themcglynn.com/theliberal.net

Letter sent to Michigan’s United States Senators:
To: Senator Levin
Senator Stabenow

I have enclosed a DVD which contains two renderings, “Our Country’s Treasure” and “Our Children In Iraq”. Why have I enclosed them? I have run out of words and patience. Upon reflection I have become a very disheartened and, at times, a very angry citizen. I challenge you to view the DVD.
I am a seventy-five year old liberal, a long past member of the Michigan Democrat State Central Committee, having begun my active support of the Democratic Party in Kansas in 1952, working for the election of Adlai Stevenson. The best of times were this campaign, the following one and the McGovern campaign. I write this because, even though we did not stand a chance in hell, the endeavors were the right thing to do.
You and a majority of fellow democrats have surrendered to the worst president in our history. In my view a criminal who is guilty of high crimes against our country and our world.
You have kept our country’s treasure in harm’s way, thereby sending hundreds of our citizens to their death and thousands of our children, women and innocents in Iraq to their death. I write with emphasis “our children”. Those Iraqi dead children are “our children”. Those Iraqi children wounded, maimed are “our children”. Those Iraqi women are “our sisters”. Those Iraqi innocents are “our brothers”.
You have chosen shame instead of nobility. And by doing so you have shamed my country.
The McGlynn

nolink]

To view the videos Our Children in Iraq Part 1 and

Our Children in Iraq Part 2 please click here: videos

When we consider the actions of the Bush administration over the last 6 and 1/2 years, how do we explain the failure of our House of Representatives to bring impeachment proceedings against George Bush and Dick Cheney? How do we explain the failure to hold them accountable for the illegal and unconstitutional actions they have taken and for the resulting damage they have done to our country and the world?

How do we explain this failure to our children, our grandchildren, to whom we will leave, either a country that has confronted and addressed the assault on our democracy by Bush and Cheney, or a country that continues to sink deeper and deeper into an unconstitutional morass?

What do we say to our children, our grandchildren?

“Well, yes it’s true, they lied to us to gain support for their illegal and immoral invasion of a country that posed no imminent threat to us, resulting in the needless maiming and death of hundreds of thousands of human beings; an invasion and resulting occupation that has unleashed an ongoing wave of horrendous sectarian violence against innocent Iraqis, with no end in sight.

But we’ve been lied to before by our elected leaders during times of international conflict (remember Nixon), and war is hell, and after 9-11 . . . ”

Is that what we say to our children, our grandchildren?

“Well, yes, it’s true, for the first time in the history of our country, we have an administration, led by George Bush and Dick Cheney, that has legitimized and promoted the torture of prisoners (characterizing the Geneva Conventions as “quaint”), that has initiated a process of extraordinary rendition, secretly sending hundreds of prisoners (we really don’t know how many) to other countries to be tortured, and that has imprisoned hundreds of captives for years without charging them with any crime, destroying the lives of those being held captive, many of whom are very probably innocent of any wrongdoing, severely weakening our writ of habeas corpus, and ruining the good name of America in the world.

But other administrations have performed unconstitutional and illegal acts in (officially declared) times of crisis (remember Nixon), and after all, some of the prisoners might be terrorists, and after 9-11 . . . ”

Is that what we say to our children, our grandchildren?

“Well, yes, it’s true, this administration, led by George Bush and Dick Cheney, instituted an illegal, secret, electronic surveillance program, unencumbered by any judicial oversight, to spy on American citizens, collecting an unknown amount of data on an unknown number of Americans.

But we’ve been through illegal wire-tapping before (remember Nixon), and if you haven’t done anything wrong, you should not be worried, and after 9-11 . . . ”

Is that what we say to our children, our grandchildren?

“Yes, it’s true, this administration, led by George Bush and Dick Cheney, attempted and, perhaps, succeeded in creating their very own political fiefdom within our Department of Justice, subverting the Department’s work in fairly and impartially protecting American citizens.

But other administrations have used government offices, including the Department of Justice, for their own political ends (remember Nixon). That’s just politics. And didn’t Congress give them the mechanism to do this in the Patriot Act, after 9-11 . . . ”
Is that what we say to our children, our grandchildren?

“Yes, it’s true, George Bush and Dick Cheney have committed all of these questionable, illegal, unconstitutional actions, and more, but they were elected by the American people, twice. Weren’t they? And impeachment is such a bother. And who is it going to hurt if we don’t impeach?”

Is that what we say to our children, our grandchildren?

The question is a serious and troubling one to anyone who values our democratic way of life and who has looked into the abyss of a Bush-Cheney America. How do we explain the failure to impeach Bush and Cheney to our children, our grandchildren? How do explain this failure to the peoples of the world, to whom we preach the merits of democratic institutions? How do we explain this failure to ourselves? What does it mean?

Could it be that we are no longer living in a democratic country with three separate and equal branches of government, the members of which are legitimate only to the degree that they “preserve, protect, and defend” our Constitution? Could it be that we are no longer a constitutional republic?

But we can’t say that to our children, our grandchildren. Can we?

(Reply from the children: “But Nixon was impeached. Wasn’t he?”)

Mary Oleary-Mcglinn

When Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as the special prosecutor (by acting Attorney General James Comey, with the approval of John Ashcroft no less) on the Valerie Plame leak matter he knew full well what he was getting into.  Not being a well-known commodity on the national level, politicians (blue and red) questioned his credentials.  When asked about this, Fitzgerald presciently stated that “One day I read I was a Republican hack, another day I read I was a Democratic hack.  The only thing I did between those two days was sleep.”  As it would turn out, that was probably the last restful night of sleep he got.

To many uninformed partisan politicos out there, he served as a whipping boy for both camps.  When he indicted only Scooter Libby, national Democratic politicians and bloggers complained of the lack of an indictment on Karl Rove and began to posit conspiracy theories (it was set up in advance by the White House that someone would take the fall as long as it wasn’t Karl); while the national Republican politicians and bloggers cried foul – Libby didn’t violate the law as to outing Plame, so who cares if he lied under oath about it (where were they when Clinton was facing impeachment?).   You could almost look at what happened and think that Fitzgerald took the political out – charging someone but not Rove, which allegedly would have been professional suicide for him.

The truth of the matter, as it often is, is far less exciting.  Fitzgerald made a series of sound principled decisions.  He decided that he could not charge Rove or Libby or anyone else with outing a spy because the President had authorized it, albeit for purely political reasons.  He decided that he could not charge Rove with perjury because, as the criminal statue allows, Rove corrected his testimony – albeit when facing the very real threat of a perjury charge.  He chose to charge Libby with perjury and obstruction because, as a prosecutor in general and as the Special Counsel on the case, he knew how important honest testimony is to conducting a legitimate investigation (no testimony is better than false testimony), and how Libby’s uncorrected lies had shielded others (hello Dick Cheney) from criminal scrutiny and prolonged and obstructed the investigation.

So, with a jury verdict on all counts and a sentence of imprisonment tagged on Libby, Fitzgerald walks away vindicated, the rule of law is upheld, and our system of justice honored.  Sounds good to me.

Well, not so fast.  Here come the Republican primary candidates.  First up, Rudy Guiliani, a former U.S. Attorney in NYC no less.  Surely, he would understand the importance of Fitzgerald’s principled decisions, the jury’s considered verdict, and the judge’s sentence.  He would have Fitzgerald’s back.  Guiliani, previously somewhat circumspect but now feeling the heat of a crowded field, said at the last debate “I mean, the sentence was grossly excessive in a situation in which, at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was, and he knew a crime wasn’t committed” and that the sentence was “excessive punishment.” Nice. Of course if Libby’s last name happened to be Gotti…

Mitt “Double Guantanamo” Romney, not to be outstupidified in inane comments, went even further and stated Fitzgerald “clearly abused prosecutorial discretion” and was on “a political vendetta” in pursuing perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Libby when he knew the former White House aide was not the original source of the leak. Can’t you hear the Scarecrow singing “if I only had a brain……”

Finally, there is Fred Thompson.  Like Guiliani, he is an attorney and he is a former Assistant United States Attorney.  He even plays an elected district attorney on television in the disgustingly popular Law and Order.  Surely, he can at least fake some support for principled decisions.  Well, no.  As it turns out, he is on Libby’s strategy and fundraising teams and has probably promised Libby a seat at his table should Thompson be the next resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Maybe Thompson could at least be professional in his comments in supporting Libby. 

Thompson starts off generic enough, repeating his criticism of all special prosecutors “When you put too much power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable people who have every incentive to focus massive resources onto one particular person — who gets the plaudits in the media for doing so — it’s a bad thing. And many, many times an injustice can occur.”  He then goes further, claiming Fitzgerald brought these charges to justify his existence and expenses as the Special Prosecutor.  Finally, he derides Fitzgerald’s skill and vision as an attorney by stating Fitzgerald is “a fella who can see miles and miles in a straight line, but had no peripheral vision at all and didn’t realize apparently that he was caught up in a bureaucratic political dogfight.”  Right, Fitzgerald didn’t understand the political minefield he was in when he was personally interviewed Bush and Cheney, when he succeeded in having reporters held in contempt for holding back sources, when he was routinely be kicked around in absentia on Sunday morning talkshows.  Yeah, he didn’t get it.

Guys like Rudy, Mittsy, and Freddie will never get it. They will never understand, appreciate, or have use for someone like Fitzgerald or Comey, even though they may be of the same political party.  Comey appreciated the seriousness of the potential crime, so he appointed a bulldog like Fitzgerald.  Fitzgerald dug out the facts and matched them to the principle, so he sought the indictment and got it.  He sought the conviction, and got it.  He sought a prison sentence, and got it.  He sought the truth and justice, and got it.  Rudy, Mittsy, and Freddie simply seek the brass ring, and the price of them getting it is too high for all of us. 

So, as Libby heads toward his inescapable pardon and as the rhetoric heats up, all around, remember that from the start to the end, someone tried to and did make the right decisions, followed and honored the rule of law, and kept it professional the whole time. Somebody got it. Unfortunately, as we have seen with the fired U.S. Atorneys, that and a buck won’t even get you a cup of coffee today.  May the good reputation of Pat Fitzgerald rest in peace.

 –BooRadley

A very wholesome meal for my friends. Poultry, fish, red meat and mashed potatoes. All organic.

And to the lady in South Bend, please take notice. At least I make a healthy meal for my friends!!
But by the time my lazy friend showed up for dinner, there were only peanuts left.