Senate Republicans moved Wednesday to force a vote on a bill that would ban lawsuits against gunmakers when their firearms are used in crimes. Even if the gunmaker intentionally creates a product that is easily modified to create an illegal firearm. The Republicans even blocked a Democrat proposed exemption when children are injured by firearms that don’t have child-safety gun locks.

If those children were embryos, they would have much more protection under Republican dogma.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (big surprise, eh?), moved the proposed legislation ahead of a planned vote on a Pentagon budget bill. A vote on the ban could take place Friday.

“Without this legislation, it is probable the American manufacturers of legal firearms will be faced with a real prospect of going out of business,” Frist said, reinforcing his belief that going out of business is much less desirable than protecting children.

In another cute trick, the Repugs tied the bill to national security. “These frivolous suits threaten a domestic industry that is critical to our national defense” he said. By linking the bill to the war in Iraq, Frist said that Beretta, the manufacturer of pistols to U.S. forces in Iraq, warned that it may go bankrupt if the lawsuits are not stopped.

Securities and Exchange Commission statements by gunmakers Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. indicating that litigation posed little threat to their bottom lines.

The White House says the issue is one of fairness. “The president believes that the manufacturer of a legal product should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of that product by others,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. “We look at it from a standpoint of stopping lawsuit abuse.”

What about Napster? Napster never copied anything. Napster should not be held responsible for the criminal misuse of mp3’s by it’s clients.

Then again Napster does not have the NRA lobby, nor can it blow anyone’s brains out with a pirated mp3.

Our lame duck president will make an end run around congress this week and appoint Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN. Under the Constitution, the president may issue an appointment and bypass Senate confirmation when it is in recess. Such an appointment ends when the next session of Congress begins — January 2007, in this case.

NeoCon blogs are giddy with excitement about this appointment, but it’s just another example of how irresponsible the Bush administration has been. Bush continues to embarrass the US in the face of the rest of the world by appointing a brute to represent us in the United Nations. Bolton is the epitome of the NeoCon’s: overly aggressive, rude, and impulsive.

There is one other trait Bolton shares with the Republican Whores of the Bush administration. Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have determined that Bolton was lying when he wrote on a questionnaire for his confirmation hearing that he has not been interviewed in any recent investigations. MSNBC reported July 21 that Bolton was among State Department undersecretaries who “gave testimony” about a classified memo that has become an important piece of evidence in the leak investigation.

He’s a liar. That surley shoots him to the top of the pile.

Bush Golden Boy, John Roberts, has been making the Democratic Senate circuit, trying to charm his way out of a filibuster. While he has impeccable legal credentials, his judicial record is non existent. Recently he has shown his Republican colors getting himself caught in a lie about being a member of the madly conservative group, the Federalist Society. When confronted by reporters of the Washington post, he denied the allegations. He just smiles and waves.

But make no mistake, when he gets his young self behind the bench of the highest court in the land, he will wreak judicial havoc for many years to come. To the very court his is nominated, Roberts argued to that Roe v Wade should be “overruled”. He won a case blocking doctors in many cases from even discussing reproductive options with their patients. He was one of the circuit court judges that ruled the US could make up their own military tribunals with Guantanamo prisoners.

Tony Perkins of the ultra-conservative Family Research Council said “The President … promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas and that is exactly what he has done.” Pat Robertson said Roberts was “at the top” of his own list of candidates for the court vacancy. James Dobson of Focus on the Family called Roberts “unquestionably qualified”

Think little dancin’ Jake likes Sponge Bob? It is the Rublican way of late to have a gay scion.

The FEC has let Sinclair Broadcasting off the hook by ruling the media mogul (which currently reaches one quarter of all televisions in the United States) did not violate federal election law by running portions of the politically-biased documentary, “Stolen Honor”, critical of John Kerry’s Vietnam-era anti-war activities.

The DNC filed the FEC complaint on October 12, 2004, contending that showing the film would be an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush’s campaign. Kerry’s campaign asked that each station carrying the program give a similar amount of time to Kerry supporters.

Most recently, the FEC has also taken up arms against bloggers, trying to regulate them as an asset to a political campaign, and trying to put a price on the exposure.

“One really good question that needs to be asked is, ‘How do you value this stuff?’ ” Weintraub, FEC commissioner said, referring to their investigation on the value of blogger exposure.

How can they come after a blogger that pays 5 bucks a month to throw up a site when the Republican Party practically owns FOX news?

Here is the strategy next election, just contribute money to the corrupt broadcasting companies to have them air fake documentaries about your opponent. Better yet, just have the President produce more fake news on the American tax payer’s bill thereby saving you the cost and expense.

That way, technically, you haven’t spent a dime.

Press Secretary, Scott McClellan got fried in the press conference on July 18 about Rove. The President is not keeping his word and the reporters are waking up.

Part is below, read it all here.
—————————
Q Scott, the President seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for — in the leak of a CIA officer’s name, in which he said that he would — if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration. That’s never been part of the standard before, why is that added now?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree, Terry. I think that the President was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they’re not going to be working any longer in this administration. Now the President talked about how it’s important for us to learn all the facts. We don’t know all the facts, and it’s important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We need to let the investigation continue. And the investigators are the ones who are in the best position to gather all the facts and draw the conclusions. And at that point, we will be more than happy to talk about it, as I indicated last week.

The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that’s what we’ve been doing. We want to know what the facts are, we want to see this come to a successful conclusion. And that’s the way we’ve been working for quite some time now. Ever since the beginning of this investigation, we have been following the President’s direction to cooperate fully with it, so that we can get to the — so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

Q But you have said, though, that anyone involved in this would no longer be in this administration, you didn’t say anybody who committed a crime. You had said, in September 2003, anyone involved in this would no longer be in the administration.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we’ve been through these issues over the course of the last week. And I know —

Q But we haven’t talked about a crime.

MR. McCLELLAN: — well what was said previously. You heard from the President today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the President said at this point. And I think that’s something you may be trying to do here.

Q Does the President equate the word “leaking” to a crime, as best you know, in his mind? Just the use of the word “leaking,” does he see that as a criminal standard? And is the only threshold for firing someone involved being charged with a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we all serve at the pleasure of the President in this White House. The President — you heard what he had to say on the matter. He was asked a specific question, and you heard his response.

Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll leave it at what the President said.

Go ahead.

Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can’t call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he’s got to do is call him in.

MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn’t know all the facts. I don’t know all the facts.

Q Why?

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because —

Q Why doesn’t he ask him?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll tell you why, because there’s an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it’s important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we’ll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn’t be getting into —

Q You talked about it to reporters.

MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn’t be getting into prejudging the outcome.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, we don’t know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. For example, Matt Cooper says he did speak to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby about these issues. So given the fact that you have previously stood at that podium and said these men did not discuss Valerie Plame or a CIA agent’s identity in any way, does the White House have a credibility problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. You just answered your own question. You said we don’t know all the facts. And I would encourage everyone not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Q But on the specifics — on the specifics, you made statements that have proven to be untrue.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question, because you asked a very specific question. The President has great faith in the American people and their judgment. The President is the one who directed the White House to cooperate fully in this investigation with those who are overseeing the investigation. And that’s exactly what we have been doing. The President believes it’s important to let the investigators do their work, and at that point, once they have come to a conclusion, then we will be more than happy to talk about it.

The President wants to see them get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I share that view, as well. We want to know what the facts are, and the investigators are the ones who are drawing those — are pulling together those facts, and then drawing conclusions.

Go ahead, Bob.

Q Given the new formulation “if somebody committed a crime,” would that be a crime as determined by an indictment, or a crime as determined by a conviction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Bob, I’m not going to add to what the President said. You heard his remarks, and I think I’ve been through these issues over the course of the last week. I don’t know that there’s really much more to add at this point.

Q But the importance is the question of would — if it is the latter, the strategy would be to run out the clock?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I indicated to you earlier that everyone here serves at the pleasure of the President. And the White House has been working to cooperate fully with the investigators. That was the direction that the President set. That’s what we’ve been doing. We hope they come to a conclusion soon.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, going back to the President’s statements from earlier — if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration — it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.

MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we’re not going to do that.

Q But if someone — if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn’t there some sort of regret?

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s a criminal investigation. We don’t know all the facts to it.

Go ahead.

Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government —

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I’ve already answered it.

Q No, you didn’t.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Scott, the President talked about if a crime were committed. But a year ago and beyond, he also talked about — he denounced leaks out of this executive branch, other parts of Washington. He said, things are wrong. If it’s only a leak, will he take some appropriate action?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look back at what the President said again. I would not read anything into it more than what he said. The President has said for a long time that this is a very serious matter, and that’s why he directed the White House to cooperate fully, so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, first of all, I have a great respect for this White House press corps and they’re very nice and kind to me.

MR. McCLELLAN: I do, too. (Laughter.) They’re doing their job.

Q What I’m — my question — comment, also, about when the leaders visit the White House, and they have press availability in the East Room, not only the India today, but any Prime Minister or President. I feel it’s kind of insult to that leader, he’s standing there, only two questions, but only his own people are asking about his visit or his nation, but other questions are always on different topics. I feel, personally, it’s insult to that leader and —

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry, I didn’t get —

Q — that if it’s the Indian leader visiting here, that press availability should be only on India.

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, okay. I think you’re opinion is noted. Go ahead.

Let me keep going to Carl.

This put out by the AP:

ABORTION: As a lawyer in the administration of President Bush’s father, he helped write a Supreme Court brief that said, “We continue to believe that Roe (v. Wade) was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”

RELIGION: Roberts unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to rule that public schools could sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. “We do not believe … that graduation ceremonies pose a risk of coercion,” said the brief Roberts helped to write on behalf of the first Bush administration.

ENVIRONMENT: As a judge, he was sympathetic to arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project. The government feared the project would hurt arroyo toads.

CRIMINAL MATTERS: His votes on the bench have been mixed. He ruled in favor of a man who challenged his sentence for fraud, then said police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a single french fry inside a train station in Washington.

POLICE SEARCHES: Joined an appeals court ruling in 2004 that upheld police trunk searches, even if officers do not say they are looking for evidence of a crime.

MILITARY TRIBUNALS: Roberts was part of a unanimous decision last week that allowed the Pentagon to proceed with plans to use military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.

Rick Santorum (R-Penn) was elected to congress in 1990 at the age of 32. He is the father of six, a devout Catholic who offers catechism classes to GOP colleagues in his Capitol office, and his wife writes books on etiquette. In spite of his picture-perfect facade, let’s hope Pennsylvania wakes up in 2006 and tosses this jerk to the curb. Here are some facts about this person you should know:

• In his new book, he wants women to stay home with their children instead of working

• He fought hard to keep the tube in Shaivo and raved that she had bee “executed” when she died last March
• He equated same sex marriage to bestiality in a 2003 newspaper interview
• He criticized the Democrats that opposed changing senate rules on the filibuster to Adolf Hitler
• He made comments in which he compared the New York Times to Communists, Baathists and Nazis
• He blamed Boston “liberalism” for the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal. That prompted a roar from Massachusetts Democrats, one of whom called Pennsylvania’s junior senator “a jerk.”
• In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language into the No Child Left Behind bill that would require evolution be taught in classes.
• He is openly against birth control for married couples
• He is an active supporter of the Social Security privatization movement
• He recently lied about his home address in Virginia to obtain in state tuition benefits in Pennsylvania for his children. While he is a senator in the state, he spends most of his time in Virginia. Because of this, Penn Hills School District announced that it did not believe Santorum met the qualifications for residency status since he and his family spend most of the year in Virginia. They demanded repayment of tuition costs totaling $100,000. The case may go to court because Santorum does not want to pay.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, author of “It Takes a Village,” passed Santorum, author of “It Takes a Family,” and had this to say, according to Associated Press:

” ‘It takes a village, Rick, don’t forget that,’ Clinton called out.

” ‘It takes a family,’ Santorum countered.

” ‘Of course, a family is part of a village,’ Clinton replied. The two continued on in opposite directions.”

And from the LA Times we have:

The storms of attention Santorum regularly stirs could be affecting his bid for a third term in his home state, where a recent poll showed him trailing his likely opponent by 11 percentage points.

On his own merits, Robert P. Casey Jr., a Democrat who favors restrictions on abortion rights, is a formidable foe. The son of a popular two-term governor, Casey has won statewide election three times and currently is state treasurer.

But he has garnered a lead mostly by letting Santorum do the talking.

In November 2004 Judge James Robertson halted the Survivor-like military tribunal games Rumsfeld and Bush were playing with the Gitmo prisoners. They were being denied any trial rights as the Executive Branch was pretending to be the Judicial Branch. Judge Robertson declared the procedures unlawful and stated the court could not proceed until a decision was made whether the Gitmo prisoners should have Geneva Convention protections.

Enter Judge Raymond Randolph on the infamous 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Randolph was appointed by Bush Sr. in 1999. In 2001, Randolph overturned a previous court decision and ruled Microsoft did not attempt illegally “tie” the browser to its market-dominant operating system. In May of 2005, Randolph helped his buddy, Dick Cheney, keep his energy policy task force procedures secret by ruling against the Sierra Club that was trying to make Cheney comply with open meeting laws during policy sessions. Randolph also serves on the Advisory Board of George Mason University Law and Economics Center, which has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Obviously, Judge Raymond Randolph is not one to rule against his friends. Last Friday Randolph made the decision that he was qualified to determine the Geneva Convention status of Gitmo prisoners, as previously requested by Judge Robertson. He decided that Gitmo prisoners are not subject to Geneva Conventions and that military tribunals do apply to the prisoners.

Judge Randolph’s opinion states the Bush Regime does not violate the separation of Powers under the constitution by trying the prisoners in military tribunals. Judge Randolph also ruled that Rumsfeld has authority to conduct military tribunals because on the Congressional joint resolution authorizing the use of force after the September 11 bombings.

The Congress made him do it. Oh wait, the Congress was lied to before they made that decision. Facts do not seem to deter Judge Randolph in his decision-making, hence the US Gulag is open for business again.

January, 2001: There were two separate burglaries at the Niger Embassy in Rome within a span of 30 days. La Repubblica, an Italian newspaper, reported that the embassy’s documents and files had been “put in disarray” and that “a watch of modest value and two women’s rings” were missing. As the investigation unfolds over the next 2 years, Italian investigators will theorize that the thieves who broke into the Niger Embassy had come looking for letterhead stationary and official seals that could be used to create bogus documents stating Iraq purchased yellowcake from Niger.

October 2001: A few months after the break-in, the Italian intelligence service (SISME) obtains documents that indicate Niger has sold Iraq uranium yellowcake. The documents are obvious forgeries. One of the documents is a formal agreement between Iraq and Niger that states Niger is to furnish uranium yellowcake to Iraq. The letter, dated October 10, 2000, was allegedly sent to the Niger embassy in Rome, but was received in Rome on September 28, 2000. Tip one the letter is fake. The letter is signed by the Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ailele Elhadj Habibou, who had not been minister since 1989 (Hint number 2 the letter is fake). La Rebublicca reported there were a total of six letters in this package.

SISME shares the documents with the CIA. The CIA briefs Vice President Dick Cheney on intelligence that was provided by the Italians suggesting that Iraq is attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. Cheney asks about the implications of the report and is reportedly dissatisfied with the initial response (probably that they are forgeries). Cheney asks the CIA to take another look.

February 2002: Wilson is asked and accepts the mission to Niger to investigate the papers. Wilson travels to Niger with other Niger officials to learn the truth. Wilson finds no evidence of uranium purchase.

March 2002: Wilson reports to the CIA that it was “highly doubtful” the uranium transfer deal from Niger to Iraq took place.

October 2002: The CIA sends a four-page memo to Bush administration officials, including Stephen Hadley - Bush’s deputy national security adviser, Micheal Gerson - chief speechwriter, and Condasleeza Rice expressing doubt over claims that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Niger.

January 23, 2003: Bush in his State of the Union Address utters the now infamous 16 Words, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”

July 6, 2003: Joe Wilson writes New York Times Op-Ed criticizing Bush’s remarks on Iraq yellowcake purchase in Niger as relying on forged documents. He states the CIA provided this intelligence to the White House prior to the State of the Union Address in January.

July 8, 2003: A friend informs Wilson that Robert Novak believes that his wife had something to do with Wilson’s appointment to investigate the Yellowcake claim in Africa.

July 8, 2003: Robert Novak called Karl Rove and discusses the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name. The confidential source this is from says that Rove does not remember whether he told Novak, or Novak told him of Plame’s identity as a covert CIA operative.

July 10, 2003: Novak contacts Wilson in an attempt to verify the information Rove has given him that his wife is a CIA operative. Wilson did not respond.

July 11, 2003 Novak’s article outing Valarie Plame as a CIA operative is sent out on the AP wire.

July 14, 2003: Novak outs Plaume to the general public in print via the Chigago Tribune.

July 21, 2003: Chris Matthews informs Wilson that Karl Rove considered his wife “fair game”.

July 22, 2003: Newsday reports that their intelligence sources confirmed that Plame was undercover until Novak outed her quoting Novak as saying: “I didn’t dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it.”

July 24, 2003: The CIA reported “possible violations of criminal law” to the Attorney General John Ashcroft.

July 30, 2003: The CIA files a “crime report” with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), suggesting the leak of Wilson’s wife’s name and covert status might entail criminal acts. After some time, the DOJ finally investigates.

September 29, 2003: On CNN’s Crossfire, Novak explains, “Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this”.

News Producer, Andrea Owen asked Rove as he walked to his car, “Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?”, Rove replied, “No.” and shut the car door

In a media briefing when asked if Karl Rove was involved, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, “Well, I’ve made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. … I’ve said that it’s not true. … And I have spoken with Karl Rove.”

October 1, 2003: On the set of Face the Nation Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) expressed “bewilderment” at Republicans who were spinning a possible high crime into a partisan attack. Hagel says, “(The President) has that main responsibility to see this through and see it through quickly, and that would include, if I was president, sitting down with my vice president and asking what he knows about it”

New Republican talking points try to imply the disclosure was made without knowledge that a covert operative was being exposed and therefore might not have been a crime. IMHO, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

October 3, 2004: The White House gives its staff until 5pm on Tuesday, October 7 to turn over documents, phone logs, etc. relating to the leak. White House counsel estimates that it will take two weeks to review the collection and turn it over to the DOJ

October 4, 2003: Novak contradicts his previous story and confirms that he knows Plame was working under official cover, at the same time outing the front company she and many others used as cover.

October 6, 2003: Newsweek reports that Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s “Hardball” was the journalist who called Mr. Wilson and said, “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove who said your wife is fair game.”

October 9, 2003: Senators Daschle, Levin, Biden and Schumer call for appointment of a special counsel, noting missteps of the DOJ and the Attorney General’s conflicts of interest in the matter.

October 15, 2003: The New York Times reports that senior criminal prosecutors and FBI officials criticized the Attorney General’s failure to reuse himself or appoint a special counsel because of his “long career with Republican partisan politics, he could not credibly lead a criminal investigation that centered on the aides to a Republican president.”

December 30, 2003: Attorney General Ashcroft FINALLY reuses himself from the leak investigation. James Comey, Deputy Attorney General, appoints Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. Attorney, as “special” counsel.

January 21, 2004: The federal grand jury begins hearing testimony.

January 22, 2004: Time magazine reports that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has begun presenting evidence to a grand jury and White House staff have been notified that they may be subpoenaed for their information. Sources say that some staff have been asked to meet informally with Fitzgerald to discuss offers of immunity in exchange for their knowledge.

February 10, 2004: It is confirmed that Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, Scott McClellan, the President’s press secretary and Adam Levine, a former press aide, testify before the grand jury. Several members of the Vice President’s staff have also testified.

In addition to the grand jury proceedings, “prosecutors have conducted meetings with presidential aides that lawyers in the case described as tense and sometimes combative.” Finally, Fitzgerald is conducting these interviews in secret, asking the subjects to sign confidentially agreements, and often staff are refusing to do so.

It has been reported that these lawyers also say that the prosecutors have evidence confirming that White House officials were extremely upset with the Wilson article, and with the CIA for sending him to Africa.

June 2, 2004: President Bush meets with outside private attorney James Sharp, to advise him about the investigation. Because Republican Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr removed the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients in his prosecution of Bill Clinton, this is the likely reason Bush sought outside counsel instead of the White House Counsel’s Office.

June 3, 2004: CIA Director George Tenet resigns for “personal reasons”. His resignation announcement was a love fest between Bush and Tennent. We can now guess why.

June 4, 2004: Deputy Director for Operations CIA James Pavitt, in charge of spies according to the BBC News resigns, and says to have made the decision some weeks before.

June 5, 2004: The Washington Post gets confirmation that representatives of special prosecutor Fitzgerald have interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney.

June-July 2004: White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, President Bush, and Colin Powell testify before the federal grand jury investigating the leak.

October 14, 2004: Karl Rove testifies before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative’s identity by administration sources. Rove spent more than two hours testifying before the panel. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald questions Rove about his contacts with journalists what is believed to be his third appearance before the grand jury.

February 15, 2005: The Federal appeals court in Washington rules that Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper may have witnessed a federal crime (disclosure by government officials of a CIA officer’s identity), and would have to cooperate with the grand juries investigating the crime. The Court based that decision on 5 pages of grand jury testimony, redacted when released.

June 27, 2004: The courts refuse to hear reporters, Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, appeal.

June 30, 2004: Time magazine hands over Cooper notes surrounding the leak case.

July 6, 2004: Around 7:30 in the morning, Matthew Cooper prepares to leave for court, resigned that he may end up in jail for refusing to reveal his source. Later that day Cooper then says to the press that he received the permission in “somewhat dramatic fashion” from his source that he has permission to reveal his identity. This whole scene is base on weasel words and boils down to Rove trying to imply that he is not the one Cooper is protecting.

July 11, 2004: Press briefing with McClellan, he was asked “Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose? “ McClellan sidestepped the questions ad nauseum stating he had no comment on an ongoing investigation (see the Daily Show excellent compilation of this topic).

July 13, 2004: Matthew Cooper testifies for 2.5 hours before the grand jury and confirms that his source on the leak was Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

And I’m sure this is not the end of it. These references were from various news sources from the internet, and From dKosopedia, the free political encyclopedia…specifically http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline.

Rove continues to memorize the hard core Republicans as he plays the cards they want to see. In typical Rovian fashion, he promotes slander on non-warmongers by publicly announcing that “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” In reality every Senator of this land voted to go to war on lies told to America by Rovian Republicans.

Rove is part of the rabid and radical conservative movement designed to tear this country apart rather than bind us together in the time of Terror. His followers, who call themselves Conservative Republicans, do not represent the traditional Conservative Republican of yesterday. Rovians represent a radical faction designed to push the traditional beliefs just a little further each time until the whole Republican party thinks it’s ok to slander and destroy other Americans.

Rovian dogma shows us that if you keep a country in a state of panic, fear, or hatred, you can compromise the values of the people of that state without being noticed. You can scare journalists into keeping their mouths shut. You can give away billions to your favorite corporations while the people are not looking. You can steal oil from another county. You can slander, oppress, and exterminate a race of people you don’t like.

The Rovian Republicans are in danger of ripping up the very fabric of America and American traditional values. If this movement is allowed to continue, it will turn American into a kill or be killed state with no tolerance anywhere. The sleeping giant does not feel it yet when he turns on his big-screen television, but by the time he notices it will be too late.