Kyle Sampson Describes Flawed Process Used to Fire US Attorneys (3-30-07)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief-of-staff, Kyle Sampson, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, describing his two year long project of developing a list of attorneys to be fired and replaced by new Bush appointees. He painted the picture of a Justice Department that made major decisions in a disorganized manner, while denying that the firing of eight attorneys was done for improper political reasons.

Sampson said that he kept few notes and made no files for the information that he gathered. However, he described his job as being an "aggregator," someone who received input from a number of sources, and then made a recommendation to the Attorney General.

Sampson's memory failed on 122 occasions during the questioning and he almost always qualified information he provided so as not to show certainty. In particular, Sampson routinely deflected question after question on Karl Rove's role in the firings. On only one occasion did he acknowledge that Rove provided him with input.

In addition to keeping no written materials that could be referred to, Sampson conveyed that the input he received on the attorneys was not vetted for accuracy. The list of attorneys to be fired was primarily conveyed from person-to-person verbally. Finally, there was no organized process for evaluating the attorneys. Evidently, their last performance evaluations, none of which were negative, were not deemed important.

Sampson said during testimony that his experience as a prosecutor consists of one case (not as lead attorney). Alberto Gonzales has prosecuted one less case than Sampson. Both of these men made the decision to demand the resignations of eight highly qualified and experienced US attorneys, while keeping no notes, vetting no input, using no organized process, but still asking the senators and those who were fired to trust that the decisions they made were made without regard for politics.
c-span.org video (3-29-07) 
Washington Post article by Dana Milbank (3-30-07)

Pentagon Covers Up Pat Tillman's Death (posted on 3-29-07)
The inspector general at the Pentagon has determed that nine top military officers, including four generals, covered-up the reasons for NFL football star Pat Tillman's death from friendly fire. Tillman, who gave up a multi-million dollar contract with the Arizona Cardinals in order to fight against Al-Qaeda, was killed on April 22, 2004.

For five weeks, through the time of Tillman's nationally televised memorial, the Pentagon told story of his heroism without saying how he had been killed. It is thought that Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and his military commanders were trying to turn the public's attention from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that was unraveling at the time.
truthdig.com article by Chris Hedges (3-27-07)

Bush Claims "Executive Privilege" To Stop Truth From Coming Out in US Attorney Firings (posted on 3-27-07)
After the Bush team forced out 8 of the 93 US Attorneys they had hired for what they claimed were "job performance" reasons, senators went back and looked at the attorneys' latest performance evaluations and found the claim was not accurate.

The attorneys cited what they felt were the real reasons for their dismissal: their unwillingness to buckle to powerful Republican politicians, noting that they had been asked to evaluate cases based on politics rather than merit. To determine whether this was true, Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that is investigating the dismissals, has asked that Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor to testify before his committee. However, the White House has refused to allow Mr. Rove to do so.

Its defense has been "executive privilege," which allows advisors to provide presidents with counsel without fear of others finding out what they have told him. However, Executive Privilege is not available to protect advisors from the need of Congress to receive information in order to provide oversight over the executive branch.
msnbc.com article by Tom Curry (3-27-07)

Seriously Injured Troops Are Used to Inflate Military Numbers to Their Detriment (posted 3-26-07)
In an apparent effort to inflate manpower statistics showing troop availability for the war, many dozens of troops that are in no condition to be useful to the Army have recently been sent back into training camps in the Mojave Desert to sit in a tent. When units have a sufficient head count, they can be shipped out.

Other soldiers with serious health problems have had their conditions summarily downgraded by Army doctors to make them combat-ready. According to Salon.com, "a military official knowledgeable about the training and medical processing of the injured soldiers said that commanders were taking desperate actions to meet an accelerated deployment schedule dictated by President Bush's so-called surge plan for securing Baghdad." Colonel Wayne Grigsby Jr. did not dispute the fact that injured troops were being sent to Iraq, but insisted they would be put in non-combat jobs once there. He did not comment on whether these people should be placed in any job in Iraq. 
salon.com article by Mark Benjamin (3-26-07)

Columnist Who Unmasked Valerie Plame Continues to Assert She Was Not Covert (posted on 3-24-07)
Robert Novak, the syndicated columnist who told the world on July 14, 2003 that Ambassador Joe Wilson "never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," continues to deny that he did anything wrong.

In his March 22, 2007 column, Novak raises questions about the definition of the word "covert." He says, "Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?"

On March 16, 2006, prior to Plame testifying before the House Government and Oversight Committee, Novak heard the Chairman of the Committee, Henry Waxman, state, "I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests. But (CIA Director) General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958."

In Valerie Plame's testimony under oath that day, she said that "In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counter-proliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified."

Statements by Congressman Henry Waxman, CIA Director General Michael Hayden, and Valerie Plame, under oath, have all failed to deter Novak from using his syndicated column to try to persuade readers that he did no harm.
Washington Post column by Robert Novak (7-14-03)
Washington Post transcript by Congressional Quarterly (3-16-07)
Chicago Sun-Times column by Robert Novak (3-22-07)

Lawyer Who Led Case Against Tobacco Giants Condemns Justice Department Interference (posted on 3-23-07)
The leader of the team in the Justice Department that prosecuted the landmark case that began in 1999 against tobacco companies has come forward to speak out in light of the current firings of US prosecutors. Sharon Eubanks, who served for 22 years as a lawyer in the Justice Department, said there is "overwhelming politicization" in the Department that Congress needs to investigate.

Eubanks said that her bosses at Justice, during Alberto Gonzales' tenure, largely ignored her case until it appeared there was a good chance she might win. Then, they began interfering. They demanded that:
(a) she have key witnesses change their testimony 
(b) she eliminate a team recommendation that key tobacco executives be removed from their jobs
(c) she dramatically lower the monetary penalty that she sought against the industry
(d) she read a closing statement written by them rather than one that giving a closing statement that she felt would give Justice the best chance of winning the case.

Eubanks added that "the political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said, and because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American people."

Sharon Eubanks submitted her resignation to the Department of Justice, effective November 30, 2005, citing a "lack of support" from the political appointees who were her bosses.  She left after following her bosses' four orders above.
Washington Post article by Carol D. Leonnig (3-22-07)
CBS News (12-1-05)

Fox News Tries to Make Deal to Host a Democratic Presidential Debate (posted on 3-20-07) 
Fox News is currently negotiating with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to co-sponsor a Democratic presidential debate. Co-sponsorship with the CBC makes participation in the debate by Democrats more likely. The Democrats recently cancelled a Fox debate organized in Nevada that was not co-sponsored.

On September 9, 2003, Fox and the CBC co-hosted a Democratic debate in Baltimore. Both Fox News television graphics and a banner over the stage described the event as the "Democrat Candidate Presidential Debate," rather than using the word "Democratic." That would be akin to calling a Republican debate a "Republic" debate, a mistake Fox is not believed to have previously made. However, a "mistake" like this for a Democratic debate does allow Fox the opportunity to flex its muscles by showing its advertisers what it can get away with doing.

After that 2003 debate, Fox referenced the event as "Democratic candidates offer grim view of America" and stated that "the depiction of the president as the root of all evil began at the top of Tuesday night's debate."

Many observers feel that Fox uses Democratic debates to present Republican talking points after the event to influence citizens who don't pay much attention to politics and who don't question its "Fair and Balanced" slogan.
HuffingtonPost.com article by Chris Bowers at MyDD.com (2-21-07)
YahooNews.com article by Jim Kuhnhenn of the Associated Press (3-19-07)

"The Hammer" Tries to Manipulate Audience on "Meet the Press" But Is Rebutted (posted on 3-19-07)
Moderator Tim Russert started off the second segment of "Meet the Press" yesterday by asking his guests whether, after exactly four years now, the war in Iraq has been "worth the cost in life and treasure." Former Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX), know as "The Hammer" for his ruthless tactics as Majority Whip, responded with the following: "Well, you said it yourself, Tim. It's been four years since America has been attacked by terrorists. . ."

Former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME) replied, "It's incredible to me to hear Mr. DeLay start his answer to your question by saying that we were attacked on 9/11 in answer to a question about Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We know that for a fact. Despite what the administration and their supporters in Congress said (at the time), Iraq had nothing to do with it."
"Meet the Press" transcript (3-18-07)

Tom DeLay is a manipulation machine here. First, he says, "You said it yourself, Tim"; this has no relationship to what Tim Russert asked, but DeLay uses a technique of asserting that a credible third-party has made his point for him.  Second, Mr. DeLay knows very well that, based on all known intelligence, President Bush confirmed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  However, DeLay said exactly the opposite on the most famous and longest running news program of all time. Why would he do that?  Could it be that he thinks he can use his reputation and force of personality to make people believe whatever he wants them to believe?
Infowars.com (8-23-06)

Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA agent was illegally disclosed on at least eleven different instances by White House personnel to various reporters.
Brad Blog posting by Brad Friedman (3-16-07)

Google Spins New Privacy Policy (posted on 3-16-07)
Google offers a wide variety of state-of-the-art products at no charge to users, including Google Desktop, Book Search, Blogger, Earth, Finance, Calendar, and many more. The advertising it sells for its search services allows the Company to offer these services, most of which will likely carry their own advertising in the future.

When we enter data onto a Google site, we are providing the Company with information about ourselves. This information allows Google to tailor advertising to us that is most relevant to our lives; that is, it offers us the products and services that we are most likely to buy. When we click on a Google link, we make the trade-off of giving them more information about us in return for the ability to use their products.

Google has announced that it will now "only" keep the data we provide it with for 18-to- 24 months. It says, "By anonymizing our server logs after 18-to-24 months, we think we’re striking the right balance between two goals: continuing to improve Google’s services for you, while providing more transparency and certainty about our retention practices."
Google Blog posting by Peter Fleischer (3-14-07)

Google's reasoning consists of a lot of spin. There is no reason to balance "improving services" and "more transparency"; they're both good things. However, there is a need to balance the public's desire for privacy and the Company's desire to know everything it can about us. Google could expand its reservoir of goodwill even more if it would explicitly tell people what it is really doing.

President Bush Seeks $500 Million to Be Donated Anonymously (posted on 3-14-07)
President Bush is seeking to raise $500 million for his presidential library, which he hopes will be located on the campus of Southern Methodist University.

Apparently, in order to meet his goal and also keep the public's trust, the president needs for his donors to be anonymous. If he is able to provide favors without public scrutiny, he has a much better chance of reaching his goal. Reportedly, he wants to raise about half of the $500 million from "mega-donations" of $10 million or more from "wealthy heiresses, Arab nations, and captains of industry."

The cost to construct the William J. Clinton Presidential Library was $165 million and contains 80 million pages of documents and 21 million e-mail messages. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, signed an executive order in 2001 that effectively exempts him and future presidents from following the 1978 Presidential Records Act, legislation which made presidential papers the property not of the president himself but of the US government. He can therefore choose not to provide anything and everything.

A new bill that requires that the names of people who donate $200 or more to presidential libraries be made public passed the House on Wednesday by a vote of 390-to-34.
wikipedia.org
New York Times article by Patricia Cohen (3-8-07)
Huffington Post article by Arianna Huffington (3-13-07)
redding.com editorial (3-14-07)
kansascity.com article by Todd J. Gillman and Sudeep Reddy (3-14-07)

Halliburton to Open Headquarters in Dubai (posted on 3-12-07)
Halliburton announced today that it is opening a corporate headquarters in Dubai, located in the United Arab Emirates. CEO Dave Lesar and other executives will be working out of the city, but the Company would not state how many of its current employees would be affected. It has about 12,000 employees in Houston, where its current corporate headquarters is located.  The Company did not specify whether there would be one or two corporate headquarters in the future.

Halliburton has received billions of dollars in no-bid contracts from the US government, and federal investigators announced last month that the Company was responsible for $2.7 billion in overcharging in Iraq.  There is some question as to how the move will affect the ability of the US government to secure payments for past actions. 

The Company has indicated that it wants to be located where it can affect the greatest amount of future business. In addition to addition to future business, the primary benefits of the move are considered to be incentives that it is receiving to move to Dubai and a much lower future tax structure. Halliburton may also be interested in doing business in Iran, which is now not allowed under current US law.

From a public relations perspective, past CEO Dick Cheney can't be happy about the move. Cheney's reputation is associated with Halliburton, and any coming decrease in financial payments it will make to federal, state, and local governments, along with any cutback in US employees, is sure to increase public antagonism towards the Company.

This move may also portend moves by other US companies to international locations in order to secure large incentives from those countries and to pay less in taxes.
Halliburton press release (3-11-07)
LA Times article by Richard Verner (3-11-07)
ABC news article by Sonya Crawford (3-12-07)

FBI Takes Advantage of Patriot Act (posted on 3-11-07) 
Glen A. Fine, the inspector general at the US Department of Justice issued a scathing report on Friday identifying ways that the FBI violated even the relaxed standards of the Patriot Act. The Bureau is gathering information on citizens who it has no reason to suspect of wrongdoing, and when it does have good reason, is securing information that is not authorized by law.

The inspector general looked only at a small sample of FBI work. Three of the abuses he found were: (1) Obtaining consumer credit reports of US citizens in cases not authorized by law. (2) Obtaining customer records and billing information in a special arrangement with telephone companies by claiming emergency circumstances that did not exist. (3) Obtaining admissions, housing, emergency contact, and health information about students at a university.
LA Times article by Richard B. Schmitt (3-10-07)
ACLU press release (3-9-07)

Gingrich Admits to Extra-Marital Affair, But Not to Hypocrisy (posted on 3-9-07) 
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich admitted today to having an affair at the same time he was rallying Congress to impeach President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Mr. Gingrich's first marriage was to his former high school geometry teacher, who he talked to about divorce while she was still in the hospital recuperating from cancer surgery.

Mr. Gingrich married his second wife within months after the divorce. His admission today was about having an affair with his now third wife while still being married to his second.

Gingrich has frequently campaigned on the theme of "family values" and is now considering a run for president.
Yahoo! News article by Ben Evans of the Associated Press (3-9-07)

Fox News "Neglects" Walter Reed Hospital Story (posted on 3-6-07) 
Fox News has apparently decided that the story of neglect at Walter Reed and other Veterans' Administration hospitals should apply to its coverage as well. According to Greg Mitchell, editor of the publication "Editor and Publisher," "As of today, since this scandal broke, Fox has had exactly one video on Walter Reed and 55 videos on Anna Nicole Smith during that period."
"Coundown With Keith Olbermann" transcript (3-5-06)