THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER

Written and Compiled by Black Max

March 2007, Week Four

Page Five

 

US attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president," but "justice does not serve at the pleasure of the president." -- Democratic senator Patrick Leahy, March 29

Sampson testifies about US attorney firings, confirms that Gonzales heavily involved

• March 29: Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

  US Attorney firings

  Although Sampson denies being directly involved in the firings of eight US attorneys -- a lie easily disproven by already-released Justice Department documents -- he does confirm that Gonzales was far more involved in the firings than he has acknowledged. Sampson also confirms that Gonzales and his aides have made a series of inaccurate claims about the issue -- lies -- in recent weeks. A measure of the complete disgust at the entire situation on the part of most of the senators is seen in Democrat Charles Schumer's remarks -- after he gives a rundown of the "unbroken stream of missteps, mishaps and misstatements" by the Justice Department, he says that at this point it's up to the DOJ to show that they behaved "well," not for the committee "to demonstrate that the Department behaved poorly."
• Sampson says that David Iglesias's name was not added to the list of attorneys to be fired until just before the November 7, 2006 elections -- after presidential adviser Karl Rove complained that Iglesias had not been aggressive enough in pursuing cases of voter fraud. Previously, Rove had not been tied so directly to the removal of the prosecutors, and has, as is his wont, denied any involvement. Sampson's testimony gives further evidence of the involvement of both Gonzales and Rove in the firings, and gives additional weight to claims that the firings were motivated by Republican political concerns and not, as previously alleged, on hard, performance-based data. (The day after the hearings, Senator Charles Schumer demands that Gonzales clear Iglesias's name: "In light of these startling admissions by your former chief of staff, it is imperative that you restore Mr. Iglesias' tarnished reputation by confirming that his performance as a US attorney did not warrant dismissal," he writes in a letter to Gonzales. Gonzales has so far failed to respond.
• Sampson says he suggested firing US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who was then in the process of prosecuting former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby, but he dropped the idea after then-White House counsel, Harriet Miers, and her deputy, William Kelley, warned him that firing Fitzgerald would be a bad idea.
• Much of Sampson's testimony is more side-stepping, including his insistence that US attoney Carol Lam was fired over her failure to adequately prosecute immigration cases, even though documentation shows that under her tenure, her office increased the rate of immigration prosecutions. Sampson doesn't mention Lam's prosecution of Republican Randy Cunningham, and her indictment of former CIA official Kyle Foggo and defense contractor Brent Wilkes. He also says that he barely remembers the critical November 27 meeting where Gonzales, Sampson, and others discussed the upcoming firings.
• Regarding Lam, Senator Dianne Feinstein shows Sampson a letter from February 7. 2007, praising Lam for successfully prosecuting so many immigration cases during her tenure, a letter signed by the director of field operations of the US Customs and Border Protection agency. Sampson cannot reconcile Lam's firing with such glowing praise. When asked by Feinstein if he or anyone else at the DOJ ever contacted Lam with concerns about her immigration record, Sampson says, "I did not and I don't remember anyone else in my office doing that." As for the Cunningham investigation, Sampson denies knowing anything about Lam's intention to execute a search warrant on Foggo in the days before her firing, and says he hardly knew who either Foggo or Wilkes were. He does admit that, when the FBI chief in San Diego publicly protested Lam's firing, Sampson himself called the FBI chief to complain.
• Sampson's professed ignorance, like his boss's, is surprisingly widespread, considering his important position as the chief of staff to the attorney general. Under questioning from Feinstein, Sampson says he knew nothing of an array of high-profile public corruption investigations being conducted by some of the fired attorneys -- including Daniel Bogden's investigation of Republican governor Jim Gibbons of Nevada -- or just knew vaguely about them from news reports -- including Paul Charlton's investigation of Republican House member Rick Renzi of Arizona. He says he knew nothing of the complaints about Iglesias's "failure" to prosecute the aforementioned voter fraud case, and that he knew nothing about any pressure brought to bear on Iglesias by Domenici and Wilson. He also says he knows little about Seattle's John McKay's controversial choice not to pursue an investigation of the 2004 gubernatorial election -- he has no "specific recollection" of being aware of it. GOP senator Jon Kyl asks whether Charlton was fired over his investigation of Renzi; Sampson gives a completely opaque answer, saying that he was the "aggregator of information" but that he wasn't aware of that as an issue. (Kyl asked the DOJ to keep Charlton on as a prosecutor, a request that was ignored.)
• Amazingly, Sampson says that it never crossed his mind that firing a US attorney in the middle of any of these high-profile investigations might influence those cases. Almost as amazingly, Republican senator Orrin Hatch -- Sampson's former boss -- praises Sampson, saying that he can't imagine Sampson "being any more forthcoming." (Hatch also implies that Democrat Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the committee, is guilty of some sort of prosecutorial misconduct.)
• Sampson also professes astonishing ignorance as to the role of the White House in the firings, considering his daily involvement with White House personnel. He says that when he wrote the February 23, 2007 letter denying that Karl Rove was involved in the decision to fire Arkansas attorney Bud Cummins in favor of Rove protege Tim Griffin, "At the time I drafted that letter, I was not aware of Karl Rove having expressed an interest in Tim Griffin being appointed." Sampson says that he had no idea Rove supported Griffin's appointment. Only under repeated questioning does Sampson finally admit with discussing Griffin's appointment with two senior White House officials, Rove aides Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor: "...I assumed because it was important to them, it was important to Karl." Questioned on the inconsistency, Sampson squirms, "When I drafted the letter in February 2007, I remember thinking to myself, am I aware that Karl Rove is interested in Tim Griffin being appointed? I thought to myself, I'm not aware Mr. Rove has that interest. For all I know, I'm not even sure he knows about this. I knew people who work for him are interested." Slate's Emily Bazelon responds, "This, of course, makes no sense. Karl Rove's deputies don't run around axing prosecutors behind his back. Their job is to do what he tells them to do."
• Gonzales has attempted to portray himself as uninvolved in the details of the firings, saying on March 13 that Sampson was in charge of that entire process. Gonzales also then said he "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on" in the process. Gonzales has since admitted to more frequent contacts with Sampson, but has not acknowledged any real involvement. Now, Sampson provides new details of just how deeply Gonzales was involved. Sampson says he had at least five different discussions with Gonzales about the project after Gonzales first approved the idea in early 2005. He also says that Gonzales always knew which attorneys were being considered for firing. "I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of US attorney removals was accurate," Sampson says. "I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain US attorneys to resign." Sampson says after his appearance before Congress that "the decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president [Miers]." He also describes Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos's characterization that Gonzales "did not participate in the selection of the US attorneys to be fired" as "not an accurate statement." Gonzales has said that Sampson didn't share information about the firings with him or other senior DOJ officials who have subsequently testified before Congress, but Sampson disputes that: "I was very open and collaborative in the process." He says that he specifically shared information with the two DOJ officials who have already been found to have lied to Congress about the process, William Moschella and Paul McNulty. "So the Attorney General's statement is false. How can it not be?" asks Schumer.
• The Justice Department, through its spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, says that nothing in Sampson's testimony contradicts Gonzales's previous statements, that Gonzales admitted on March 26 that Sampson had updated him on the firings "from time to time" and that Gonzales "was never focused on specific concerns about United States attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign." White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also attempts to play down Sampson's testimony, saying that the administration has never ruled out the possibility that Rove passed complaints about Iglesias on to Gonzales. Both Roehrkasse and Perino are lying, and lying to cover for their superiors.
• Sampson insists throughout his testimony that he, the White House, and the DOJ did nothing improper in firing the eight attorneys, who are political appointees and "serve at the pleasure of the president." appointees. He also says that the "distinction between political and performance-related reasons for removing a US attorney is, in my view, largely artificial." As Sampson describes it, the process of developing the list was based largely on the perceptions of Sampson and top Justice and White House officials of each prosecutor's loyalty and adherence to Bush administration priorities.
• Interestingly, Sampson admits, under forceful questioning from Democrat Charles Schumer, that Iglesias should have not been fired. He adds, "Looking back on all of this, I wish we could do it over again. In hindsight, I wish the department hadn't gone down this road at all." Whether Sampson is expressing sincere regret for helping to inject partisan politics into federal prosecutions, or if he just regrets being caught, cannot be determined.
• Much of the questioning focuses on Iglesias, who has said he was improperly pressured to open an investigation of baseless voter fraud charges against New Mexico Democrats by two Republican lawmakers, Senator Pete Domenici and his protege, Representative Heather Wilson. Sampson initially ranked Iglesias as a "diverse up-and-comer" who could be tapped for top Justice Department jobs. Instead, he was suddenly added to the firing list between October 17 and November 7. Sampson says he was aware of repeated complaints about Iglesias by Domenici, who called Gonzales and McNulty four times from late 2005 to 2006. Another key factor was complaints from the White House that Iglesias -- who was invited to train other prosecutors at two Justice Department seminars on voter fraud -- had not been aggressive enough in carrying out voter-fraud investigations. "I do remember learning from the attorney general that he had heard complaints from Karl Rove," Sampson recalls. He says he isn't sure who put Iglesias's name on the list; Justice officials have said that Sampson added the name. Sampson says Iglesias's name remained on the list after McNulty told a group of Justice officials that Domenici would be pleased by the firing.
• Iglesias was one of four whose names were put on the list for firing; the other three were removed, says Sampson, because Iglesias's home state senators -- both Republicans -- would not object to his firing. Presumably, the senators from the states of the other three attorneys would have objected. (When asked why Republican senators were informed of the firings but not Democratic senators, Sampson doesn't directly answer, but merely says that decision was a bad idea.) Schumer wants to know who some of the attorneys once listed for firing are, and Sampson's memory again proves faulty. One he does remember is North Carolina's Anna Mills Wagner, but McNulty's chief of staff Monica Goodling suggested that Wagner be removed because of her public success in prosecuting gang members. Sampson just can't remember who the others are. Even under repeated questioning, Sampson just intones, "I was the keeper of the list."
• The senators also grill Sampson about Fitzgerald, the highly competent and dogged prosecutor listed as "undistinguished" by Sampson in his March 2005 ranking. His fellow prosecutors list Fitzgerald as one of the best prosecutors in the country -- but while they are basing their judgment on competence and skill, Sampson based his judgment on his perceptions of Fitzgerald's loyalty to George W. Bush. In 2006, Sampson brought up the idea of adding Fitzgerald to the list to Miers and Kelley. "'Pat Fitzgerald could be added to this list,'" he told the two. "They looked at me if I had said something totally inappropriate, and I had. Immediately after I did it, I regretted it." He defends his rating of Fitzgerald as mediocre by saying, in a convoluted, unconvincing side-step, that he sought to assign a neutral rating because of the sensitivity of the CIA leak investigation Fitzgerald was overseeing.
• Perhaps one of the most illuminating aspects of Sampson's testimony is his admission that Gonzales did not object to the idea of using a new, legalistic work-around to avoid Senate confirmation in filling prosecutor vacancies until after Democratic senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas raised objections to the appointment of Tim Griffin to be US attorney in Little Rock. Justice officials have said that Gonzales rejected the idea but have been unclear about the timing. Sampson -- who wrote e-mails from August to December advocating bypassing confirmation -- said Gonzales did not reject the idea until late December or early January. Pryor said Gonzales told him earlier that no such move had been contemplated -- another Gonzales lie. Sampson tells Republican senator Arlen Specter, whose own staff member slipped in the Patriot Act codicil that authorized the indefinite appointment of US attorneys without Senate oversight, "That was a bad idea by staff that was not adopted by the principals. I did advocate that. It was never adopted by the attorney general or Ms. Miers.... I did recommend that at one point. I was the chief of staff and I had made recommendations of different options...and I did reccommend that. But it was never adopted by the attorney general. It was rejected by the attorney general." Apparently it was rejected by Gonzales only after Pryor began making waves. However, Sampson cannot prove what Gonzales did or didn't say, because, as he says, "I didn't communicate with the attorney general by e-mail." (It is well known that Gonzales doesn't like leaving written or electronic records of his conversations.) Sampson says he isn't sure why he floated the idea of firing Fitzgerald: maybe it was just to "get a reaction out of" Miers and Kelley.
• Interestingly, Sampson says that he kept very little documentation on the firing process. When asked by Democrat Ted Kennedy about any such documentation, he says, "[I]t wasn't a very good file... [T]here wasn't much of a file."
• When asked by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse whether he has ever prosecuted a case himself, Sampson says he has prosecuted one -- a gun case. He also says he has prosecuted "a handful" of civil cases. Sampson was in line to become a US attorney himself, overseeing the prosecution of cases like the Cunningham investigation.
• The New York Times writes a blistering editorial regarding Sampson's testimony, observing that Sampson tried to be a "loyal Bushie," to use Sampson's own terminology, but that "if Mr. Sampson was trying to fall on his sword, he had horrible aim. In testimony that got so embarrassing for the White House that the Republicans tried to cut it off, Mr. Sampson simply ended up making it clearer than ever that the eight prosecutors were fired for political reasons." Sampson, say the Times editors, "provided more evidence, also, that the attorney general and other top Justice Department officials were dishonest in their initial statements about the firings. [He] flatly contradicted the attorney general's claim that he did not participate in the selection of the prosecutors to be fired and never had a conversation about 'where things stood.' Mr. Sampson testified that Mr. Gonzales was 'aware of this process from the beginning,' and that the two men regularly discussed where things stood. Mr. Sampson also confirmed that Mr. Gonzales was at the Nov. 27 meeting where the selected prosecutors' fates were sealed."
• The Times editors also note that Sampson proved himself a liar, in the now-infamous letter of February 23, 2007, that Sampson all but wrote under the name of assistant AG Richard Hertling (see the March 28 item above). The letter denied that Karl Rove or any other White House official was involved in the firing of Arkansas prosecutor Bud Cummins and his replacement by Rove underling Tim Griffin; Sampson squirmed and wriggled when questioned about his December 2006 e-mail where he said getting Griffin in place was "important" to Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. Sampson finally, and grudgingly, admitted that he had discussed the appointment with two White House aides.
• As for Sampson's denials that he had anything more than casual knowledge of the fired prosecutors' pursuit of corrupt Republicans before their sacking, the Times finds his denials "implausible. ...He was asked if he was aware that the fired United States attorney in Nevada was investigating a Republican governor, that the fired prosecutor in Arkansas was investigating the Republican governor of Missouri, or that the prosecutor in Arizona was investigating two Republican members of Congress;" his answer was either a flat "no," or a claim that he just knew of the prosecutions from glancing at the news. This is impossible to believe, unless, say the editors, "we are to believe that Mr. Gonzales runs a department in which the chief of staff is merely a political hack who has no hand in its substantive work." There can be no other explanation than the rankest of partisan political hackery for Sampson's admission that he advocated firing Patrick Fitzgerald. The Times writes, "The administration insists that purge was not about partisan politics. But Mr. Sampson's alternative explanation was not very credible -- that the decision about which of these distinguished prosecutors should be fired was left in the hands of someone as young and inept as Mr. Sampson. If this were an aboveboard, professional process, it strains credulity that virtually no documents were produced when decisions were made, and that none of his recommendations to Mr. Gonzales were in writing."
• The Times concludes, "It is no wonder that the White House is trying to stop Congress from questioning Mr. Rove, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials in public, under oath and with a transcript. The more the administration tries to spin the prosecutor purge, the worse it looks."
• Slate's Emily Bazelon writes, "Kyle Sampson tried to stand by his man today. But he just couldn't. His former boss of seven years, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, zoomed so far into outer space this month in claiming that he had nothing to do with last year's firing of eight US attorneys that Sampson could only leave him to orbit. Sampson was sweaty, nervous, and soft-spoken -- nowhere in evidence was the cavalier swagger of the aide who wrote e-mails a few short months ago about replacing one prosecutor without waiting for his 'body to cool.' And that made his testimony about Gonzales all the more damning for its apparent reluctance." (Washington Post, TPM Muckraker, New York Times, Slate, USA Today)

"The decision-makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president." -- Kyle Sampson

• March 29: Testifying before the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommends that Congress and the Bush administration shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

  Terrorism detainees and "enemy combatants"

  He says that the more dangerous prisoners can be held elsewhere, and adds that Congress may need to pass legislation that will "address the concerns about some of these people who really need to be incarcerated forever, but that doesn't get them involved in a judicial system where there is the potential of them being released." Many Congressional Democrats agree, with House member David Obey telling Gates, "I hope that we can work to find some way to correct this problem, because as you say, it is a stain on our reputation and we can't afford it." Of the 385 detainees at Guantanamo, fewer than 100 would be considered hard-core, Gates says. He said he assumes there would be room in the military prison system for them. He also says that the US is trying to return several hundred of the detainees to their home countries, but those nations do not want them. (AP/USA Today)
• March 29: Truthout's Jason Leopold writes,

  US Attorney firings

  "[T]he common thread in the thousands of pages of documents released by the Department of Justice in conjunction with a Congressional probe into the US attorney dismissals is that top officials in the DOJ who worked behind the scenes believed that they were doing something improper in selectively dismissing the attorneys and acted with a clear intent to deceive lawmakers if any questions into reasons for the firings arose. Instead of pointing to the president's broad discretion to fire the prosecutors, Justice officials conceived a plan that they would execute on a specific date and time, and then cooked up a story that they all agreed upon in the event that their actions were scrutinized. Simply put, some former US attorneys argue, the emails and other documents released last week demonstrate that prior to the day the firings took place, officials in the Justice Department appeared to be acting under a guilty state of mind. The state of mind of officials involved in the firings is part of the reason the US attorney purge has turned into a full-blown political scandal and has led to Congressional hearings." Former US attorney Michael Clark says that there "seems to be an awareness that the various officials involved in the process knew they were putting out misinformation in large measure; that is, this is evidence of an intent to deceive. It may not be criminally actionable, but arguably there could be a civil remedy available to those who were on the receiving end -- such as for defamation of character. This episode has gained traction in my eyes for the same reason that spelled the fate of former President Nixon during Watergate. The deception is inexcusable, and particularly so when it wasn't necessary; instead, had Gonzales and others been more forthright, then this could have been a tempest in a teapot." (Truthout)
• March 29: Joseph Rich, the chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division from 1999 through 2005, writes a blistering editorial for the Los Angeles Times about the systematic corruption and politicization of the DOJ.

  US Attorney firings

  Rich writes, "The scandal unfolding around the firing of eight US attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest."
• Rich spent over 35 years with the DOJ, enforcing federal civil rights laws, and particularly working with voting rights. He writes, "Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies -- from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants. However, that changed under the Bush administration. "Over the last six years," Rich writes, "this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections. It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. US attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities. At least two of the recently fired US attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats."
• Like other DOJ veterans, Rich also points to the skewed hiring practices of the Bush Justice Department. "In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim US attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure. Schlozman, for instance, was part of the team of political appointees that approved then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's plan to redraw congressional districts in Texas, which in 2004 increased the number of Republicans elected to the House. Similarly, Schlozman was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the division when the Justice Department OKd a Georgia law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. These decisions went against the recommendations of career staff, who asserted that such rulings discriminated against minority voters. The warnings were prescient: Both proposals were struck down by federal courts." Rich touches on Schlozman's attempts to interfere in the November 2006 US Senate race in Missouri, when a week before the election, he brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization, ACORN, which represents poor and minority voters. Rich writes, "This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent."
• The "outright hostility" towards career employees from Bush political appointees has driven many veterans out of the Justice Department, Rich notes, and some who refused to leave were either fired or demoted. Rich writes, "Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored. Morale plummeted, resulting in an alarming exodus of career attorneys. In the last two years, 55% to 60% of attorneys in the voting section have transferred to other departments or left the Justice Department entirely. At the same time, career staff were nearly cut out of the process of hiring lawyers. Control of hiring went to political appointees, so an applicant's fidelity to GOP interests replaced civil rights experience as the most important factor in hiring decisions."
• Rich concludes, "For decades prior to this administration, the Justice Department had successfully kept politics out of its law enforcement decisions. Hopefully, the spotlight on this misconduct will begin the process of restoring dignity and nonpartisanship to federal law enforcement. As the 2008 elections approach, it is critical to have a Justice Department that approaches its responsibility to all eligible voters without favor." (Los Angeles Times)
• March 29: The idea of rampant and orchestrated voter fraud, as pushed by Republicans, is a myth, say the Brennan Center for Justice's Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt, and such claims of voter fraud are ridiculous excuses for the firing of several US attorneys.

  US Attoney firings

  They write, "Allegations of voter fraud -- someone sneaking into the polls to cast an illicit vote -- have been pushed in recent years by partisans seeking to justify proof-of-citizenship and other restrictive ID requirements as a condition of voting. Scare stories abound on the Internet and on editorial pages, and they quickly become accepted wisdom. But the notion of widespread voter fraud, as these prosecutors found out, is itself a fraud. Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch." Voter fraud certainly happens, and there are well-documented instances of it occurring throughout American political history. But it happens rarely and almost always in isolated instances.
• Waldman and Levitt write, "Before and after every close election, politicians and pundits proclaim: The dead are voting, foreigners are voting, people are voting twice. On closer examination, though, most such allegations don't pan out. Consider a list of supposedly dead voters in Upstate New York that was much touted last October. Where reporters looked into names on the list, it turned out that the voters were, to quote Monty Python, 'not dead yet.' Or consider Washington state, where [fired US attorney John] McKay closely watched the photo-finish gubernatorial election of 2004. A challenge to ostensibly noncitizen voters was lodged in April 2005 on the questionable basis of 'foreign-sounding names.' After an election there last year in which more than 2 million votes were cast, following much controversy, only one ballot ended up under suspicion for double-voting. That makes sense. A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike."
• Waldman and Levitt say the stories of voter fraud have become "urban legends," so pervasive that the conservatively-controlled Supreme Court last year suggested that the mere fear of fraud might in some circumstances justify laws that have the consequence of disenfranchising voters. "But it's already happening -- those chasing imaginary fraud are actually taking preventive steps that would disenfranchise millions of real live Americans," they write.
• The steps proposed to "stop" voter fraud would actually disenfranchise millions of Americans. One proposal is to require proof of citizenship. When that requirement was instituted for Medicaid recipients, tens of thousands of eligible citizens -- mostly elderly and minority citizens -- were cut off because they lacked the necessary papers. Many poor citizens cannot afford the $200 or so that it would cost to obtain naturalization or citizenship papers. Waldman and Levitt note that in 1996, when poll taxes were declared unconstitutional, the cost was $1.50 -- $8.97 in current dollars.
• Of course, most Republicans are not interested in curbing the most significant area of possible voter fraud, the threat posed by electronic voting systems. A bill is awaiting passage in the House to require a voter-verified record along with random audits to double-check against tampering. It would also bar wireless components from machines that could allow a hacker using a PDA to stage an attack.
• Waldman and Levitt conclude, "Those investigating the US attorney firings should ask what orders went out to other prosecutors in the run-up to the 2006 election. Prosecutors are not hired-gun lawyers on a party payroll. They have a special duty to exercise their power responsibly, particularly in the context of a heated election. Pressure on prosecutors to join a witch hunt for individual voter fraud is a scandal, not just for the Justice Department but for voters seeking to exercise their most basic right." (Washington Post)
• March 29: Democratic senator Charles Schumer says that the longer Republicans continue to back Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the more damage the Republican Party will suffer at the voting booth.

  US Attorney firings

  "Clearly, it will affect 2008, because the credibility of the President and the people close to him is lower now today than it was a month ago, and that's going to hurt," he says. Schumer predicts as the Senate continues to investigate the firings of eight US attorneys for political reasons, and Gonzales's role in those firings, more and more Republicans -- especially those like John Sununu and Gordon Smith, who are facing tough elections in 2008 -- will withdraw their support from Gonzales. "If they continue to do what they are doing and follow Trent Lott and just march lock, stock and barrel behind the White House, it will hurt them in Congress," he says. "If, on the other hand, they show independence, it won't."
• Schumer is looking forward to new information from the upcoming testimony from Gonzales's former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, though he believes Sampson will be less than forthcoming. "I think Sampson is trying to thread the needle," he says. "He is going to both try and save his reputation and not hurt Gonzales. He is a longtime Republican apparatchik."
• Schumer and his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are still locked in battle with the White House over compelling the testimony of current and former White House aides, including Karl Rove and Harrier Miers. Schumer and his fellow Democrats want Rove, Miers, and others to testify in open session, under oath. The White House has offered to have them testify behind closed doors without a transcript. "The terms that they proposed for Rove and Miers were so ridiculous -- that's why they haven't had any traction," he says. "I haven't seen one Republican who has justified doing it with no transcript. You can argue whether it should be public or private, or you can even argue about whether it should be sworn testimony. You cannot argue that there should be no transcript. The fact that they had to say 'no transcript' says something. Doesn't it? It means that they want no accountability." A source in Schumer's office says subpoenas for Rove and Miers have been authorized but not yet issued. "The facts inevitably point in the direction that a good number of these US attorneys were fired for the worst possible reason -- that they wouldn't pursue cases that would not benefit the administration," he says. "Now they are trying to figure out an explanation that is false but that would cover it up, but it just doesn't hold." (New York Observer)
• March 29: The annual Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner provides an unintentional, but illustrative, example of just how much in the pockets of the Bush administration is the Washington media corps.

  Conservative media slant

  The dinner is always a chance for the Washington insiders of the press and the government to schmooze and let their hair down together -- and was the scene for Bush's ghoulish attempt at humor in 2004 where he "hunted" for weapons of mass destruction under the White House furniture -- but one half-scripted moment featuring two improvisational comics from the ABC show Whose Line Is It Anyway? makes this annual ceremony of privilege and superficial self-mockery worthy of reporting.
• Comedians Colin Mochrie and Brad Sherwood bring Karl Rove onstage for a skit that features "rapper" "MC Rove." Sherwood, a talented improvisational singer, makes up a bit about Rove as the "sidekick to the president," and a clearly delighted Rove playing along. But the memorable moment comes when NBC reporter David Gregory, whose day job is supposed to be squeezing the truth out of Rove and his ilk, obligingly serves as Rove's backup dancer. The entire scenario of Rove pretending to be a rapper and Gregory shuffling and grinning behind him is uncomfortably ironic, and all too revealing.
• As for Bush's own contribution, which features him musing appreciatively of a photo of Barack Obama's "sleek, hairless pecs glistening," the less said, the better. (Los Angeles Times, Think Progress [link to video])

---

Bush, military lie about need for immediate troop funding

• March 30: Both the Bush administration and the Pentagon have repeatedly and systematically lied over the "urgent" need for "immediate" war funding, according to a Congressional Research Service study.

  Iraq war and occupation

  Bush officials, military spokespersons, and Congressional Republicans insist that Congress must pass a large, no-strings-attached supplemental appropriations bill right now, or that dire consequences will ensue for American troops in Iraq within the coming weeks. Congress is mired in debate over sending a bill up for a vote that would fund the troops, but would include timetables for withdrawal, an inclusion that Bush and Congressional Republicans adamantly oppose. "[T]the clock is ticking for our troops in the field," Bush intoned ominously yesterday.
• The CRS study shows that the US Army, the branch of the military characterized as in the most immediate need, has enough money to finance its operations in Iraq through the end of July. "The Army could finance the O&M (operations and maintenance) of both its baseline and war program...through most of July 2007" by shifting around money in existing accounts, the CRS reports. The report is largely based on the Army's own data. Democratic House member John Murtha, who has deep and longstanding ties with the military, says he believes the White House's insistence that the Army's money will run out by April 15 is a lie. Based on the inquiries he's made, he says, the Pentagon will start running out of money at the beginning of June. "We've never had a year where they didn't give us bad information," he says. "We've been asking people and we think it'll be the end of May."
• Bush and his fellows have repeately insisted that Congress must provide $100 billion in funding now, or the troops will suffer the effects of a lack of funding within the next few weeks. Bush began demanding the supplemental funding in early February; the Democratic leadership in Congress has responded by providing bills that actually give more money than Bush asked for, but are including conditions: benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, and timetables for withdrawal of American troops. Bush says he will not tolerate any such attempts by Congress to "micromanage" the war, and will veto any such bill that crosses his desk. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress on March 29 that within two weeks, if the Army doesn't get emergency funding, it would have to begin curtailing some troop training, which "could over time delay their ability to go back into combat." And Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that if funding was not approved by May 15, the Army would have to extend some soldiers' tours, because other units would not be ready, and equipment repair work would not be carried out. "Every day that the Congress fails to act on this request causes our military hardship and impacts readiness," says White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
• However, Perino is just piling on the lies. The CRS report says that "the Army could finance its O&M expenses through the end of May by tapping $52.6 billion in O&M funding already provided by Congress." Furthermore, with congressional approval, the Pentagon could temporarily transfer money out of other accounts, giving the Army "almost two additional months" to conduct its regular operations and the war. The National Journal reports that the CRS found "the Army has enough money in its existing budget to fund operations and maintenance through the end of May -- about $52.6 billion. If additional transfer authority is tapped, subject to Congress approving a reprogramming request, the Army would have enough funds to make it through nearly two additional months, or toward the end of July. Using all of its transfer authority, the Army could have as much as $60.1 billion available." Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid observes, "This study confirms that the president is once again attempting to mislead the public and create an artificial atmosphere of anxiety. He is using scare tactics to defeat bipartisan legislation that would change course in Iraq."
• Since invading Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration has refused to include in annual budgets the full estimated cost of the war each year. Instead, for four years it has submitted "emergency" requests that many lawmakers complain have made it difficult to do proper oversight of the war. (Reuters, Think Progress [multiple sources])

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long [US troops] will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." -- George W. Bush, speaking on the US involvement in Kosovo, April-June 1999

• March 30: Two Afghanistan experts say that the US's war in that beleagured nation is not winnable in its present form.

  War in Afghanistan

  US scholar Barnett Rubin and Gordon Smith, Canada's former ambassador to NATO, make their arguments before a Canadian legislative committee only days after Canada's senior military commander, General Rick Hillier, told the committee that dramatic progress is being achieved. According to Rubin and Smith, support among Afghans for NATO forces is plummeting, the US-driven policy of poppy eradication is misguided, and the war as it stands is not winnable. "They're not at all happy," Rubin says of the Afghan people. "Support for both the international presence and the government has plummeted in the past year or so." He says Afghans aren't seeing the results of promises by the United States and NATO, which took over the mission in 2003, to increase security, establish democracy and improve the economy. "The main complaint that I hear from Afghans is...that we haven't delivered what they think we promised." In a recent article for Foreign Affairs magazine, Rubin blames the US for underestimating the destructive influence of Pakistan, which he accuses of providing "safe haven" to the Taliban.
• Smith contradicts Hillier's assertion that Canadian troops in Afghanistan are facing a weakened enemy; Smith says that al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters are actually gaining in strength. "The al-Qaeda problem has not gone away," he says. "It's important that we not forget the original motivation for going to Afghanistan, and that was to deal with al-Qaeda."
• Smith recommends that NATO drastically increase its troop commitment in Afghanistan, use development aid more effectively, create markets so Afghan farmers can sell their opium for legitimate uses, and open negotiations with the Taliban. (CanWest/Vancouver Sun)
• March 30: Three retired generals warn Bush not to use soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as "props" during his scheduled press conference there today.

  Walter Reed scandal

  They also urge Bush not to try to use the soldiers as political weapons to try to score points against Democrats, and ask him to focus strictly on the problems with military medical care. The generals are responding to news reports that say Bush will use the event to take on Democrats as both sides clash over the Iraq and Afghanistan spending bills just passed by the Senate and House which include timelines Bush fiercely opposes for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Bush will ignore the generals' advice and indeed use the soldiers as props for his partisan photo-op, though he does give an apology for the military's failure to provide for its wounded veterans. It is Bush's first visit to Walter Reed since the story broke in February. He takes a carefully orchestrated tour of the facility, and awards several Purple Hearts and hands out presidential coins to the wounded. Journalistic coverage is strictly controlled, with reporters not allowed to talk to any of the soldiers, and their coverage of Bush's walkthrough monitored and restricted. Bush moves so quickly through Reed that his tour ends an hour earlier than scheduled.
• Major General Paul Eaton, known as the "father of the Iraqi Army" for his work in rebuilding the Iraqi army after the 2003 invasion, says, "I'm convinced that [Bush] would honor [the troops] more if he would refrain from using soldiers as props in political theater. We have a commander-in-chief who does very well when he is unscripted, unrehearsed and engaging with soldiers. But too often those who handle his performances try to turn the American fighting man and woman into a political prop for the scenery. So I would be very happy to see him do the Water Reed visit more like the commander and secondarily as an inspector general instead of as a politician. The inspector general in the US army is the fellow charged with ferreting out problems such as Walter Reed and delivering the nature of the problem to the commander. So it is best that the commander in chief pursue this visit to Walter Reed as commander in fact of the American fighting man and the American fighting woman."
• Eaton's fellow retired major general, Mel Montano, agrees, saying, "I think to use it as a means to discuss the Iraqi supplemental is an insult to the soldiers and what they did. Because it's political exploitation as far as I feel. I think he ought to address the issues concerning their treatment, Walter Reed, etc, etc, etc. But to take this captive audience that has no choice and use them as I mentioned to exploit and push this, his disdain of the Iraqi supplemental vote in the House and the Senate is completely without foundation. And I think he should know that and that it really doesn't sit well with the rest of us in the military."
• The third general, Lieutenant General Robert Garde, is less outspoken, and uses his time to focus reporters' attention on cuts in the money being allocated to military medical care and the outsourcing of certain health services, such as mental health specialists, who aren't providing the level of care that had been given by their military counterparts. "I hope the president will focus on the need of these various medical installations to have adequate funding in the various operation and maintenance accounts," Garde says, noting that $650 million in cuts in money to military medical facilities have been proposed in the fiscal 2008 federal budget. The cuts are supposed to be made up through increased efficiencies. Garde is doubtful, and foresees more service cuts and deteriorating buildings: "The surgeon generals have all testified that this will result in a cut in services at the very time we're highlighting that the services are inadequate."
• National security expert and former Marine Rand Beers, who organized the teleconference on behalf of the National Security Network, says during the teleconference, "My view on this issue is Walter Reed and the military medical situation is a serious enough issue deserving quite highly of a presidential visit and speech to reassure the military, their families the American people that the social contract between our government and our people and the people who serve in the military is in fact if in distress at this point is something that is going to be taken care of. And I think it would be disrespectful on the part of the president to begin to discuss his position on the Iraq supplemental and his differences with Democrats over that issue in this particular, and I believe, important setting and important subject which so obviously needs to be addressed." Stephen Robinson of Veterans for America agrees: "This system is broke. ...We're gettin' great medical care in terms of amputations, burn care, bullets and bomb wounds. But every other aspect of it, and the outpatient aspect, is broke. So what I would like for [Bush] to do so it wouldn't be a political speech is acknowledge the problems and tell us what he's going to do to fix them. If he simply says we care about soldiers, he isn't doing his job."
• Democratic senator Patty Murray, who visited Walter Reed on March 28, says, "What [the soldiers] don't want is another photo op. They are very angry and frustrated with that. We all go up and stand with them and get back in our vans and go away. They stay behind, angry in their wheelchairs." (Chicago Tribune, Washington Post)
• March 30: Terror suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Guantanamo Bay detainee for five years, says he was tortured into confessing his involvement in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole just to satisfy his torturers and "make the people happy," according to a Pentagon transcript of a military hearing at Guantanamo.

  US torture allegations

  Al-Nashiri, a Yemeni Saudi, is the second "high value" detainee to claim he was tortured while being held in secret CIA prisons before being immured in the Guantanamo prison camp. Al-Nashiri says he was not involved in the bombing of the Cole, but made up the stories to stop the torture. "From the time I was arrested five years ago, they have been torturing me," he said on March 14. "It happened during interviews. One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way. I just said those things to make the people happy. They were very happy when I told them those things." The transcript does not contain details of the torture al-Nashiri says he suffered, but parts of the transcript were blacked out before being released. Blacked-out details can include interrogation techniques and information about confinement.
• 13 other prisoners at Guantanamo have charged that they were tortured while in US custody, and the International Committee of the Red Cross has said in a confidential report that the 14 prisoners described abusive interrogation methods. The CIA denies any torture allegations, but admits to using what it called in 2002 "enhanced interrogation techniques." Those techniques include beatings, subjection to intense cold, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. Other techniques are not publicly discussed. "It's widely known that the CIA has abused prisoners -- agency personnel have admitted as much to journalists, and detainees who have been released or transferred to military custody have described some of the abuses," says John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. "But now the military is acting as an accomplice after the fact."
• US intelligence reports portray al-Nashiri as a close associate of Osama bin Laden, and was personally tasked by bin Laden to lead the attack on the Cole. In the transcript, al-Nashiri says he met with bin Laden many times, and received up to $500,000 from him for personal expenses, business deals, and bomb-making. Al-Nashiri says he lied about his terrorist connections to stop the torture he suffered, and says he confessed to involvement in an entire array of terrorist crimes, including the 2002 bombing of the French oil tanker Limburg and other planned attacks against American targets. He even told interrogators that bin Laden had a nuclear bomb. Instead, he says, while he took money from bin Laden, he used it to build a fishing business. He now says he was never involved in any terrorist activities, and ended his association with bin Laden and al-Qaeda after bin Laden asked him to use his business as a front for staging terrorist attacks. Asked if he is an enemy combatant, al-Nashiri told the hearing that he does not consider Americans his enemies but he is one of thousands of people who believe the US should leave the Gulf. "It is true I facilitated the movement of money...but I did not know what it was going to be used for," he said in the statement. (AP/Yahoo! News)
• March 30: Author Richard Behan alerts readers to the "land mine planted in the supplemental appropriation legislation working its way through Congress."

  Oil profiteering and the "oiligarchy"

  Buried deep inside the Iraq Accountability Act, passed by the House, and its companion bill in the Senate, is what Behan calls a "near-guarantee of success for the Bush administration's true objective of the war -- capturing Iraq's oil...." Behan believes that Bush's threats to veto the legislation are political gamesmanship, an attempt to get even more out of the bill by browbeating Democrats into removing the bill's provision for timetables for withdrawals.
• Behan writes, "The supplemental appropriation package requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of 'benchmarks' President Bush established in his speech to the nation on January 10 (in which he made his case for the 'surge'). Most of Mr. Bush's benchmarks are designed to blame the victim, forcing the Iraqis to solve the problems George Bush himself created. One of the president's benchmarks, however, stands apart. This is how the President described it: 'To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.' A seemingly decent, even noble concession. That's all Mr. Bush said about that benchmark, but his brevity was gravely misleading, and it had to be intentional." The Iraqi Parliament is preparing to pass a bill called the "hydrocarbon law," which will provide for a limited amount of revenue-sharing among the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds of Iraq. But the bill -- a long, complex piece of legislation, created over the course of several years -- is primarily written to transform the Iraqi oil industry into a completely privatized concern that will turn 80% of the industry over to four international oil companies: ExxonMobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell. Naturally, Bush made no mention of this when he gave his platitudes about the Iraqi people sharing in the oil profits from their country.
• One of the provisions in the US legislation is that Bush must certify to Congress by October 2007 that the benchmarks have been met -- specifically, that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. He will undoubtedly do so. "This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years," Behan writes. "It is why we went to war."
• Behan, like many others, believes that one of the main reasons behind, not just the occupation of Iraq, but for the entire "global war on terror," is for American oil interests to secure the oil fields of the Middle East. Much of the proof of this has already been provided throughout the pages of this site. Behan recaps: "Planning for the two wars was underway almost immediately upon the Bush administration taking office -- at least six months before September 11, 2001. The wars had nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism was initially rejected by the new administration as unworthy of national concern and public policy, but 9/11 gave them a conveniently timed and spectacular alibi to undertake the wars. Quickly inventing a catchy 'global war on terror' theme, the administration disguised the true nature of the wars very cleverly, and with enduring success. The 'global war on terror' is bogus. The prime terrorist in Afghanistan and the architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was never apprehended, and the president's subsequent indifference is a matter of record. And Iraq harbored no terrorists at all. But both countries were invaded, both countries suffer military occupation today, both are dotted with permanent US military bases protecting the hydrocarbon assets, and both have been provided with puppet governments. And a billion dollar embassy in Baghdad is under construction now. It will be the largest US embassy in the world by a factor of ten. ...It consists of 21 buildings on 104 acres, six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York city, larger than Vatican City. It will house a delegation of more than five thousand people. It will have its own water, electric, and sewage systems, and it is surrounded by a fortress wall of concrete fifteen feet thick. For an administration committed to fighting terrorism with armies and bombs, that's far more anti-terror diplomacy than a tiny country needs. There must be another purpose for it."
• Behan reminds us of the infamous, still-secret Cheney energy task force. "[C]omposed of federal officials and oil industry people[, b]y March of 2001, half a year before 9/11, the Task Force was poring secretly over maps of the Iraqi oil fields, pipe lines, and tanker terminals. It studied a listing of foreign oil company 'suitors' for exploration and development contracts, to be executed with Saddam Hussein's oil ministry. There was not a single American or British oil company included, and to Mr. Cheney and his cohorts that was intolerable. The final report of the Task Force was candid: '...Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of US international energy policy.' The detailed meaning of 'focus' was left blank."
• Behan also reminds us that Bush's first National Security Council meeting, six months before September 11, set a priority for invading and occupying Iraq. It was clear that the word "focus" meant war. A year later, the White House Iraq Group -- made up not of foreign policy or military experts, but of media and public relations flacks -- was cranking up a spiffy, sleek marketing campaign for the war. The Bush administration signed contracts with Halliburton months before Congress had authorized military force against Iraq. What was the first Halliburton contract for? For suppressing oil well fires.
• Behan writes, "The oil industry is the primary client and top-ranked beneficiary of the Bush administration. There can be no question the administration intended to secure for American oil corporations the rich petroleum resources of Iraq: 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, twice that in probable and possible resources, potentially far more than Saudi Arabia. The Energy Task Force spoke to this and the National Security Council answered. A secret NSC memorandum in 2001 spoke candidly of 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields' in Iraq. In 2002 Paul Wolfowitz suggested simply seizing the oil fields. These words and suggestions were draconian, overt, and reprehensible -- morally, historically, politically and diplomatically. The seizure of the oil would have to be oblique and far more sophisticated."
• The State Department began its "Future of Iraq" project in 2002, designed to shape the institutional contours of postwar, post-Hussein Iraq. Its "Oil and Energy Working Group" looked at the National Iraqi Oil Company, the government agency that owned and operated the Iraqi oil fields and marketed the products, and didn't like what it saw. 100% of the revenues went directly to the central government, and constituted about 90% of its income. Certainly Saddam Hussein and his cronies benefited, but so did the Iraqi people, to a far greater extent, in terms of the nation's public services and physical infrastructure. Behan writes, "For this reason nationalized oil industries are the norm throughout the world." But the OEWG had different plans. It "designed a scheme that was oblique and sophisticated, indeed. The oil seizure would be less than total. It would be obscured in complexity. The apparent responsibility for it would be shifted, and it would be disguised as benefiting, even necessary to Iraq's well being. Their work was supremely ingenious, undeniably brilliant. The plan would keep the National Iraqi Oil Company in place, to continue overseeing the currently producing fields. But those fields represent only 19% of Iraq's petroleum reserves. The other 81% would be flung open to 'investment' by foreign oil interests, and the companies in favored positions today -- because of the war and their political connections -- are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell. The nationalized industry would be 80% privatized. The investment vehicle would be the 'production sharing agreement,' a long-term contract -- up to 40 years -- that grants to the company a share of the oil produced; in exchange, the company underwrites the development costs and oilfield infrastructure. Such 'investment' is touted by the Bush administration and its puppets in Iraq as necessary to the country's recovery, and a huge benefit, accordingly. But it is not unusual for these contracts to grant the companies more than half the profits for the first 15-30 years, and to deny the host country any revenue at all until the investment costs have been recovered.
• Right now, Iraq's oil industry is debilitated, and stands in dire need of investment capital to repair, replace, and upgrade its infrastructure. "But it does not need Exxon/Mobil or any other foreign company to provide it," Behan writes. "At a reduced level, Iraq is still producing oil and hence revenue, and no country in the world, perhaps, has better collateral against which to float bond issues for public investment. Privatization of any sort and in any degree is utterly unnecessary in Iraq today."
• "The features of the State Department plan were inserted by Paul Bremer's Provisional Coalition Authority into the developing structures of Iraqi governance," Behan continues. "American oil companies were omnipresent in Baghdad then and have been since, shaping and shepherding the plan through the several iterations of puppet governments-the 'democracy' said to be taking hold in Iraq."
• Only a few Iraqi officials even know what the hydrocarbon law will entail -- it was originally written in English. Its exclusive beneficiaries are American and British oil companies. Its victims are the Iraqi people, who will not benefit from the profits that will flow from their oil. A small percentage of the oil revenues will, indeed, be shared among the Iraqi people. Behan writes, "This is the feature President Bush relies upon exclusively to justify, to insist on the passage of the hydrocarbon law. His real reasons are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell. No one can say at the moment how much the hydrocarbon law will cost the Iraqi people, but it will be in the hundreds of billions. The circumstances of its passage are mired in the country's chaos, and its final details are not yet settled. If and when it passes, however, Iraq will orchestrate the foreign capture of its own oil. The ingenious, brilliant seizure of Iraqi oil will be assured. That outcome has been on the Bush administration's agenda since early in 2001, long before terrorism struck in New York and Washington. The Iraqi war has never been about terrorism. It is blood for oil. The blood has been spilled already, hugely, criminally. More than 3,200 American military men and women have died in Iraq. 26,500 more have been wounded. But the oil remains in play. The game will end if the revenue-sharing 'benchmark' is fully enforced. The land mine will detonate. Mission almost accomplished, Mr. President."
• Behan adds the following endnote: "This article was written assuming the members of Congress were ignorant, when they passed the supplemental appropriation bills, of the clever origin, the details, and the true beneficiaries of the Iraqi hydrocarbon law. It was written assuming they did not know President Bush's stated 'benchmark' of revenue-sharing was fraudulently incomplete, intentionally obscuring the fully intended seizure, by military force, of Iraqi oil assets. The Bush administration made every effort to mislead deliberately both the Congress and the American people. Ignorance of the circumstances was imposed. If any members of Congress acted with full and complete knowledge, however, then they have become complicit in a criminal war." (CommonDreams)
• March 30: A senior aide to Karl Rove, Sara Taylor, will step down from her position over her involvement in the US attorney scandal.

  US Attorney firings

  Taylor, the White House's political director, was identified yesterday by former Justice Department official Kyle Sampson as being involved in the firing of US attorney Bud Cummins. Taylor may soon be subpoenaed to testify before the House Judiciary Commitee. Taylor and her deputy, Scott Jennings were fingered by Sampson as playing key roles in the firing of Cummins and the elevation of Tim Griffin, a protege of Rove's, to the position. When Democratic senator Ted Kennedy asked Sampson yesterday why he believed that Griffin's appointment was important to Rove, Sampson replied, "I knew that Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings had expressed interest in promoting Mr. Griffin for appointment to be US attorney, and I assumed, because they reported to Karl Rove, that he was interested in that." Taylor has worked with Bush since April 1999, when he first began his presidential run. (Raw Story)
• March 30: GOP presidential candidate and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani admitted that he was briefed in 2000 about his former crony Bernard Kerik's ties to organized crime before Giuliani appointed Kerik to head the New York City police department.

  Rudolph Giuliani

  Giuliani has maintained, before now, that he had no idea Kerik was involved with a company with ties to the Mafia. After Kerik served as New York's police commissioner, Giuliani recommended Kerik to head the newly created Department of Homeland Security; Kerik withdrew his name after rumors of his involvement with the Mafia began to surface in the media. Kerik and Giuliani have had a close business and personal relationship for decades.
• Giuliani testified in April 2006 in a grand jury hearing as part of an investigation into Kerik. He told the grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Kerik's ties to the Mafia well before Giuliani appointed him to head the NYPD; Giuliani said that although he couldn't remember the briefing, he wasn't disputing the fact that he was, indeed, briefed. Giuliani told the grand jury that he must have forgotten about that briefing, and any others that might have alerted him to Kerik's ties with organized crime. In a statement about the testimony, Giuliani's consulting firm says, "Mayor Giuliani has admitted it was a mistake to recommend Bernie Kerik for DHS and he has assumed responsibility for it."
• Kerik pled guilty last summer to improperly allowing the company, Interstate Industrial Corporation, or its subsidiaries, to do $165,000 worth of free renovations on his Bronx apartment in late 1999 and 2000. The company has denied paying for the work, and has disputed any association with organized crime. But the two brothers who run it have been indicted in the Bronx on charges they lied under oath about their dealings with Kerik. While there is no evidence that Giuliani knew about the apartment renovation before promoting Kerik to police commissioner. But the top investigator who briefed Giuliani in 2000, the transcript shows, was aware that Kerik's brother and a close friend had been hired by an affiliate of the company, which for years had been struggling to secure a city license.
• Giuliani is trying not to let his relationship with Kerik become a campaign issue. His own aides have anticipated that questions are likely to arise about Giuliani's judgment in, among other things, promoting Kerik for one of the country's most important national security posts. Ironically, Giuliani's private firm provides background checks for companies as part of its services. (New York Times)

---

• March 31: Fired US attorney Bud Cummins, who was replaced in mid-2006 by Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin, writes an editorial for the online magazine Salon, in which he says the Department of Justice's credibility has been all but destroyed by the recent controversy over his and seven other US attorney firings.

  US Attorney firings

  Cummins says he has no specific information about any particular instances of "politicization" of the Justice Department. But, he notes, "the question goes to the most important issue highlighted by the controversy over the dismissal of myself and seven other United States attorneys: the credibility of the Department of Justice."
• Cummins acknowledges that under the law, Bush can fire any or all of the US attorneys at any time, with or without reason. Cummins writes that he and his fellow attorneys accepted their fate without question. But, "[w]hen challenged by Congress, the leaders of the Department of Justice could have refused to explain. Or, they could have explained the truth. But apparently the truth behind some or all of the firings was embarrassing. So, instead, they said it was because of 'performance.' We didn't accept that, because it wasn't the truth. In spite of statements and representations to the contrary, there was no credible performance review process prior to the firings -- at least, not using the definition of 'performance' known to most people. There is not one document to evidence such a review. The department's leaders did not consult any of the reports or the people that could have provided information relevant to the performance of the US attorneys they fired. In fact, in the case of my seven colleagues, they actually fired some pretty damn good U.S. attorneys -- and knowledgeable people in those attorneys' communities back home know that to be the truth. Nobody seems to believe the department's explanations."
• Cummins says he and his fellow victims still can't be sure why they were singled out to be fired. He isn't sure who knows. But, the story as emerging from the ongoing Congressional hearings is, in his words, "unattractive." He continues, "It doesn't appear any laws were broken, so it makes it even worse that there is such a reluctance on the administration's part to simply admit the obvious and move on. It hurts their credibility. ...Put simply, the Department of Justice lives on credibility. When a federal prosecutor sends FBI agents to your brother's house with an arrest warrant, demonstrating an intention to take away years of his liberty, separate him from his family, and take away his property, you and the public at large must have absolute confidence that the sole reason for those actions is that there was substantial evidence to suggest that your brother intentionally committed a federal crime. Everyone must have confidence that the prosecutor exercised his or her vast discretion in a neutral and nonpartisan pursuit of the facts and the law. Being credible is like being pregnant -- you either are, or you aren't. If someone says they 'kind of' believe what you say, they are really calling you a liar. Once you have given the public a reason to believe some of your decisions are improperly motivated, then they are going to question every decision you have made, or will make in the future. That is a natural and predictable phenomenon. ...You only get one chance to hold on to your credibility. My team, which holds temporary custody of the Department of Justice, has blown it in this case. The Department of Justice will be paying for it for some time to come. Lots of sound investigations and convictions are now going to be questioned. That is a crying shame, because most of the 110,000 employees to whom the attorney general referred in a recent news conference are neutral, nonpartisan public servants and do incredible work. A lot of President Bush's political appointees have done a lot of great work, too. Sadly, because of the damage done by this protracted scandal, which the administration has handled poorly at every turn, none of that good work is currently being recognized. And more ominously, the credibility of the Department of Justice may no longer be, either." (Salon)
• March 31: Rudolph Giuliani's longtime business and political crony, Bernard Kerik, is going to be indicted for several felonies, including tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.

  Rudolph Giuliani

  Kerik's upcoming courtoom battle is expected to have a deletorious effect on Giuliani's campaign for president. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, personally recommended Kerik to Bush as his choice to head the Department of Homeland Security, a recommendation he later termed a "mistake." Giuliani also appointed Kerik to a brief and controversial term as police commissioner of New York City. Kerik's connections to Giuliani go back to his days as Giuliani's campaign security adviser, corrections chief, police commissioner and eventual partner in Giuliani-Kerik, a security arm of Giuliani Partners, which Giuliani established after leaving the mayor's office in 2001. Kerik resigned his positions in Giuliani's firm after he was nominated to the homeland security job. Giuliani has no direct connections to Kerik's alleged crimes, say legal sources familiar with the investigation; he and his consulting firm have cooperated with the FBI's investigation into Kerik.
• Kerik will likely be charged with filing false information to the government during his nomination process as head of DHS -- a Cabinet-level appointment. He will also be charged with tax evasion, by failing to disclose numerous expensive gifts he received while he was New York's corrections commissioner, including costly renovations to an apartment he owned. The FBI is investigating loans he received while he was Giuliani's business partner. Last month, he turned down a plea bargain offer because he has no intention of serving any jail time. His attorney says Kerik will emphasize his innocence of any crime: "He's not going to plead to something that he didn't do," says lawyer Kenneth Breen.
• The case against Kerik that federal prosecutors are preparing could generate uncomfortable political attention for Giuliani because it focuses on Kerik's activities while the two men were in government together and were jointly running Giuliani-Kerik, which was paid millions of dollars for advising startup companies, doing federal work and consulting with clients overseas. Giuliani's campaign has already identified Kerik as a potential campaign liability. Republican political consultant Nelson Warfield says, "Kerik has potential to undermine his image as a competent leader and someone best fit to fight terrorism. Either he had fundamentally bad information about Kerik, or he was reckless in not knowing enough about a man who was that close to him."
• Kerik is also facing charges of conspiracy to commit illegal wiretapping in his dealings with the 2006 candidate for New York attorney general Jeanine Pirro. After Kerik left the Giuliani firm, Kerik arranged for two off-duty Giuliani firm employees to conduct surveillance on Pirro's husband. Pirro and Kerik also discussed bugging a boat where Pirro suspected her husband was having an extramarital affair. Kerik was heard on a wiretap telling Pirro that he did not want to do the bugging because it was illegal. About a year earlier, Pirro, then the Westchester County district attorney, ordered the A&P supermarket chain to hire the Giuliani-Kerik security firm as part of a settlement agreement in a case involving underage alcohol sales. The security firm was ultimately paid $43,000, according to a knowledgeable source who spoke about the terms of the contract on the condition of anonymity.
• Kerik first met Bush in the rubble of the World Trade Center after the 9/11 attacks. In 2003, Kerik served a brief, inglorious stint in Iraq, supposedly helping to train Iraqi police officers, but in reality spending his days bragging about his exploits and at night joining armed Marines in conducting photo-friendly, but safe, "raids" on Iraqi homes. Nevertheless, Bush praised Kerik for his "accomplishments" in Baghdad, and in early 2004, named Kerik to head the Department of Homeland Security. A week later, Kerik withdrew his name from consideration, supposedly over his failure to pay Social Security taxes for a nanny. The real reasons for his withdrawal were more murky, including favors he had police officers do for girlfriends, and ties to organized crime. He later pled guilty to state charges of accepting nearly $200,000 in gifts while a public official, including more than $165,000 spent on renovations to his apartment. The money came from companies affiliated with a New Jersey outfit that federal authorities and state gambling regulators have linked to organized crime. In the fall of 2005, Kerik asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions before a New Jersey gaming regulatory body about his relationship to the people involved in the apartment renovations.
• Kerik found his partnership with Giuliani equally lucrative -- the A&P deal was only one of many such contracts landed because of the partners' extensive Republican political connections. They include a Justice Department contract and multimillion-dollar consulting arrangements with business clients in the technology and security sectors worldwide. In some cases, Giuliani and Kerik simultaneously advised a private company and the federal agency whose actions could affect it. Giuliani's firm, for instance, was hired by Purdue Pharma to help figure out how to keep sales of its popular painkiller OxyContin from being restricted by the government; street dealers were crushing and converting it into a powerful narcotic offering an instant high. Kerik was personally named to oversee security improvements at a New Jersey manufacturing plant. At the same time, the Justice Department paid Giuliani-Kerik $1.1 million to conduct a management review of the organized-crime drug task force, whose responsibilities included stemming illegal use of OxyContin.
• Giuliani-Kerik has not been shy about exploiting the partners' fame over 9/11, either. Giuliani, Kerik and other firm partners were hired by cellphone carrier Nextel to win Federal Communications Commission approval for a new, emergency-only wireless spectrum for first responders. The idea was to solve one problem for Nextel -- it had long been subject to complaints that its wireless signal sometimes interfered with the communications channels used by police, fire and rescue officials -- while creating an even stronger business opportunity for the cellular carrier. At the same time, Giuliani's firm was brought in by the FCC to participate in a panel that was advising the agency in its efforts to address the future needs of a police, fire and rescue communications system in the aftermath of the attacks. (Washington Post)

 

Quick Navigation Menu

• Main Page

• 1897-1960
• 1961-1970
• 1971-1979
• 1980
• 1981
• 1982
• 1983
• 1984
• 1985
• 1986
• 1987
• 1988
• 1989
• 1990
• 1991
• 1992
• 1993
• 1994
• 1995
• 1996
• 1997
• 1998
• 1999
• 2000
• 2001
• 2002

2003 Month by Month

• Jan 03
• Feb 03
• Mar 03
• Apr 03
• May 03
• Jun 03
• Jul 03
• Aug 03
• Sep 03
• Oct 03
• Nov 03
• Dec 03

2004 Month by Month

• Jan 04
• Feb 04
• Mar 04
• Apr 04
• May 04
• Jun 04
• Jul 04
• Aug 04
• Sep 04
• Oct 04
• Nov 04
• Dec 04

2005 Month by Month

• Jan 05
• Feb 05
• Mar 05
• Apr 05
• May 05
• Jun 05
• Jul 05
• Aug 05
• Sep 05
• Oct 05
• Nov 05
• Dec 05

2006 Month by Month

• Jan 06
• Feb 06
• Mar 06
• Apr 06
• May 06
• Jun 06
• Jul 06
• Aug 06
• Sep 06
• Oct 06
• Nov 06
• Dec 06

2007 Month by Month

• Jan 07
• Feb 07
• Mar 07
• Apr 07
• May 07
• Jun 07
• Jul 07
• Aug 07
• Sep 07
• Oct 07
• Nov 07
• Dec 07

Other Pages On This Site

• 9/11
• They Said
• Stolen!
• Katrina
• Who Is?
• Citations
• Links
• Biblio
• Impeach
• Imperial
• Cabinet
• Rationale
• Assist
• Updates