Comments (38)

NSFY wrote on January 21, 2008 12:39 PM:

I guess he forgot to read the "Enlibra Principles" (http://www.epa.gov/administrator/enlibra.htm)

What a joke.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:44 PM:

This statement could be read as: Well we need some time to attempt to come to a concensus as to why we are meddling in state rights, and of course to create some lame ass excuse that will not embarass even our most crass handlers and special interest guidance. So it's in draft status and we'll get it to you when it is finished, it is a work in progress as if we made the decision in the absence of facts, or we didn't allow the facts to stand in the way of our convictions, err uhm the directive of special interest groups.

Second, further disclosure could result in needless public confusion about the Administrator’s decision that EPA will be denying California’s request. That is, many of the documents are pre-decisional and thus do not reflect the Agency’s full and complete thinking on the matter. Indeed, final decision documents have not yet been completed and made available to the public through publication in the Federal Register, so the public, if given access to the pre-decisional documents, would effectively be denied access to the full, complete rationale by the Agency.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:49 PM:

Bolton: US intelligence has become politicized

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haviv Rettig , THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 21, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate, as well as the skewed reporting around it, is a sign of the "illegitimate politicization" of the American intelligence establishment, according to former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

The document reportedly said Iran stopped its nuclear weapons production program in 2003.

While "Iran's nuclear program is continuing and expanding," Bolton told The Jerusalem Post at a book-signing in a Tel Aviv Steimatzky on Sunday, "the NIE has had a devastating impact on our global efforts to try and constrain Iran."

"I know the people who wrote this intelligence estimate," Bolton continued. "They are not from our intelligence community. They're from our State Department. It was a highly politicized document written by people who had a very clear policy objective."

The former ambassador decried the lack of separation between "intelligence and policy."

"Generating intelligence should be separated from policy-makers, but it should also be separated from intelligence analysts who impose their own policy views on the intelligence they generate," insisted Bolton, who is in the country to attend the Herzliya Conference this week.

Furthermore, said Bolton, the NIE "doesn't say what you probably think it says. Once you get past the first sentence or two, it doesn't come out that different from the 2005 NIE. All of the attention was focused on the one finding that [Iran halted the weapons-building] aspect of the weapons program, even though later they say that they only have 'moderate confidence' that this suspension has continued. That's a polite way of saying they don't have a clue what the situation is."

The document also defines the weapons program as "actual weaponization, that is, fabrication - only a tiny sliver of the total activity required for a country to have a nuclear weapons program. It still remains entirely within Iran's discretion when and under what circumstances it proceeds to a nuclear weapons capability."

The release of such a politicized report by those responsible for American intelligence analysis was possible, Bolton believes, because "there is still no effective supervision over the intelligence community. It's been a problem for a long time. The [newly-established] director of national intelligence position didn't solve it. So it remains and will be a significant challenge for the next president to get under control."

Bolton calls the NIE "a quasi-coup by the intelligence services," which was "intended to have a political and policy effect. I think that's illegitimate [for] the bureaucracy [to have done]. In our system, constitutional legitimacy flows from the president, who was elected, through his officials. It's not like a European system, where the foreign policy establishment really does develop foreign policy. Too much policy is developed by the bureaucracy independent of political control. It's a longstanding cultural problem, and it will take a long time to fix it."

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:56 PM:

"In our system, constitutional legitimacy flows from the president"

John Bolton told The Jerusalem Post at a book-signing in a Tel Aviv Steimatzky on Sunday.

The most commonly-held explanation for constitutional legitimacy - that legitimacy flows from the fact that "We the People" seems to escape the Neoconservative mind.

It is not conservative values in America that are at fault in this administration, it is the Neoconservative policy that was the root of failure.

It is statements such as these that get people howling as they do and adds to Ron Paul's army of anti-semitism.

But "the constitutional legitimacy flows from the president" sounds like something a neo-nazi would say, that all power is derived from the Fhurer.

Alvord wrote on January 21, 2008 1:01 PM:

I used to work at EPA when Steve Johnson was still a career civil servant in the Agency. His descent to Cheney sock puppet since he became a political appointee has been astonishing.

Why Steve, why?

Centerpunch wrote on January 21, 2008 1:33 PM:

Help me out here:

"...Ron Paul's army of anti-semitism."

umm, WTF?

And you are "informed" how?

(supply legitimate sources/statements/video/etc.)

I'm not a supporter, by any means, but I certainly love to see him belittle the Repuke "hopefulls".

Why the strong words... did I miss some propaganda?

GMFORD wrote on January 21, 2008 1:49 PM:

That's incredibly stupid -- the public pays the salary of everyone in the EPA. As their employer have a right to peek over their shoulder and look at what they are working on any time we want.

Centerpunch wrote on January 21, 2008 2:00 PM:

...Ohhh! After some brief googling of the subject I realize there IS some "question" as to his anti-semitism.

I guess that makes it true... My Bad!

Where there's smoke there's fire... good enough for me-- goddamned anti-semite! For chrissakes-Let's hang him!

I hear Hillary is racist, too. Wow--who woulda thunkit?

what's for lunch?

Laurie wrote on January 21, 2008 2:06 PM:

Fix the photo caption please -- Senator Boxer is most assuredly not an "R." Thanks.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:13 PM:

"...Ron Paul's army of anti-semitism."

Ron Paul has elements of pro-white-supremacy groups that latch on to third party movements, as they did in 1992 in the Perot movement.

These outside the fringe groups are typically anti-establishment and subscribe to the CFR, Illuminati, Federal Reserve conspiracies. These anti-federalism sentiments, David Duke type sentiments were similar to the current Neoconservative movement in the late 80's and early 90's.

cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

This really was 'a segment' of the GOP at that time, like the like cabin republicans, as bizarre as it sounds true.

In MD in the aftermath of the Perot campaign a database and computer with the donation and names of those whom put Perot on the ballet was removed by an individual whom made repeated referencces to white supremacy afiliation, resulting in a proxy case where there was a case to return the materials and a counter defamation suit that alleged that the accusation of klan affiliation was slander, it was a 'say it if you dare suit.'

But not only did these people exist, but they were organized just as effectively at the state level as at a national level, you could be made to understand that at the other end of a state.

But whenever you get spontaneous grass roots anti-establishment fundraising, these 'business agents' similar to almost organized labor appear, and then introduction to splinter groups are established.

But to imagine that somebody who really understands these folks, grew up with them, understands their world view, is surprised that they picked MLK day to raise their money, well.. say it ain't so... then they don't exist, but that is their sardonic take on anything federal, anything mandated by the government, the principles of MLK and quotta's, forced integration of schools, social welfare, equal rights, etc... all of it.. no place in the radical mind.

The first step is to claim though police.

The second step is to claim a fixed game.

The third step is to pick a group to blame any and all inadequacy upon, and then to further isolate into a support group that enforces that isolation through tatoos or other isolationist behavior where an alternate set of values (or currency) are created.

You might not see the irony of MLK day as the money bomb day, you might not believe these people exist, and that is your right as far as I'm concerned.

But they do exist, they are real, and they are efficient organizers and recruiters and study the best in Machiavellian politics as a matter of core principle and celebrate that as a core value.

Is Ron Paul and anti-semite? Is Ron Paul a racist? Probably on a litmus he is not.. is there a segment of his group that is?

Laughing, you would have to be gullible beyond belief to belueve that there is not.

jakebob wrote on January 21, 2008 2:34 PM:

Re: Thursday w/ Barbara at the Senate...
I'm buying popcorn futures!!

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:38 PM:

Maryland's Eastern Shore has not always been associated with racial harmony. Cambridge was the site of riots in the 1960s that burned much of its black business district. North of Nanticoke in the Wicomico County town of Mardela Springs, a councilman provoked outrage in 1992 when he referred to Martin Luther King Day as "Buckwheat's Birthday."

ww.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.church23dec23,0,3153854.story?page=1

While things are improving, they are doing so slowly, but to imagine that there was not a segment of the population democratic and republican that was upset at 'dislocations' in the economy, and had their ideas as to why it was happening, and that there were disticnt splinter groups in the GOP identical in peculiar belief as the neoconservatives are today, is to deny history.

You would have to be extraordinarly gullible to imagine that they don't exist now and that by marginalizing Paul in the MSM that their numbers do not grow.

Transparency is the great sanitizer.

I'm not talking a drive by shooting by the MSM, but instead transparency and an actual debate with Paul as to the consequences of his peculiar beliefs.

Duckman GR wrote on January 21, 2008 3:00 PM:

Of course, that's all great and everything, but

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, BARBARA? HENRY?

Because revelations that bush has appointed liars, cheats, scumbags, fascists, racists, and above all, Corporate Whores, aren't really revelations, just further evidence of why Bush and Cheney should have been impeached 5 years ago, let alone when the Dems regained the Congress.

If, and I stress that if, Johnson shows up at the hearing without the requested documents, I'd like to see him hauled away to jail for being in contempt of Congress. He doesn't need anymore warnings or letters or chances. There's no executive privlege involved here whatsoever, it's the operations of the EPA, to say otherwise is to be in contempt of Congressional oversight, and they don't need any more chances to get away with that.

Put up, or get locked up, that's the proper course, Senator Boxer, for Johnson. If you can't do that, then with all due respect, go away and let somebody else do their god damned job like they're supposed to.

Duckman GR wrote on January 21, 2008 3:05 PM:

My excellent post seems to have flown the coup, so I'll just get to the gist.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, BARBARA?

We know that the Bush admninistration is peopled by liars, cheats, scumbags, and above all else, Corporate Whores, so revelations of that aren't really revelations.

When he shows up to the hearing, and he doesn't have the docs you want, find him in contempt and throw him in jail. He doesn't need more time to correct the record or refresh his memory or anything else.

KilgoreTrout XL wrote on January 21, 2008 3:15 PM:

I think I probably speak for a number of us when I say "ARRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!"

Centerpunch wrote on January 21, 2008 3:23 PM:

ANON: I see your point.
In reflecting on your original post, I notice that you describe the anti-semite armies of Ron Paul's support group--not specifically Ron Paul, per se.

In any case, I wonder if the same could be said of those that support Hillary rather than Obama because of latent (or not latent) racial bias... Or because she is a woman.

Does there exist this biased segment in her support network? "You would have to be gullible beyond belief to believe that there is not." Interesting to me-- the same could be said of Obama's supporters regarding "??reverse??" (eyes crossed) racial bias.

Obviously, there are social variances of all types rallying for the candidate that provides the most cover for them or that most resembles them. Some more exteme than others, some closer to our beliefs and values than others... both in and outside of our party affiliation.

I love America for the diversities that keep us engaged in thought. I especially love watching folks like Limbaugh and Craig embrace the ACLU when it benefits them! Cute, isn't it?

I am reluctant to label any whole group by association to fringes, except in the obvious case of HuckaChrist (based on direct quotes). But he, too, will be judged before his creator ever gets a chance to. Thank God!

Thanks for the reply to my rant. I have been overly sensitive, lately, to broad labeling...

Most appreciatively thankful for this and other forums of thought provoking discourse. It certainly helps to sound-off when frustration with guvment gets to the boiling point!

theswan wrote on January 21, 2008 3:27 PM:

We've heard of this "executive privilege" a lot. But no body seems interested in challenging the administrations claim to it. Is it an "off the table" sort of thing or is no one in congress is really interested in?
Congress claims to be getting stuff done. But, when this session is over, George may be able make the claim that Congress has done nothing. And he may likely be right in stating this.
Is Congress EVER going to back up the rhetoric with a challenge to the bogus claims of the King?

stevo wrote on January 21, 2008 3:49 PM:

funny how the Republican champions of state's right suddenly change their tune when it is politically impractical!

I am SHOCKED!!!

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 3:50 PM:

ww.adl.org/learn/ext_us/barrett.asp?xpicked=2&item=barrett

Not that I regurgitate the ADL line, and have pointed out their hypocrisy before, but less than a coincidence...

White Separatists Protest in Jena, La.
By MARY FOSTER – 42 minutes ago

JENA, La. (AP) — About 50 white separatists protested the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday Monday in this tiny town, that was thrust into the spotlight months ago by 20,000 demonstrators who claimed prosecutors discriminated against blacks.

But yeah this is one of their mythemes, MLK activity.

Nice find by TPM and in fair and balanced lead with Bolton's comments.

I'll just say this: You know that their racist if they slug you after looking them right in the eye and saying: "well you know that niggers come in all colors."

On the Hillary and Obama thing and the SC race baiting, you have to believe that these folks are all rubes, or that this attack is garnering diminishing returns.

I'll say this, the worst thing that can happen to race groups is prosperity where people focus on their own objectives and not on 'distorted issues.'

Factually we ARE hardwired to be tribal, that is shown in numerous studies, but you either have the intelligence to rise above it or you do not.

Groupthink and 'joining an escapist cause' as in Eric Hoffer's mass movement is intellectual laziness, it aleviates the need for critical thinking or standing for your own ideas.

Fortunately most of these racist are not all that damn intelligent, the majority of them at least, followers suffering from low self-esteem in reverse, I'm so indignant I'm important, I'm even more indignant ergo I'm more important, and the searching for indignation.. like the ADL to create ontological indigantion, I'm indignant because your indignant!

I genuinely believe that the greater an ability to join a group, a religion, or a cult of personality is in equal proportion to self-esteem.

But yeah these folks exist, and to think otherwise is a mistake.

They are best dealt with by utilizing violence that eclipses their norm, they understand violence as a currency, if you genuinely injure one of them, permanently injure one, they are at a dillema and can be dealt with.

They either have to kill you or coexist.

Violence is the last desperate act of limited mind and I suggest violence as the most effective means of dealing with them,

Mary wrote on January 21, 2008 3:52 PM:

This is pretty hilarious. He's ready to take the EPA into litigation with California, yet there is no articulated: "full, complete rationale by the Agency" and he thinks that suppressing information as to dissent and contrary advice is needed so that when peopel do finally get to see a " full, complete rationale by the Agency" it is untainted by contary input.

Hilarious may not really be the right word for it.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 3:53 PM:

Centerpunch wrote on January 21, 2008 3:23 PM:

Again: If they act niggardly, remind them in a deliberate manner that niggers come in all colors and them hold your ground.

If you can ignore further discourse you can coexist after the initial conflict.

mari wrote on January 21, 2008 4:22 PM:

Amazing that the nerve of this Bush Administration just gets more humongous every time they make some statement. They are also way off the mark in truth-telling. This very JACKASS sort of reasoning is so obvious that even someone who is 4 could figure out exactly what this bandit administration is up to. I cannot believe that Republicans (I used to be one, btw) fell for this guy even when they controlled Congress during Bush's first term. But even worse, they refused to acknowledge his proclivity to continue his MO by choosing illegalities and/or shady plans when Democrats got control of the Congress. Seems they continued to support Bush's lies and half-truths. Amazing how they failed our country.

jazz smith wrote on January 21, 2008 4:28 PM:

Like any other privilege in law, the holder of the privilege, GBush must assert it. Johnson is asserting the Privilege on behalf of GBush. By allowing a third party to review the documents and take notes, the third party is not under any obligation to withhold what they know even if Gbush wants to assert the privilege. What I do not know is if they do view the documents have the third parties given up any other rights to supeona the documents in question? Can any attorneys out there answer the question?

phil james wrote on January 21, 2008 4:38 PM:

Let's get a few things straight here.

First, executive privilege can be invoked by the unitary executive or any member of his administration for whatever reason or no reason at all by virtue of the fact that the American people have no explicit or inherent right under the US Constitution to demand accountability on the part of the unitary executive or any member of his administration that cannot be denied by the administration because when push comes to shove the only mechanism in place for enforcing such a demand, the US Congress, rolls over, shoves their fingers in their ears, sends a 437th strongly worded letter, goes on a fundraising junket, or otherwise claims more important matters are at issue than the desires of the people so governed.

Second, all other rights granted to individuals or States under the Constitution explicitly or implicitly are subject to temporary or permanent revocation under the terms of the executive privilege clause described above.

Third, I know what you're thnking but it's too late. We own the Supreme Court.

Bruce wrote on January 21, 2008 4:55 PM:

If we had a congress with any balls or self respect they'd throw the fuckers out, and then slam their sorry, greedy asses in jail where they belong, along with the corporate slave owners who write policy.

parrot wrote on January 21, 2008 5:05 PM:

I don't recall anyone passing the 'Freedom To Be A Crony Act'. This guy is obviously abusing his power as a bureaucrat in the government we are all supposedly paying our taxes for. The Congress should hold him in contempt if he does not turn over those documents...or find someone else who will turn over those documents...to the People's Assembly. I'm sick of hearing about how things have to be kept secret from the Congress. But when with the Congress actually do something about it? After they are no longer necessary to run things? Wouldn't that be too late?

Rodney wrote on January 21, 2008 8:09 PM:

Bliley's response to the committee was hilarious, and makes it appear that the EPA is still being run in the same manner as the Gonzales DOJ. They won't turn over the documents that they based the EPA decision because they haven't finished trying to come up with a reason for the decision that they already made. This irrational circular reasoning from the Bush Administration Bushies deserves a name like Bushie-logic.

Rich wrote on January 21, 2008 8:13 PM:

I'm sure Sen. Boxer will rake him over the coals. I'm proud that Sen. Boxer is my Senator, I just wish all the Congress had her tenacity.

However, given the track record of this Congress, he'll be allowed to do whatever he wants. Maybe he'll get a nice, sternly worded letter (suitable for framing) expressing the committee's disapproval in his lack of cooperation.

biggerbox wrote on January 21, 2008 8:17 PM:

I realize it's a waste of time to poke holes in bogus rhetorical spew from Bushistas, but I'm not clear on exactly how given me, as a member of the public, access to how "pre-decisional" documents would prevent me from later, when he gets off his ass and produces some, understanding "post-decisional" documents. Many of us hoi polloi understand the flow of time, and can comprehend how some things come "before" and others "after". Some of us have even studied history.

I am amused that he finds the need to avoid public confusion a reasonable argument for denying both a Senator and a Representative documents they are entitled to. I think that, if he feels the government is above confusing people, that he take a quick read of his income tax forms.

P J Evans wrote on January 21, 2008 10:16 PM:

When did it become permissible to hide embarrassing acts by claiming executive privilege? Hiding misdeeds is one of the uses for which it's banned. As in 'illegal'. As in, time to impeach the lower-downs who are carrying out the policies.

F*ck the EPA's decision.
F*ck Cheney and his cronies.
They're wrong, and getting more wrong.

EbenezerSeattle wrote on January 21, 2008 11:07 PM:

The happy (and underreported) part of this story is that "the EPA's staff reportedly unanimously recommended approving California's waiver." The Bush Administration has been systematically getting rid of the career experts in the federal government and replacing them with political fundraisers and volunteers. (One of them answered TPM's e-mail inquiry to DOJ about the deletion of TPM from DOJ's e-mail distribution list.)

I say underreported because this administration has been shameless in treating the U.S. like their collective gravy train. Never mind that they're getting rid of the people necessary to run the government well. Bush, Cheney and their axis see $$$$, and they are happy enough to destroy the U.S. if it stands in the way of getting megabucks. (I'm not saying they're out to destroy the U.S., just that they don't care about doing it if it gets in the way of making money).

From what I've heard about tonight's Democratic debate, it's all well and good to have a family spat about trivial issues, but it would better serve the American people to fully engage Bush for what he is - the Manchurian President.

Jaime Frontero wrote on January 21, 2008 11:14 PM:

Johnson won't show at Boxer's committee meeting on Thursday.

Bets?

phil james wrote on January 21, 2008 11:34 PM:

I have a hard time understanding why anyone would expect the Bush administration to act in a way to undermine its own self-interest. After 7 years I would have thought it self-evident that the Bush administration's best interesst is served when it refuses to disclose the true basis for ANY of its decisions. Further, I would suggest that in fact NOTHING the Bush administration has done (in the words of HRC) from day one has been truthfully explained to the Congress or the American people. Nothing. That is because the adminsitration clearly and demonstrably has never and will never act in the best interests of the American public on any matter of policy. They have other masters to serve, many of whom wee know full well. Now, if we take that as a point of departure for all discussions of why or how or when they will come clean before Congress, the answer presents itself immediately. The fact that Congress has never been able to hold them accountable for anything at any time simply serves to harden that stance into a virtually unassailable position.

Bob Walters wrote on January 22, 2008 12:25 AM:

phil james (above) has it right...and it has a name (actually 2 names): fascism and/or Nazi-ism. The Bush Administration clearly parallels the Hitler and Mussolini Administrations of the 1930s; ironically, so does the Likud Party in Israel. 'Nuf said. What must we do about it? For starters, we need to purge the Democratic Party of its DLC corporate enablers/sychophants, and instal/support non-corporate progressives in party leadership that will support Howard Dean's agenda. Further, we need a paradigm shift in the political landscape that will hold criminal politicians of the current GOP-stripe criminally liable for their attempted destruction of our democratic republic and its Constitution. They also need to be made available to the International Criminal Court for trial on charges of war crimes. The visual impact of some of the "prominent" Bush/Cheney enablers -- if not Bush & Cheney themselves -- appearing in the dock at the Hague in chains and jump-suits might just be the ticket for beginning to rectify the damage they have wrought and putting the kibosh on similar ambitions among their supporters. Then we need to turn to the task of returning the legal status of corporations to their original position: creatures of the state, whose charters (and therefore their existence) can be revoked at any time they fail to function to the benefit of the population at large.

Think that can be accomplished?? Naaaah. Americans are too busy trying to fend off foreclosure and/or bankruptcy from too many medical or credit card bills.

Pasco wrote on January 22, 2008 1:09 AM:

this congress needs to change strategy. From Wikepedia on House Govt. Reform and the Clinton Admin. They subpoenaed everything:
House Committee on Government Reform

Davis chaired the House Government Reform Committee from 1998 to 2007 when Democrats became the majority and Henry Waxman became chair. The Committee is the chief investigative and oversight committee of the House, and has been granted broad jurisdiction. This committee was very active during the Clinton administration. It issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002.

moondancer wrote on January 22, 2008 3:55 AM:

I don't think privilege will stand in this case. Just get it in front of a judge.

woody, tokin librul wrote on January 22, 2008 8:34 AM:

What is the problem?
If they refuse the subpoenas, arrest the fucking bastards!
Book'em, Babs! C'mon!

paul wrote on January 23, 2008 9:18 AM:

Who gives a flying anything if Boxer rakes the loser over the coals?

Other than "Sergeant at Arms, detain the witness until he gives an answer the chair deems responsive" there really isn't anything she can say that won't just bounce off his outer layer of slime.