The Abramoff scandal investigation

Right. But dollars to donuts this scandal is not evenly distributed among the parties, just as the money isn't.

ci, perhaps you're right, perhaps not...but I think Democrats are deceiving themselves if they think this will escalate into another Watergate. I think that this is no different than Bedroomgate, whitewatergate, Iran/Contra, etc. Once the fall guy is found and he dutifully pleads guilty or is convicted, the scandal quickly loses momentum. Of course, there may be a lengthy period of hot air and bluster from the other party, a few other indictments, maybe one or two other convictions of relatively minor participants, but nothing else.

I'm not saying this is right and might even argue (through close-hold private GOP channels) that Republicans should take it upon themselves to "clean house". Would hope Democrats take it upon themselves to clean house themselves. But I don't see it happening in the public eye as a direct result of this "minor" scandal.

We'll just have to wait and see; but I have optimism that many will fall from grace based on criminal charges by the Justice Department.

The two fallen crooks that essentially worked with the republicans are gonna spill their beans that's going to reak havoc for more republicans. If they lie or don't provide complete cooperation, they're gonna be dead meat too!

Republican Ethics

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted November 18, 2004.


DeLay is one of the leading forces in making "Republican ethics" into an oxymoron.


Also by Molly Ivins

Not Proud to Be an American
Abramoff and DeLay used nonprofit organizations to launder money and pay for high-flying perks. That's just Bad Taste.
Jan 10, 2006

Six Degrees of Osama bin Laden
So Bush unnecessarily breaks a law, then denounces anyone who discusses it as helping 'the enemy.'
Jan 5, 2006

Stupidity, Survived
The end of the year is occasion to pause in wonder that we have once again survived, even in the face of fresh heights of human stupidity.
Dec 31, 2005


More stories by Molly Ivins



My, my, gonna be a long four years.

House Republicans have rewritten the ethics rules so Tom DeLay won't have to resign if indicted after all. Let's hear it for moral values. DeLay is one of the leading forces in making "Republican ethics" into an oxymoron.

The rule was passed in 1993, when Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was being investigated for ethics violations. And who helped lead the floor fight to force him to resign his powerful position? Why, Tom DeLay, of course. (Actually, it's sort of a funny story. The D's already had a caucus rule that you had to resign from any leadership position if indicted. The R's changed their rules to match the D's, except they deliberately did not make their rule retroactive, so the highly indicted Rep. Joseph McDade, senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, could, unlike Rostenkowski, retain his seat.)

DeLay has already been admonished by the House Ethics Committee three times on separate violations of ethics rules. Please note, that is the Republican-dominated Ethics Committee. The hilarious rationale offered by the R's for the new rule to exempt DeLay is that no one can accuse them of taking the moral low road here because, "That line of reasoning accepts that exercise of the prosecutor in Texas is legitimate."

Uh, that would be Ronnie Earle of Austin, who is a known Democrat. On the other hand, Earle is quite noted for having indicted more Democratic officeholders than Republicans, so it's a little hard to argue that this is a partisan political probe. Or it would be, if facts made any difference these days to talk-show screamers.

Showing his usual keen sense of ethics, DeLay has already started a legal defense fund and raised $310,000 since last summer. According to the Austin American-Statesman, half the money has come from Republican House members, who are all dependent on the Republican Steering Committee for their committee assignments and chairmanships.

DeLay has three votes on the 28-member committee and, of course, more clout than anyone else in the House. (See Lou DuBose and Jan Reid's new book, "The Hammer," for more charming details on DeLay's House dictatorship). The other half of the contributions for DeLay's legal defense has come from political action committees, corporations and individuals.

Hey, no worries about corrupting influence there because DeLay already does favors for big contributors to his plain old political action committees, even without additional contributions to his defense fund. Moral values. DeLay is going to give born-again Christians a bad name.

In furtherance of moral values, Congress now has to raise the debt limit by another $800 billion. We actually reached the debt ceiling in early October, but obviously the R's didn't want that vote coming up before the election. Then after they finish spending a staggering amount of money, the R's will return to make Bush's tax cuts permanent.

Now I realize that the Bushies consider it a point of pride to pay not one iota of attention to what the rest of the world thinks about us. But I would like to point out that the rest of the world is holding our paper. And foreign investors have demonstrated elsewhere that they are quite capable of taking alarm over unsound fiscal practices and pulling out completely, leaving bankrupt countries behind.

Speaking of what the rest of the world thinks of us, the matter was nicely summed up by Britain's Daily Mirror with its classic tabloid headline, "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?" The Guardian just put a tiny, white-on-black headline: "Oh God."

I realize the "liberal elites" are not allowed to even quote the word "dumb" lest we be accused of "cultural condescension" toward our salt-of-the-earth red-state compatriots. Since I'm a populist happily living in the midst of a quite red state (some of my best friends are named Bubba), I never pay any attention to such horse poop. But I do resent it when the people running the country think we're so dumb they can rip us off and then tell us to pray.

Molly Ivins is a best-selling author and columnist who writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

"Second, these charitable foundations are often used as a full-employment program for the friends, families, and significant others of the politicians and lobbyists connected to them. For instance, DeLay's wife, Christine, pocketed $115,000 from a firm run by the lobbyist who set up the aforementioned U.S. Family Network (a group that never had more than one full-time staff member). A lobbyist who also just happened to be DeLay's former chief of staff. And what did Mrs. DeLay do to earn those six figures? According to DeLay's lawyers, she made lists of the favorite charities of members of Congress. Christine DeLay and Delay's daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro, have also been paid more than half a million dollars by Tom DeLay's assortment of PACs and campaign committees -- but that's a rant for another blog post." http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060106/cm_huffpost/013374

The smart money says this could be the most far reaching scandal in US political history. It is the blind Republican partisans who are engaging in wishful thinking trying to downplay this.

Several republican operatives have already been charged with committing felonious crimes, and Bushies think the rest are getting off scott free. Dreamers all!

Abramoff lobbying scandal could change Washington rulesBY STEVEN THOMMAKnight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON - A Chicago barkeeper-politician once boasted that his town wasn't ready for reform. Well, America is. Outrage at the lobbying scandal in the nation's capital is likely to force changes in the way lobbyists try to influence the federal government.
Members of Congress are rushing to write new reforms and are dusting off proposals that they'd ignored just months ago. Many will be enacted. Some, including a ban on gifts to politicians, which is favored by a vast majority of Americans, might still be a tough sell in a capital where the political machinery often is greased by golf trips, meals and sports tickets.
It's worth noting that any reform could produce unintended consequences, as lobbyists and their cash find new roads into politics that aren't now envisioned. That's what happens every time lawmakers try to overhaul campaign-finance rules. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13593654.htm

The way things are going, even the 'big guy' at the top might be impeached.



January 10, 2006
Presidential Power Has Limits, Alito Tells Senators
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. said today that he agreed with the principle that a president does not have "a blank check" in terms of power, especially during wartime.

"The Constitution applies in times of peace and war," President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court said in the first round of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The Bill of Rights applies at all times."

In the second day of hearings on his nomination to the United States Supreme Court, Judge Alito said preservation of individual rights is particularly important in wartime because that is when the temptation to abuse liberties in the name of national security is most dangerous.

And we declared war on Germany also.
But,did we have to go to war with them?
Please tell us all EXACTLY what threat they were to us.
Dont say they declared war.
HOW EXACTLY were they a threat to the US?

Here is a timeline of the Korean war.
Your statement...
"No, the United Nations did not show up until long after the war had begun"
is wrong

25 Jun 50 - North Korean People's Army invades South Korea - UN calls for an end of aggression



Sign erected by 1st Cavalry Division at 38th Parallel
showing where the Korean conflict began
Photo: US Army


27 Jun 50 - UN asks member countries to aid Republic of Korea - US announces intervention. North Korea attacks Seoul airfield.

28 Jun 50 - US bombers attack troops in Han River area - North Korean army captures Seoul

30 Jun 50 - President Truman orders ground forces into Korea and authorizes Air Force to bomb North Korea

5 Jul 50 - Near Osan, Task Force Smith troops fight for the first time and suffer heavy casualties

18 Jul 50 - US Cavalry lands at Pohangdong - US aircraft destroy key oil refinery in Wonsan

22 Jul 50 - Battle for Taejon ends with heavy US losses and retreat

4 Aug 50 - Pusan perimeter established in southeastern Korea

13 Aug 50 - First UN counterattack collapses

Thats from here...
http://www.landscaper.net/kortime.htm

So,2 days after the invasion,the UN got involved,and less then 2 months later the UN got beat.
That is not,by any stretch," long after the war had begun."

I think you need to actually read something more then comic books about history.

By pure change, mystryman, does your source say anything about the nationality of the UN troops? I wont rely on the comic book in my bookshelves or the faculty's library.



Oh, and what your sources say about the Un in 1949/50 would be of interest as well. (I've only access to comic books, as said.)

Thanks.

CI, Roxxxanne,

Too bad you're out on the left coast and I'm on the East or I'd bet you a six-pack that Abramhoff will just be a bad memory this time next year. Dems will keep it at a hot flame for as long as possible, seeing it as a tool to earn them a few votes in the Nov elections. But shortly after Nov...the scandal will be forgotten, not even worthy of mention in history textbooks.

Hmm.. once Germany declared war on the US they were within legal rights of war to invade the US, to attack US shipping, to blockade US ports, to bombard US military facilities.

What kind of fool would let a country declare war on you and not respond in kind?

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

I've rarely seen someone so clueless about history who is so willing to shoot his mouth off. Must be hard to pull the trigger on your mouth with your foot in it, too.

Your own timeline shows that Truman sent in troops before the UN resolution. As Walter cogently asks, do you care to show a source for when troops sent under the United Nations resolution showed up? (Hint: U.S. troops don't count, they were sent before the Security Council resolution--which was delayed until the Russian representative was not present, to prevent the Soviet Union from exercising its veto.) Parados easily shoots your horseshit about Germany down--look at the message to Congress, it specifically refers to the declaration by Germany in the first sentence.

If anyone here is reading comic books, i think we can all reasonably assume to whom that refers, and it ain't me.

I never said that Germany didnt declare war.
But,could they invade the US?
NO,they could not!
Could they attack our overseas military bases?
NO,because we didnt have any in Europe.
Could they interrupt our fuel supplies?
NO,all of our fuel was produced in the US.
Could they damage our food supply?
NO,because we grew our own.

So,Germany could do nothing to the US,so they were no threat.

And not counting US troops,the first UN troops arrived in Korea in August of 1950,when the United States and Allied forces establish a beachhead on the southeastern coast of the Korean Peninsula.
This includes the port city of Pusan.

BTW,TRuman didnt order US troops into the fight till AFTER Seoul fell

June 30, 1950

After Seol, fell U.S. President Harry S. Truman, ordered the use of US combat forces.
Other UN countries send troops also.

But,is it your contention that when ANY country declares war on us we should declare war on them?

Thats a "mouse that roared" scenario,and totally illogical.

It's quite up to you, but I think you are taking the least politically prudent approach to this matter. I also think it is the least wise in terms of the health of your democracy and that's far more important.

Read the recent column by David Brooks or see Rich Lowry, for example... http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

In fact, one of the prime targets of Kriegsmarine submarines were the American tankers which plied the coastal waterways here. That, is, however, irrelevant to the issue of why we went to war with Germany. The Imperial Navy attacked the United States Pacific Fleet on the morning of Sunday, December 7th, local time. That was Sunday afternoon in Washington. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress on Monday, December 8, 1941. Germany declared war on the United States on the morning of Thursday, December 11th, 1941. Roosevelt responded with his message to Congress. As Parados asks, do you think we should have ignored the German declaration? What tommyrot . . .

Seoul (try to learn how to spell these names, it will give your nonsense greater credence if you don't make idiotic spelling errors) fell to the North Koreans on June 28, 1950, not the 30th, as you imply. If you imprecise reference is, however, to when Truman ordered United States forces into the conflict, that is correct, June 30, 1950.

The United Nations resolution was made on June 27, 1950--but the first troops which came from any nation other than the United States were the members of the ad hoc British Commonwealth 27th Brigade, which landed at Pusan on August 29, 1950. That's more than two months, and you can bet that to the troops of the 24th Infantry Division (which was ordered to Korean on June 30), the 25th Infantry Division (both under half strength) and the First Provisional Marine Brigade--that was a long damned time to wait for the United Nations to show up.

You people are forgetting that FDR LIED. He knew about the impending attack at Pearl Harbor to get us into war. It was his fault. He has blood on his hands. By the way, there were anti-war nuts around during WWII as well. My parents told me about them.

Furthermore, Japan had reason to attack after we embargoed them, or were using unfair trade policies against them.

Were they the ones saying that FDR lied and knew about the attack at Pearl Harbor? Or is that not what you were getting at?