Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Wednesday, May 10, 2006


WHAT: Congressional Forum on Homeless Veterans

WHERE: Cannon House Office Building, Room 334

WHEN: THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 @ 10:30 A.M.

Each night, as many as 200,000 veterans are living on the streets or in shelters. Women who have served in the military are up to four times more likely to become homeless then their peers in the general population. About 50% of all homeless veterans suffer from mental illness. More than two-thirds suffer from alcohol or drug abuse problems. According to the Veterans Affairs (VA), the number of homeless vietnam era veterans is greater than the number of service members who died during that war.

Behind these astounding statistics are men and women who have served our nation and who need a hand to help them recover, rehabilitate and reintegrate back into society. Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) and Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) are convening a Congressional forum to provide information about what works and other steps we should be taking to help at-risk and homeless veterans. Invited panelists include a former homeless woman veteran, Department of Veterans Affairs experts and other leaders of programs helping homeless veterans.

Information From: Geoffrey Colliver
Office of Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL)
Media Release
May 10, 2006


BAGHDAD, Iraq---A suicide truck bomber attacked a crowded market in Tal Afar late Tuesday, killing at least 17 people and wounding 35 in a city cited by President Bush as a success story in battling insurgents.

*I can already hear the answer from the White House: The insurgents attacked this city because Bush used it as an example of his successes in Iraq. But the truth is: Bush doesn't have anything in Iraq under control and the insurgents had to prove it to the people of the United States because the Bush administration won't!

The bombing occured after incoming Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he almost finished assembling a Cabinet, the final step in establishing a national unity government. U.S. officials had predicted insurgents would step up attacks to try to block the new administration.

*If these attacks were predicted, then why didn't we do something about them?

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said al-Maliki would soon launch a four-part plan to restore order by securing Baghdad. Basra and eight other cities, promoting reconciliation, building a public confidence in the police and army and disbanding sectarian militias.

The truck bomber struck about 8:30 p.m. as shoppers in Tal Afar were scurrying to finish their purchases before closing, according to police Col. Abdul-Karim Mohammed, who gave the casualty figures.


The director of the city hospital, Saleh Qado, said that U.S. Army medics provided emergency treatment at the scene before loading the injured into ambulances.

Lt. Col. Ali Rasheed of the Interior Ministry said the main target may have been a police station within the market area of the city, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad.

*Talk about trying to slant the news.........The Bush administation is teaching them right. Come on.....260 miles?

At least 500 Iraqis have been killed by vehicle bombs in 2006, out of a total of at least 3,525 Iraqis killed in war-related violence this year.

Article By: Robert H. Reid
Chicago Sun-Times
May 10, 2006

So here's the lowdown on the Republican tax deal: Middle income earners will see about $20.00 of relief per-year, while people making over a million dollars will see greater than $40,000 in relief:

"Middle income households would receive an average tax cut of $20 from the agreement, according to the joint Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, while 0.02 percent of households with incomes over $1M would receive average tax cuts of $42,000."

The GOP tax deal will add $70B to the nation's deficit so, as Republicans say, they can keep this "great" economy rolling along. And it has been the greatest of all economies for the wealthiest Americans. Heaven knows the economy has been for EXXON's CEO. For working people, however, who've seen their wages fall, or grow too little to keep up with rising costs---a living and never-ending nightmare. But hey, at least they'll get $20 bucks.

Regardless, the purpose of providing this information is simple: Now, the American people can vote Republican in 2006. Never mind America, that the whopping $20 bribe offered in this so-called tax-cut won't be enough to cover the cost of the gas you'll burn getting to the polling booth---vote Republican, because they're the Party of cutting taxes.

Poor Americans---you really upset the GOP when you refused their $100.00 gas bribe. Now, you'll get $20 bucks...one-fifth the original bribe. Still, you'll slip in the booth and show your gratitude for their generosity by pulling the lever, and all the while forgetting that you paid $21,000 for gas getting to the polls. That's alright though. Just pass that lost buck onto your children. You know, like the Republicans are doing with the $70B deficit so they can give a tax break to their wealthy firends.

Article By: A. Alexander
The Progressive Daily Beacon
May 10, 2006
HUD SECRETARY'S BLUNT WARNING...........................

Alphonso Jackson says deal was scuttled after contractor admits not liking Bush

Once the color barrier has been broken, minority contractors seeking government work may need to overcome the Bush barrier.

That's the message Secretary Alphonso Jackson seemed to send during an April 28 talk in Dallas.

Jackson, a former president and CEO was among the featured speakers at a forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council, a national minority real estate consortium.

After discussing the huge strides the agency has made in doing business with minority-owned companies, Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.

"He had mde every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to me and thanked me for selecting him. Then he said something...he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect---the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

**DO YOU BELEIVE THIS GUY! WHAT RIGHT DID HE HAVE TO TAKE THIS CONTRACT AWAY FROM THIS MAN? This probably was a hard working man and probably never had any kind of intentions on campaigning against the President! I thought the we had freedom of speech. This country is doing nothing but going backwards ever since this guy became president.

Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said canceling a government contract due to political views "is not a door you want to open."

"Whether or not it's legal, it certainly draws your judgement and the judgement of your office into question," Jillson said. "It's just not the tone you want to set."

Told of Jackson's comments, Mary Scott Nabers, a government-contracting consultant in Austin, had a briefer initial reaction. "Oh, my goodness gracious," she said.

Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for Jackson's office, said the value of the advertising contract, which was to be placed with a minority publication, could not be provided.

"Because it was not awarded per what the Secretary said, we don't have any record of it," she said. "It was probably all verbal at that point."

Jillson called the exchange between Jackson and the prospective contractor "idiocy" on both sides.

"Jackson is right; what possessed the contractor to criticize the president in a business setting? But what possessed Jackson to say he's not going to complete the business transaction?" Jillson said. "You'd just like to take both of these guys and shake them by their collars. There's no reason to have high expectations of the contractor, but you do hope senior public officials are grounded, thoughtful people, and Jackson didn't give good evidence of that."

*This is exactly what is expected from anybody working within the Bush administrtion. They don't have to be part of this administration's cabinet to be arrogrant, they just have to be linked up to one of their offices. This is what they do and this is what they will be remembered for.

Rod Bailey, who put the REEC event together, sid Jackson was simply telling it like it is.

*See what I mean!

"It's politics at its finest," he said. "If you talk to other government officials, they would have similar stories. The same thing holds true in business. If you don't like Roger Staubach, you're not going to work at The Staubach Co. Leaders are the roots of their organizations. If you want to be a part of them and profit from them, you have to be on the same mission."

*But Bush is supposed to be the "leader of the Free World!" But he makes everything political. Now you can't get a job without being a Republican? BULL!


Most of the time, politics don't come into play with government contracts, said Nabers, who heads an Austin-based consulting group that advises companies on doing business with public agencies.

"Politics should never be involved in the procurement process," she said. "That's not to say that sometimes they don't, but, especially at the federal and state level, the procedures are so scrutinized. Politicians run from things like that---it's too dangerous."

It's not too dangerous for this administration. They got rid of all of the oversight committees. They are also the majority in both chambers of Congress. Who do they have to account to? THEMSELVES!

Nabers said government contracts are awarded based on merit---which vendor can provide the best value at the best price. Contractors who think decisions weren't based on merit can file a ptotest and ask for evaluations to see why they didn't win.

REEC attendee Junior Glymph, a defensive end for the Dallas Cowboys, said he could see Jackson's point.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion," he said. "But in politics, you have to watch what you say."

*What about the man's opinion that lost the contract? Can't he voice his opinion without worrying about losing the contract?


Opportunities for minority commercial real estate executives are plentiful within the U.S. government, Jackson told the April 28 gathering.

"Whether it's HUD or another agency, the opportunities are there," he said. "The most amazing thing I've ever seen is the amount of contracts we hand out every day. Just one contract can make you wealthy."

Under Jackson's leadership, HUD has gone from close to the bottom to first among the larger agencies doing business with minority-owned companies.

In 2005, 16% of HUD contracts, or about $167M worth of work, went to black-owned businesses. Hispanic-owned businesses received 7%, or $71M. That combined 23% is up from 6% in 2000, the year before Jackson was named deputy secretary of the agency.

Despite getting just 8% and 11% of the African-American vote nationally in his two presidential wins, Jackson said President Bush is committed to creating prosperity for minority business owners.

*What about all of the other small busniesses that went out of business because of Bush's policies? The only thing Bush does is play musical chairs!

"President Bush and I will work with you to move you toward more prosperity," he said. "He wants this agency and other agencies to reflect this country."

*The only reason this guy talks like he does is so that he doesn't lose "his" job.

By: A. Alexander
Progressive Daily Beacon
May 9, 2006

It is little wonder America is getting roughed up in Iraq. Bush drove out the real Generals and promoted all the incompetent boobs. Incompetent is after all, the overriding qualification Bush desires in those he hires and/or promotes. See the likes of Chertoff, "Brownie," Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the exiting master of failure Goss if confirmation of Bush's affinity for all people incompetent is doubted. Still, it appears Bush's Generals just might set an entirely new standard for incompetence and foolishness.

A recent news report highlighted a General in Colorado who is going to be investigated, because he solicited votes for a Republican candidate that the General believed to possess sufficient "Christian" credentials. According to the General's solicitation, the candidate's Christianity is very important when it comes to serving in the U.S. Congress. Then, of course, there is Bush's replacement for the failed Goss---General Hayden of NSA and Fourth Amendment ignorance fame.

Remember Hayden? He's the guy in charge of spying on U.S. citizens, but he doesn't know the Fourth Amendment requires "probable cause" in order for the government to snoop around citizens' personal information and conversations. For Bush's Super-General Hayden, not knowing anything about the Constitution, makes him an ideal candidate for head of the CIA.

Believe it or not, that actually leads to the whole point of this longwinded dissertation. What do these two Generals have in common? Well, first, they both took an oath upon joining the military. They swore to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Apparently, they didn't take that oath seriously---at least not seriously enough to actually read what it was they were freely and willingly swearing to sacrifice their lives for.

Now, even the average Joe (or Josephine) knows better than to sign or swear to something before reading the fine print. Any person not so completely mentally impaired, knows better than to sign or swear before reading. Not Bush's Generals. They've never even read the Constitution!

Sorry, but it seems to be true. What kind of moron swears him or herself fully prepared to die for something and never bothers to learn about what it is they are going to die for? YOUR AVERAGE RUN-OF-THE-MILL LAP-PUP, THAT'S WHO!

Take Bush's Colorado General as the first example: He believes being Christian should be a vital part of an elected officials qualifications. Yet, Article VI, Section 3, of the Constitution abolishes religious tests for office in the federal government. If brains were bombs, that General wouldn't be able to blow lint out of his bellybutton. He actually swore to defend and, if need be, die for the Constitution but he obviously hasn't a clue about its contents.

Then, of course, there is General Hayden. He's out and about spying left, right, and center on everybody in the country and yet, totally ignorant of a Fourth Amendment that makes his spying on citizens totally illegal because he doesn't have probable cause to be doing so. But he too, swore to take a bullet for the Constitution. You just know he requires a bib when sitting upright.

Yes, with Generals in charge who weren't even smart enough to take the time to read what it is they swore to die defending, it is little wonder Iraq is such a mess.

By: Heidi Przybyla
Bloomberg News
May 9, 2006

May 9 (Bloomberg)---Three years into major combat in Vietnam, 28,500 U.S. service members had perished, millions of families were anxious about the military draft and antiwar protests had spread to dozens of college campuses.

Today, at the same juncture in the Iraq war, about 2,400 American soldiers have died, the U.S. military consists entirely of volunteers and public dissent is sporadic.

There is one other difference: The war in Iraq is more unpopular than was the Vietnam conflict at this stage, polls show.

More Americans---57 percent---say sending troops to Iraq was a mistake than the 48 percent who called Vietnam an error in April 1968, polls by the Princeton, New Jersey Gallup Organization show. That's because more people believed that Vietnam was crucial to U.S. security, scholars say.

"People simply value the stakes much lower in Iraq than they did in Vietnam," said John Mueller, a presidential historian at Ohio State University in Columbus. Vietnam "seemed vital in terms of the Cold War and stripping the communists. People don't see this as an important adventure."

The poll numbers suggest that President George W. Bush may come under overwhelming pressure from voters to resolve the war, as did President Lyndon B. Johnson 38 years ago, even though both men vowed to stay the course.

"I doubt that he's going to be able to buy very much time at all," William Leuchtenburg, a retired historian who taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a past president of the American Historical Association, said of Bush. With no signs of an Iraq policy change, he said, "Bush and the Republicans will pay a price, particularly in some of the Senate races."


Control of both chambers of Congress is at stake in this November's elections, and any Republican losses will further complicate Bush's ability to continue his Iraq policy.

*The Republicans have already proven to "the people" that they aren't concerned about "the people." Both Frist(R-TN) and J. Dennis Hastert(R-IL) are lap dogs for this Bush administration. We'd be better off without either one of them.

Already, some Republicans are clamoring for an exit strategy and pressuring party leaders for a chance to discuss the issue. On May 2, House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said the House may debate the war for the first time later this year.

*Don't you just love his words? Like "may" and especially "later this year." WHEN? AFTER THE ELECTIONS? I also love how they keep putting "Majority Leader" Boehner's name out there and pretending like J. Dennis Hastert(R-IL), speaker of the House, has nothing to do with the decisions that come from the leadership out of the House. It's J. Dennis Hastert, Republican from Illinois, that decides what comes to the floor of the House. See what I mean about the Republicans putting on a "front." They find some idiot to put in front of the cameras while all of the "real behind the scenes" garbage is really coming from elsewhere!

As passionate as Americans were about Vietnam, some 12 percent of them had failed to form an opinion about the war by April 1968, according to Gallup data.

Today, just 1% of Americans are undecided about Iraq. And disapproval of Bush's decision to invade is 15 percentage points higher than approval, an April 7-9 Gallup poll of 1, 1004 adults showed. That's as wide a gap as on Vietnam at this time four decades ago.


Bush's job-approval ratings are lower than were Johnson's during the far bloodier Vietnam conflict. Among the reasons: the highly publicized intelligence failures that preceded the Iraq invasion of 2003, the fact that Bush began the war, and the shadow of Vietnam itself, historians say.

From January to July of 1968 Johnson's monthly approval ratings fluctuated at 40% or above, with one exception, Gallup polling data show: Bush's approval rating has been stuck below 40% since February of this year, according to several national polls. His rating fell to a record-low 31% in the latest Gallup poll, conducted May 5-7 with USA Today.

Some Republicans say Bush's disapproval rating on the war may have more to do with the more extensive coverage by the media today than anything else.

"You're not comparing apples to apples," said John Brabender, a Republican political consultant in Leesburg, Virginia. "You did not have cable news or the Internet. What expansice news programming has created is a larger voice for dissent, a larger discussion and a comfort level to express it that you've never seen."
*This is your typical Republican answer to everything. What else are they supposed to say? They don't have any excuses for what they have done to this country!


Some historians say Bush has met with such resistance because of the flawed intelligence he used to make the case for war. He began the efort focused on former Iraqi lead Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction: in October 2002, Bush warned of a "smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

No such stocks were ever found, and Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA reports have surfaced saying there was no evidence Iraq was reconstituting its weapons. Bush also sought to tie Hussein's government to the al-Qaeda terror network, a link that's never been substantiated.

The closest parallel in Vietnam was the reports of unprovoked North Vietnamese attacks on U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. Those alleged incidents eventually fueled an escalation of the war, with Johnson announcing air strikes in 1965.

Compared with Iraq, "there weren't such blatantly false assumptions exposed at so early a date," Leuchentenburg said.


Bush's low approval ratings are also a result of his been given full responsibility for progress or setbacks in Iraq, said Bert Rockman, a presidential scholar at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.

"Johnson inherited a problem that came from Eisenhower, through Kennedy to him," he said. "In Bush's case, this was something he created."

Finally, the legacy of Vietnam is contributing to the current administration's public opinion woes, according to historians. "The Iraq war stands in the shadow of Vietnam," said Robert Dalleck, a retired Boston University professor and author of the book "Lyndon B. Johnson, Portrait of a President," published this year. "They remember that as a quagmire."


The similarities between Bush and Johnson extend to how the two dealt with their public-approval problems. In November 1967, the Johnson administration launched a public-relations campaign to convince Congress, the press and the public there was progress in Vietnam. Johnson was counseled by advisers to emphasize "the light at the end of the tunnel." While public support rose, it quickly sank in early 1968 as the Viet Cong started what came to be known as the Tet Offensive.

By September 1968, disapproval of the war had risen to levels to the dissent over Iraq today, the Gallup data shows.

In a series of speeches last year and early this year, Bush has touted successes in Iraq, including beginning his remarks marking the third anniversary of the invasion on March 19 by saying he's "encouraged by the progress."

Bush, like Johnson, has signaled that it will be up to his successors to resolve the war. He said in a March news conference that complete withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq is an objective that "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."

*So, in other words, the U.S. will definitely be in Iraq "at least" until late January 2009! The U.S. military can't make their quota now for an all volunteer Army, so you people out there had better believe that there might not be any choice, other than 'THE DRAFT!"

With the appointment of Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden ~ military officers will control all the major spy agencies and report directly to Darth Vader himself ~ Dick Cheney.

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves"
Bertand de Jouvenel (1903-1987)

With the appointment of Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, Porter Goss's successor as head of the CIA, military officers will control all the major spy agencies and report directly to Darth Vader himself ~ Dick Cheney.

Remember the infamous Office of Special Plans that was instituted by the Pentagon and fed tainted intelligence directly to Dick Cheney, bypassing the CIA and was never investigated by the 9/11 commission ~ well, quess what ~ we are heading in the same direction again except this time its target is Iran and protecting the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush neocon cabal at all costs.

By: Allen L. Roland
May 9, 2006


By: Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney
Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin
American Progress Report
May 8, 2006

On Friday, Porter Goss unexpectedly resigned as head of the CIA, leaving behind an "utterly irresponsible" 18-month tenure at the agency and unanswered questions about his hurried departure. Today, the White House nominated deputy director of national intelligence Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden as Goss's successor.

"Bottom line, I believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time. We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time," said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) yesterday on Fox News Sunday, voicing bipartisan concerns of lawmakers. Hayden has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and has misled Congress under oath.

*Let me say this again: "If you thought the last bunch that Bush had in his cabinet were bad choices, you ain't seen nothing yet! These people are twice as bad. You thought that you lost your rights before! Just wait! With Darth Vader at the helm, believe me, all that money that the Defense Department got in their budget isn't going to be used for defense. It's going to be used on watching you!


Over the weekend, a bipartisan group of lawmakers spoke out opposing the nomination of a military officer to a civilian agency. If Hayden is confirmed, "military officers would run all the major spy agencies, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency."

One former intelligence official said, "It seems to me the Pentagon grows even stronger now...Every time there's a change, it moves in that direction." "I think...putting a general in charge is going to send the wrong signal through the agency here in Washington, but also to our agents in the field around the world," said Hoekstra yesterday, who also added that there will "be the perception in the CIA" that Hayden would be under the sway of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

One of Goss's largest challenges at the CIA was gaining the trust of career officers, who resented that he brought in a group of his unqualified aides---called the "Gosslings" by CIA insiders---and appointed them to top positions.

*Is there anybody in the Bush administration that is "qualified" to protect the American citizens? I don't know about you, but everytime Bush appoints someone, they are less qualified than the person who left! Personally, I don't think that Bush is "qualified " to be a President!

Even if Hayden retires from the military, he is unlikely to be trusted as the committed independent advocate that the CIA needs. "Now, just resigning commission and moving on, putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an air force uniform, I don't think that makes much difference," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).

*But this is how the Bush administration works. They literally put on a "front." Change the uniform and people will think that since he is out of the military, we can call him a civilian. No, no, no! It doesn't work like that and the American people aren't as dumb as the Bush administration would like to think we are! They better start realizing that it is their administration that finally woke the people up!

Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS), who in 2005 called Hayden "outstanding," yesterday refused to offer his endorsement of the administration's nominee: "I'm not in the position to say that I am for General Hayden and will vote for him."


Hayden has demonstrated an "astounding lack of knowledge" about his job as an intelligence official, fundamentally misunderstanding constitutional protections.

In a speech on Jan. 23, Hayden boasted that he was knowledgeable on the Fourth Amendment: "Believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth."

But in a question at the same speech, Knight-Ridder reporter Jonathan Landay noted that Hayden "repeatedly referred to the Fourth Amendment's search standard of 'reasonableness" without mentioning that it also demands 'probable cause'"; Hayden continued to deny that the amendment contaned any such clause.

When Landay asked Hayden if the amendment contains the phrase "probable cause," Hayden bluntly replied, "No."


In January, Karl Rove promised to make the midterm elections focus on wiretapping. Hayden---as one of the administration's "most forceful" defenders of President Bush's warrantless domestic eavesdropping and director of the National Security Agency (NSA) when the program was implemented in 2002---will likely bring this issue to the forefront.

"We have no concerns about a public debate over the terrorist surveillance program," said a senior White House official. Hayden misled Congress and the public about the administration's domestic spying.

In his Oct. 17, 2002 testimony, Hayden told a congressional committee that any surveillance of persons in the United States was done consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which required a court-approved warrant for wiretapping.

As American Progress Senior Fellow Morton Halperin pointed out, "At the time of his statements, Hayden was fully aware of the presidential order to conduct warrantless domestic spying issued the previous year," making Hayden's misleading statements to Congress illegal.


Goss's chaotic departure encapsulated his chaotic tenure. "A 'reform' that was supposed to improve coordination and coherence among our intelligence agencies has had the opposite effect," said Robert L. Hutchings, former National Intelligence Council chairman, about Goss's term.

While the Bush administration has tried to spin Goss's resignation as a lost turf battle with Negroponte, there has been little indication that Goss ever fought hard against the administration for his turf.

In reality, Goss's tenure was noted for "bleeding talent" away from the struggling agency: "At least a dozen senior officials---several of whom were promoted under Goss---have resigned, retired or requested reassignment.
*Don't confuse these officials with the Generals that have quit because they don't believe that Rumsfeld knows what he's doing!

The directorate's second-in-command walked out of Langley last month and then told senators in a closed-door hearing that "he had lost confidence in Goss's leadership."
*That's because he had become a lap-dog for the Bush administration. And if Hayden gets in, he's going to be worse than Goss! This Bush administration is not going to let anybody "in" that isn't going to kiss their nose! And don't think that they aren't laughing at the American people. I can just picture them saying, "the people want changes, we'll give them changes. We'll just replace them with people who will do exactly what we want them to do, anytime or anyplace." This administration is going to make sure that "the people" don't tell them how to run the show!

Now the agency has been drawn into a federal criminal investigation over Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the CIA's third-ranking official, handpicked by Goss.

The CIA Inspector General has opened an investigation into Foggo's contacts with defense contractors accused of bribing lawmakers. Foggo has admitted that he attended poker games---where prostitutes may have been present---set up by Brent Wilkes, who is implicated in the bribery of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

Additionally, Frank Bassett, a CIA agent identified as "Nine Fingers" was also at the poker parties and was a former Goss aide. "Supposedly, the [Cunningham] scandal was the last straw [in deciding that Goss should resign]. ..." This administration may be on the verge of a major scandal," said a congressional source involved in oversight of U.S. spy agencies.

*I think that it's time for all of us to contact our representatives about this appointment!