The Blue State

Ashcroft ordered security detail not to let Gonzales or Card in hospital room again

Evidence right here proves that Alberto Gonzales not only lied to Congress about the Ashcroft hospital visit, but that Gonzales and Andrew Card harassed Ashcroft to the point that he felt threatened and told his security detail to intervene.

Notes written by FBI Director Robert Mueller, recently turned over to Congressional investigators, indicate that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was pressured from his hospital bed by Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping program.  That part we have known for quite sometime, even though last month Gonzales lied to Congress about it ever happening.

What is particularly interesting about these notes is they show that after the sneaky hospital visit took place, Attorney General Ashcroft ordered his security detail to not let anyone, except family, into his hospital room.

Here are FBI Director Robert Mueller's notes from that day:

Wednesday, 3/10/04:

@1920: Called by DAG while at restaurant with wife and daughter.  He is at AG's hospital with Goldsmith and Philbin.  Tells me Card and J. Gonzales are on the way to hospital to see AG, but that AG is in no condition to see them, much less make decision to authorize continuation of the program.  Asks me to come to AG's hospital to witness condition of AG.

@1940: At hospital.  Card and J. Gonzales have come and gone.  Comey tells me that they saw the AG and were told by the AG that he was in no condition to decide issues, and that Comey was the Acting AG.  All matters were to be taken to him, but that he supported the Acting AG's position.  The AG then reviewed for them the legal concerns relating to the program.  The AG also told them that he was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program by the strict compartmentalization rules of the WH.  Comey asked me to meet briefly with the AG to see his condition.  He also asked that I inform the detail that no visitors, other than family, were to be allowed to see the AG without my consent.  (I so informed the detail.)

Let me paint this picture as best I can.  There are three angles to this internal feud:

• President Bush, who was uninformed about the inner struggle within his own Administration to install the warrantless wiretap program.
• Attorney General John Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General James Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller -- all of whom were against the program.
• Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card -- all of whom supported warrantless wiretaps.

The program needed to be authorized by Attorney General Ashcroft, who was in intensive care following a gallstone emergency.  So Cheney sent Gonzales and Card to pressure a sick Ashcroft from his hospital bed to authorize the program.  When James Comey heard they were on their way to the hospital, he was furious:

"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effortto take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers ofthe attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

So as we learned from Robert Mueller's notes above, Comey quickly called the FBI Director and told him to get down to the hospital and intervene immediately.  It was too late.  Although Gonzales and Card did not convince Ashcroft, they certainly did harass him to the point that he eventually decided to give new orders to his security detail.

Of course, following true to form, Alberto Gonzales went under oath last month and denied that he and Card pressured Ashcroft on that specific program that day.  These notes prove otherwise.  That is perjury.

(SPECIAL NOTE: Thanks to all of you from Buzzflash for stopping on by.  Myself, as well as the other progressive writers on The Blue State team, put a lot of time and energy into the content of this site.  It's updated at least six times each day.  If you like what you read, feel free to bookmark us.  We look forward to seeing each of you again!)

(Video) Hayes: Bush Administration never called anyone a traitor

Jon Stewart is one funny man -- we all know that.  But sometimes you can tell when guests get under his skin.  Last night, Stephen F. Hayes -- author of the book Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President -- was on.  Around the end of the interview, as you'll see, Stewart was noticeably irked when Hayes claimed that neither Cheney nor any prominent conservative insinuated that any American opposing the war was a traitor.

Stewart even lashed out at Fox News' Jon Gibson.  Just days ago, the Fox host labeled Stewart a phony when he broke down in tears after 9/11:

STEWART: Then stop making the rest of us feel like idiots when we question their strategy in the war on terror ...and I don't mean you, I mean them.  I think they've gone out of their way to seemingly belittle people, you know -- he's actually literally come out and said if you don't elect us, we might get hit again.  To me, that is -- I can't jibe the portrait you paint of the steadfast leader with the fear-mongering, not bright guy that I have seen.

HAYES: Yeah, but I, no really, I mean isn't that essentially the case of what this debate has been since 2001?

STEWART: No.  They keep saying that we don't understand the nature of this war.  And critics keep saying, "We do understand the nature of it, you've just been doing it wrong."

HAYES: Yeah, so why -- what is the quality of difference there?

STEWART: Well no, the difference there is we're not calling them traitors.

HAYES: Yeah, but I don't think the Administration has called anybody a traitor.

It's easy to down-play rhetoric when you are the one dishing it out.  But when your patriotism gets personally challenged, as mine has and maybe all of you as well, it's like a punch to the gut.  And we're done putting up with it.

The White House Attacks Hillary **VIDEO ADDED**

This post is a follow up to a story in today's 'BlueRadar' regarding the White House's attack on Hillary Clinton:

In response to her campaign ad that was released yesterday, the White House attackedHillary Clinton's claim that Americans are not well-represented by thisadministration.  WH Depouty Press Secretary: "As to the merits of it,I think it's outrageous. This is a president who, first and foremost, has helpedmillions of seniors across the country have access to prescription drugs at amuch lower cost." ("Have access to?"  But at whatcost?)

More Specifically the line:

"As to the merits of it,I think it's outrageous. This is a president who, first and foremost, has helpedmillions of seniors across the country have access to prescription drugs at amuch lower cost."

The audacity of that statement made my skin crawl, so I figuredI would post a reminder about the republicans wonderful victory of Medicare PartD. Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes did a segment on Part D back on April 1, 2007, andit is more than worthy to get it back out there.

The unorthodox roll call onone of the most expensive bills ever placed before the House of Representativesbegan in the middle of the night, long after most people in Washington hadswitched off C-SPAN and gone to sleep.

The only witnesses were congressional staffers, hundreds of lobbyists, andU.S. representatives, like Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Walter Jones, R-N.C.

"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones."The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House thatmorning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning," remembersJones.

Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?

"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night,they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.

"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it wasthe ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."

The voting which is supposed to remain open for 15 minutes remained open foralmost 3 hours! Read the transcript HERE.

A brief 2 minute video which outlines the story can be viewed HERE.

Here is the complete '60 Minutes' segment 'Under The Influence'

And let's hope Romney isn't elected. Last night on Hannity & ColmesRomney talked about his idea of healthcare.

Well actually, the plan I put forward said no one gotfree insurance. Everybody could pay what they could afford. And so we had asliding scale and still do, based on your income. And the state will help paythe portion of your premium you can't afford for the poor.The good news is it costs us less to help people buy their own private insurancethan it was costing us giving out free care at hospitals. So I do talk aboutthat. And I'll be giving a speech to the Florida Medical Association describingto them our plan in some detail.But I insisted that everyone pays something. I didn't want to have anythingfree. Our legislature overrode that idea and so the people at the very low gotit free. I think that's a mistake. I think everyone should pay something.Read the complete transcript HERE

Great plan Mitt, the poor can pay something for healthcare and eat cardboardboxes.

GOP Lawmaker: US "continues to win on every front" in Iraq

A suicide bombing yesterday killed 28 people.  26 US soldiers have died within the last week.  Four more Sunni ministers are boycotting all government meetings.  US troops levels are at their highest levels since the end of major combat operations was declared more than four years ago.

Congressman Jeff Miller (R-FL) thinks it's all going just wonderful:

U.S. forces are making strides in Iraq,leading military leaders to reveal more about when Americans might seetheir troops come home for good, U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller said todayduring an interview from the region.

“Our military continues to win on every front,” the Chumuckla Republican said via telephone from Pakistan.

“While much remains to be done, the surge isaccomplishing what coalition forces in the United States wanted, andthat is providing stability so that now diplomatic discussions canproceed,” he said.

“It would be very foolish to have surgedmilitarily, “secured,” or at least brought down the level of violenceand stabilized the area, and then immediately begin to withdraw thosetroops again,” he said. “I would expect continue to see troop levels asthey are now into ’08.”

The pop star Pink should have mentioned Congressman Miller in her new song "Dear Mr. President."

Suing for Information - Airlines go after CIA, FBI

Over the past few months, the American people have seentheir government go into lockdown mode regarding information on their past andpresent activities. Frustrated by incessant stonewalling, one group has taken adifferent approach to breaking through and obtaining the information they need;namely, the Airline Industry.

In response to the 41 lawsuits filed by victims of theSeptember 11th attacks against the Airline Industry, American Airlines Inc.,United Airlines Inc., US Airways Group Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., ContinentalAirlines Inc. and The Boeing Co. haverepeatedly requested interviews with FBI and CIA investigators of the attack. Afterfailing to obtain information vital to their defense, they have now decided tosue.

In the FBI lawsuit, the companies asked to interview a"limited number of former and current FBI employees" who hadparticipated in investigations of al-Qaida and al-Qaida operatives before andafter Sept. 11, 2001.

Maybe this is the only approach left? Asking politicians totell the truth doesn’t work. Subpoenaing them to testify doesn’t work. Maybe weneed to start suing government agencies to compel them to come forward and tellthe truth!

Gonzales' testimony contradicted yet again

On Friday, new documents showed that Justice Department officials attended at least twelve partisan meetings at the White House, which is peculiar if not down-right illegal.  Most importantly, the report contradicts Alberto Gonzales, who said last week that no such meetings took place:

Justice Department officials attended at least a dozen political briefings at the White House since 2001, including some meetings led by Karl Rove, President Bush'chief political adviser, and others that were focused on electiontrends prior to the 2006 midterm contest, according to documentsreleased yesterday.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that he did not believe that senior Justice Departmentofficials had attended such briefings. But he clarified his testimonyyesterday in a letter to Congress, emphasizing that the briefings werenot held at the agency's offices.

Internal guidelines forbid partisan meetings at the Justice Departmentand sharply restrict the ability of employees to participate directlyin election campaigns or other political activities, a Justice officialsaid yesterday.

What business did Justice Department officials have listening in on discussions by Karl Rove about electoral trends in 2006?  This also might violate the Hatch Act.

A Stretch -- Even for Tony Snow

With a straight face, White House Press Secretary tried reasoning to the media that FBI Director Robert Mueller did not contradict the testimony of Alberto Gonzales.  Gonzales claimed on Tuesday that in 2004 he did not pressure heavily sedated and bed-ridden then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to go forward with the warrantless eavesdropping program.  He said they spoke about something else.  However, yesterday in front of that same Senate panel, Robert Mueller said the hospital conversation between Gonzales and Ashcroft did include the topic of the warrantless eavesdropping program.  In other words, Gonzales may have lied under oath.

Today, Tony Snow said Gonzales didn't lie under oath, because Gonzales and Ashcroft had different definitions of the phrase 'terrorist surveillance program.'  Unbelievable!  Here is the video:

In response, reporter Helen Thomas said to Snow, "You're not speaking English, really."  You think?

Fine then.  The Senate Judiciary Committee should call Robert Mueller back and ask him even more specifically.

FBI Director testimony proves Gonzales lied on Tuesday

Today, the Democratic Congress may have got the smoking gun they were looking for.  Remember that on Tuesday, Alberto Gonzales claimed he did not discuss the warrantless eavesdropping program with a sedated, hospital-bound John Ashcroft in 2004.  On Wednesday, federal documents showed otherwise.

Now there is more.  On Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller confirmed that during that hospital meeting, Gonzales did indeed pressure John Ashcroft on the warrantless eavesdropping program.  Here is an excerpt from Mueller's testimony today:

Lee: Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?

Mueller: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a, uh, a, uh -- an NSA program, yes.

Lee: I guess we use "TSP," we use "warrantless wiretapping," sowould I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that werepart of the discussion?

Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.

And here is the video:

In summary, Alberto Gonzales' Tuesday testimony has now been contradicted by two sources in less than 72 hours: federal documents and the FBI Director.

Translation: this is perjury.

Gonzales may have perjured himself yesterday

Tonight, word is in from the AP that some of what Alberto Gonzales said in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee does not match federal documents.  As a result, a perjury investigation might be imminent:

Documents show that eight congressional leaders were briefed aboutthe Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve ofits expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this weekby Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The documents, obtained byThe Associated Press, come as senators consider whether a perjuryinvestigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about theprogram and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to itspotentially illegal reauthorization.

A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.

Ata heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzalesrepeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terroristsurveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency toeavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving courtapproval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

Full Story

This comes in the heels of the contempt charges that were issued against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton.

Back to Gonzales for a second.  If the Senate does indeed open a perjury trial against the Attorney General, look for him to resign.  Yesterday, Arlen Specter's (R-PA) harsh criticisms of Gonzales may have been a message to Bush that many Republicans would support such an investigation unless he leaves.  This ongoing scandal is added baggage to the Republican Party, and they are tired of it.

Lies and Hypocrisy

On Monday's (7/16) O'Reilly Factor Wild Willy set his gears into motion and went on a tear against Jet Blue for "advocating" far left radicalhate.

"What do you think of someone who says the following: 'The world wouldbe better off without him.' That came after Tony Snow announced his cancer hadreturned. Or this: 'The Pope is a primate' ... 'evangelicals are nut cases' ...and some attacks against coalition forces in Iraq are legitimate. All of thosethoughts were posted on a vicious far-left web site called the DailyKos, one ofthe worst examples of hatred America has to offer. That web site is having aconvention in Chicago, and only one major company has stepped up as a sponsor -JetBlue, the airline that melted down this winter. We contacted JetBlue to askwhy it would sponsor a hateful web site. There was no answer, so we sentproducer Jesse Watters to see JetBlue CEO David Barger, who said there is 'noalignment' between the business and politics, and JetBlue customers will 'drawtheir own conclusion.' It is beyond belief that a company like JetBlue wouldsponsor hate mongers like the DailyKos. There comes a time when Americanconsumers have to take a stand and this is one of those times. This isn't anideological issue - if a company was sponsoring a David Duke convention we'd dothe same story. Hate is hate, no matter where it comes from."

-Firstof all, what O'Reilly is referring to are comments left by visitors, nota "post" by The Daily Kos (asJane Hall points out in video). Jane Hall is probably one of the few reasonably fair & balanced commentators on FNC.

O'Reilly did a follow up segment onThursday's show (7/19) 'JetBlue Changes Course'

"Earlier this week we confronted JetBlue CEODave Barger about his airline's sponsoring a conference held by the hate-filledweb site 'Daily Kos.' The hate this web site traffics in rivals KKK and Naziweb sites. Well, today the CEO sent us a statement saying 'we've asked tohave our name removed from their website to avoid confusion.' The mistakeJetBlue made was hooking up with haters. Any corporation or politician whoassociates with character assassins and/or defamers with will be scrutinized. Anumber of Democratic politicians are set to speak at the Kos convention, andwe'll report on that next week. Unfortunately, some Americans do wallow in hate,so an Internet site can do some business peddling that garbage, and there are afew radio and TV performers who make a living smearing people as well. Butcorporations and powerful people must understand their responsibility to rejectthe haters and not support them in any way. That's what JetBlue missed, but weare really glad they have re-thought the situation."

It'simportant to point out that O'Reilly (in his own words) "you have to policeyour site, we do"...so in essence they go through the messages or previewbefore posting the comments by the "Members" (the only way toparticipate in O'Reilly's message boards, or to listen to his Radio Factor is to pay for a premiummembershit). Censorship on a blog, message board, discussion forum orcomment section in my opinion is basically fear of opinion. O'Reilly's choice ofpointing out a far right radical hater is a pretty poor choice, Fred Phelps of the  WestboroBaptist Church and their website GodHates Fags isn't even taken seriously by most. Wild Bill could have chosen AnnCoulter, Glenn Beck,Michael Savage etc. as afar right hater site.

You may ask "why watch O'Reilly...it's a waste of time", well I look at it this way, if I had two children and one was self efficient, reliable and truthful, and one that was an evil dangerous lier, I would most likely keep my eye on the latter.

Another interesting point where the Daily Kos asks why O'Reilly doesn't go after AOL. Read the hate thats spewed on AOL's discussion boards HERE

Bill O'Reilly-Jane Hall Jet Blue

Bill O Bashing Jet Blue

Bill O does mention Jet Blue provided him with a list of things they do for the military, and he does post them on his site, however after listing six of the things they do, his last bullet point is "...and more" (and MORE?, well list them). No Spinning in a Fair and Balanced world? ...not Fox and certainly not O'Reilly.