Because It's The Right Thing To Do

Brad Pitt & The Global Green Project in New Orleans

The Case For Impeachment 'Is Even More Truthful Today' . . . .

. . . . Says Former Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham



From ThinkProgress.org:

Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) was one of 23 Senators to have voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002. “With sadness,” he told his colleagues, “I predict we will live to regret this day, Oct. 10, 2002, the day we stood by and we allowed these terrorist organizations to continue growing in the shadows.”

Just four months after Bush launched the Iraq war, Graham floated the idea of impeachment. “Clearly, if the standard is now what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the actions of this president [are] much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty,” he said. In an interview this week with ThinkProgress, Graham said he stood by his 2003 statement:

How many Americans would say that it is a greater dereliction of duty as President of the United States to have a consensual sexual affair or to take the country to war under manipulated, fabricated, and largely untruthful representations which the President knew or should have known. I think the answer to that question is clear.

Graham added that it’s unlikely Bush would be impeached, explaining that he learned the word impeachment is an “incendiary word” that Americans shy away from. “Americans don’t like impeachment because it connotes the kind of instability that so many other countries around the world have known.” But he added that his original remark regarding impeachment “was a truthful statement at the time and it’s even more truthful today.”

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Right before the Senate vote on the Iraq resolution, the mild-mannered Graham sounded the alarms in unusually stark language. “If you believe that the American people are not going to be at additional threat,” he said, “then, frankly, my friends — to use a blunt term — blood is going to be on your hands.”

Asked to reflect on that statement today, Graham said, “There are 3,500 fewer American servicemen alive today in the world since the day I made that statement. There are tens of thousands of civilians who’ve lost their lives. The United States is at dramatically greater risk of terrorism… So I’m afraid that the blood has flown fuller, deeper, and redder that I thought it was going to.”

Graham also ridiculed Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s (I-CT) calls for taking “aggressive military action” against Iran:

I don’t know where we’re going to get the troops to take aggressive offensive action against Iran. Iran’s a country that’s approximately 2.5 times the population of Iraq. It has a GDP that’s twice that of Iraq. It is a much more significant force in the world. And we see how bogged down we are in Iraq, how in the world are we going to even consider using massive military force against Iran?

'Impeachment' is an incendiary word that Americans shy away from because of the way that Republicans used it against Clinton - as a device to stop legislation by Democrats from going forward and becoming law.

Before the midterm elections, polls indicated that the majority of Americans favored impeaching Bush. I haven't seen any polling on that question since the elections, but Bush's approval ratings haven't improved - they've sunk to Nixon's lowest numbers. I think it's a safe bet to conclude that even more people support impeachment.

The only thing preventing impeachment is Congress. The question then becomes, "Why?" Are they lazy? Are they being blackmailed by information culled from one of the many secret surveillance programs that Bush-Cheney are operating outside of the law and judicial oversight?

Could it also be that a deal was made last year? That if the Democrats prevailed in the midterm elections and became the majority in the House, Republicans and Democrats would agree to a woman (Pelosi) becoming the first woman Speaker if Democrats dropped all plans to impeach Bush and Cheney? Because if both the President and Vice President were impeached, the Speaker of the House (Pelosi) would be next in line to become President. And that if a woman is to ever become President of the United States, it must be through a direct vote of the people.

What else could explain Pelosi's announcement ("taking impeachment off the table") before the midterm elections?



If I'm right, we traded letting Nancy Pelosi become the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives for allowing the most corrupt, thieving, murderous administration in the history of the nation remain in power, so that they could continue their assault on the Constitution, on civil liberties, rendition, torture, promote their preemptive war policies (for oil and other profiteering), attack Iran and expand the hostilities in the Middle East and around the world.

I can't think of any other reasons to explain all that this Democratic Congress has failed to do. How many times must Rove and Gonzales and Rice (and Bush, Cheney, Secret Service) ignore subpoenas, refuse to appear or produce documents before you go to court to compel compliance? How can anyone explain a Democratic Congress allowing the Bush administration's failure during Hurricane Katrina to go uninvestigated?

If Congress did proper oversight, all investigations of everything that Bush-Cheney have been up to these last six+years lead to misfeasance, malfeasance, corruption and impeachment. Why wouldn't the Democrats (who are not stupid and just as politically motivated as Republicans) jump at these opportunities to score points at Republicans' expense?

Something is preventing the Democrats. What?

Why Has Google Replaced Post-Katrina Photos With Pre-Katrina Photos on Its Map Portal?

House subcommittee blasts Google over pre-Katrina map images.



"If we assume that the purpose of the government is to serve and improve the welfare of the entire body of citizens, the Bush administration has clearly been a major failure. It has served a minority, and the majority have not only failed to share in the gains yielded, they have suffered from reduced rights, freedoms, greater economic instability and stress, and a diminution of expectations and sense of hope for the future."

The AP reports:

Google's replacement of post-Hurricane Katrina satellite imagery on its map portal with images of the region before the storm does a "great injustice" to the storm's victims, a congressional subcommittee said.

The House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight on Friday asked Google Inc. Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt to explain why his company is using the outdated imagery.

The subcommittee cited an Associated Press report on the images.

"Google's use of old imagery appears to be doing the victims of Hurricane Katrina a great injustice by airbrushing history," subcommittee chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., wrote in a letter to Schmidt.

Swapping the post-Katrina images and the ruin they revealed for others showing an idyllic city dumbfounded many locals and even sparked suspicions that the company and civic leaders were conspiring to portray the area's recovery progressing better than it is.

Andrew Kovacs, a Google spokesman, said the company had received the letter but Schmidt had no immediate response.

After Katrina, Google's satellite images were in high demand among exiles and hurricane victims anxious to see whether their homes were damaged.

Now, though, a virtual trip through New Orleans is a surreal experience of scrolling across a landscape of packed parking lots and marinas full of boats.

Reality, of course, is very different: Entire neighborhoods are now slab mosaics where houses once stood and shopping malls, churches and marinas are empty of life, many gone altogether.

John Hanke, Google's director for maps and satellite imagery, said "a combination of factors including imagery date, resolution, and clarity" go into deciding what imagery to provide.

"The latest update from one of our information providers substantially improved the imagery detail of the New Orleans area," Hanke said in a news release about the switch.

Kovacs said efforts are under way to use more current imagery.

It was not clear when the current images replaced views of the city taken after Katrina struck Aug. 29, 2005, flooding an estimated 80 percent of New Orleans.

Miller asked Google to brief his staff by April 6 on who made the decision to replace the imagery with pre-Katrina images, and to disclose if Google was contacted by the city, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey or any other government entity about changing the imagery.

"To use older, pre-Katrina imagery when more recent images are available without some explanation as to why appears to be fundamentally dishonest," Miller said.

Edith Holleman, staff counsel for the House subcommittee, said it would be useful to understand how Google acquires and manages its imagery because "people see Google and other Internet engines and it's almost like the official word."

Google does provide imagery of New Orleans and the region following Katrina through its more specialized service called Google Earth.

Out of sight, out of mind.

That's the innocent explanation. Even if whomever did it had the best of intentions, or no conscious intention at all. Even if it was just an impulse to put New Orleans' best foot forward for the Google-camera - a knee-jerk reaction to an internal sense of discomfort over a situation that resists solution.

Just as dysfunctional families set aside their differences, smile and say "cheese" for the annual Christmas photograph, we tend to forget that it's people making decisions at corporations. They bring to the job the same coping mechanisms they've developed in problematic personal relationships.

Unfortunately, it's what those who are in powerful positions to make change happen, those who are charged with fixing it, who agreed to take on the job of fixing it and aren't (for whatever reason), are counting on . . . . When they can no longer count on the public's apathy.

"Each day that passes without an impeachment inquiry into the Bush administration, Americans' standards lower, expectations of government's responsibility and action by elected officials extinguish. Democracy ceases, and along with it, respect for rule of law."

How Did Businesses Manage To Turn A Profit Operating Honestly & Safely Before They Got Breaks From Republicans?

Probe Set Into U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Installation of Faulty Pumps in New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina



Another 'sweetheart' deal, this time with cronies of Jeb Bush.

The AP reports:

Government Accountability Office investigators are meeting with Army Corps of Engineers officials to ask questions about drainage pumps that were installed before last year's hurricane season even though they apparently were defective.

The pumps were produced by a Florida company under a $26.6 million contract awarded after Hurricane Katrina. They provide flood protection by draining water from this city that is largely below sea level.

An engineer for the Corps working on the pumps project warned in a spring 2006 memo that the machinery had problems that likely would keep them from performing under hurricane conditions.

Last year was a mild hurricane season, so the pumps were not tested in an emergency scenario.

Anu Mittal, the GAO's director for water resources, said a large team of investigators has been assembled to "expeditiously" satisfy a request by U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Landrieu, D-La., has asked the GAO to investigate if there was improper influence in the way the pumps contract was awarded and handled. She also wants to know what danger the pumps posed to New Orleans, and the Corps' rationale for installing them.

Mittal said the GAO is considering Landrieu's questions and will prepare a report.

Since the memo was disclosed two weeks ago the Corps has insisted that the pumps would have worked if they had been pressed into service last year and that the city was never in danger of flooding.

Just peachy.

According to another AP report, the Corps defends its decision to install the faulty pumps, intending to fix them while they were in place because, "some pumping capacity is better than none."

The Corps also defended the manufacturer of the pumps, Moving Water Industries, Corp., for the poor quality of their product because "they were under time pressure." Since installation, the pumps have been pulled out and overhauled ("excessive vibration"), while the Corps tries to get the pumps to work properly for other problems which have included overheated engines, broken hoses and blown gaskets.

The company that manufactures these pumps is owned by Floridian J. David Eller and his sons. Jeb Bush was a parter of Eller's in a business venture ('Bush-El') to market Moving Water Industries' pumps.

In a case that is still pending, the U.S. Department of Justice brought charges against 'Moving Waters Industries' in 2002 for fraud, for helping Nigeria get $74 million in U.S. taxpayer-backed loans so that Nigeria could purchase pumps (deemed unnecessary) at inflated prices.

"I Lost My Home and Everything I Owned, and All I Got Was This Lousy Teddy Bear"

The Clarion Ledger reports:

Elizabeth Lynch, 91, a postmaster of Pearlington for more than 40 years, always paid her State Farm insurance policy a year in advance and followed suggested guidelines for coverage.

When Hurricane Katrina struck, her roof collapsed, and she looked to her policy for help.

Her claim was denied.

Instead, the insurance company sent over a small teddy bear wearing a red and white State Farm shirt, saying it would be comforting to "hug the little fellow" in her time of need.

The back of the shirt read "Good Neigh Bear."

"Now there are words to describe my feelings at that moment, but being a lady, I don't use that kind of language," Patricia Cole Wilson, who had power of attorney for Lynch, wrote in a letter. Lynch died in November 2005.

The exchange is part of a file of insurance "horror stories" 4th District U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor, a coastal Democrat, has been collecting - accounts that have become the battle cry for some post-hurricane policyholders.

The insurance imbroglio has unfolded in the courts, in mediation disputes and in waves of angst and animosity among residents living in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers and contending with crippling increased insurance rates that threaten to stall recovery.

Homeowners are up against a 90 percent increase in rates, while businesses are seeing a 268 percent hike under the state-created Mississippi Windstorm Underwriting Association, or wind pool.

State lawmakers are wrangling over how to salvage Mississippi's wind pool and keep those numbers down, major insurance reforms are working their way through Congress, and a push for federal indictments is under way.

"I do respect the fact that there were people's lives that were turned upside down and a lot of them did not have flood insurance and a lot of them don't have physical, corroborated evidence around what wind damage might have been done to their properties prior to flood, and that's where we're in this challenge today," said Mike Fernandez, a spokesman for State Farm.

State Farm never meant any offense with the bear, he said.

"We try to manage in a way that is thoughtful and considerate, and I apologize if the customer took it somehow in some other way," he said.

In sending the bear, State Farm told Wilson the damage to Lynch's home was because of flooding and not wind and Lynch wasn't covered for that.

A policy is a contract, and the company simply worked to meet the terms of those contracts, Fernandez said. Now lawyers and politicians say the rules no longer apply, he said.

Such explanations have been little comfort to residents who paid dutifully on their policies for decades only to have their claims denied. They are reeling from astronomically high home and business insurance rates, so high the rates are impeding recovery. And some, like Wilson, are pointing to engineering reports they say challenge insurance company conclusions about what caused the damage.

They are wondering whether they'll ever trust an insurance company again.

Richard Finegan, a retired operations technician for General Electric, got $8,000 for $200,000 worth of damage. His insurance company said water, not wind, caused the problems.

When the Aug. 29, 2005, storm struck his three-bedroom brick rambler in Waveland, the four walls stood, but everything else was wiped out.

Along with it went all the memories of his two children - his 12-year-old son and 21-year-old daughter who were killed in a 1999 accident near a rail crossing.

He said he thought the insurance company would take care of him.

"It isn't the brick and mortar that we worry about," though, said Finegan, his blue eyes welling up with tears.

His sister later found a drawing his son had done - one of those stick drawings that said "I love my dad because ..."

He keeps it in his FEMA trailer.

Finegan never challenged the insurer's decision, but he says he believes homeowners are due more rights, protections against residents thinking they're insured for everything when they're not.

"They've got all the cards," he said of the insurance companies. "They've got the legal team. They've got the resources. And us little civilians out there, we're trying to get our head above the water and survive."

But Mississippi is mistaken if it thinks it has the clout to mandate business on its terms, said Larry Cox, the Robertson Chair of Insurance at the University of Mississippi. There has been an attempt to shift huge losses to insurance companies for a calamity they never could have anticipated, he said.

A state with a small population and small economy cannot afford to create obstacles for companies. Mississippi is not Florida, he said.

"We're not the tail on the dog. We're the tiny freckle on the tip of the tail of the dog when it comes to our economic clout."

He has no doubts some mistakes were made by insurers but just can't believe there was any systematic attempt to deny claims. "I mean, that would just be really bad business."