online, commenting on your blog, are used to being flamed. they’re participating elsewhere, and have been for years. don’t try to turn this into a case where WaPo is “protecting” anyone.

as backwards as it might sound, lower your commenting standards, remove the worst when they are submitted, and go on about reporting the news.

welcome to the world of free expression. “adding blogs” to your realm comes with the price of bringing one channel of WaPo down to street level. it may not be the salad fork you’re used to, but it’s still a vehicle for consuming necessary roughage.

-sean

I realize that WaPo might be stinging from harsh criticism and frank language, but this shouldn’t motivate Brady to react in such a drastic manner. I mean after all, it’s a WaPo blog, the editor’s blog at that. Not all of us peasants are good and proper; some are mentally malnurished, but we’re taxpaying peasants just the same, and obviously, interested enough in WaPo to spend our time flaming each other and WaPo staff on comment threads.

This is a healthy sign for an institution. It might register as backwards, or uncivil, but so is your average football game on Sunday when you’re not watching it from the comfort of your living room.

“Transparency and reasoned debate” cannot be managed, otherwise you’re just adding back the filters of mass consumption that blogs have removed from the web. Commit to the medium and over-engage in the discourse; it’s the only way to make a connection with the people that care enough to fire back at you.

We are the voices that will be heard, whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

UPDATE: After receiving a form response to my above email from Michael Golden, the Director of Customer Relationships (strange, the email was addressed to Jim Brady at executive.editor@washingtonpost.com), I stubled upon this great post from Jesus’ General.

Wake up WaPo.

Sure this is politics, but it’s politics with a purpose; to expose the truth. Transparency rules the day (the hyperlinks are mine).

January 17, 2006

The Honorable George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Justice Department is currently investigating the web of corruption surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Even at this early stage of the investigation, there is reason to believe that Mr. Abramoff may have had undue and improper influence within your Administration. There is no reason to wait for indictments or convictions before the American people learn of the role Mr. Abramoff played in the Bush White House. We therefore call on you to make public as soon as possible an accounting of Mr. Abramoff’s personal contacts with Bush Administration officials and the official acts that may have been undertaken at his request.

Some of Mr. Abramoff’s ties to the White House have already been reported in the press. For example, it is well known that Mr. Abramoff was a prodigious Republican fundraiser who attained the rank of “Pioneer� after raising over $100,000 for the 2004 Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. You have returned $6,000 of that money, but have not answered the question of what benefits, if any, were extended to Mr. Abramoff on account of his Pioneer status.

It has also been reported that Mr. Abramoff served as an adviser to your transition team and that you met with him personally. The American people have a right to know how many times you and senior staff met with Abramoff, and what benefits, if any, Abramoff received from this high degree of access.

In addition, it has been reported that your Administration removed a federal prosecutor who was investigating Mr. Abramoff’s secret lobbying contract with court officials in the U.S. territory of Guam. Indeed, the prosecutor was replaced only one day after he issued a subpoena for records, and the case was subsequently dropped. The Guam public auditor has since concluded that territory officials paid Mr. Abramoff, via a third party, a total of $324,000 in smaller increments in an effort to circumvent the requirement of a sealed bid. Did the White House exert any improper influence on behalf of Mr. Abramoff in this case?

Finally, David Safavian, who served as the chief procurement officer in your Administration, was recently charged with obstructing Senate and executive branch investigations into whether he aided Mr. Abramoff in efforts to acquire property controlled by the General Services Administration. Were other White House officials aware of Mr. Safavian’s ties to Abramoff, and did those ties play a role in Safavian’s appointment to a high-ranking Administration position?

While the above-described connections between Abramoff and the Bush Administration have been reported, others remain unknown. For example, Americans have a right to more information about Abramoff’s role in the “K Street Project,� the initiative launched by Republicans in the1990’s to link lobbyists to Republican officials in Congress and the executive branch. What role did your Administration play in the K Street Project, and did White House officials have direct contact with Abramoff in this regard?

In the upcoming State of the Union address, you will presumably call for reforms to address lobbying abuses. But such rhetoric will ring hollow until you reveal the ways in which Jack Abramoff himself may have improperly influenced your Administration over the past five years. As the leader of your party, you have the opportunity to set an example and call for openness and accountability from your fellow Republicans. The American people need to be assured that the White House is not for sale.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid
Richard Durbin
Debbie Stabenow
Charles Schumer

(via Harry Reid through C&L)

This shouldn’t come as too much of a shock to anyone by now — it’s practically common knowledge — but I’m sure there are still some folks still hiding in their bunkers. From Common Dreams:

WASHINGTON - A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was “unlikely” because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

…the State Department’s review, which looked at the political, economic and logistical factors in such a purchase, seems to have produced wider-ranging doubts than other reviews about the likelihood that Niger would try to sell uranium to Baghdad.

Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department’s intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send “25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers” filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

The analysts’ doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous “16 words” in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, relied on faulty intelligence and should not have been included in the speech. Two months ago, Italian intelligence officials concluded that a set of documents at the center of the supposed Iraq-Niger link had been forged by an occasional Italian spy.

A snippet:

[…] “The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment’s notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?” […]

(Tom Toles via Yahoo!)

He may be the scum of the Earth, but you gotta love Jack-o’s sense of drama, as he dresses to the hilt Capone style when pleading guilty to just about every felony under the sun.

As sure as the sun rises each morning, a no trial plea means Abramoff is going to take down a handful of Republicans with him. And the only reason I’m happy about this news is because our elected representatives are going to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I’m all about accountability on both sides of the aisle and everywhere else in-between.

Everything is everything… for real.

Go see it today and then do something positive.

(via RealityStudio)

I don’t often use these guys as an example of great journalism, but this Hardball segment is on point. They convincingly expose Dick Cheney’s lies regarding the tie between one of the primary 9/11 terrorists and Iraq.

The entire piece screams conspiracy to sell and then launch an illegal war.

Of course, this leaves me with a few questions:

• Who holds these men and woman accountable to such contradictions and lies? Congress? Another special prosecutor?
• Do we have to wait until there’s a Democratic administration in office before an investigation is launched?
• Is Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation expanding?

If it’s proven that this unethical administration schemed to launch an illegal war by knowingly using false evidence — a war which has already killed tens of thousands of people — I want justice.

And no, my sense of justice would not equate with a misdemeanor.

I’m An American

At one time in my life, I would even say that I was blindly proud and patriotic.

I grew up watching The Lone Ranger and John Wayne movies on WOR re-runs on Saturday afternoons. My neighborhood was full of sprawling lawns and happy families. The American dream, right?

Well, eventually I grew up, realizing that things aren’t always what they seem to be.

Over the years, I’ve become exposed to a cross-section of people with varied backgrounds, perspectives and experiences. These breadcrumbs of my travels — mixed in with my own experiences — have made me realize the truth of what being a citizen of this most powerful nation entails:

The benefits of our common goodness, as well as the baggage of our wrongful intent, is what we must continue to evolve towards enlightenment, otherwise, such power can go unchecked.

Historically, American’s dedication to the creation of democratic institutions, producing innovative life-altering government and laws, as well as products, services, medicines, the internet; all have been inspirations to other nations on the face of this planet.

Unfortunately, the DNA of our mafia-style history of murder, slavery and unchecked capitalism has seeped into most of these democratic institutions, whether it be through industrial lobbyists, foreign policy or corporate conglomerates and deregulation.

9/11 changed a lot for me.

I was living in Park Slope, Brooklyn on September 11, 2001. After the attack, my outwardly-facing patriotism far exceeded my formative peek. I shopped for hours, in sold-out stores, looking for a flag to place in my father’s car window. I mean, those were my neighbors, my countrymen that perished in a blink of an eye or worse, over hours leading up to a leap out of a 85th storey window.

But during the months leading up to the Iraq Occupation, my perspective of this nation — more specifically, this administration — went straight into the shitter. My belief in our government and our constitutional processes came to a screeching halt.

I pulled a 180.

The Flip

There’s a reason my blog has its current palette and why I refuse to buy any more blue or red clothes. It’s that sickly, deep with me. Our country hasn’t been a democracy since the end of WWII. Our leaders are heading into the 50th year of a post-WWII plan to create a New World Order.

• Why do you think the Third World can’t evolve out of its poverty ridden, corrupt, AIDS infested, pushover status?
• Why do you think we continue to run rough-shot in Latin America?
• Why do you think we invaded Vietnam?
• Why do you think we’re in Iraq?

A Conversation From “Network”

Arthur Jensen: [to Howard] They say I can sell anything; I’d like to try to sell something to you.

Arthur Jensen: It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. THAT is the natural order of things today. THAT is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature. And YOU WILL ATONE. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little 21-inch screen and howl about America, and democracy. There is no America; there is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

Arthur Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it. Is that clear? You think you’ve merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars.

Arthur Jensen: The world is a business, Mr. Beale; it has been since man crawled out of the slime. Our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality - one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock - all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangelic.

Howard Beale: Why me?

Arthur Jensen: Because you’re on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

Howard Beale: I have seen the face of God.

Arthur Jensen: You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

Any of that sound familiar? Up until the past few weeks, I had my doubts that we’d *ever* regain the potential of our great Republic… And then Patrick Fitzgerald finally spoke… And then the Democrats grew a pair. Something happened to me…

I became somewhat optimistic again.

This is my current mental model regarding the state of our nation. We’re pragmatically moving in the right direction.

• The blogosphere is holding corruption accountable
• The mainstream media is beginning to do their jobs
• Discourse is rampant
• Indictments are being served
• Technologists are decentralizing media more and more with each passing day

We’re slowly moving towards democracy, slowly moving towards our common Republic… but we still need to take it up a notch.

• We need to remove ourselves from Iraq
• We need to start developing progressive solutions to our issues of poverty, education, health care and foreign policy
• We need to create alternate forms of fuel
• We need to feel comfortable in that uneasy role of rapid change and evolution
• We need to hold the hands of corporate America in order to break down the old business models of the 20th century, and help instill collaborative, open business models that leverage the best aspects of capitalism, the best aspects of innovation, the best aspects of humanity
• We need to become global citizens

We need to be we, indivisible to the utmost degree.

I’m really trying to walk this walk… hard. Are you?

Until we’re all there, I’ll continue rooting for the Jets and the Suns, eating Pumpkin Pie and Broccoli and washing it down with an OJ and Lime juice smoothie. Why you ask?

Because I’m an American.

Note to aspiring politicians: Keep it real, hound effortlessly for the truth and you will have a lasting place in American politics. The people are now involved in the process.

Harry Reid’s actions were completely justified and just caught the attention of a ton of Independent voters. A reporter asked Reid, "Why didn’t you consult with Senate Majority Leader Frist first?" Reid responded that he followed Senate policy after too much feet dragging; there’s no need to consult.

Consider me first on line to shake his hand. It’s about damn time.

(.mov via Think Progress)

From the sound of his press conference today, it seems as though he’s ready to wrap up and move on, as his investigation was compromised by Libby. How bad do I want him to be the Eliot Ness to clean up this administration? I think he knows, as he kept asking the public to sit back and let the process of justice run its course.

Fitzgerald made an interesting analogy today when talking about the indictments served to Libby. He waxed poetic about a pitcher in baseball hitting a batter in the head, whether it was on purpose or the ball slipped. He mentioned that since the catcher kicked sand in his eyes (referring to Libby’s lies), as a prosecutor, he would have to interview people in the dugout to understand the mentality of the pitcher when the act occurred. Interestingly, he didn’t talk about finding out whether or not the manager ordered him to bean the batter.

I know this might sound strange to some "Americans," but this investigation is clearing up a lot of my blockage in trusting the ethical, moral state of our justice system. "Scooter" Libby lied for a reason, either his own or one from the administration. Fitzgerald handed down these lesser felony charges, because Libby committed a crime (perjury, obstruction and false statements) directly to his face regarding a breach of National Security.

As this errand boy is taken care of the truth will bubble to the surface… one way or the other.