US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

After this bout of indecision I doubt if many people are taking Hagel seriously any more. You don't get to cry wolf all to often and get away with it in politics.

There's a good reason people talk about Chuck Hagel not running more than they talk about Ron Paul running: Chuck Hagel is a leading and important (if iconoclastic) voice in the Republican Party. Ron Paul is a gadfly Libertarian no one takes seriously.

Well, well, well..I'm reading the Post's online edition today and what do I see? Not one story on Ron Paul's announcement. Not one. Instead we have Howie Kurtz, E.J. Dionne and William Arkin all talking about...Chuck Hagel! The man who's not running for President gets more attention than the man who is. Hilarious! Never has indecision been so rewarded with press coverage. Maybe Hagel should hold a press conference to tell everyone he can't decide what to order for lunch. I'm sure you all the press will be there to cover it in breathless anticipation.

William, some of us Virginia fiscal conservatives dislike Gilmore. The money from his tax cuts could have gone towards paying the expenses of the state government, instead of racking up the large deficits that we saw under Gilmore. It is odd that you mock Bush while supporting Gilmore because from the perspective of fiscal policy their records are quite similar: cut taxes, spend, accumulate debt. The biggest reason Mark Warner became popular was that he cleaned up the budget mess left behind by Gilmore.

Che, your posts for the Scooter Libby scandal only tells you part of the story. Allow me to introduce the rest.

The Libby case is part of an on-going feud between Lewis Libby and prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald. What do I mean? Well, back in 1983, a financer + CEO of Marc Rich & Company International was indicted for tax evasion by then Reagan appointed US attorney Rudy Guiliani. At this time, Fitzgerald worked in NY as a prosecuter and ended up handling this case to a large degree. Lewis Libby, however, was also an attorney that defended Mr. Rich against the government...I know what your all thinking, Dick Cheney's chief of staff would defend a tax evader...no way! haha. Had to throw that in. Okay, back to the point. Rich fled the USA and went to Switzerland. The US, and Fitzgerald, fought to have him expidided back to the US. Since Switzerland is neutral, this never happened. This case went on for years, until President Clinton gave Mark Rich a Presidential pardon. Since that time, Fitzgerald has hated Libby and Libby has always hated Fitzgerald. What's ironic about this case is that Bush actually appointed Fitzgerald as a US attorney. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! But why do you think Rove, Cheney and the rest of folks who could have been charged were let off the hook by Fitzgerald, and Libby was the guy charged? All of the accussed had conflicting stories to the FBI, prosecutors, ect. Libby was the only one charged. Bush appointed Fitzgerald. This wasn't a political battle, this is a personal one-on-one battle between Libby and Fitzgerald. This will be pushed much futhur than it already has been. If Libby can't appeal anymore and is found guilty in the end then he, just like Mark Rich, will receive a Presidential pardon. If that happens, Fitzgerald will have to be talked down off the roof.

William -- Ron Paul's positions are almost exactly those of Goldwater. Unlike the modern GOP, he doesn't view the fact that "liberals" have embraced expanding the federal government as an excuse to do the same.

Now, i don't actually share his views regarding the proper role of government, but I certainly Do respect the fact that he isn't willing to sacrifice those principles to advance particular values. If you don't think the federal government has the authority to address abortion, that's a perfectly defensible position. But don't then try to regulate that very issue when you have a majority. If you think marriage is fundamentally an issue for the states -- which I agree with -- then don't try to regulate it at the federal level.

You can try to justify the modern GOP using the federal government to regulate all these issues if you want to, but ultimately that's nothing but a rationalization. Personally, I'd prefer that the GOP go back to being the party of principled proponents of limited government, but clearly that's not going to happen. Which is sad.

William, I'm sorry, I wrote my response in the heat of the moment to you without taking a good look at what you posted and I misrepresented your views and I apologize. You're the kind of person I need to convince to support Ron Paul, not alienate.

Ron Paul does believe in border enforcement and has joined Tom Tancredo's immigration caucus.

Paul is more libertarian that the GOP field, I agree with that. But he's not a doctrinare libertarian, I fit him as more of a paleolibertarian or a libertarian with a conservative twinge, much like Barry Goldwater was. But he's against abortion on demand too.

To sum Ron Paul up, he's someone who I feel takes the paleo credo of "Let San Francisco be San Francisco and let Utah be Utah." What's wrong with that? That's what America supposed to be about and Ron Paul will make it come true.

Who are people's suggestions for Hagel's potential VP if he runs for the Unity ticket? We've had Webb, although he could probably aim to be a Dem VP pick in 2012/2016 (greater chance of winning). I don't think 2 years is enough for him to be fed up with the inaction of his fellow Dems in congress.

Other possibilities include:
- Bloomberg (fundraising ceases to be a problem, the guy is quite non-partisan, and if Giuliani/Clinton aren't the nominees he'd have a good chance of picking up New York)
- Lieberman (but given he's pro war, its about as likely as Bush picking Hagel as VP)
- Obama (this is way out, but he is preaching a new way for politics - and if Clinton is the Dems nominee then Obama can oppose personality politics on a new platform. The danger is that his rising star in the Dem party is finished. So unlikely.)
- Chafee (another maverick Senator, he'd win Rhode Island, and is respected by the Dems for being able to oppose this Administration).
- some senior military guy who opposes the war (a bit like Perots pick of Admiral Stockdale)

There's a few names. Any thoughts?

If Cheney goes as VP, it'll be because his health is a serious problem. Gien he's coped with several heart attacks already, its unlikely.

Bush's loyalty to his Administration is well known (stubborness, others would call it). If he dumps Cheney it proves his entire Admin has been a mess, a failure. Bush's way is not to do that, but to continue saying "everythings good" - and all the partisan Repubs (30% of the population) believe him.

If Cheney did get really unwell, Bush would remain loyal to his inner circle, and appoint Rice. She wouldn't run in 2008 (a complete no-show, if you ask me. She wouldn't be able to run as a Reagan republican like EVERYONE else. She'd have to run as a Bush republican - which is a non-starter).

"..an historic crosswords in its history." Someone was paid to write that.

William you may support the "surge" but what's going to happen if by this fall nothing changes in Iraq, then what? I hope you're not counting on some sort of Plan B coming out of the White House or the Pentagon because guess what, there isn't any. It's the "surge" or nothing.

By that point I believe that a lot of staunch supporters of the war are going to demand we cut bait, because by then there isn't going to be anything left to do other than withdraw unless you wish to keep banging your head against wall just to save face. Not even "red state" America isn't going to support seeing more its kids dying just to play nursemaid to the Iraqis.

That's where Ron Paul support will come from. That's what I believe. Maybe I'm wrong, but from where I live in rural Wisconsin, people want this war to come to an end. Ron Paul is the only Republican offering an end to the war.

William what you are is right-wing social democrat. Ron Paul is a true conservative in the tradition of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. He's not going to involve the U.S. in unconstitutional wars, he's going to defend our borders, he's going to look out for real U.S interests and he is going to restore the true and proper balance between state and local government and he's going to have balanced budgets instead of pork-laded spending sprees for welfare junkies, corporate or other kinds.

Tell me how much enthusiasm is out there among the GOP rank and file for the globalism that takes their jobs away from them and sends their kids to die in wars to be the world's policeman. There isn't any. Maybe among the GOP's elites there such enthusiasm, but not among its regular voters. And that belief that I support Ron Paul.

The America the Founding Fathers envisioned can be fullfilled under Ron Paul. Not the global empire you support William. If that's the difference between us so be it. By all means go and support Guliani because he fits what you really are better than Ron Paul does.

Vienna Voter:

First of all, what would an Austrian like yourself know about American politics? (eyeroll)

As for your post:

"Gilmore's name is not the joke. It was his term as Governor of Virginia. That disaster was no joke, and is directly attributable to Gilmore."

Liberals don't like Gilmore because he (shudder...wait for it...) LOWERED TAXES!!! The HORROR!!!

Just think, that tax money could have gone into some wasteful social entitlement program for inner city minorities!!!

But mean Gilmore, naughty Gilmore, he CUT TAXES! HOW DARE HE!!!

While Gilmore's anti-tax record may anger Dems, it will endear him to conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives.

"That he had to be fired as Chairman of the RNC should give any Republican pause."

He was fired by Karl Rove because he criticized the Bush administration for excessive spending.

In light of that, his firing as RNC Chairman is actually a plus, since it will endear him to conservatives.

He was fired for being conservative by the RINO Bush administration.

That's hardly anything to be ashamed of.

So, how's the weather in Austria right now?

"William, you're criticizing people for mocking Gilmore's name? How many Osama Obama jokes have you made?"

Blarg, that's a fair point. But I think the "Gilmore" jokes are intended to dismiss Gilmore as a serious candidate, when actually, he is a former governor just like Huckabee and Romney and Guiliani (mayor, same idea though.)

While I still believe Obama is unelectable, and I still doubt he will get the nomination, I realize that he is a serious candidate, if we're defining "serious" as "able to generate a lot of support and make a strong, powerful bid for the nomination."

While Gilmore's name recognition is very low at this point, his speech at CPAC was VERY well received, and a lot of people who hadn't heard of him before realized he was running. I think Gilmore has a LONG way to go before he can seriously threaten the Top Tier (which will be hard since the media pretends that no one aside from each party's top 3 exists.)

But if Thompson and Gingrich don't get into the race, conservatives MAY unite around either Gilmore or Hunter. Or, they may decide to stomach one of the Top 3.

All I'm saying is don't count Gilmore out.

IIRC Robert Novak even had a column this week speculating that Gilmore may catch fire...MAY.

"But I agree that the VP speculation is silly. Becoming VP to an unpopular president a year before the first primaries isn't going to help anyone win the Republican nomination."

And aside from that, WHY would Cheney leave? He has no reason to.

Actually, good for Hagel.

I could only wish to admire the sitting-senator-wannabe's in my own party nearly so much if they would pull in the reins on their personal_political_aspirations and get the legislating done that we so desperately need.

This country doesn't need a premature-E.

It even begins to appear that each party actually does have a grown-up in the wings...Senator Chuck Hagel and General Wes Clark.

Gilmore's name is not the joke. It was his term as Governor of Virginia. That disaster was no joke, and is directly attributable to Gilmore.

That he had to be fired as Chairman of the RNC should give any Republican pause.

'Liberals constantly have to shove their views down everyone else's throats.'

But not 'social conservatives'. Oh no, God forbid. They just want to replace the constitution with the Bible.

bob -- I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. never never never. I didn't undergo the usual lobotomy or check my brain at the door.

"(And to the usual libs who chime in with stupid Gilmore Girls jokes - take it to Kos.com)"

William, you're criticizing people for mocking Gilmore's name? How many Osama Obama jokes have you made?

But I agree that the VP speculation is silly. Becoming VP to an unpopular president a year before the first primaries isn't going to help anyone win the Republican nomination.

Andy R,

What makes you think Cheney is leaving, and why do you think Bush would appoint as VP someone who has continually blasted and ridiculed him and Cheney, and the administration?

Bush would probably appoint Lieberman as his VP before Hagel.

There's NO WAY Bush makes Hagel VP.

He has nothing to gain by that, and Bush and Cheney hate Hagel.

Why would Bush appoint his biggest critic to the VP post, when he already has a VP he likes?

That would be like Clinton firing Gore for no reason and replacing him with Newt Gingrich.

Aside from being reelected to the Senate, Hagel has no real future in the GOP.

There is nothing to suggest that Cheney will resign, and why would he??

Bush has less than 2 years left in his final term, and there is only about 1.5 years left until the election.

Bush has nothing to gain by replacing his VP, especially one he is close friends with.

Not gonna happen.

drindl.

Interesting commentthat you and the other repubs are the only ones supporting the surge.

Last poll was that it had 21% support. If that be the case, if repubs were 32% of the population, you seem to have lost 11% of your base.

Maybe they sit out 08?

"If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."

The following is from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101439.html and provides food for thought.

"Another study found that liberals and conservatives not only overestimate their opponents' partisan motives on questions such as abortion and same-sex marriage but also overestimate the partisan motives of people on their own side.

"Partisans within ideological groups tended to view themselves as atypical vis-a-vis their group: atypical in their moderation, in their freedom from bias, and in their capacity to 'see things as they are in reality' even when that reality proves to be ideologically inconvenient or 'politically incorrect,' " Harvard Business School researcher Robert J. Robinson and his colleagues concluded.

All this can be amusing, but the consequences are obvious. If you believe that you are a patriot but that those who disagree with you about the Iraq war are self-interested zealots intent on destroying America, what can you possibly have to discuss with them?"

I had my crystal ball working again re my post on previous topic. For some time Hagel has been my favorite repub, and I surely will rethink this. I have a notion, not a feeling, that Chuck will leave the Senate.

William, my point was not that someone would put him on the ticket, it was that Bush would appoint him to the post if Cheney leaves.

No matter what Tina says Condi would have a seriously hard time winning senate approval if Cheney resigns. Hagel on the other hand would sail threw the Senate. He is extremely well respected on both sides of the aisle, and is against the war which would solidify his approval.
Also look at the chain of events. Hagel announces some big press conference in one week. Scooter Libby is convicted and Cheney has another problem with his heart. There is a huge amount of speculation that Cheney will leave (albeit this is all speculation). Then Hagel changes his mind and says I'm going to think about it for awhile. Now in my opinion one of two things happened.
1) The scenario I laid out earlier to replace Cheney.
2) Someone else promised him the VP slot. (not likely as you point out William because he doesn't really help with the base which is what Guiliani, McCain, and Romeny will need)

That leads back to scenario one. Now it is all very circumstantial but Hagel isn't an idiot, and I can't imagine that he called this big press conference just to say that he is still thinking. But it will be alot easier for him to be confirmed if he isn't "actively" running for office.

"I respect him because he has stood up for our troops "

drindl, when members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called 'slow bleeding,' they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining them.

Of course no one likes it for their loved ones to go to war, no one likes to say goodbye over and over again, no one likes to go on 365-day deployments but that is the deal. You don't get to decide for yourself as a military memeber.

The US armed forces are protecting your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness 24/7.

On the military base where I live, there are men and women coming and going every day to places you've never even heard of in defense of our country's interests. My neighbor is going to Bagram this week; my husband may be next...you never know.

I am glad that the CIC doesn't make decisions based on polls or public opinion.

"Funny, isn't it, that these alarmists are always anxious to play the "what if" game when it comes to global warming, but not when it comes to global terrorism. Ask them, for example, what happens if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq, leaving it ripe for Al Qaeda? What happens if we ignore Iran and its threat to nuke its enemies? Or what happens if we decide to quit policing the world and leave such matters strictly up to the U.N.? (After all, they did a bang-up job in Cambodia in the 1970s and are doing equally fine work today in Darfur.)

The reason it's so easy to despise liberals isn't simply because they're such blockheads, but because they are so hypocritical and self-righteous.

Understand, though, that I'm not suggesting they are entirely worthless. What I am suggesting is that we establish whether my suspicion is correct that they not only think like chickens and squawk like chickens, but actually taste like chicken. We could then raise them as livestock. "

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=liberals_a_very_modest_proposal&ns=BurtPrelutsky&dt=03/12/2007&page=2

While Hagel is right that there are more pressing issues, he called a press conference and hinted that it would be a political announcement. Then he backs away. It makes him look indecisive and that doesn't help him in the Republican Party.

Hagel could, of course, run an independant campaign. It's hard to say who that would hurt more. If the war is a big issue then Hagel could succeed in splitting the anti-war vote, helping the Republican. Or, if he peals off a percentage of Republican moderates and also independents who might otherwise vote Republican, that would help the Democratic candidate.

He doesn't need to capture a major percentage. Look at the effect Nadar had on just a few key states in 2000.

The real draw of a Hagel Unity '08 bid is he can actually win. The base vote will likely stay home for the GOP because the nominee is likely to not be popular with the base.

Hagel is conservative on pretty much every issue, he just doesn't agree with Bush on the war. He can get anti-war voters who want a real solution and conservatives who are still looking for someone to love.

Hagel, Giuliani or Romney, and Clinton or Obama... the country may turn to Hagel who is by far more conservative.

Also to clarify Unity '08 requires a VP of the opposite party as the Presidential candidate. I'm not sure who Hagel would grab as a VP, a moderate dem would be the clear choice... but who would be crazy enough to do it?

Someone suggested Webb, anyone else have some ideas.

Colin,

Ron Paul is not really a conservative.

You've been reading my posts for a while, and I'm sure you know that I am a traditional conservative myself, in the Reagan-Goldwater mold. I would even go so far as to call myself a Jeffersonian conservative.

I frequently criticize neocons as well as "chamber of commerce 'conservatives'", too.

There are a number of issues I agree with Ron Paul on, such as limited government.

HOWEVER, there is a BIG difference between traditional conservatives and "anything goes" libertarians.

Ron Paul is the latter. A libertarian. There are many Republicans who LEAN libertarian (and Dems too, like Jon Testor or Jim Webb.)

But those Republicans are NOT libertarian.

I am no neocon, and I oppose nation-building and democracy-exporting.

I also support some trade barriers, like protective tariffs on Chinese imports.

But at the same time, I favor an assertive foreign policy.

We need to deal with Iran, NK, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

We do not need an isolationist like Ron Paul.

Ron "cut n run" Paul would be a disaster for foreign policy.

Furthermore, Paul is pro-amnesty, and does not really care about securing the borders at all, for some inexplicable reason.

So no, Ron Paul is not a Goldwater conservative, he is a LIBERTARIAN.

Big difference.

And I oppose abortion and gay marriage, even though Goldwater didn't really care about them.

What we need is a states rights' amendment to the constitution that would strip authority with regard to guns, marriage, death penalty, immigrant rights, voting, just about everything, from the federal courts, and Congress.

I support the spirit of the VA and KY resolutions, which say that states can ignore any acts of congress or federal court rulings that they deem unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, liberals will never be content to let other states go about their own business.

Liberals constantly have to shove their views down everyone else's throats.

So, until we get a states' rights amendment or something similar, conservatives have to fight for our interests on the federal level, since that is where we are being attacked.

*to top it all off

my apologies.

Hagel wins the press game.

Without announcing his intention for President, he was able to build up both the Washington Post and the NY Times to write prominent articles both before and after the announcement. And all this press coverage without spending a dime.

And to top it all of, he did so while making everyone remember just why they love Hagel: he's focused on the issues. He's above politics. He keeps those Unity 2008 folks waiting with bated breath too.

So while staying above politics (and putting off the downside of a Presidential media blitz), Hagel becomes *the* story of the 2008 race for, well, a weekend.

I can't say I'd ever vote for the guy, but calling him "Hamlet" misses the point. If someone's going to run on a shoestring, they'd better know how to make media do the work for them while keeping their image intact. In my mind, he's just proved himself a worthy contender.

if you're going to use chess analogies, Tina- you may want to check wikipedia to learn exactly what the phrase "queen's gambit" means.

of course your time may be better spent trying to figure on how the GOP's lame showing -in concert with its insane and misguided policies- can be described as moving toward checkmate

'
In case you aren't aware, MOST Republicans, including myself, SUPPORT the Surge option.'

And do you also support redeploying injured vets, those with extremely low IQs, middle-aged infantrymen, and felons, and forcing the retired back into service, forced multiple deployments, and illegal stoop-loss?

It isn't a surge, it's a PERMANENT ESCALATION--and it's destroying our military capability. Please get out of LALA land.

Andy R, there is no way in hell that Hagel will be anywhere on the GOP ticket, especially as VP.

If one of the RINO "frontrunners" or wins the nomination, in order to get conservatives to hold their noses and go to the polls, there is going to have to be a REALLY popular hardcore conservative in the VP spot.

There's absolutely no way the VP is a RINO if the frontrunner is a RINO, too.

The shortlist for the Republican VP spot I'd say consists of (roughly in order):

1. Hayley Barbour (Gov - MS): far and away the dream choice for VP, he is probably the most popular R in the country among conservatives, at least. But he is up for reelection in 2008, and may want to run for president himself in 2012.

2. Mark Sanford (Gov - SC): Very popular with conservatives, and was just reelected so he is free in 2008.

3. Jeff Sessions (Sen - AL): A stuanch conservative, Sessions earned the undying gratitude of Republicans when he worked against the amnesty bill in the Senate, and inserted language mandating the construction of a border wall. If the GOP pres. nominee needs to bolster the ticket's conservative credentials, having Sessions aboard would do it. But Sessions is up for reelection in 2008.

4. Tim Pawlenty (Gov - MN): Popular with conservatives, but less so than Sanford or Barbour. Pawlenty has equivocated on some issues since becoming governor, like gay marriage. But with both D's and R's flipflopping like crazy, this probably won't matter. Pawlenty is a "new face" of conservatism, in that he is a young rising star. Also, he is a conservative from a unique state, MN, and could probably carry the midwest (except for IL) in an election.

5. Jon Kyl (Sen - AZ): Practically the only prominent Republican left in the Mountain West outside of ID and UT (aside from John Ensign, who is too connected to gambling interests.) Kyl is popular w/ conservatives.

6. Bob Riley(Gov - AL)- relatively solid conservative. Less popular than the ones above.

Popular Senators whom conservatives love, but they may need more experience before being VP:

DeMint, Vitter, Coburn, Thune, Isakson, Burr.

ALSO: Matt Blunt, governor of MO, may be on Mitt Romney's shortlist, since he is the only governor supporting Romney. Perhaps Blunt believes he will lose reelection anyway, and wants to take his chances running as VP.

oh wow, drindl 'respects' Hagel... another good reason not to support him.'

Oh really, 'proud'? I respect him because he has stood up for our troops -- unlike any of your other repug candidates. How about this?

March 11, 2007 | COLUMBUS, Ga. -- "This is not right," said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. "This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers," he said angrily. "If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight."

As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.'

Do you think this is the way our military people should be treated? Would it be just fine with you if your husband and injured and then sent back into combat?

Answer me.

It's funny hearing people criticize Paul, b/c he's the only ACTUAL conservative in the race. Hearing other ridicule the guy just goes to show how far the current GOP and its "conservatism" has drifted from the days of Goldwater. Very, very sad.

Somebody said Hagel would be asked to become VP if Cheney leaves........yuck!!
NO WAY. IF Cheney resigns because of bad health, (and the rumors are swirling around DC), only Condi Rice is in position to take the new office. And the story in DC is that IF she does this, she wipes the entire 2008 field and it will be a NEW CHESS MATCH. I would call this
QUEEN'S GAMBIT, and one more move toward CHECKMATE.

I third the motion by drindl that che do shorter posts. If you can't type it all in by hand, without a cut and paste, don't post it. Try posting article title and links if you think you have important information that needs to be read at length. Those interested may read it

Hagel on a Unity 08 ticket would certainly be interesting. I wonder who the VP would be? It would probably have to be a Dem.

Something a lot of people forget about Hagel though is, even though he has been a vocal opponent of the Iraq War, he is staunchly conservative on other issues, such as economics, abortion, etc.

Sean Scallon, Ron Paul is NEVER going to get the GOP nomination. As much as you like him, it is NEVER gonna happen.

Paul alienated most of the few Republicans who may have supported him by siding with the Dems on the cut and run resolution.

In case you aren't aware, MOST Republicans, including myself, SUPPORT the Surge option.

He is pro-amnesty, and is very weak on national security and foreign policy.

There is more to being conservative than just being a second amendment absolutist.

In times like these, when China is getting more powerful, the economy is globalizing, and states like NK and Iran (not to mention nonstate actors like terrorists) are causing trouble, we need a president who will assert our interests on the world stage. Paul would not be willing to do this.

It is possible that Paul would be a good president, but there is no way he will get the nomination.

If conservatives don't unite around ONE candidate, the conservative vote is going to splinter and a liberal RINO like McCain or Guiliani will get the nomination.

Right now, there are two sort of conservative (Brownback and Huckabee) and three conservative (Hunter, Tancredo, Gilmore) candidates, not to mention Paul, a libertarian.

In the primaries, if there are so many conservative candidates, the conservative vote will splinter.

Conservatives need to unite around one candidate, and propel them to the top tier.

Huckabee has a liberal economic record, opposes the death penalty, and is Mr. Amnesty himself.

Brownback is also pro-amnesty and weak on the death penalty.

Romney can't be trusted.

Tancredo is of more use in the House, and currently he is probably unelectable, though that will change when the effects of illegal immigration start to affect Joe Public more.

Paul cannot appeal to most conservatives since he disagrees with them on so many issues.

That leaves Gilmore and Hunter. Hunter probably has a stronger resume, but both are good. Since he was a governor, Gilmore may be more electable.

(And to the usual libs who chime in with stupid Gilmore Girls jokes - take it to Kos.com)

Hunter and Gilmore both have wide appeal to conservatives, and are solid on all the key issues.

IF another conservative like Gingrich or Thompson gets into the race, then we can maybe unite around them, but until that happens, I am supporting Gilmore or Hunter.

Andy R - Lay off Webb! He has significant work to do representing us.

You just worry about the Red Sox. They'll keep your attention until September (or maybe August).

Yawn . . .

I don't buy the Unity 08 move. First off if McCain is the nominee that would be a total stab in the back. Hagel and McCain are very good friends and I don't see him doing that. Now if the nominee is someone like Gingrich who is so partisan then maybe. But otherwise Hagel is set up as a perfect VP for Guiliani, Romney, or Huckabee.

But just for argument sake; who does Hagel get to be his running mate for Unity 08? My vote is Jim Webb. He is not a huge fan of the Clintons and he has talked about the partisan politics that is tearing our country apart. A Hagel/Webb ticket would stand a serious chance if you ask me. Especially if you have a Clinton vs Gingrich.

It seems Hagel is aware he has next to no chance to win the GOP nomination. Presumably he'll realize at some point his reliably conservative voting record precludes a victorious independent bid. This delaying tactic will probably serve to lock up his reelection bid.

oh wow, drindl 'respects' Hagel... another good reason not to support him.

CC, don't you feel totally played by this guy?

Just look at your blog titles...
"Hagel Decision Imminent"..."Waiting on Hagel's Announcement". You sound like a teenager waiting for a prom date.

'Make the new guy look coming in look like the white night after all the 'regulars' get their spin machines out on each other.'

'white night' -- like a nuclear whiteout? I like a knight is more likely what you're looking for and I seriously doubt you will find anyone like that in american politics anymore.

No thanks. While I have real respect for Hagel [you are right in what you said Nor'easter, I wasn't bashing him personally] I disagree with too many of his core positions to ever vote for him.

Chuck Hagel is above all of us lowlifes and he knows it. The media is hounding too many people way too early about ambitions that are too far into the future. Can everybody just calm down a bit and let the man do the job he was originally elected to do? He's just waiting for the right time, when Obama makes one too many of the same damn stump speech.

really che...give it a break!!! drindl is right about one thing...nobody reads your posts when they are more than a couple paragraphs.

Interesting move Mr. Hagel's done there. I like Andy R's concept....keeps the field open for Condi in 08. Or Hagel/Condi.

Beside boys and girls, it's really early. Why volunteer for a bloody nose if you can put it off.

Let the other guys bash it out early.

Makes the Repubs looks stronger, get their dirty laundry from the past 13 or so, and particularly last six, years out as old news.

Make the new guy look coming in look like the white night after all the 'regulars' get their spin machines out on each other.

Besides, Cheney may want to move to that new super private development in Dubai that looks like a palm tree in the ocean so he can be close to Haliburton.

Cheney has limited utility to the president...and is a Godsend for providing the only focus for the Dithering Democrats.

No nastigrams from orthodox Dems. I'm not a repub slamming the Dems. I've voted as a Chicago Democrat since before I was born.

This announcement makes me think even more that Hagel will later this year announce a Unity '08 bid for the White House.

Imagine this scenario:
November comes around and we still haven't heard anything from Hagel. He calls a press conference. Everyone assumes that he must have decided just to run for the Senate again, no one sane would launch a bid for a major party nomination so late in the game. Especially because at this point it is a tight race between Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney... no room for Hagel.

Hagel announces the he truly will rise above partisan politics by launching a bid from a nonpartisan/bipartisan platform, Unity '08. He would be the media darling and steal the cycle from all the major party candidates. His coverage would rival if not exceed the coverage of any of the other contenders by far.

At one point I thought that Unity '08 being a real player in the '08 elections was a pipe dream, the stuff of pure fantasy, now I think it is nearly assured. Those who think that this is going to be the most interesting election in a long time don't know how right they are.

che, you know I have always defended you here, you bring some good inifo -- but i have asked that you make it briefer. This last post was absurd, and unfair to the rest of us.

First of all, NO ONE reads anything this long. Forget about it. Second of all, it unnecessarily incnveniences everyone else by making us scroll for five minutes. You're being selfish.

Please be briefer or don't post.

From TIME. This is what our troops are being sacrificed for...keeping the middle east safe for deadbeat oil companies.

'Is this about tax breaks? Getting beyond the reach of congressional subpoenas? And what about all that sensitive information that Halliburton has had access to? At a minimum, reincorporating in Dubai would mean that Halliburton will be paying less taxes to the U.S. Treasury, even as it collects billions from government contracts.

The last paragraph of the FT story begins to answer the questions about Halliburton's, uh, interestingly timed decision to move its corporate headquarters:

Dubai has long positioned itself as a regional business hub, with a laisser faire attitude to business regulations. The government has launched several free zones allowing foreign firms to circumvent laws barring foreigners owning businesses.

UPDATE: Flounder's comment made me wonder precisely where Halliburton is incorporated now. According to this 2004 GAO report, the company is incorporated in Delaware, but has (or had at that time) 17 subsidiaries in tax-haven countries. '

Army Surgeon General Kiley Retires
By Pauline Jelinek (AP)

WASHINGTON - The Army announced the retirement Monday of its surgeon general, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, in the latest fallout from the controversy over outpatient care of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Kiley, who headed Walter Reed from 2002 to 2004, submitted his retirement request on Sunday, the Army said in a statement Monday.

He is the third high-level official to lose his job over revelations of substandard living conditions and bureaucratic delays at the facility overwhelmed with wounded from the wars...

What are the odds that he'll get some type of Disability Rating?

Why yes General, the doctor will see you right away!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

The Libby case: Cover for a fiasco
By John B. Peebles
Online Journal Contributing Writer

The I Lewis "Scooter" Libby jury has convicted the vice president's former chief-of-staff on four of the five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the FBI and grand jurors investigating who outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Libby is hardly a common criminal, so he's free on bail pending appeal. Assuming appeals fail and no retrial is granted, he will lose his law license as a felon. Libby will probably receive a prison sentence of perhaps 18 months or so, likely to be served in the proverbial federal "country club."

Meanwhile, the massive right-wing conspiracy, which built a bogus case for war, goes unpunished, even as the consequences of its "intelligence failure" cost Americans and Iraqis a stream of blood and wasted treasure in Iraq. True accountability for using lies to justify war has not been forthcoming. The major contributor in limiting accountability has been the corporate media that failed to question the integrity of pre-invasion claims. No effort was made to understand the process by which intelligence was supposed to be vetted.

Like George W. Bush, the media share some shame for the debacle now unfolding in Iraq. By diminishing the scope of our failure until well after the 2004 election, the media shielded the president from political repercussions. Contradictions in the administration's case for war had emerged by then, but by 2004 the US had become mired in Iraq.

By 2006, Bush's party wasn't so lucky, perhaps in part to more critical media coverage disseminating more of the truth out of Iraq to the American public. It would have been far more valiant to have been critical four years ago, before 3170 flag-draped coffins were sent home and more than 600,000 Iraqis lost their lives.

The media have avoided any deeper analysis of the root of the Plame scandal. Libby played only one part in the outing. The White House hasn't been directly confronted for its role in orchestrating the campaign to expose Plame.

The corporate media has quickly morphed the "CIA Leak" coverage away from the awkward details raised in the trial that implicate higher-ups. The standard for proving criminal conduct is high, and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation showed the limits of prosecuting leaks. Still, many ethical barriers were crossed in the revealing of Valerie Plame's secret identity.

It wasn't by coincidence that the flow of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) tall tales and fanciful Al-Qaeda connections made its way into the media; they'd been directed there by the war's crafters and the people in the media to whom they routinely fed information. A group including Scooter Libby worked to promote the war as part of the White House Iraq Group. Reporter Judith Miller exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq on the front pages of The New York Times. The same reporter would go on to serve jail time in order to keep Fitzgerald and the grand jury from finding out the identity of the source who outed Plame to her.

The corporate media continue to talk about presidential candidacies for an election 18 months away. They're tired of celebrity doting, but will certainly return to issues other than how and why Plame was outed or, more importantly, by whom.

The media ignore the difference between "faulty intelligence" and outright lies which were planted to serve a narrow political agenda: to wage war on Iraq and obtain a second term in the White House.

What's in a title?

The corporate media have put the Plame story in a box, sealed it, and let it join the steady flow down the black hole. The story of Libby's conviction is barely 24 hours old before it's sandwiched by coverage of a huge lottery payout to a New Jersey resident and ActiveOn commercials.

Sometimes the media dance gets to be too much. I stopped watching CNN's coverage when the scrolling text described Plame as a "CIA analyst" in a gross distortion of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife's job description. Plame, in fact, directed a unit that was actively fighting the proliferation of WMD. Her unit worked through the front company of Brewster Jennings & Associates.

Plame's unit had rejected neocon darling Ahmed Chalabi, then head of the Iraqi National Congress and a convicted embezzler, who provided a stream of lies, or "faulty intelligence" as the media likes to put it. The media (through some of the same channels used to expose Plame) fanned pieces of information fed to the White House through Chalabi.

Plame's counterproliferation unit had discredited Chalabi as an intelligence asset. The State Department, which had assigned a team to do post-invasion planning on Iraq, similarly learned to ignore Chalabi.

Meanwhile, the neocons in the Pentagon and White House eagerly swallowed Chalabi's claims. Chalabi had said that the Americans would be welcomed with open arms [1]. The State Department and CIA disregarded Chalabi's assertions based on the grounds the source was biased.

The Pentagon, however, welcomed Chalabi's cheery predictions. Neocon advocates for war were eager for any intelligence that built a case against Hussein for WMD. It had been funding Chalabi's exile group, the Iraq National Congress [2]. His identity cloaked, quoted as an anonymous defector, Chalabi helped make the case for war, which scored political points with the neocon agenda within the administration.

The Pentagon, headed by Donald Rumsfeld, had become highly politicized. The intelligence-gathering responsibilities had shifted from traditional intelligence rivals at the CIA and State and closer to the defense secretary and Pentagon.

To the war-hungry neocons, the CIA was seen as weak, underestimating the threat and thus undermining the imperative for preemption. It's no wonder the CIA lost favor, as its higher standards had made it unable to appease the administration's demand for friendly intelligence. Intelligence that failed to make a "slam-dunk" case for war with Iraq simply wasn't acceptable. More rational voices were drowned by the shrill calls of the chickenhawks for war.

The enabling strategies came from a national security apparatus masterminded by Dick Cheney. After 9/11, the military and executive were closer than ever before; tentacles of the executive burrowed deep within the military decision-making apparatus and command structure, constricting the flow of information.

Under Bush, the chain of command underpinning the intelligence gathering process has been politicized and shifted from the CIA and State to the Pentagon. Dissent from subordinate intelligence gathering organs was suppressed alongside any nonconforming intelligence from rival agencies.

Still, the neocons were not content to rely on the Pentagon for its intelligence to promote the Iraq War. Neocons assigned two primary objectives for the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a shadowy, pro-war contingent of mostly Republican consultants operating within the Pentagon. The OSP was tasked with gathering news and information that referred to WMD in Iraq, or implicated the country in terrorism. It's been accused of cherry-picking intelligence that supported the war. [3]

The vice president, with Libby in tow, held meetings at Langley, where Cheney's been accused of arm-twisting the CIA.

Plame's name reportedly came up in the course of those meetings. Cheney appears unable to have been able to entirely shut down intelligence that contravened the case for war. Instead, by intimidating the CIA, he'd been able to staunch the flow of countervailing information, which included reports like Wilson's, which undermined the credibility of the lies ("false intelligence") that the White House Iraq Group peddled.

The intelligence that Plame's unit gathered eventually collided with spin churned out by neocon operatives at the Office of Special Plans, which had been assigned to build the case for war by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG).

Were Plame's unit not brought down, they threatened to contradict the findings of the OSP and implicate the administration for planting false intelligence. Thus Plame -- and more importantly her husband -- presented a political threat to the administration, especially once Wilson's op-ed in The New York Times, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," affirmed the former ambassador's intent to make the issue public. (Wilson has allegedly sought redress through private channels and was rebuffed.)

At some point the White House mandate shifted to an effort to contain criticism of its case for war. Key to its defense was the idea that "false intelligence" had made its way into the decision-making tree. In fact, we now know the intelligence was known to have been unsubstantiated, from sources like Chalabi and "Curveball," a defector with no credibility [2].

The packaging of the case for war required making taking shortcuts that could, in turn, become problems for the administration if the liberties it had taken with the intelligence gathering process were revealed. Wilson dared to attack the case for war, an important political objective for the White House. The only issue is how far the White House went to stem criticism of the intelligence it has used to make its case for war.

More to it?

Perhaps there's more to the "CIA Leak" than discrediting Joe Wilson. There's certainly far more to the scandal than the guilty verdict for a mid-level operative in the White House's core cadre.

Plame's group is rumored to have prevented a real life clandestine deal that may have brought live WMD to Iraq from Turkey. The White House would have been eager to discover WMD after the invasion. With an election a year away, the political consequences of an unraveling of false intelligence could have been costly. In this respect, Joe Wilson presented a clear and present danger to the administration's re-election.

If there had been an effort to smuggle WMD into Iraq -- and the motive was certainly there -- it may have been interdicted through Plame's counterproliferation group. A scheme to smuggle WMD into Iraq would backfire if it were exposed, causing tremendous damage.

Maybe Wilson's report on Niger's yellowcake was a Trojan Horse planted by the CIA as payback to the White House. Based on Wilson's report, the CIA must have known at the time that Iraq had not acquired yellowcake uranium from Niger, and that its oversight responsibility had been subverted or been intentionally ignored.

The CIA may have even gone so far as to keep Cheney in the dark on Wilson's findings. This might explain why Cheney was so eager to hear that Wilson had gone on a junket, not a real trip to verify claims that Iraq had bought yellowcake in Niger.

The CIA is responsible for overseeing the accuracy of content in the president's State of the Union Address, so the inclusion of the 16 words broke established protocol. The leadership at CIA had known about Wilson's report and the lack of a Niger connection. The infamous 16 words were added subsequently. By not intervening in the 16 words--something Tenet was clearly pressured to do -- the CIA let the administration birth a clear falsehood, one which Wilson would dutifully expose.

An abridgement of the CIA's role in confirming the validity of intelligence circumvented the normal system of check and balances on the State of the Union. If Bush's claims were inaccurate, the system for confirming them had been mismanaged, demonstrating, at a minimum, gross negligence or quite possibly a conspiracy to produce and spread fake intelligence.

Eager to make its case, the White House had been suppressing any intelligence that was contradictory to that manufactured by the OSP and spread by the WHIG, which included many of the same people who are suspected of leaking Plame's identity to reporters: Cheney, Libby, Armitage, and Rove.

Wilson's report on Niger uranium was only one flash point where truth and the administration's positions failed to meet. Jailed on a contempt charge for refusing to disclose the source who told her about Plame, reporter Judith Miller wrote numerous articles based on questionable intelligence. One of her primary sources may have been Libby; if not why had she tried so hard to keep Libby's role out of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's reach?

Many questions remain unanswered concerning the White House's role in building the case for war, the shortcuts it took, and perhaps even the outright lies it told to get its war in Iraq.

Plame exposure

Plame's outing sent the message that the administration was willing to go to extreme lengths, even betrayal, to protect the intelligence on which it had made its case for war.

Plame's secret identity was pumped into the symbiotic relationship between the press and the White House, where secret channels turn secrets into gossip. Libby, Armitage, Rove, and other White House operatives were able to spread information about Plame. By leaking simultaneously, through multiple reporters, all but Libby have managed to avoid any legal consequences, which is no great challenge considering the difficulty of prosecuting leaks.

It's worth remembering that Libby has faced no charges related directly to revealing Plame's identity, and he may even be pardoned despite his recent conviction.

The media were quick to discuss the probability of a pardon. The coverage I saw raised no debate on the fairness of Libby walking free, or the injustice done Plame, her livelihood, or our national security, instead, time was given over to discussion of whether one participant in her outing would escape punishment through a late-term Bush pardon, such as Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Under the notion of a "unitary executive," the powers of the executive are unlimited. One example of this exercise of absolute power is the use of signing statements by the president. President Bush claims that he is able to take any action, on whatever grounds necessary, in order to protect the American people from terrorism.

The exercise of absolute power -- called in its many forms tyranny -- tends to lead most tyrants to magnify their own authority to mammoth proportions. The sense of superiority leads to overestimating the power of the regime. In time, aggression is constrained by geopolitical and military limitations, like those faced by the US in the bogus "War on Terror."

The result of the Libby trial fails to demonstrate that any legal limits have been established in the Bush presidency's presumption of preeminent authority. The White House hasn't been held accountable for its role in revealing the identity of a covert agent, which is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)

It will come down to Congress to hold the White House accountable. A full inquiry into the Plame leak scandal must be arranged promptly. To weaken Republican aspirations for the presidency in 2008, Democrats have plenty of political ammunition. The Plame betrayal presents one more bullet, alongside the prominent failures in Katrina and Iraq.

If our political systems still functions, Congress must confront the White House for its fabricated justifications for war.

Footnotes:

1. "Post-war planning non-existent" By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott; Knight Ridder Newspapers; Oct.17, 2004; " . . . officials, advisers and consultants in and around the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office bet on Iraqi exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, who assured them that Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators."

2. Excerpt, NBC News' Meet the Press, May 16, 2004
Russert: You mentioned Mr. Ahmad Chalabi. He was the person responsible for the agent Curveball, that I talked about with Secretary Powell, who gave discredited information. Mr. Chalabi is still on the payroll of the United States government for three . . .
Biden: Almost 400 a month.
Russert: Four hundred thousand dollars . . .
Biden: A month."

3. "The New Pentagon Papers" by Karen Kwiatkowski; Salon.com March 3, 2004

Other Sources:

"The spies who pushed for war" by Julian Borger

"What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA" David Corn

"Plame Games Expose WMD 'Intelligence Failure' Scam" by Ahmed Amr

"Wolfowitz Committee Told White House to Hype Dubious Uranium Claims" by Jason Leopold

Postwar Planning: "Pentagon Civilians' Lack of Planning Contributed to Chaos in Iraq" by Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0712-05.htm

"Selective Intelligence" by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker May 6, 2003; "The Special Plans Office developed a close working relationship with the I.N.C., and this strengthened its position in disputes with the C.I.A. and gave the Pentagon's pro-war leadership added leverage in its constant disputes with the State Department. Special Plans also became a conduit for intelligence reports from the I.N.C. to officials in the White House."
John B. Peebles writes for his blog, jbpeebles.blogspot.com/, where he follows global, political and economic issues.

Interesting. Hagel says that he's going to work on matters of substance this year. By doing so he doesn't contribute to this idiocy of a 24-month campaign [now down to 21 months and it alreadys seems like forever].

For this he gets pilloried by The Fix posters.

He gets my thanks!

Well, whadaya know. I had pretty much given up on anyone inside the beltway having their priorities straight, and then Chuck Hagel calls a press conference to say there are more critical issues right now than political campaigns. Smack! Reality check for the chattering classes and political junkies swept away by all the nonsense when people are still dying every day in Iraq, and Bush seems intent on marching us into yet ANOTHER war. We have SERIOUS problems to solve. Personal political ambitions need to wait, and people who want to change the channel and avoid reality will just have to swallow their disappointment.

While we wait for Hagel/ Godot, to fiddle, look what is happening to our people.This is indefensible... inhuman. Is this 'supporting the troops?

'The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq

March 11, 2007 | COLUMBUS, Ga. -- "This is not right," said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. "This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers," he said angrily. "If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight."

As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.'

Would some so-called 'jounalist' like to ask Hagel or any of the current presidential candidates -- especially those in Congress, why are military personel are being abused this way, and what THEY ARE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

This makes me sick. I have family in the military -- they don't deserve this. We treat animals better than this.

Aah, now the national media and the rest of the country know what Nebraskans know. Hagel is a duplicitous media sycophant. This episode is a precurser to a Hagel Administration, lots of blather no substance.

The Global War On Terror, in which American forces have already killed fifty times as many civilians as we lost in the 9/11 attack continues as before.

As does Chuck Hegel's deep deliberation on the proper course of action.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

What a wanker.

Ron Paul is in the arena, ready to fight.

Chuck Hagel can't make up his mind.

Now who do you think would make a better president, Hamlet or Teddy Roosevelt?

Voters are generally not impressed with politicans who are indecisive and campaigns past have been littered with politicians who couldn't make up their minds and when they did it was too late. Hagel's only avenue at this point if he gets in late is the Unity '08 standard. He's not going to get the GOP nomination.

But now that Hagel has put himself on the sidelines, is it too much to ask that the Post cover Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex) as the lone antiwar Republican candidate for President? That the Post puts Rep. Paul in GOP candidate polls instead of Hagel? That the Post actually have a some sort of story, even a little one, about Paul's announcment of his candidadcy and C-SPAN this morning? While everyone was in Omaha waiting breathlessly for the great Chuck Hagel to decide not to decide, Rep. Paul put himself in the arena, ready to fight. That fact alone deserves some coverage does it not?

Voters appreciate people who put themselves on the line, not popinjays who strut and preem themselves before ultimately doing nothing. I appreciate Sen. Hagel's opposition to the war but I'm not waiting for him to make up his mind and neither are other conservative and libertarian voters who want someone opposed to the stupid war in Iraq they can support.

Ron Paul is running for president and Chuch Hagel isn't. That's the bottom line.

Just to get the fires burning, what if George Bush called him and said that Cheney would be stepping down in the next month or so, and that Bush would tap Hagel as the new VP.

He is anti-war, so the liberals and democrats couldn't attack him on that basis. He is a moderate that would probably pass senate approval rather quickly. His senate seat is as safe as it gets in Nebraska. And he is a veteran who is well respected by the military and the civilian leadership.
From his point of view he could come in as VP and maybe help to withdrawl the troops then join the campaign trail late as the shoe-in for the nomination.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1832.shtml

Transpartisan coalition calls for whistleblower hearings; petition with strong left-right support headed to Capitol Hill

By Jesse R. Benton
Liberty Coalition

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Liberty Coalition, a transpartisan public policy group dedicated to preserving the Bill of Rights, personal autonomy and individual privacy today sent a petition signed by 30 liberal, libertarian and conservative groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Citizen Outreach, OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Government Accountability Project, Electronic Freedom Foundation, and the National Coalition Against Censorship, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, urging prompt hearings on the case of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.

Edmonds, a former FBI language specialist, brought charges of wrongdoing, criminal activity, cover-ups and national security threats inside the agency following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Edmonds was promptly fired, which she asserts was an act of retaliation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) then used the state secrets privilege to shut down court proceedings in her case and prevent Congress from exploring the matter. Civil Liberties advocates argue that Edmonds's case in an example of other instances where whistleblowers who tried to inform Congress and taxpayers about national security threats were intimidated silenced and retaliated against.

"Mrs. Edmonds is not a national security threat but a national hero and the American public deserves to hear the truth of her case. Congress must act and act now by having public hearings. Without them, the cover-ups and criminal activities will just continue," said Michael Ostrolenk, National Director of the Liberty Coalition.

Mr. Ostrolenk was supported in his contentions by Liberty Coalition partner Stephen Kohn, president of the National Whistleblower Center, who said, "Congress must hear from Mrs. Edmonds and others who corroborated her case -- we cannot wait until after another attack to learn about threats to our security."

This popular position is echoed by Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group that signed the appeal brief in Mrs. Edmonds case, who said, "The issues surrounding the Edmonds case are so significant that Congress must hold hearings to investigate the government's actions."

The issues reported by Ms. Edmonds include:

* Espionage activities within the FBI, DOD, and the Department of State.

* Cover-up of information and leads pre and post 9/11, under the excuse of protecting certain diplomatic relations.

* Deliberate mistranslation of crucial intelligence by FBI translators and management.

* Foreign entities bribing government officials and elected representatives.

Civil Liberty advocates assert that these issues point to an abuse of power, a criminal conspiracy and attempts to cover-up wrong doing by using the coercive power of the state.

In regards to abuse of power, Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU National Office and lead counsel in Mrs. Edmonds' case, said, "The government abused the state secrets privilege to deny Sibel Edmonds her day in court, and to prevent accountability in other cases for illegal spying and rendition. It is high time for Congress to intervene."

Dr. William Weaver, the senior advisor for the National Security Whistleblower's Coalition, who is an expert on the state secrets privilege, agreed with Mrs. Beeson when he said, "In Edmonds' case, tyranny comes in the form of the state secrets privilege, a foolproof mechanism of the federal government to hide executive branch corruption, incompetence, and illegal activity. This is a practice more at home with Czars and nabobs, and should have no place in the United States."

Ostrolenk continued by saying, "This is worse than Watergate in that American lives have been lost and our national security has been compromised. Mrs. Edmonds' case has been vindicated by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General, and several congressional offices. The public has a right to know. The excuse of protecting national security is fallacious. They are protecting their own power and not the American people. Mrs. Edmonds must be heard."

Information in this document should not be taken as an endorsement by any partner organization unless explicitly stated as such.
To arrange an interview with Mr. Ostrolenk, please contact Jesse Benton at 202-246-6363. For more information on The Liberty Coalition, please visit www.libertycoalition.net.

LAME LAME LAME

Chris,

When can other candidates expect to have their entire speeches printed in this blog?

LAME LAME LAME

Chris,

When can other candidates expect to have their entire speeches printed in this blog?

Well, Hagel did more than punt, he buried himself in uselessness. A BIG press conference to announce your announcement later, what a waste!!!

Sorry, but the nation is not on bated breath waiting for Hagel. He was given the HEAVE-HO this morning from the Iowa Executive Chair in a letter which was read on the Today Show this morning.

Hagel has been testing the political waters for months and months, he is STUCK at 1%. HE is going NOWWHERE.

Hagel had his chance to be a man, step up the plate, and start running. Fred Thompson might have a chance to enter later, but not Hagel, he is done, stick a fork in him.

Do you like political weird sentences ?
If you liked "I voted for it before I voted against it", you'll love "I am here today to announce that my family and I will make a decision on my political future later this year."

I truly feel that this was the most idiotic excuse for a press conference that I have ever seen in my life. Hagel makes this whole big fuss about how he's going to make this big announcement, we all spend days waiting to see what it is and then the whole thing is about nothing. Hagel announced that at some point in the next year he will make some announcement about something.

What a joke. Looks like I can't take Hagel seriously after all. I can't imagine why any reporter would waste his time showing up at a Chuck Hagel press conference in future, given how freely he seems to waste everyone's time.

While I was really hoping that he would jump in the race today, his comments make a lot of sense. It is important to focus on the issues at hand rather than a two year long campaign. His comments in the Q&A session were more interesting than the statement. He makes a good point about how this front loaded a process could be unhealthy for our nation.

We keep waiting.
http://hagel2008.blogspot.com