Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paret who wrote (708450)	10/23/2005 1:16:59 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Keep that TIVO running on CBS all day Tuesday, you will be recording history. "Fitzgerald could convene the grand jury as early as Tuesday to lay out a final summary of the case and ask for approval of possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury hearing the CIA leak case normally meets on Wednesdays and is scheduled to expire on Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it." today.reuters.com

To: paret who wrote (708450)	10/23/2005 1:22:18 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Russert was great today, wasn't he? "MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the situation here in Washington, the CIA leak investigation, very much tied in obviously to the war in Iraq and the way it was presented to the American people. And bringing you all back to September 30, George Bush addressing the American people and he said this. (Videotape, September 30, 2003): PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. (End videotape) MR. RUSSERT: Now, one week later, Scott McClellan was asked specifically about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby whether they had been involved in disseminating information about Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and this is what Mr. McClellan said. (Videotape, October 7, 2003): MR. SCOTT McCLELLAN: They are good individuals. They're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you. And that's exactly what I did. (End videotape) MR. RUSSERT: "They were not involved." Senator Allen, is that statement still operative? SEN. ALLEN: I don't know. I wasn't in any of the grand jury investigations, and I think that from what you're saying and most indications is the prosecutor, special prosecutor Fitzgerald, will be coming out with whatever the resolution of those grand jury investigations are. So I don't know what the testimony is, what the evidence is, and I guess we'll find out sometime this week. MR. RUSSERT: Based what's in the public domain from Judith Miller when she wrote in The New York Times and others have said publicly, do you believe that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby discussed Joseph Wilson's trip and his wife's employment at the CIA? SEN. ALLEN: I don't know. I know that's rare from a politician. I don't know. I've been more focused on Harriet Miers' qualifications and reducing energy prices and others, and I'll leave this to the prosecution and by the way, again, due process rather than a lot of speculation on what actually is known or not said in testimony in a very closed grand jury proceeding. MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hutchison, you think those comments from the White House are credible? SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury. I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge. MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison."

To: paret who wrote (708450)	10/23/2005 1:22:18 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 769667

Senators clash over "Bridge to Nowhere" By The Washington Post and The Associated Press WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress say they are serious about cutting spending, but they learned yesterday to keep their hands off the "Bridge to Nowhere." Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a staunch opponent of pork-barrel spending, tried to block $453 million for two Alaska bridges that had been tucked into the recent highway spending bill. Coburn wanted to redirect the money to the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, a major thoroughfare that was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was dramatic in his response: "I don't kid people," he roared. "If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state ... I will resign from this body." Coburn's measure, offered as an amendment to the 2006 transportation appropriations bill, failed 82 to 15. Senators also turned down a Stevens counterproposal to hold up spending for all bridges around the country until the Louisiana bridge is funded, by 61-33. Spending-bill debate The showdown occurred during debate over a $141 billion bill to fund transportation, housing, Treasury Department and other programs. The spending bill passed 93-1. Although the Coburn amendment lost, it struck a chord among lawmakers as they face increasing belt-tightening pressure. Katrina and the war in Iraq have created billions in unexpected expenses, and lawmakers would like to trim other programs to offset the cost. But yesterday's debate showed even an obscure budget item has its patrons. One of the Alaska bridges, dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere" by its critics, would connect Ketchikan to an island where there is an airport and about 50 people. It received $223 million in the highway bill that Congress passed during the summer. The second bridge, called "Don Young's Way" in honor of its patron, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, received about $230 million — as a down payment on a cost that could hit $1.5 billion. Coburn had wanted to shift all the money to the I-10 rebuilding project, which is expected to cost $500 million to $600 million. "I believe that we should spend taxpayer dollars where they are most needed," Coburn wrote fellow senators asking for support. But in the tradition-bound Senate, freshman Coburn was taking on an unwritten rule that one senator does not attack projects sought by another. "I've been here now almost 37 years," Stevens said. "This is the first time I have seen any attempt of any senator to treat my state in a way different from any other state." The amendment became a cause célèbre among watchdog and conservative groups, which reported updates on their Web sites throughout the day. The Club for Growth alerted readers early yesterday on its blog: "As of last night, the opposition is putting up a big fight. They sense this amendment, if successful, as establishing a precedent. A precedent where all pork is vulnerable and no lawmaker is safe." "Embarrassment" Later in the day, the Heritage Foundation circulated a paper, "The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment," and noted, "fiscally responsible members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding." Many Alaskans appear to support forfeiting the bridge money for hurricane relief. "This money, a gift from the people of Alaska, will represent more than just material aid; it will be a symbol for our beleaguered democracy," reads a typical letter to the Anchorage Daily News. Young, who made sure his state was one of the top recipients in the highway bill, was asked by an Alaska reporter what he made of the public support for redirecting the bridge money. "They can kiss my ear! That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard," he replied.