Oh my friends, what a glorious day this is for us. First last night's victories and tidal wave of new seats. This morning we get Rummy's resignation. It just keeps getting better.

But what this is really all about for me is that we the people still have the power as long as we have the right to vote and challenge those votes.

Two years ago, I asked the gentleman that works for me here as my maintenance man(he was already on board when I was hired)if he was going to vote. He said yes, of course. Then he started asking me questions about Kerry. You see, he is an immigrant from Mexico but is a citizen of the USA now. He takes this right very seriously. He was so proud to tell me two years ago that he decided to vote for Kerry. He hated the war.

Yesterday, he asked me about some of the propositions here in California and I tried to explain where and why I stood on these, including a teeanger's right to privacy about abortion and parental notification. He was very intent on knowing.

Today he came into my office beaming. He asked, "So, what do you think of the election"? Of course I was beaming and probably in the best mood I have been in a long time. I told him how excited I was. He looked me in the eye, smiling and said "Me too! I voted all democrats. " He hadn't heard of the resignation of Rummy yet so I told him. He said, "That is just the beginning. From my point of view, there will be many more consequences to pay. This is a good day."

Yes, my friends, this is a very good day.

How many of you here would love to have the opportunity to look George W. Bush and company in the eye and just say "Stick It"? I know I sure would. I guess the producers of "Boston Legal" decided they would too. Funny, I keep meaning to watch this show. I have a couple of times and really liked it. I missed this particular episode though. My son sent me an email bringing it to my attention. I was blown away. You can view the clip of Stick It here. I just wanted to stand up and cheer but sat at my computer watching it in tears.

For those of you that cannot support video here is the closing arguement so eloquently done.

"Boston Legal to the Rescue

    Two weeks ago, in the "Stick It" episode of ABC's Boston Legal,
actor James Spader, as attorney Alan Shore, delivered a speech one
might pray someone would have the balls to deliver to Congress, a
speech the likes of which I've never heard on television, and it's
pathetic that it has to come out of the mouth of a fictional
character to get aired on a network. How the hell did this get past
network censors?
    A woman has been accused of not paying her income tax. Her
attorney doesn't know how to defend her since she admits she's guilty,
but he finally rises to the occasion, delivering the following
summation to the jury...

    Shore: When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out not
to be true, I expected the American people to rise up. They didn't.
Then when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed
that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we
kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture,
I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood
mute. Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called
terrorist suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or
even the right to confront their accusers, certainly we would never
stand for that. We did. and now it's been discovered the executive
branch has been conducting massive illegal domestic surveillance on
its own citizens, you and me, and I at least consoled myself that
finally, finally, the American people will have had enough. Evidently
we haven't. In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the
message is we're okay with it all, torture, warrentless search and
seizures, illegal wire tappings, prison without a fair trial or any
trial, war on false pretenses, we as a citizenry are apparently not
offended. There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact,
there is no clear indication that young people even seem to notice.
    Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think that instead of
withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way,
made a placard and demonstrated at a presidential or vice-presidential
appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The secret
service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control, and in
effect criminalize protests. Stop for a second and try to fathom that.
At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a
supportive t-shirt, you can be there, if you're wearing or carrying
something in protest, you can be removed. This, in the United States
of America. This in the United States of America! Is Melissa Hughes
the only one embarrassed.(Shaw walks over to the witness chair and
sits down)
    Judge: Mr. Shore, that's a chair for witnesses only.
    Shore: Really long speeches make me so tired sometimes.
    Judge: Please get out of the chair.
    Shore: Actually, I'm sick and tired.
    Judge: Get out of the chair.
    Shore: (getting out of chair) and what I'm most sick and tired of
is how every time somebody disagrees with how the government is
running things, he or she is labeled un-American.
    Prosecutor: Evidently it's speech time.
    Shore: And speech in this country is free, you hack. Free for me,
free for you, free for Melissa Hughes to stand up to her government
and say stick it.
    Prosecutor: Objection!
    Shore: I object to government abusing its power to squash the
constitutional freedoms of its citizenry, and God forbid anybody
challenge it, they're smeared as being a heretic. Melissa Hughes is an
American, Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an
American!!
    Judge: Mr. Shore, unless you have anything new and fresh to say
please sit down. You've breached the decorum of my court room with all
this hooting.
    Shore: Last night I went to bed with a book, not as much fun as a
29 year old, but the book contained a speech by Adlai Stevenson. The
year was 1952. He said, "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear
in which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister
threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed
under the patriotic cloak of anti-communism." Today, it's the cloak of
anti-terrorism. Stevenson also remarked, "It's far easier to fight for
principles then to live up to them." I know we are all afraid. but the
Bill of Rights? We have to live up to that. We simply must. That's all
Melissa Hughes is trying to say. She was speaking for you. I would ask
you now to go back to that room and speak for her."

Isn't it time we all said "Stick It" to the fascists that have held our country captive with fear for these past five years? What are willing to do to stop the insanity? What lengths will we go to to put an end to the warmongers drum beat? Is it time to say enough you Mother Fuckers? Or, god forbid, is it too late?

The AP is reporting this morning that White House Chief of Staff Andy Card has resigned.

Boy the Republicans must be scared due to the latest poll numbers on Bush. It is my opinion that they must have really put pressure on George because he is one loyal son of a bitch.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds from this announcement. Card is being replaced by Budget direction Josh Bolton. I sure don't know anything about this guy. Do any of you? What's Rove up to and if he is singing to Fitz is Card going to be another sacrificial lamb?

Goodmorning my friends. The time is rapidly approaching for the Great SoCal Meetup!! I thought it was time to get a handle on who is actually coming, when and a tentative itinerary. I believe our main purpose is to get to know one another, exchange ideas and start the revolution...lol.

Friday 3/31
Frogsters arrive throughout the day.
Welcome Wagon throughout the day at Leezy's Place.
5PM Happy Hour out and back to Leezy's/hotel.

Sat. 4/01
Many have shown interest in a variety of interests as varied as just hanging out, walking the beach, Sea Kayaking,  Going to the zooor maybe even whale watching. Whatever your interest there is plenty to do.  

5PM  Cookout and Jam Party, maybe some live blogging at Leezy's Place. Time to let our hair down and have a Get To Know You time.

Sunday 4/02
To Be decided, depending on when folks have to leave. Open to all ideas not just for Sunday but the whole weekend!!

Please take the poll so I can get a head count. Also please email me with your arrival times, if you are renting a car or need a ride. The only one I know that has a car right now is JanetStrange and she is willing to pick folks up at the airport if need be as she is arriving late Thursday night.SanDiegoDem has also offered to shuttle folks but depending on how many are actually coming I am sure we could use a couple of cars. Public transportation is minimal to Del MAr.

I am so excited to be meeting you all and seeing others again.

alohaleezy at sbcglobal dot net

See You All Soon!!

This morning I received a valentine of sorts from Codepink. The following link was provided to a song called "No Bravery" with a film to go with it. The sadness I feel these days are illuminated by this clip.

No Bravery

For those that may not have capabilities to listen here are the lyrics.

No Bravery Lyrics

There are children standing here,
Arms outstretched into the sky,
Tears drying on their face.
He has been here.
Brothers lie in shallow graves.
Fathers lost without a trace.
A nation blind to their disgrace,
Since he's been here.

And I see no bravery,
No bravery in your eyes anymore.
Only sadness.

Houses burnt beyond repair.
The smell of death is in the air.
A woman weeping in despair says,
He has been here.
Tracer lighting up the sky.
It's another families' turn to die.
A child afraid to even cry out says,
He has been here.

And I see no bravery,
No bravery in your eyes anymore.
Only sadness.

There are children standing here,
Arms outstretched into the sky,
But no one asks the question why,
He has been here.
Old men kneel and accept their fate.
Wives and daughters cut and raped.
A generation drenched in hate.
Yes, he has been here.

And I see no bravery,
No bravery in your eyes anymore.
Only sadness.

Please find it in your heart to keep fighting against the Cabal of Fascists in the White House. This is the real war. This is the real enemy. For the children of the World we must keep fighting.

The walls are starting to crumble folks. One by one, the CIA agents are tired of getting the blame for faulty intelligence and are speaking out.

In this Walter Pincus/WaPo article this morning we have Paul R. Pillar, a 28 year veteran of the CIA telling us that "Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

Holy Shit Sherlock! The Whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork. No one would listen to Richard Clarke when he testified back during the 9/11 commission hearings. Will they listen now?

more on the flip

There has been much discussion here of late about our lack of leadership in the Democratic Party. I too have been deeply dismayed with the Party's lack of spine in confronting the lying sack of manure that resides within the walls of the White House and the gang that enables him to break the laws of the land over and over again. Look no further my friends. We have had such a leader for some time but he has been mostly ignored.

Rus gave a speech on the Senate floor yesterday that should have rocked the nation but who heard it but a handful of Cspan watchers. Do you think the Neoconned MSM will give it the coverage it deserves? I haven't read or heard much about it have you?

Here is Russ' speech in it's entirety and it is worth reading the whole GD thing. You want leadership? You want someone willing to take the heat and speak the GD truthanyway? Here he is folks! Here he is!!

"Mr. President, last week the President of the United States gave his State of the Union address, where he spoke of America's leadership in the world, and called on all of us to "lead this world toward freedom."  Again and again, he invoked the principle of freedom, and how it can transform nations, and empower people around the world.

But, almost in the same breath, the President openly acknowledged that he has ordered the government to spy on Americans, on American soil, without the warrants required by law.

The President issued a call to spread freedom throughout the world, and then he admitted that he has deprived Americans of one of their most basic freedoms under the Fourth Amendment -- to be free from unjustified government intrusion.

The President was blunt.  He said that he had authorized the NSA's domestic spying program, and he made a number of misleading arguments to defend himself.  His words got rousing applause from Republicans, and even some Democrats.

The President was blunt, so I will be blunt:  This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law.  Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.

How is that worthy of applause?  Since when do we celebrate our commander in chief for violating our most basic freedoms, and misleading the American people in the process?  When did we start to stand up and cheer for breaking the law?  In that moment at the State of the Union, I felt ashamed.

Congress has lost its way if we don't hold this President accountable for his actions.

The President suggests that anyone who criticizes his illegal wiretapping program doesn't understand the threat we face.  But we do.  Every single one of us is committed to stopping the terrorists who threaten us and our families.

Defeating the terrorists should be our top national priority, and we all agree that we need to wiretap them to do it.  In fact, it would be irresponsible not to wiretap terrorists.  But we have yet to see any reason why we have to trample the laws of the United States to do it.  The President's decision that he can break the law says far more about his attitude toward the rule of law than it does about the laws themselves.

This goes way beyond party, and way beyond politics.  What the President has done here is to break faith with the American people.  In the State of the Union, he also said that "we must always be clear in our principles" to get support from friends and allies that we need to fight terrorism.  So let's be clear about a basic American principle: When someone breaks the law, when someone misleads the public in an attempt to justify his actions, he needs to be held accountable.  The President of the United States has broken the law.  The President of the United States is trying to mislead the American people.  And he needs to be held accountable.

Unfortunately, the President refuses to provide any details about this domestic spying program.  Not even the full Intelligence committees know the details, and they were specifically set up to review classified information and oversee the intelligence activities of our government.  Instead, the President says - "Trust me."

This is not the first time we've heard that.  In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Administration went on an offensive to get the American public, the Congress, and the international community to believe its theory that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, and even that he had ties to Al Qaeda.  The President painted a dire - and inaccurate - picture of Saddam Hussein's capability and intent, and we invaded Iraq on that basis.  To make matters worse, the Administration misled the country about what it would take to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq after the conflict.  We were led to believe that this was going to be a short endeavor, and that our troops would be home soon.

We all recall the President's "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003.  In fact, the mission was not even close to being complete.  More than 2100 total deaths have occurred after the President declared an end to major combat operations in May of 2003, and over 16,600 American troops have been wounded in Iraq.  The President misled the American people and grossly miscalculated the true challenge of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.

In December, we found out that the President has authorized wiretaps of Americans without the court orders required by law.  He says he is only wiretapping people with links to terrorists, but how do we know?  We don't.  The President is unwilling to let a neutral judge make sure that is the case.  He will not submit this program to an independent branch of government to make sure he's not violating the rights of law-abiding Americans.

So I don't want to hear again that this Administration has shown it can be trusted.  It hasn't.  And that is exactly why the law requires a judge to review these wiretaps.

It is up to Congress to hold the President to account.  We held a hearing on the domestic spying program in the Judiciary Committee yesterday, where Attorney General Gonzales was a witness.  We expect there will be other hearings.  That is a start, but it will take more than just hearings to get the job done.

We know that in part because the President's Attorney General has already shown a willingness to mislead the Congress.

At the hearing yesterday, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law.  We didn't know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel.  At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical."  He then testified that "it's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."

Well, Mr. President, wiretapping American citizens on American soil without the required warrant is in direct contravention of our criminal statutes.  The Attorney General knew that, and he knew about the NSA program when he sought the Senate's approval for his nomination to be Attorney General.  He wanted the Senate and the American people to think that the President had not acted on the extreme legal theory that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to disobey the criminal laws of this country.  But he had.  The Attorney General had some explaining to do, and he didn't do it yesterday.  Instead he parsed words, arguing that what he said was truthful because he didn't believe that the President's actions violated the law.

But he knew what I was asking, and he knew he was misleading the Committee in his response.  If he had been straightforward, he would have told the committee that in his opinion, the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps.  My question wasn't about whether such illegal wiretapping was going on - like almost everyone in Congress, I didn't know about the program then.  It was a question about how the nominee to be Attorney General viewed the law.  This nominee wanted to be confirmed, and so he let a misleading statement about one of the central issues of his confirmation - his view of executive power - stay on the record until the New York Times revealed the program.

The rest of the Attorney General's performance at yesterday's hearing certainly did not give me any comfort, either.  He continued to push the Administration's weak legal arguments, continued to insinuate that anyone who questions this program doesn't want to fight terrorism, and refused to answer basic questions about what powers this Administration is claiming.  We still need a lot of answers from this Administration.

But let's put aside the Attorney General for now.  The burden is not just on him to come clean -- the President has some explaining to do.  The President's defense of his actions is deeply cynical, deeply misleading, and deeply troubling.

To find out that the President of the United States has violated the basic rights of the American people is chilling.  And then to see him publicly embrace his actions - and to see so many Members of Congress cheer him on - is appalling.

The President has broken the law, and he has made it clear that he will continue to do so.  But the President is not a king.  And the Congress is not a king's court.  Our job is not to stand up and cheer when the President breaks the law.  Our job is to stand up and demand accountability, to stand up and check the power of an out-of-control executive branch.

That is one of the reasons that the framers put us here - to ensure balance between the branches of government, not to act as a professional cheering section.

We need answers.  Because no one, not the President, not the Attorney General, and not any of their defenders in this body, has been able to explain why it is necessary to break the law to defend against terrorism.  And I think that's because they can't explain it.

Instead, this administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world.

In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world.

Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom.  Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death."   The President's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America.  It is fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years.  The President can't just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey.  Deciding unilaterally which of our freedoms still apply in the fight against terrorism is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately.

Let's examine for a moment some of the President's attempts to defend his actions.  His arguments have changed over time, of course.  They have to - none of them hold up under even casual scrutiny, so he can't rely on one single explanation.  As each argument crumbles beneath him, he moves on to a new one, until that, too, is debunked, and on and on he goes.

In the State of the Union, the President referred to Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance.  But of course those past presidents - like Wilson and Roosevelt - were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch can no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap.  The Attorney General yesterday was unable to give me one example of a President who, since 1978 when FISA was passed, has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA.

So that argument is baseless, and it's deeply troubling that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public.  That hardly honors the founders' idea that the President should address the Congress on the state of our union.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to create a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of terrorists and spies.  These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11.  The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges.  They have used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time they assert that FISA is an "old law" or "out of date" and they can't comply with it.  Clearly they can and do comply with it - except when they don't.  Then they just arbitrarily decide to go around these judges, and around the law.

The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law.  But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours.  The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long.  But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could easily remove if it wanted.

FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency.  That is the time period that Congress specified.  Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.

In the State of the Union, the President also argued that federal courts had approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking.  But that turned out to be misleading as well.  When I asked the Attorney General about this, he could point me to no court - not the Supreme Court or any other court - that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps.  Not one court.  The Administration's effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.

The President knows that FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order.  Why else would he have assured the public, over and over again, that he was getting warrants before engaging in domestic surveillance?

Here's what the President said on April 20, 2004: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order.  Nothing has changed, by the way.  When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

And again, on July 14, 2004: "The government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."

The President was understandably eager in these speeches to make it clear that under his administration, law enforcement was using the FISA Court to obtain warrants before wiretapping.  That is understandable, since wiretapping Americans on American soil without a warrant is against the law.

And listen to what the President said on June 9, 2005: "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property.  Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.  And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S."

Now that the public knows about the domestic spying program, he has had to change course.  He has looked around for arguments to cloak his actions.  And all of them are completely threadbare.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001.  Mr. President, that is ridiculous.  Members of Congress did not think this resolution gave the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps.  We all know that.  Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn't here at the time or isn't telling the truth.  We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11.  We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists - with the approval of a judge.  That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.

This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.  The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA's baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S.  It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.

In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration's request, from 24 to 72 hours.  Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA?  That makes no sense at all.

The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program.  But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute.  That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, "at its lowest ebb."  A recent letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that "every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief's authority, it has upheld the statute."  The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President.  As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA "recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area."  And "Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls."  Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.

The President's claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.

The President has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program.  He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties.  But we don't know what this check involves.  And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.

Finally, the president has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law.  Of course, several of these members said they weren't given the full story.  And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told.  So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program.  Indeed, it doesn't even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be "fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States."

In addition, we now know that some of these members expressed concern about the program.  The Administration ignored their protests.  Just last week, one of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.

None of the President's arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA's domestic spying program.  Not one.  It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do.  It is a strategy that really hinges on the credibility of the office of the Presidency itself.  If you just insist that you didn't break the law, you haven't broken the law.  It reminds me of what Richard Nixon said after he had left office:  "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."  But that is not how our constitutional democracy works.  Making those kinds of arguments is damaging the credibility of the Presidency.

And what's particularly disturbing is how many members of Congress have responded.  They stood up and cheered.  They stood up and cheered.

Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote:  "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent.  Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

The President's actions are indefensible.  Freedom is an enduring principle.  It is not something to celebrate in one breath, and ignore the next.  Freedom is at the heart of who we are as a nation, and as a people.  We cannot be a beacon of freedom for the world unless we protect our own freedoms here at home.

The President was right about one thing.  In his address, he said "We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it."

Yes, Mr. President.  We do love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.  We will fight to defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones.  And we will fight to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans against intrusive government power.

As the President said, we must always be clear in our principles.  So let us be clear: We cherish the great and noble principle of freedom, we will fight to keep it, and we will hold this President - and anyone who violates those freedoms - accountable for their actions.  In a nation built on freedom, the President is not a king, and no one is above the law."

How can we stand up with Russ and support him is my question now. Russ Feingold speaks for me.

It seems to me that just about the time I begin to lose hope something stunning happens. This Newsweek article via MSNBC online blew me away this morning. It is well worth a full read. This is what "real investigative journalism" is all about.
The insiders have had it and are starting to come out of the woodwork. The reporters even call Dick Cheney "Prime-Minister Cheney". Here's a short excerpt.

"Feb. 6, 2006 issue - James Comey, a lanky, 6-foot-8 former prosecutor who looks a little like Jimmy Stewart, resigned as deputy attorney general in the summer of 2005. The press and public hardly noticed. Comey's farewell speech, delivered in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, contained all the predictable, if heartfelt, appreciations. But mixed in among the platitudes was an unusual passage. Comey thanked "people who came to my office, or my home, or called my cell phone late at night, to quietly tell me when I was about to make a mistake; they were the people committed to getting it right--and to doing the right thing--whatever the price. These people," said Comey, "know who they are. Some of them did pay a price for their commitment to right, but they wouldn't have it any other way."

more on the flip

 

Come one, come all! Join us in beautiful Del Mar California for a weekend of fun, sun and surf. And while we are at it maybe we can start the Revolution to take our country back!!

We voted for the weekend of March 31st. I have done some research on local hotels and negotiated with the manager at the hotel next door to my apartment complex to get the weekday rate. It only saves around $12 per night but still one of the best rates in the area @$98.95 per night for a room with two queens.You need to call the direct line at 858-755-1501 and ask for Liz Walter. You also will need to tell her you are requesting the room rate she quoted to Lee at the Terraces at Del Mar.I highly encourage you to make your reservations now as that weekend is at the tail end of spring breaks. You may also want to buddy up and share rooms to help cut your costs.

You can view the Stratford Inn here. We are conveniently located just a stroll to the Pacific Ocean.

I thought we could do a Happy Hour at one of the local watering holes on Friday night.Saturday could be an on your own day seeing many of you expressed a desire to do or see different things.I will host a BBQ on Saturday night and will open my home for the central meetup point. Please leave suggestions in comments and confirm that you will be coming.I look forward to seeing you all in a couple of months.This is NOT just for SoCal folks. All Pond dwellers are invited. See you in March!!!

 

Come one come all to a weekend gathering of like minded folks that need hugs and some fun. We have been tossing this around and the interest is good. In a previous diary we took a poll and nine of you said yes, you would come, two said no and six said maybe. We also tossed around some dates and two came out with the highest votes and many of you are flexible.

The difficulty in trying to bring a group together like this will always be someone that wants to come will be unable to make it. We will do our best to try to include all that want to participate.

Without further ado please vote.Once the vote is tallied I will put forth another diary with information on Del Mar and accomadations etc.

Okay all you Tribbers. A few of us have been threatening a meetup on the West Coast. This doesn't mean it is just for West Coasters either. Man Egee, SallyCat, Shirlstar, Diane are all considering it. March is being tossed around if that will work for most. This is very in the planning stage right now but let's quit talking about it and start planning.

Of course I would love to see it held in San Diego but am very open to up the coast a bit. Let's get some ideas going but first let's see if there is a true interest in a  meetup at all. I even read at the Cafe that Supersoling is threatening to grace us with his presence. SO use the thread for ideas, times, places and then we can vote on it in the next week or so.

Looking forward to meeting the Tribe!

This is it folks. The hearings start this week on Alito and I feel we must do whatever possible to stop this nomination or we will rapidly see our once great country sprially rapidly into that deep dark hole of Fascism. This is it and this is my small little contribution to the cause.

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I write to you today on the subject of Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Justice Alito. Senator, I know you will not prejudge and most likely I will receive the pat form letter/email back from you. I still must try to instill in you how much the future of our country is at stake here.

I write to you not so much for me but for my nine year old grand daughter and the future of her rights as a citizen. There is no doubt in my mind that Alito would help to overturn Roe v. Wade and that he believes that is perfectly legal for the President to spy on US citizens without a warrant.

We cannot stand by and allow the Bush Cabal to stack the Supreme Court for the next thirty years or more with these bigoted, neocons that are rapidly turning our once great nation into a fascist state.

ANyone that votes for this nominee shall lose my support not only financially but with my vote. We need our Democrats to step to the plate and grow a spine and stand up to the Republican propaganda machine run amock. It is the highest form of Patriotism to dessent and to proudly wear the label of obstructionist. The future of our country is at stake here Senator. Please do the right thing and not only vote no but show the Republicans that we are not going to allow this nominee even a hearing until the NSA Spying scandal is investigated.

Thank you Senator for your service to our country. We need now more than ever.

Respectfully,

Del Mar

Let's keep the heat on!

Another revelation to come out of the Downing Street Memos this morning. AFP has the story here.

"US     President George W. Bush planned to bomb pan-Arab television broadcaster al-Jazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror said, citing a Downing Street memo marked "Top Secret".

The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister     Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the daily which is against the war in     Iraq.

The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's April 16, 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters.

Blair allegedly feared such a strike, in the business district of Doha, the capital of Qatar, a key western ally in the Persian Gulf, would spark revenge attacks.

The Mirror quoted an unnamed British government official as saying Bush's threat was "humorous, not serious".

Al-Jazeera's perspectives on the war in Iraq have drawn criticism from Washington since the US-led March 2003 invasion.

The station has broadcast messages from Al-Qaeda terror network chief     Osama bin Laden and the beheadings of Western hostages by insurgents in Iraq, as well as footage of dead coalition servicemen and Iraqi civilians killed in fighting.

A source told the Mirror: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.

"He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.

"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do -- and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

Another source said: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."

A spokesman for Blair's Downing Street office said: "We have got nothing to say about this story."

Makes one wonder what else our whackjob leader wanted to do and had to be talked out of. What I want to know is why so many people that had information such as this have waited far too long to reveal it. If all the information that has come out in the past year had come to light sooner we may have had a different president today.

[Promoted by Susan] MSNBC live now. They are saying the reason is most likely that WH/Bush unwilling to release papers asked for. More to follow when more becomes available. Who will be the next crony nominated? Update [2005-10-27 9:35:30 by alohaleezy]: From AP article Bush says""It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."