archived: 13 - 19 Nov, 2005 Back Next
UPDATED: November 17, 2005
STRIKING OIL
[T]he White House has granted corporate interests unrestricted and secret influence on energy, environmental and foreign policies.
This is wrong, it's anti-democratic. It's anti-American and we ought not to stand for it. – Al Gore
Oil industry executives lied before Congress – claiming that they did not meet with members of Cheney’s Energy Task Force. The Washington Post broke the story yesterday:
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
That Republicans allowed the oil industry secret access to write America’s energy policy is not surprising. As Al Gore cogently noted, above, in 2004, Republicans have allowed corporate interests unprecedented levels of influence over government policy. That Republicans and oil industry executives lied about the access granted is not shocking. Bush and the Republicans fabricated the justifications for war.
Two intriguing aspects stemming from the revelation have profound implications.
First, despite demands by Senate Democrats, the Republicans in Congress allowed the oil industry executives to testify before a Senate Committee without swearing an oath to tell the truth. At the time, the main stream media had this take on the Republican refusal to swear the executives (emphasis):
Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, head of the Senate Commerce Committee and a longtime ally of oil interests, kept a tight rein on the hearing. He stopped Democrats from asking executives about their annual pay, and refused to have the five men take an oath to tell the truth in their testimony.
That avoided an embarrassing photo akin to when tobacco executives raised their right hands at a 1994 congressional hearing and swore cigarettes were not addictive.
Sen. Stevens failure now has more ominous possibilities. By failure to swear the executives, they lied without being under oath, thereby escaping criminal responsibility for their false assertions. Was Sen. Stevens and the Republicans on the Senate Committee consciously protecting the oil executives?
Second, a number of public interest groups sued Cheney go gain access to the records of his secret Energy Task Force. The General Accounting Office initially joined the suit to force disclosure of Task Force records.
The Supreme Court “dodged” a straight forward decision in the Cheney energy task force case. A complete copy of the Opinion can be found here -- Decision
The Court essentially held that the suit before it was brought by “private parties,” not the government itself. The Court appears to hold that private parties are not the “proper” parties to bring such action. The Court did remand the case to the lower court:
In a 7-2 decision, justices said
the lower court should consider
whether a federal open government law could be used to get task force
documents. Even if that court rules against the administration, appeals
would tie up the case well past November.
The cruel twist of irony is that the US Government Accounting Office (a “government party”) withdrew from the suit. In December 2002, Walker sued to obtain Cheney’s records but the lower Federal court dismissed the GAO’s involvement. The GAO announced that it was considering an appeal. --Truthout In February 2003 turn of heart, the GAO announced that it would not appeal. The GAO’s decision not to appeal was described as “handing the Bush administration a complete victory in its effort to keep confidential the identities of private groups that provided advice in forming a national energy policy. – Washington Post
Following the GAO’s announcement a fascinating article appeared. It appears that the GAO was threatened in order to stop their involvement (emphasis added):
Threats by Republicans to cut the General Accounting Office (GAO) budget influenced its decision to abandon a lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney, The Hill has learned. Sources familiar with high-level discussions at the GAO said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, met with GAO Comptroller General David Walker earlier this year and “unambiguously” pressured him to drop the suit or face cuts in his $440 million budget.
Walker yesterday acknowledged meeting Stevens, but denied the senator threatened to cut funding for the investigative agency. However, he confirmed that such threats were made, although he said they came from a lawmaker not “in a position to deliver” on them and did not occur recently.
The decision to drop the lawsuit has raised concerns that Congress’s all-purpose auditor has sacrificed its traditional role as an independent arm of Congress. – The Hill
In 2003, Republicans (including Sen. Stevens) threaten the GAO two withdraw its suit that would have exposed oil executives. In 2005, Sen. Stevens refusing to have executives of the same oil companies sworn as witnesses, which prevents their criminal prosecution for lying to Congress.
Is it simply a coincidence of circumstances?
Or is this another example of Republican corruption?
_____________________________________________
UPDATED: November 15, 2005
IT IS TIME
[Authored by Andrew Koeppel*]
Junkie: TPJ has a tradition of running articles with which we disagree, even articles authored by Republicans. We believe publication of opposing views is in the spirit of a society of open ideas and responsible partisan exchange.
Koeppel is Chairman of the Republican Party for the NC 7th Congressional District, the North Carolina Republican State Executive Committee and the North Carolina Republican Central Committee. Andrew Koeppel’s article began as an email exchange with a fellow Republican who ultimately forwarded the email to TPJ. TPJ requested and received Koppel’s permission to publish his email as an article on the condition that TPJ would not edit the content.
The issue that Koeppel broaches is one that is fundamental to a democracy. His thesis stands for itself, even if we disagree.
_____
It is time for people, especially the Republican leadership in Congress, to determine when remarks of the opposition to the war no longer represent legitimate political dissent. When do these remarks not only give "aid and comfort to our enemies", but also cross the line that constitutes treasonous behavior?
Has there ever been a nation in the history of the world that has allowed elected representatives to undermine the nation's war effort? If there was actually a meeting between these representatives and our enemies for the purpose of subverting the defense of our nation, would it result in any behavior more extreme than what we have witnessed in the remarks of the Democratic leaders of Congress and the members of the liberal media?
There needs to be an examination by the Bush administration as to when freedom of speech or freedom of the press that is harmful to the nation's war effort must be restricted. It is no secret that during World War II or the Korean War, anyone who made remarks or printed material beneficial to the enemy that was known to be untrue would immediately have their freedom restricted. They would no longer be able to continue in these activities.
It seems the opponents of our war effort are trying to see how far they can push the envelope. They need to be warned that they have reached the limit. If they do not immediately cease and desist, they will be forced to face the consequences.
BUSH’S VERY REPUBLICAN WAR
Bush uses Veterans Day not to honor those who have served America through the years, but to launch a political attack on the critics of the war in Iraq. Turning the national holiday of remembrance into a political rally for the Republican war reflects the lack of depth and character Americans expect and deserve of their President.
Bush’s problem is not that he does not comprehend the civic debate over the war; his problem is simply that he can not spin these facts:
2,067 American soldiers killed, 15,468
wounded
26,931 to 30,318 civilians killed
$ 219,180,245,762 borrowed and spent
The Republicans cannot spin this assessment by Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar detailing the failure of Congressional Republicans to adequately provide for America’s veterans (emphasis added):
“President Bush has consistently refused to provide enough" money for veterans' health care.
"Earlier this year, his administration admitted that they were $1 billion short in funding for critical health care services," he said. "They also repeatedly tried to increase the cost of prescription drugs and health care services for veterans nationwide."
Arthur H. Wilson, a disabled American veteran, documents the breadth of Republican repudiation of our moral and legal obligations to veterans:
The administration claims to have provided record increases for veterans, yet thousands of them have been denied access to VA health care. Because of budget shortfalls, VA facilities in every region of the country have exhausted reserve funds to meet critical needs. Many have stopped hiring doctors and nurses, while still others have cut back or even eliminated medical services. It is a clear indication that the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our country are not a national priority. . . .
As we entered March 2003, American troops had been fighting Taliban forces and terrorists in Afghanistan for well over a year. The invasion of Iraq was imminent. Yet the House of Representatives was considering a budget that would have reduced spending for veterans programs by some $25 billion over the next decade to help pay for the administration's massive tax cut package. . . .
Then in September 2003, the House leadership sought a provision in the 2004 defense authorization bill that would have denied disability compensation and priority for health care to veterans whose disabilities were not directly related to performance of their official military duties. . . .
The government is reviewing the claims of some 72,000 veterans who are rated by the VA as totally disabled and unemployable due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The review is focused on claims that may have been improperly granted, yet there are no plans to examine claims that may have been improperly denied. . . .
And as if to add insult to injury, House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) recently announced that veterans service organizations will no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. For several decades now, these joint hearings have been held each year to allow the leaders of veterans service organizations to discuss their group's legislative agenda and foremost concerns with the lawmakers who have jurisdiction over federal veterans programs. – Working For Change (emphasis added)
Bush can not spin the profound effect of the war on America’s military. Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, and Brian Katulis conclude that the US cannot sustain present troop levels in Iraq (emphasis added):
“It has become clear that if we still have 140,000 ground troops in Iraq a year from now, we will destroy the all-volunteer army," said the a report . . . .
While short changing veterans and putting the US Armed Forces in peril, Bush and the Congressional Republicans continue to promote tax cuts geared to the wealthy while cutting benefits to the poor:
While tax-cut packages in both the House and Senate skew toward investors and other middle- and upper-income taxpayers, the spending cuts fall partly on programs aimed at lower-income Americans, such as student loans, food stamps and Medicaid. – USA Today
House Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi summed it up best:
"They'll take food out of the mouths of children in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest."
A very Republican war indeed!
_____________________________________________
TPJ’S SALUTE TO
VETERANS
[Authored by Michael L. Fetting, USMC, retired]
I was asked by TPJ to write an article today on Veterans Day. What can I say? To be asked to write something for this special day is quite an honor (or at least to me it is).
There is no way that I could come close to giving the honor that is due to our Veterans. I’m nobody special. There are those more eloquent at writing and speaking than I. I haven’t done anything exemplary for society or for the military in general. As I write, most of you will be asking “Who is Michael Fetting?”
This I can say, I am a Military Veteran. That I, on my own accord, did so solemnly swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. I said that oath many times throughout my tour in the Marine Corps, and I would say it again.
I retired from United States Marine Corps in 1999 and I am proud of who and what I am. There are many of my constituents who are just as proud if not more so. Then there are those who are not. I can not speak for them all, but I can speak for a few.
This is a special day, or at least it should be, to honor them and to honor the sacrifices that they made. And they did make sacrifices. The veterans, who, as mothers or fathers, had to say good-bye to their children for 6 months to 18 months because of military deployment. Many do not know how it feels to choke back the emotions when they see their little girl at the age of 3 looking out the window of an airport, saying “daddy go bye bye pane (plane)”,, not quite understanding that her father was going away for a long time. Many do not know how it feels to wake up several thousands of miles away from the ones that they love. The Military Veteran does.
Today, you might be taking off, taking it easy from the rigors of work because it is a Federal holiday. You might have been out working in the yard, driving up to the mountains, or whatever. Or, you might have paid homage to a Vet. It doesn’t have to be elaborate. Just saying “Thank-you” is usually sufficient. But there are those who so desperately need more than a “thank-you;” You know who they are.
As I sit here, writing this article, I’m thinking of my dear friend, a Vietnam Veteran who recently passed away. I’m not going to mention his name, because I don’t think that is important right now. What is important is that he was my friend and he was someone else’s friend. He was a husband and a father. That, my friend, is our Military Veterans: fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, friends. And I think we should honor them.
I have opinions, who doesn’t? And my opinion is this; it is shameful when we treat our Veterans wrong. I’m not saying that they are perfect, that they don’t have any faults, but they are the ones who so willingly gave up their freedoms so that you could have yours. You might not like hearing that, but that is a fact that cannot be hid. Freedom costs. You have the right to disagree with what I am saying. So thank a Vet.
The majority of the Veterans are not warmongers. They are not looking to stay in a war, but they do love their country.
I was asked today, why am I patriotic? Because I love freedom. I want the freedom to believe in God, to send my child to the school of my choice, to vote for whom I believe is the best candidate and what is best for our city, state and country. So, when the veterans come home, honor them. If you know a WWII Veteran, shake his hand, hug his neck, and visit them in the nursing home. Tell them that you are proud of what they did. They had pride then and they have pride now. To my fellow Veterans, active and retired, I stand and salute you.
Yesterday, 10 November, 2005, the United States Marine Corps turned 230 years old. Happy Birthday Marines! Semper Fi!
_____
Junkie: TPJ’s salute to veterans is written by our webmaster, Michael Fetting. Michael is a retired Marine Staff Sergeant. We asked Michael to write a salute to veterans, believing that those of us who never served could better understand why this day of remembrance is important.
Michael’s submission is astonishing in capturing the core of service. He speaks of honor, duty, sacrifice, an abiding belief in freedom and a love of country. The annals of history would suggest that the veterans of the American Revolution and every epoch of America afterwards shared these beliefs -- beliefs that are worthy of being honored and remembered.
Semper Fi! We honor all who have served.
A REPUBLICAN DISGRACE
As Michael Fetting writes of honoring those who served with a simple “thank you,” the radical Republicans in Congress disparage American veterans. For some 55 years, the Veterans’ Affairs Committees of the House and Senate have met jointly to permit veterans organizations to appear before them. Republicans are ending the time honored tradition:
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer (R-IN) announced that for the first time in at least 55 years, “veterans service organizations will no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees.” . . .
The Disabled American Veterans, the “official voice of America’s service-connected disabled veterans,” just issued a scathing release calling the move “an insult to all who have fought, sacrificed and died to defend the Constitution.” The timing, they said, “could not have been worse.” – Think Progress
Republicans are simply trying to avoid another public relations disaster. Bush and the Republican Congress have been cutting veteran benefits rather than committing this government to meet is moral obligations to those who served. These are just a few of the many articles TPJ has published:
REMEMBERING THE DEAD – FORGETTING THE LIVING [Authored by Jack Dalton]: Dalton writes about the VA stating that payments to veterans “are a threat to our national security.” That was repeated on the floor of the House of Representatives.
APPEARANCE VS. REALITY: Bush administration stops Iraq veterans tortured during the war from collecting civil money judgments against Iraqi funds in the United States.
BUSH SLAMS VETERANS:
Bush administration continues system of reducing military retirement pay by the
amount of any disability benefits received for injuries while on military duty.
BUSH ON VETERANS – Bush
cuts a wide range of veteran benefits and money for school children of veterans.
BUSH’S BUDGET WONDERLAND – Bush advocates cutting billions of dollars from veterans benefit programs.
Instead of giving veterans their time honored day before Congress, Republicans simply wish to avoid the obvious political embarrassment. The veterans deserve better.
RULING AMERICA
Democrats were ecstatic election night when eight members of the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board were defeated. TPJ readers will recall that the eight members voted to teach “intelligent design” in Dover schools, leading to a Federal lawsuit that is pending a decision.
Rev. Pat Robertson, one of the principal architects of the Republican Religious Right issued this stunning proclamation in response to the defeat:
Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design. . . .
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club." -- SeattlePi
These are the radical forces that control the Republican Party. Rev. Robertson’s statements make it evident that the radical religious right seeks domination over government at every level to impose their religious believes on all Americans. Those who oppose such domination are “godless” and deserve divine retribution.
Democrats must educate every American of the consequences upon breaching the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. The simple question is what America is becoming and what it will become with radical religious leaders like Rev. Robertson. Rev. Robertson’s statements are a clarion example.
“NO AMBITION”
Bush promised Americans in the weeks immediately following 9/11 that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use [the war on terror or 9/11] as a political issue." Bush’s precipitous fall in public support has Republican strategists trying to find issues to repair the damage. Bush broke his promise by actively using 9/11 to gain reelection. His fall in the polls, however, demonstrates just how low Republicans are willing to go in order to repair his public standing.
Doug Thompson at Capitol Hill Blue, a respected webzine and TPJ favorite, is reporting this simply bizarre Republican strategy memo:
A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”
The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
The memo outlines other possibilities:
Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead);
A drastic turnaround in the economy;
A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.
GOP memos no longer talk of “victory” in Iraq but use the term “successful resolution.”
“A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,” says one insider.
Thompson astutely notes that that Republicans are not talking about “victory” in Iraq, but a “successful resolution.” Readers should also note that the “insider” Thompson interviewed assumes that Iraq will plunge into civil war, the political objective for Bush simply being that the civil war comes after the 2006 elections.
Preparing to use the possibility of another terrorist attack on America represents another broken promise from a Republican administration that has made and broken so many promises to the American people.
Last Update: 03/27/2006