March 2007

In the eyes of the White House:

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sought more information yesterday about a presentation by a White House aide given to political appointees at the General Services Administration that discussed targeting 20 Democratic congressional candidates in the next election.

In a letter to White House political affairs director Karl Rove, the committee chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), asked about the Jan. 26 videoconference by Rove deputy J. Scott Jennings, which was directed to the chief of the GSA and as many as 40 agency officials stationed around the country.

Jennings's 28-page presentation included 2006 election results and listed the names of Democratic candidates considered beatable and Republican lawmakers thought to need help. At a hearing Wednesday about the GSA, Waxman said the presentation and follow-up remarks allegedly made by agency chief Lurita Alexis Doan may have violated the Hatch Act, a law that restricts federal agencies and employees from using their positions for political purposes.

In yesterday's letter, Waxman asked Rove who prepared the presentation and whether Rove or Jennings consulted with anyone about whether it might be in violation of the Hatch Act. Waxman also asked whether Rove or any members of his staff have given the same or similar PowerPoint presentations to political appointees at other government agencies.

Considering how much grief Rove has given Bush, why hasn't he just fired him? Well that is simple. Because if Bush fires Rove, the Bush looses his brain and his brain might even get pissed and decide to talk.

This is very interesting. Last night Joe on AmericaBLOG posted this from a Washington Post article:

Five suicide bombers struck Shiite marketplaces in northeast Baghdad and a town north of the capital at nightfall Thursday, killing at least 122 people and wounding more than 150 in one of Iraq's deadliest days in years.

The savage attacks came as a new American ambassador began his first day on the job, and Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and approved a bill to require President Bush to start withdrawing troops.

At least 178 people were killed or found dead Thursday, which marked the end of the seventh week of the latest U.S.-Iraqi military drive to curtail violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions.

I went to the article linked by Joe and read the entire thing, which started with those three paragraphs. Now today when you go to the link, the first three paragraphs are as follows:

Bombs tore through crowds of after-work shoppers in Baghdad and a town north of the capital on Thursday in an onslaught of violence that killed more than 100 people, according to Iraqi government and hospital officials.

Just today:

At least three suicide car bombs exploded in a mainly Shi'ite town north of Baghdad on Thursday, killing at least 40, police and hospital officials said.

The blasts in Khalis, 80 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, follow a surge in sectarian violence outside the Iraqi capital that has killed scores.

One car bomb exploded in a commercial area and a second at a major police checkpoint leading to the police headquarters and court building, police said. A third bomber attacked police patrols rushing to the scene.

"It was a scene of horror. There were charred bodies and human remains scattered about," said a policeman.

He said up to 48 people had been killed in the blasts.

Go ahead John - walk around that town without protection. Prove your claim. If you don't then you are nothing more than another Republican liar when it comes to this war.

Perhaps this war:

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

(Emphasis mine)

So the rich gets richer while the poor gets poorer. This is the "great economy" that Bush and Republicans love to talk about. Of course all of Congress is considered in the top 10 percent, with a large number in the top 1 percent. So why should they change anything? You ask wingnuts and they say this is perfectly acceptable.

The problems are evident in things such as increases in crime. People are becoming more desperate. The moral of the country is low and we have leaders who are too blind to see that a big cause can be found within these numbers. Were people out partying and having a great time during the Great Depression? No - they were out stealing, killing and breaking the law anyway they can.

Of course this comes out while the war in Washington is going on over the $100 billion for Iraq. In the larger picture, these two go hand in hand as Markos points out: