John McCain Denies Social Security Comments

ohn McCain tried to deny past comments on Social Security reform yesterday, a move which has exposed him to criticism from his rival as well as obscuring the record on what entitlement changes McCain would seek to correct.

During last night's pre-screened town hall, John McCain took a hard line against George Bush's plan to privatize social security saying, "But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be."

But that doesn't quite fit with past comments made by McCain on social security. In fact, he was a big supporter of privatizing social security in 2004:

"Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits."

The DNC has footage of both statements:

He also told the Wall Street Journal this March that "as part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines of what President Bush proposed."

Sen. Obama has already responded, sensing a potential soft spot of support among McCain followers on an issue that he has previously injected into the election cycle. From his prepared remarks:

Now, John McCain's ideas on Social Security amount to four more years of what was attempted and failed under George Bush. He said he supports private accounts for Social Security - in his words, "along the lines that President Bush proposed." Yesterday he tried to deny that he ever took that position, leaving us wondering if he had a change of heart or a change of politics.

Well let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It's a bad idea today. It would eventually cut guaranteed benefits by up to 50%. It would cost a trillion dollars that we don't have to implement on the front end, permanently elevating our debt. And most of all, it would gamble the retirement plans of millions of Americans on the stock market. That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that's why I won't stand for it as President.

Howard Dean has also released a statement:

"John McCain should realize that the American people know a bad idea when they see one. Despite the rhetoric, the facts don't lie. Senator McCain not only supports privatizing Social Security, he was part of the Bush propaganda machine that tried to sell it to the American people. The American people cannot afford another Republican president who will put the retirement security of millions of hard working families at risk. Telling the voters he opposes privatizing Social Security when he clearly supports it is not the 'straight talk' Senator McCain promised the American people. Senator McCain is ill-suited to be President if he thinks the American people won't notice when he says something in 2008 that is the exact opposite of what he said in 2004 and 2005."

Original here

McCain Blasted In the Words of His Fellow Republicans

John McCain has a problem with his party. His Phoenix-rising-from-the-ashes campaign- largely driven by his success with moderates and non-Republicans- has thrown a curveball to the GOP, which has been vocal in its criticism of McCain in the past. Now they're under pressure to fall in line behind a man whom they've expressed serious concern about in the past, or risk handing the White House keys to a Democrat.

Though many Republicans have begun to coalesce around McCain in recent months, the statements they've made over the years are telling of their personal opinions of the Arizona Senator.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Senator Thad Cochran, R-MS

"I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger."

Senator Pete Domenici, R-NM

"If either [John McCain or Mike Huckabee] gets the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party, it's going to change it forever, be the end of it."

Conservative talk show host and author Rush Limbaugh

"There's nothing redeeming about John McCain...he's a hypocrite."

Former House GOP Whip Tom DeLay

"He is a vicious person. Nearly all the Republican Senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn't support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior."

Former Representative Charles LeBoutillier, R-NY

"John was very rough in the sandbox. Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill." Former Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA

"There would be a lot of people who would have to recalibrate their attitudes toward John."

Senator Bob Bennett, R-UT

"For all his supposed, newfound enlightenment about what most Americans want - protection against invasion, commitment to the rule of law, meaningful employer sanctions, an end to sanctuary cities, enforcement-by-attrition plus deportation reform, and an end to special illegal alien benefits that invite more law-breaking-The Maverick remains a Geraldo Rivera Republican. Like the ethnocentric cable TV host who can't string a sentence about immigration together without drowning in emotional demagoguery, McCain naturally resorts to open-borders platitudes when pressed for enforcement specifics...McCain has learned nothing."

Michelle Malkin, conservative columnist and author

"His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, that should disqualify him."

Former Senator Bob Smith, R-NH

"I heard about his temper more from others. According to them, he really unleashed on some of them, and they couldn't figure out why...It happened enough that it was affecting his credibility with some people."

Grant Woods, McCain's former Chief of Staff, former AG of Arizona, and current McCain staffer

An "embarrassment to the party."

Arizona GOP State Senator Susan Johnson

"What happens if he gets angry in crisis in the presidency? It's difficult enough to be a negotiator, but it's almost impossible when you're the type of guy who's so angry at anybody who doesn't do what he wants. It's the president's job to negotiate and stay calm. I just don't see that he has that quality."

Former Arizona GOP Chairman John Hinz

"No dissent, no opinion to the contrary- however reasonable- will be entertained. Hardheaded is one way to say it. Arrogant is another way to say it. Hubristic is another way to say it. Too proud for his own good is another way to say it. It's a quality about him that disturbs me."

Col. Larry Wilkerson, US Army (ret.) and former chief aide to Colin Powell

"He is the anti-conservative. He instinctively sides against conservatives and relishes poking them in the eye."

Conservative talk show host and author David Limbaugh

"It just seems like everything we did, John was someplace else...In my mind, he is not [a conservative]."

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-IL

"I think it's his style as much as much as the positions he takes...I think it's his attitude that it's his way or the highway."

Former Senator Tim Hutchinson, R-AR

"I don't like McCain. I don't like him at all."

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO

McCain "has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language."

Focus on Family Founder James Dobson

"John's a person I've had a lot of disagreements with, but you've got to have a lot of respect for him...I'm not speaking as if I'm a born again supporter of John McCain, I'm just trying to express it the way that I see him."

Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA

"What has struck me about McCain is that everybody underestimated the ability of his advisers and him to hypnotize the national media, because most of us in the media in Arizona thought of him as a guy who had a terrible temper, occasionally had a foul mouth, a guy who whined and pouted unless he got his way. McCain has a temper that is bombastic, volatile, and purple-faced. Sometimes he gets out of control. Do you want somebody sitting in the White House with that kind of temper?"

Pat Murphy, former editor of the Arizona Republic, and a former friend of McCain

"John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism, and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most electable Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in ‘straight talk.'"

Ann Coulter, conservative columnist and author

"Is it possible that John McCain thinks you have too much freedom? ... I gotta tell you, I don't know what's happening to John McCain."

Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive VP of the National Rifle Association

Original here

Barack Obama Explains the Meaning of Life

Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.

At a town hall meeting in Kaukauna, Wisc., Thursday afternoon, amidst questions about health care and the economy, a young man said he had a question for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Obama should "please be as intellectual or spiritual as you would like."

"Well this is a lot of pressure," Obama said to laugher.

"My question is: what does life mean to you?" the young man asked.

"Oh goodness," Obama said, a bit taken aback. "What does life mean to me?"

He stammered a bit as he contemplated the enormity of the query.

"Well, uh, I, uh…"

The crowd of 2,500 supporters at Kaukauna High School * laughed with apparent sympathy.

"I don't know where to start on a question like that," Obama said. "Let me just say a couple things. Right now what I think about most is my daughters who are 10 and 7," he said, referring to his daughters Malia and Sasha. "And not that I'm biased but they are perfect in all ways."

To the young man who asked the question, Obama said, "when I was your age, I thought life was all about me. And how do make my way in the world and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want. And right now life for me revolves around those two girls. And I think about what kind of a place am I leaving them."

And with that, came the able pivot.

"Michelle and I have been incredibly blessed," Obama said. "As long as God's looking over, my girls are going to be OK." They go to "great schools, will be able to afford college, are in good health and will be well cared for if they ever get sick.

But the country and the world they're living in, Obama said, needs work.

"Are they living in a county where there’s a huge gap between a few who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day?" Obama asked. "Are they living in a county that is still divided by race?

"Are they living in a country where because they’re girls they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do?

"Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don’t cooperate with other countries as effectively as we should? Are they living in a country where they are threatened by terrorism and a nuclear explosion could happen in a major American city? Are they living in a country in which because of a lack of sensible energy we are not only ransoming our future, but we’re also threatening the very livelihood of the planet?"

Obama continued, "what life means to me is that every day I wake up trying to figure out how can I secure their futures and the futures of all children, ...How can I make sure that we are giving a planet and a country to them that is better than the one we got? And, you know ,so I guess what I’ve discovered is that life doesn’t count for much unless you’re somehow giving yourself to something larger to yourself. And that’s part of my Christian faith. It’s also part of the reason I am running for president of the United States."

So.

That's what life means to him. In case you were wondering.

- jpt in Kaukauna, Wisc.

**

* Kaukauna High School Ghost Spirit Song:

Hail Kaukuana
Hail to Thee
We Thy Loyal Sons Shall Be
Fighting for the Orange and Black
In Future Years
You'll See Us Back

See The Laurels She Has Won
Through Every Good and Faithful Son
Her Courageous, Valiant Students
March On to "Victory"!!

Original here

Obama The Preferred Candidate Around The World: Poll

WASHINGTON — People around the globe widely expect the next American president to improve the country's policies toward the rest of the world, especially if Barack Obama is elected, yet they retain a persistently poor image of the U.S., according to a poll released Thursday.

The survey of two dozen countries, conducted this spring by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, also found a growing despondency over the international economy, with majorities in 18 nations calling domestic economic conditions poor. In more bad news for the U.S., people shared a widespread sense the American economy was hurting their countries, including large majorities in U.S. allies Britain, Germany, Australia, Turkey, France and Japan.

Even six in 10 Americans agreed the U.S. economy was having a negative impact abroad.

Views of the U.S. improved or stayed the same as last year in 18 nations, the first positive signs the poll has found for the U.S. image worldwide this decade. Even so, many improvements were modest and the U.S. remains less popular in most countries than it was before it invaded Iraq in 2003, with majorities in only eight expressing favorable opinions.

Substantial numbers in most countries said they are closely following the U.S. presidential election, including 83 percent in Japan _ about the same proportion who said so in the U.S. Of those following the campaign, optimism that the new president will reshape American foreign policy for the better is substantial, with the largest segment of people in 14 countries _ including the U.S. _ saying so.

Andrew Kohut, president of Pew, said many seem to be hoping the U.S. role in the world will improve with the departure of President Bush, who remains profoundly unpopular almost everywhere.

"People think the U.S. wants to run the world," said Kohut. "It's not more complicated than that."

Countries most hopeful the new president will improve U.S. policies include France, Spain and Germany, where public opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere has been strong. Strong optimism also came from countries where pique with U.S. policies has been less pronounced, including India, Nigeria, Tanzania and South Africa.

Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have the strongest expectations the next president will worsen U.S. policies, consistent with the skepticism expressed on many issues in the survey by Muslim countries. Japan, Turkey, Russia, South Korea and Mexico had large numbers saying the election would change little.

Among those tracking the American election, greater numbers in 20 countries expressed more confidence in Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, than John McCain, the Republican candidate, to handle world affairs properly. The two contenders were tied in the U.S., Jordan and Pakistan. Obama's edge was largest in Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Tanzania and Indonesia, where he lived for a time as a child.

The U.S. was the only country where most expressed confidence in McCain. Besides the countries where he and Obama were tied, McCain's smallest gaps against his rival were in India and China, where neither man engenders much confidence.

The U.S. is seen as the world's leading economic power by 22 countries in the survey. Yet in 11 countries, more think China will replace the U.S. as the world's dominant superpower or has already done so than predict that will never happen.

At the same time, China's favorable ratings have edged downward since last year, with widespread worry over its military power, pollution and human rights record. The survey was taken during China's crackdown on unrest in Tibet, but before last month's earthquake in China.

The poll also found:

_Sixty percent or more had favorable views of the U.S. in South Korea, Poland, India, Tanzania, Nigeria and South Africa. One in five or fewer had positive impressions in Egypt, Argentina, Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey.

_Nine in 10 in South Korea and Lebanon say their economies are in bad shape, while eight in 10 Chinese, seven in 10 Australians and six in 10 Indians say theirs are strong.

_Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, generally was rated higher than McCain overseas but lower than Obama.

_There is growing pessimism that a stable democratic government will take hold in Iraq, with majorities only in Nigeria, India and Tanzania predicting success.

_Only in the U.S., Britain and Australia do most want U.S. and NATO forces to say in Afghanistan.

_Iran is viewed mostly negatively. Even the eight countries in the survey with large Muslim populations have mixed views. In six of those eight, Muslims oppose Iran getting nuclear weapons.

The polling was conducted from March 17-April 21, mostly in April, interviewing adults face to face in 17 countries and by telephone in the remaining seven. Local languages were used.

The number interviewed in each country ranged from 700 in Australia to 3,212 in China. All samples were national except for China, Pakistan, India and Brazil, where the samples were mostly urban. The margins of sampling error were plus or minus 3 percentage points or 4 points in every country but China and India, where it was 2 points.

Original here

McCain Lobbyist Scandal Continues: Government Warned Senator That Campaign Manager Was Undermining National Interests

The lobbying firm of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis acted in direct opposition to American foreign interests, which prompted a warning to McCain's Senate office from the United States government, according to a recent New York Times article.

Much has been reported about Rick Davis, top McCain adviser and lobbyist whose company, Davis Manafort, made its fortune in part by accepting jobs that didn't require employees to register as lobbyists. Davis has been in particular hot water for his company's work with pro-Russian Ukranian political candidates; Davis arranged for one of Putin's allies to meet with McCain during the time.

However, the New York Times has managed to take that already embarrassing story and make it even worse:

Mr. McCain may have first become aware of Davis Manafort's activities in Ukraine as far back as 2005. At that time, a staff member at the National Security Council called Mr. McCain's Senate office to complain that Mr. Davis's lobbying firm was undercutting American foreign policy in Ukraine, said a person with direct knowledge of the phone call who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A campaign spokesman, when asked whether such a call had occurred, referred a reporter to Mr. McCain's office. The spokesman there, Robert Fischer, did not respond to repeated inquiries.

Such a call might mean that Mr. McCain has been long aware of Mr. Davis's foreign clients. Mr. Davis took a leave from his firm at the end of 2006.

This isn't the only time when Davis' business interests have appeared counter to those of the United States: Davis' Ukranian contacts shared several business ties with Iran.

McCain suffered from a perception problem last month when the extent of his lobbying connection caused him campaign to fire several key staffers, as well as institute a new conflict-of-interest policy. The McCain camp has said that Davis is unaffected by the policy, as its implementation is not retroactive. Davis is no longer registered as a lobbyist.

UPDATE: Sen. Claire McCaskill appeared on CNN to discuss her efforts alongside Sen. Schumer to cut short foreign lobbying, a plan that seems to have a political as well as policy interest:

Original here

Justice 5, Brutality 4

For years, with the help of compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats in Congress, President Bush has denied the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency to the hundreds of men that he decided to label “unlawful enemy combatants” and throw into never-ending detention.

Twice the Supreme Court swatted back his imperial overreaching, and twice Congress helped Mr. Bush try to open a gaping loophole in the Constitution. On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge.

The court ruled that the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have that cherished right, and that the process for them to challenge their confinement is inadequate. It was a very good day for people who value freedom and abhor Mr. Bush’s attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone.

The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Despite this, the Bush administration repeatedly tried to strip away habeas rights. First, it herded prisoners who were seized in Afghanistan, and in other foreign countries, into the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay and claimed that since the base is on foreign territory, the detainees’ habeas cases could not be heard in the federal courts. In 2004, the court rejected that argument, ruling that Guantánamo, which is under American control, is effectively part of the United States.

In 2006, the court handed the administration another defeat, ruling that it had relied improperly on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to hold the detainees on Guantánamo without giving them habeas rights. Since then, Congress passed another law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that tried — and failed horribly — to fix the problems with the Detainee Treatment Act.

Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court has affirmed the detainees’ habeas rights. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Military Commissions Act violates the Suspension Clause, by eliminating habeas corpus although the requirements of the Constitution — invasion or rebellion — do not exist.

The court ruled that the military tribunals that are hearing the detainees’ cases — the administration’s weak alternative to habeas proceedings in a federal court — are not an adequate substitute. The hearings cut back on basic due process protections, like the right to counsel and the right to present evidence of innocence.

It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as “most fundamentally a procedural right.” Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such “generous” protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights.

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

Original here

TIM RUSSERT DIES FROM APPARENT HEART ATTACK

Tim Russert

I can say nothing of the person, I'm sure he was a great guy and fun to be with. But he was one of the last people to aid the war in Iraq. The Democrats of the time prior to war voted for war also and believed Saddam was a threat. It wasn't...
posted by jp

Tim Russert, NBC journalist and political heavyweight host of "Meet the Press," has died after collapsing at NBC's Washington news bureau. He was 58 years old.

Television sources said Russert was recording a voice-over when he collapsed in the studio today.

Former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw announced news of Russert's death at 3:39 p.m.

"The news division will not be the same without his strong, clear voice," a solemn Brokaw said.

Sources said the network allowed itself to be scooped by other media outlets as it tried to contact Russert's wife Maureen and son Luke, who just graduated from Boston College.

Russert had just returned from a family vacation in Italy last night.

Russert, who rose from the inside world of politics where he was former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's press secretary and one-time chief of staff to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was able to successfully cross over to political journalism and rise to become one of its leading lights.

In his role as host of the seminal Sunday morning political program "Meet the Press" - which he took over in 1991 - he became renowned for his hard-nosed interviews where he frequently cornered some of Washington's cagiest political figures with tough questions.

Russert joined NBC News in 1984. In April 1985, he supervised the live broadcasts of the Today program from Rome, negotiating and arranging an appearance by Pope John Paul II - a first for American television. In 1986 and 1987 Russert led NBC News weeklong broadcasts from South America, Australia and China.

In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.

Original here

Average "white guy"?

I was just watching Hardball and was amazed that Obama is being put into this box of not connecting with the average "white guy".

• Laurilei's diary :: ::
• 
  

This doesn't make any sense to me. He's a guy. Why do you have to be white to understand a guy's point of view? Now, if it's the average woman's point of view, it would make more sense as you'd have to be a woman to fully understand her view, but a guy's point of view?

Why is this constantly about race? Do black guys view things completely different than white guys? Do they think about their family's differently? Paying their bills, getting their cars fixed, loving their mothers, caring for their sick children, locking their doors at night, going to work every day differently?

McCain, on the other hand, must have problems connecting with the average guy, black or white. He comes from a long line of upper-rank military members, he marries a model, then leaves her for a beer heiress, and he's rich, rich, rich.

I have not seen one poll that focuses on these issues for McCain. Why is that? I won't look at Obama as a black man. I look at him as a man, and I just can't understand why they focus on his being black.

Why do they even seek out white people to poll for these things anyway?? Why not poll all doctors, people with blond hair, people who wear glasses, people who prefer their coffee black, or people who drink their beer from a bottle instead of from a glass?

Well, that's about how much sense the average "white guy" poll makes.

Original here

Scalia: Court’s Decision Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’»

In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus protections apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. “We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. The decision was a “a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies,” SCOTUS Blog noted.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, however, is outraged. In his dissenting opinion, he devoted an entire section to “a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today,” a procedure “contrary to my usual practice,” he admitted. Scalia adopted extreme rhetoric about the impacts of the decision, calling it a “self-invited…incursion into military affairs” that would “almost certainly” kill Americans. Some lowlights:

– “America is at war with radical Islamists. … Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

– “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

– “Today the Court warps our Constitution.”

– “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”

It is unlikely that the Supreme Court’s decision will have the impacts that Scalia claims. As Kennedy explained, “Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law.” Discussing the restoration of habeas at Guantanamo last year, Colin Powell noted:

The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system.

But as a cheerleader for the administration’s terrorism policies, Scalia’s rhetoric isn’t surprising. It is “absurd” to say that you “can’t stick something under the fingernails,” or “smack [a detainee] in the face,” he said in February. “No. To the contrary,” Scalia said when asked whether torture violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause.

Original here

McCain Stacks Fox News 'Town Hall' With Supporters

Tonight was the first in a much-hyped series of 'town hall' forums scheduled by John McCain's campaign, in which Barack Obama had been challenged to show up to discuss the issues directly with the GOP nominee.

Tonight was the first in a much-hyped series of 'town hall' forums scheduled by John McCain's campaign, in which Barack Obama had been challenged to show up to discuss the issues directly with the GOP nominee.

Except, as Fox News reported, McCain's campaign misled the public about the nature of the event. The forum was "billed by the McCain campaign as a town hall with independent and Democratic voters," but Fox News noted at the end that the audience was actually "made up of invited guests and supporters," the Democratic National Committee said in a statement.

Here is FNC's Shepard Smith breaking the news:

SMITH: "I reported at the top of this hour that the campaign had told us at Fox News that the audience would be made up of Republicans, Democrats, and independents. We have now received a clarification from the campaign and I feel I should pass it along to you. The McCain campaign distributed tickets to supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, who of course is a registered Republican, and other independent groups."

DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

"Once again John McCain's campaign is trying to mislead the American people. Senator McCain should understand that after seven years of a President who has divided Americans and pursued a scorched earth policy full of misleading propaganda campaigns, we need a leader who understands he is the President for all Americans not just his supporters. Copying the Bush campaign model of stacking events with his prescreened supporters is not the transparency Americans are looking for. If that is Senator McCain's idea of straight talk, the American people are in for a long and disappointing campaign season."

Original here

Obama's birth certificate

(Bumped -- kos)

The National Review's Jim Geraghty, who (ironically) helped debunk the "Michelle Obama railing against 'whitey'" video rumors, recently wrote about a new set of rumors:

Having done some Obama-rumor debunking that got praise from Daily Kos (a sign of the apocalypse, no doubt), perhaps the Obama campaign could return the favor and help debunk a bunch of others with a simple step: Could they release a copy of his birth certificate?

Reporters have asked for it and been denied, and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public [...]

Those rumors include the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, that his middle name isn't "Hussein", but "Muhammad", and that his real name is "Barry" and not "Barack". The first and third are attempts to reinforce the claims that Obama isn't "American" enough -- the first because he wouldn't have been born in this country, and the third because he would've taken a perfectly good "American" name and rejected it in favor of a foreign one.

Rumor two, about the middle name, is just weird.

In any case, here is Obama's birth certificate. Click on it for a bigger version. Note, I have trimmed the edges of the scan, so before someone tries to inevitably "debunk" this based on the dimensions of a Hawaiian birth certificate, that should be noted.

Consider the latest batch of crazy internet rumors debunked. And a bonus -- astrologers now have precise data upon which to work their calculations.

Original here

Army Shows Its Colors

The Army's public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news called "Stand To" -- named for the set of procedures combat units do just prior to dawn, when they go to full alert for a possible enemy attack. The daily wrapup contains links to mainstream media articles, Army press releases, foreign media stories and blogs. It's similar to the Defense Department's Early Bird -- but much briefer, and obviously more focused on the Army.

Tuesday's edition contained an entry under "WHAT'S BEING SAID IN BLOGS" that struck me as unusual -- both for its headline and its patent political bias:

Obama: World peace thru surrender (KDIHH)

The link goes to a milblog called "Knee Deep in the Hooah." The author is a former Army officer whose son is serving in Iraq now. After citing a column on some curious Pentagon planning for an Obama administration, he goes on to write:

Roger that Redleg six, throwing away all ammo now and preparing to surrender ... Redleg five, out.

After all, what better time to surrender than when we are winning? The article cited above also includes a Youtube link so that you can see the end for yourself in the end makers own words. Sure. This is all old news for those of us who care. But it still ticks me off anyway. So I thought to myself,"Why not share the wealth?" Now I can be ticked off in good company. Enjoy.

Mr.Hooah!, out.

Seriously? Have any of these people actually read the Obama defense policy papers or speeches -- or are they simply going on what they hear on Fox News and the Limbaugh network?

And more to the point, why is the Army's official in-house public affairs shop linking to this kind of stuff? Just a few weeks ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told all hands to stay out of politics: "As the nation prepares to elect a new president, we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.... Keeping our politics private is a good first step." He added: "The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia."

Unfortunately, the message didn't get to through to the Army.

Let's be clear: It is okay for the services to have a message. Both the Early Bird and Stand To speak for the Pentagon and the Army as institutions, and that's okay. They generally support the troops, the military, the chain of command, and the current endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing wrong with that.

And I have no objections to what Mr. Hooah wrote, besides the fact that I think it's factually wrong. He has his opinion; I have mine.

But the Stand To page is different -- and Tuesday's edition crosses the line. This isn't some citizen's blog or website. It's the in-house public affairs digest of the United States Army. It should not be amplifying partisan political attacks, nor should it be airing them at all. This appears like yet another example of the unusually cozy relationship which has developed over the last generation or so between the military and the right wing of American politics -- an unhealthy development, to say the least.

Last time I checked, soldiers and civilian officials didn't swear an oath to either political party or to their current president. Rather, they swear their fidelity to the Constitution, and the ideals it embodies, including the subordination of the military to civil authority. Adm. Mullen is right: As we enter a contentious election year, where issues of national security are likely to dominate the debate, the military needs to stay on the sidelines.

Original here

Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty | The Revolution Continues

Dear Supporter,

These past 17 months have been among the most exciting and eventful of my life. Together you and I delivered a message of freedom the likes of which American politics had not seen in decades. I wasn’t sure the country was ready for it. But it was a message, I discovered, that many Americans had been waiting for a long time to hear.

I have been blessed with the most informed, well read, and enthusiastic supporters of any presidential campaign. Your extraordinary efforts in organizing and fundraising grabbed the attention of millions of Americans and shocked just about everyone in politics and the media. I still cannot get over all the fantastic work you did.

Something of great significance has just occurred in our country’s history.

With the primary season now over, the presidential campaign is at an end. But the larger campaign for freedom is just getting started. Therefore, I am happy to announce the official launch of the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty.

The work of the Campaign for Liberty will take many forms. We will educate our fellow Americans in freedom, sound money, non-interventionism, and free markets. We’ll have our own commentaries and videos on the news of the day. I’ll work with friends I respect to design materials for homeschoolers.

Politically, we’ll expand the great work of our precinct leader program. We’ll make our presence felt at every level of government, where just a few people with our level of enthusiasm can make a world of difference. We’ll keep an eye on Congress and lobby against legislation that threatens us. We’ll identify and support political candidates who champion our great ideas against the empty suits the party establishments offer the public.

We will be a permanent presence on the American political landscape. That I promise you. We’re not about to let all this good work die. To the contrary, with your help we’re going to make it grow – by leaps and bounds.

This is the most ambitious venture of my political career, and I think it can achieve great things. But I can’t do this alone. I need you to help me. I need your energy, your creativity, your ideas, and your dedication.

People frustrated with our political system often wonder what they can do. I have founded this organization to answer that question, to give people the opportunity to do something that really makes a difference in the fight for freedom. Please join me by becoming a member of the Campaign for Liberty. Our goal is 100,000 members by September. Can we reach it?

Our campaign netted 1.1 million votes in the primaries of a shrinking Republican Party. Millions more support us. I need you to help me reach them – and to keep making new converts to the cause. What a force we can be, if only we rise to the occasion.

Now what about the Republican Convention in St. Paul? Our delegates will attend, of course, and I expect our contingent to have a visible presence there. Without disruption, we will do whatever we can to influence the party and its platform, and return the GOP to its limited-government roots. This is very important.

This brings me to my second announcement. I invite you to join us at Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota on Tuesday, September 2nd, for a grand rally. We intend to draw over 11,000 people. We’ll have live music and entertainment, and special guests. I’ll address you all as well. A massive rally will generate still more interest in our ideas. And what a great time it will be.

Remember that it was Senator Robert Taft, who shared our views, who was called Mr. Republican. But we are not merely the Republican Party’s past. If the enthusiasm of young people for our campaign is any indication, we are also its future.

Right now I will need your patience and input as we develop our program and assemble just the right team of individuals. But it is my intention to launch the Campaign for Liberty in its full capacity at our rally in Minneapolis this September.

Over the past week we’ve learned that the Democratic presidential nominee, supposedly an antiwar candidate, is committed to the same rhetoric, the same propaganda, and the same aggressive intentions toward Iran as the Bush administration. As usual, the major parties refuse to offer Americans a real choice.

The Campaign for Liberty will lay the groundwork for a different America, the kind of America you and I, and millions of our fellow countrymen, want to inhabit.

“Dr. Paul cured my apathy,” a popular campaign sign read. Others said our campaign cured their cynicism. We have now reached a moment of great moral decision: will we let ourselves retreat into apathy and cynicism once again, or will we dig in for the long haul and fight all the harder? Will we retire from the scene quietly, or will we give the establishment the fight of its life?

“In the final analysis,” I wrote in my new book The Revolution: A Manifesto, “the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on needless wars, destroys the value of their dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would all be without it, there is no force that can stop them.”

The time has come to act on these words. May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in a moment of great crisis, stood up to the politicians, the opinion-molders, and the establishment, and saved their country.

Join us, and be a part of it.

For liberty,

Original here

Ron Paul to End Campaign, Launches New Effort

Rep. Ron Paul's presidential campaign, a pugnacious, ideological crusade against big government and interventionist leanings in the Republican party, will officially end Thursday at a rally outside the Texas GOP's convention, ABC News has learned.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who raised millions from staunch supporters attracted to the libertarian's unique message, is dropping his '08 White House bid.

(Jocelyn Augustino/Redux)

Paul told supporters back in March, in a video posted on his Web site, that he was "winding down" his campaign and planning a new phase to what he and fans call their "revolution."

The new phase of the revolution officially begins with a speech tonight in Houston and a Web video to be posted on his site, officially ending Paul's presidential campaign and freeing up the more than $4.7 million in campaign cash for investment in a new advocacy group, The Campaign for Liberty.

The new entity will be used to push a slate of libertarian-minded Republican candidates for public office in local districts nationwide, according to a description provided to ABC News by the Paul campaign. Paul also recently published a new book on his political philosophy, The Revolution: A Manifesto.

The Texas congressman's campaign to win the Republican nomination raised about $33 million in nine months, and he and his organizers hope to reignite that grassroots support for the new organization. They're setting a goal of raising $35 million over the next year.

Despite the dedication and moxie of Paul's supporters, maintaining that level of interest without the vehicle of Paul's presidential campaign could be difficult, especially given the frenetic, laissez faire interaction between Paul and his supporters through the presidential campaign. The congressman in many ways served as a figurehead, while independent actors drawn to his message did most of the organizing.

The Liberty Campaign is meant as a means for harnessing some of that energy and maintaining interest on a more micro level, by recruiting like-minded people to seek political office.

Paul, who is a medical doctor, is not ending his political career but will seek reelection to his congressional seat in Texas.

The Paul campaign itself was defined by a dedicated army of supporters, who organized independently of Paul, worked to explode "money bombs" to sustain his campaign coffers, rallied in the streets of primary states and even skirted campaign finance law to float a Ron Paul '08 blimp around much of the Eastern seabord earlier this year.

Not Getting on the McCain Bandwagon

For all the dash and creativity of Paul's supporters, his campaign never translated into large percentages of the primary vote.

Paul has repeatedly denied calls from supporters that he run for president as an independent this year. He argues that the American political system is weighted in favor of the two main political parties.

But while he is organizing his revolution within the Republican party, don't look for Paul to jump on the campaign trail with McCain.

"Although it is not his intention to hurt McCain," said Paul's campaign spokesman Jesse Benton, "he is very unlikely to endorse."

At the height of his campaign popularity, amid the early primaries and when he was raising more campaign money than any of the other Republicans, Paul made his mark at Republican debates, often sparring with McCain and former New York Governor Rudy Giuliani over foreign policy.

Paul was alone among Republican candidates calling for an end to the Iraq war and for American troops to be brought home from long-term international postings around the world.

McCain, perhaps the strongest backer of the Iraq war in Congress, has the polar opposite view. In an interview Wednesday on NBC's Today show, McCain told Matt Lauer it does not matter when American troops return en masse from Iraq as long as the number of American casualties drops.

Revolution Moves to Minnesota

The "Revolution" has a way to go before it turns the Republican party. First, it will have to get in the door.

McCain, after all, is the Republican nominee. And he'll be speaking center-stage at the national convention in Minneapolis. Organizers have not yet said whether Paul will get the opportunity to address the convention at all. And Paul is not holding his breath.

So the first official event sponsored by Paul's new Liberty Campaign will take place in Minneapolis, but decidedly outside the walls of the Republican National Convention in September.

Paul has rented Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota, which hold 11,000 seats, for September 2, smack in the middle of the Republican convention, which takes place at the Xcel Center.

He is also encouraging the delegates he won in the Republican primary — fewer than 50 — as well as Paul-leaning delegates committed to other candidates, to make their presence known at the Republican convention.

"Dr. Paul is still strongly encouraging them to take part in the GOP convention to influence the platform and represent the limited government wing of the Republican party," said Benton.

Michael Nystrom is such a delegate from Massachusetts. An independent web developer, Nystrom also runs the Web site www.dailypaul.com and was elected as an alternate Republican delegate.

And he's not alone. Nystrom speculates that close to half the delegates and alternates actually traveling from Massachusetts to the Republican convention are actually Paul supporters. And they plan to make their voices heard, even if the party won't allow Paul's to be.

"The main thing is that we can talk to other delegates and other alternate delegates and try to jawbone them about Ron Paul's message and the message of traditional Republican values," Nystrom said from his home in Massachusetts today.

And if the other delegates at the convention won't talk to him, Nystrom said he'll have a Ron Paul sign and Ron Paul stickers for all to see, unless party officials try to take those away at the door. Then, he says, he'll have to sneak them inside.

Nystrom and the other Paul-leaning Massachusetts delegates have had meetings to plot convention strategy and Nystrom said similar meetings are going on nationwide.

Technically pledged to support former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Nystrom said he was elected as a delegate by speaking out at a party delegate meeting. Nystrom did not mention Paul's name, "but I did mention his ideals, and I was elected."

He said this shows that Paul's ideals have resonance with Republican voters. "They are traditional Republican values, just not the values of the current Republican regime." Nystrom said.

"A lot of people feel alienated by this country, by this false left-right dichotomy," he said.

"We don't know about the political process in this country and its sad, I think, because the political process has been taken over by professionals," Nystrom said.

Original here

McCain In 2005: I "Totally" Support Bush On The "Transcendent Issues" (VIDEO)

It has been observed that one of Sen. John McCain's most foreboding obstacles in seeking the White House will likely be the lengthy paper trail that comes with a 25-year congressional career.

And so it is, perhaps, with the macro-theme of the general election: whether or not McCain is an extension of the George Bush presidency. The Senator has worked hard to dispel such a perception, pointing to various policy disagreements with the White House and lashing out against those who claim he would be Bush's third term.

But McCain's case is complicated by his own words from just three years ago. In a June 2005 appearance on Meet The Press, the Senator told moderator Tim Russert that, far from being at odds with the White House, he had "been totally in agreement and support of President Bush" on "the transcendent issues."

RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I-the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.

McCain went on to insist that, on domestic policies, he and the president had butted heads - which is true on issues like combating climate change and campaign finance.

"But," he quickly added, "I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him."

At the time of the interview, McCain was dismissing speculation that he harbored hopes of a White House run. But it was nearly accepted fact in Washington that he would eventually put his hat in the ring. An appeal to Republican voters, whom McCain had alienated with his streaks of independence following the 2000 election, was required for this to happen.

Now, however, that proximity to Bush could prove a detriment to McCain's electoral hopes. And rare is the day that he publicly touts the similarities of his policies and those of the White House.

"You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term," McCain said recently in a speech in New Orleans. "You will hear every policy of the president described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false."

Original here

McCain's History of Blow Ups: 10 More Examples

"Do I feel passionately about issues?" John McCain has said. "Absolutely. Do I get angry when I see pork barreling and wasteful spending? Absolutely." But his care for the most important topics of the day notwithstanding, McCain has had more than a few volatile run-ins with colleagues, staffers, and officials. Back by popular demand, here are the next ten most egregious instances of John McCain's temper getting the best of him.

10. Volunteer Campaign Aide

Back on November 5, 1999, the Arizona Republic ran a story about one particular example of McCain's mistreatment of his own campaign staff, an outburst that would haunt him for years to come. Just hours after McCain was elected to the Senate for the first time, a campaign volunteer was setting up a podium, from which the newly-elected Senator was to deliver a victory speech. When the 5'9 McCain saw that the podium was being set up to accommodate a taller man, McCain snapped, hurling expletives and epithets at the young aide as members of the press and supporters watched.

9. Judy Leiby, Senior Aide to Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)

In Ron Kessler's July 5, 2000 Newsmax piece titled, "McCain's Out-of-Control Anger: Does He Have the Temperament to Be President?" the author recounted McCain's encounter with Judy Leiby, a senior member of Senator Dennis DeConcini's staff. DeConcini, an Arizona Democrat, had announced his retirement, and McCain had stopped by to wish him well. Seeing a large crowd, McCain shook the hand of everyone in the office - except Leiby, who had differed with him on a number of issues during her time in DeConcini's office. Sensing the awkwardness, one of the other staff members asked McCain if he'd been introduced to Leiby. "Oh," he said, "I know her." McCain wheeled back to Leiby and said, "I'm so glad you're out of a job, and I'll see to it that you never work again." McCain admitted that he'd made the comment, saying that he hadn't held Leiby in "particularly high esteem."

8. Jim Abbot, Coronado National Forest Supervisor

In the same Newsmax piece mentioned above, Kessler interviewed Jim Abbot, a park ranger who oversaw operations at Coronado National Forest, a large forest located in McCain's home state. Abbot had become concerned that construction on a new building at the University of Arizona was threatening some of the park's endangered wildlife, and petitioned for a temporary halt to construction. When it was granted, McCain got in touch with him. "If you don't cooperate on this project," he threatened, "you'll be the shortest tenured supervisor in the history of the Forest Service."

7. Robin Silver, Bob Witzeman - Medical Doctors

Stemming from the issue of construction and the endangered species in Coronado National Forest, McCain received a visit from two doctors who had been involved in local environmental preservation: Robin Silver, and Bob Witzeman. At the very mention of the matter, McCain exploded, slamming his fists on his desk, scattering papers about the room, and unleashing a tirade of expletives and threats that lasted for 10 minutes. Silver commented that McCain's outburst was uncalled for, and McCain apologized.

6. Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-NY)

A New York Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. John LeBoutillier had interviewed McCain in a meeting regarding POWs. During the meeting, LeBoutillier had placed a tape recorder on the table.

Later, LeBoutillier encountered McCain in the course of House business, but McCain refused to speak to him without confirming that he wasn't tape recording the conversation. "Are you wired up?" McCain demanded. Despite LeBoutilliers assertions that he was not, McCain insisted that he lower his pants and prove that he was not wearing any kind of listening device.

"He's a vicious person," LeBoutillier said of his former colleague.

5. Senator Richard Shelby, (R-AL)

In a piece that ran in the January 28, 2000 edition of Investor's Business Daily titled, "Can McCain Control His Temper?" the editorial board raised the issue of an incident between McCain and another of his Senate colleagues, Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama. Shelby had cast a vote against the nomination of Defense Secretary John Tower, and McCain became enraged, getting an inch away from Shelby's face. McCain screamed at him, letting expletives and names fly. Mcain was "half boasting" when he said, "I was madder than hell when I accosted him."

4. Delegation of Female Air Force Pilots

Former editor of the Arizona Republic, Pat Murphy, wrote a detailed editorial that was carried by a number of different papers in December of 1999. Murphy pointed to an incident in which a delegation interested in expanding opportunities for female pilots visited McCain at his Senate office back in 1991. McCain greeted them by calling them "honey," and "sweetie," and then proceeded to disparage them, calling them "a bunch of Pat Schroeders." Schroeder was a Colorado Democrat who had championed women's rights issues while in office.

3. Diane Smith, a McCain Constituent

Murphy also mentions Diane Smith, a constituent of McCain, who wrote to the Senator to criticize what she perceived as unfair treatment of Anita Hill, the woman who claimed to have been sexually harassed by then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. McCain personally called the 60 year-old woman and berated her for "questioning [his] integrity."

2. Sandra Dowling, Maricopa County School Superintendent

In a 60 Minutes interview with Morley Safer, Sandra Dowling, the Maricopa County (Arizona) superintendent of schools, recounted the time she'd refused McCain's demand that she retract her support of a political rival of one of McCain's protégés. McCain screamed at her, threatening to "destroy" her. Her son soon thereafter lost his appointment to the US Naval Academy (of which McCain is an alum). McCain denied any connection, though he sits as an ex officio member of the Board of Visitors.

1. NBC

The television network NBC refused to support a television rating system that McCain had proposed be introduced. McCain wrote to the network's president, Robert Wright, threatening to work to have the Federal Communications Commission lift NBC licenses on locally-owned stations.

Original here

Fox News Calls Michelle "Obama's Baby Mama"... FOX: Producer Used Poor Judgment

Since Salon's Alex Koppelman caught Fox News characterizing Michelle Obama as "Obama's Baby Mama," there's been an uproar over use of such an offensive term.

"A producer on the program exercised poor judgment in using this chyron during the segment," said Fox's Senior Vice President of Programming Bill Shine, in a statement to Politico.

----
ORIGINAL REPORT:
As if implicating her as one half of a "terrorist fist jab" wasn't enough, Fox News has gone on to label Michelle Obama "Obama's baby mama."

Salon's Alex Koppelman writes:

An alert reader wrote in just a little while ago to let us know about something he'd spotted on Fox News Wednesday afternoon. During a segment discussing conservative attacks against Michelle Obama, the wife of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the network described the former as "Obama's baby mama."

I checked, and sure enough, as you can see below, our e-mailer was right. In fact, that description was displayed on screen several times during the segment, which featured anchor Megyn Kelly and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, an FNC contributor.

Koppelman has the video here, and you can see the stills below.

To be fair, Michelle Obama referred to Barack as her "baby's daddy" on the night he won his Senate seat in 2004.

Original here

Kucinich: Judiciary Committee must begin review of impeachment articles

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), two days after presenting 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush, urged in a statement that a key House committee commence examination of the articles.

“It is now imperative that the Judiciary Committee begin a review of the 35 articles,” said Kucinich. “I will be providing supporting documentation to the committee so that it can proceed in an orderly manner.

“The weight of evidence contained in the articles makes it clear that President Bush violated the Constitution and the U.S. Code as well as international law,” said the Ohio lawmaker, whose efforts to impeach Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been largely ignored by the mainstream media.

The House of Representatives approved Kucinich’s motion today to refer the articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). Kucinich said on Wednesday that he would meet with Conyers this week.

Conyers has yet to release a public statement on the motion, but has in the past not been supportive of impeachment efforts. The resolution to impeach Cheney, which Kucinich presented in April 2007, remains stalled in the committee he chairs.

“It is the House’s responsibility as a co-equal branch of government to provide an effective check and balance to executive abuse of power,” Kucinich continued in the statement. “President Bush was principally responsible for directing the United States Armed Forces to attack Iraq.

“I believe that there is sufficient evidence in the articles to support the charge that President Bush allowed, authorized and sanctioned the manipulation of intelligence by those acting under his direction and control, misleading Congress to approve a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

“As a result over 4,000 United States soldiers have died in combat in Iraq, with tens of thousands injured, many of them permanently impaired,” explained Kucinich. “Over a million innocent Iraqis have perished in a war which was based on lies, a war which will cost the American taxpayers as much as three trillion dollars.

The Ohio lawmaker said that it is now “incumbent” for the Judiciary Committee to review evidence he presented. He promised that if the committee failed to hold any hearings on the resolution within thirty days, he would repeat his efforts. He told one reporter Wednesday, “Leadership wants to bury it, but this is one resolution that will be coming back from the dead. … I will be bringing the resolution up again, and I won’t be the only one reading it.”

Kucinich closed in his statement, “We must not only create an historical record of the misconduct of the Bush administration, but we must make sure that any future administration is forewarned about the constitutionally proscribed limits of executive authority and exercise of power contravening the Constitution.”

Original here