Luke_Wilbur

The Iraq Liberation Act October 31, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998 STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON

The heartbreaking losses to Tampa Bay and Oakland took their toll on all of us. One thing I want to point out is the bad referee calls that were made against the Redskins. It almost seems like the games are fixed. Does anyone else think this?

Garden Center/Landscape Firm Distance Oehme Van Sweden & Assoc Inc 202-546-7575 http://www.ovsla.com Johnson's Flower & Garden Centers 4200 Wisconsin Ave NW Washington, DC 202-244-6100 http://www.johnsonsflowers.com Kimberly Marsho 308 Summers Dr Alexandria, VA 703-548-0329 Shimizu Landscape Corp 301-229-9483 9 miles Land Art Design Inc 703-448-9094

When the The Honorable John Patrick "Jack" Murtha, Jr. (born June 17, 1932) speaks American Veterans listen. Congressman Murtha has written an insightful and powerful account of his life of public service and of the significant events in our nation's recent history that he has witnessed. He has been a troubleshooter for presidents, a critic of the brass, but always a friend to the men and women of America's armed forces. Jack Murtha has earned his reputation — a straight-talking, hard-charging, independent leader who goes straight to the front lines. The young Jack volunteered to serve in Vietnam, where he was twice wounded; he received the Bronze Star with Combat "V," two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. In 1966, he was a major in the Marine Corps Reserve. He volunteered to return to active duty and go to Vietnam, where he was made the intelligence officer of the 1st Marine Regiment; he held that job for a year. He has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 1974, representing the Twelth Congressional District of Pennsylvania (map), encompassing most of Southwestern Pennsylvania, including Johnstown. He was the first Vietnam War veteran elected to Congress.

From the White House Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence The Washington Post Implies That The Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) Was Superior To The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Given To Congress. "But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country." (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, "Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument," The Washington Post, 11/12/05) But The PDB Was The Focus Of Intelligence Reform And Was More "Problematic" Than The NIE Given To Congress. The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence In "More Alarmist" And "Less Nuanced" Language. "As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community's biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long periods of time--in the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more widely distributed companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14) The Robb-Silberman Commission Reported That The Intelligence In The PDB Was Not "Markedly Different" Than The Intelligence Given To Congress In The NIE. "It was not that the intelligence was markedly different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14) The Washington Post Implies That There Have Been No Findings On The Use Of Intelligence. "But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: 'Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.'" (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, "Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument," The Washington Post, 11/12/05) But Congressional And Independent Committees Have Repeatedly Reported No Distortion Of Intelligence The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report "Did Not Find Any Evidence" Of Attempts To Influence Analysts To Change Intelligence. "Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285) The Robb-Silberman Commission Finds "No Evidence Of Political Pressure." "These are errors serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 50-51) The British Butler Report Finds "No Evidence" Of Intelligence Distortion. "In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying quali cations. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the in uence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior of cials on the JIC." ("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, Pg. 110)

Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley November 10, 2005

This is a releaseed statement from the Committee To Elect Jonathan Rees ************************************************************* DC is supposed to have the best educated people in the USA and 79% of the adult population in Ward 3 is said to hold a college degree if not an advance one. Is there a degree in common sense or classes in abusive ego management? If so, I think a lot of Washingtonians should sign up. Right now, our city council is heading us back down the road to financial problems with their proposed Baseball stadium deal, National Capitol Medical Center, $1 billion dollar school tax proposal and a new psychiatric center. Let Bud Selig build his own stadium as no other city would give him such a sweat deal as major league baseball has a mega fund that is used to help build stadiums, teams and help out lesser teams be able to afford better players; Let Howard University take over DC General, remodel it and that will cost less than $40,000,000.00 with no subsidies from the government but accept payment via the DC Health Care Alliance as other hospitals do; Let’s first find out where all that money in taxes we paid over the years and was budgeted for the upkeep and maintenance of our schools went before we have to pay for it all a second time; and Let’s seize back part of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital and remodel and extend our hand to our mentally ill who are primarily a good portion of the homeless population who walk our streets hungry, in bad health, not receiving monitored and needed medication that can lead them to becoming healthier and happy citizens. HELPING OUR FELLOW MAN WHO IS LESS FORTUNATE SHOULD BE FIRST AND FOREMOST AND TO ALLOW OTHERS TO MAKE A SMALL FORTUNE OFF THE MISFOURTUNE OF SUCH IS AN ABOMINATION BEFORE THE EYES OF GOD! Didn’t our leaders read our population has gone down again last year? Didn’t they realize that our budget surplus is due to an over burden taxpayer and this is what is scaring away new businesses and residents and causing a never ending exodus of businesses and residents? The press is not jumping on Mayor Williams or the City Council enough before the eyes of the people to point out the advancing dangers all of these programs if enacted/passed will bring upon the shrinking taxpayer base and how it will scare off businesses and people from locating here. Our city council has become a knee jerk reactionary institution and I fail to see an ounce of common sense or long term planning coming from them and the media has if not a moral obligation, at least a vocational one to look harder than they are and report things to the people better than they do.

I am really wondering what is going on the DC Baseball Stadium. Is the District still on schedule?

Blueshark, Please notice in our registration guidelines that everytime you post a commercial message that goes against are guidelines you have agreed to donate $5.00 to our community. This covers the monderators time. Luke

RapmasterJohnny, You have shown no proof of a serious accusation of person's character. Yet you decide to publically humiliate this person on hearsay. You offer a list of names as evidence of the statement being true. I ask you again. You state that you work for the law firm of Arnold and Porter. Is this Correct? This is a statement I received from the law firm. You are stating that a user (B.A.) is signing up multiple DC Message Boards user accounts to give the community the impression that many DC Message Board readers are against DC Ward candidate Jonathan Rees. Is this correct? Is it your opinion that (B.A.) supports Sam Brooks? You are not Jonathan Rees. Is that correct? You have not signed up multiple accounts on DC Message Boards. Is this correct?

rapmasterjohnny, I just spoke with Lou Chibbaro of the Washington Blade. Mr. Chibbaro stated he had no more information than the two articles his organization published on the candidates. The Democratic primary for the Ward 3 seat on the D.C. Council is 10 months away, but backers and opponents of rival candidates Sam Brooks and Jonathan Rees have begun a furious debate on local Internet listserves, with one anonymous Web user attempting to portray Brooks as anti-gay. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2005/11-4/n...lnews/ward3.cfm and District dismisses complaint against Broooks Friday, November 11, 2005 The D.C. Office of Campaign Finance says a preliminary review found no evidence to show Ward 3 Council candidate Sam Brooks falsely listed an address in the ward as his residence and campaign headquarters on a candidate declaration form. http://washblade.com/2005/11-11/news/local...s/libs-1111.cfm Making an accusation on a person's character is quite serious. Show your sources of this truth.

rapmasterjohnny, I want to be clear on your story here. You are stating that you work for the law firm of Arnold and Porter. Is this Correct? You are stating that Bill Adler is signing up multiple DC Message Boards user accounts to give the community the impression that many DC Message Board readers are against DC Ward candidate Jonathan Rees. Is this correct? Is it your opinion that Mr. Adler supports Sam Brooks? You are not Jonathan Rees. Is that correct? You have not signed up multiple accounts on DC Message Boards. Is this correct?

Where can I find this story on the Washington Post? Thanks in advance.

President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror President George W. Bush greets the audience after delivering remarks on the war on terror, Friday, Nov. 11, 2005 at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, Pa. White House photo by Eric Draper

James Jesus Angleton died on May 12, 1987. The posts looks like a fictional conversation between Michael Ladeen and James Angleton. That is why you need to put sources of where you are getting this information. U Figure it out, Where did you get this? This piece of fiction has some truth to it. The Italian newspaper La Repubblica has published an exposé alleging that the nation’s military intelligence agency SISMI provided bogus intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war with the knowledge of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The charge follows a parliamentary report released in July concerning the forged Niger uranium documents at the heart of the CIA leak case. The documents, which purported to show a deal between Baghdad and Niger, may have been produced in the Italian capital, the newspaper claims. The July report named four men as the likely masterminds — Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi, and Francis Brookes — and suggests that the plan was conceived at December 2001 meeting in Rome involving Ledeen and SISMI chief Nicolò Pollari. Find More Information at: http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/112...2005/1111.shtml

WHAT HAS BROWN DONE FOR ME The only thing UPS has done for me is a whole lotta BROWN (you can guess what). Yesturday, I requested pickup of a package with a valued over $2000.00. I requested UPS to use my clients UPS customer number. UPS responded that they would pick it up between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm today. By 4:30 pm today I got worried and contacted UPS Customer Service Center located in High Point, North Carolina. I UPS customer service representative by the name of Tiffini. I asked Tiffini when UPS was planning on picking up the merchandise. Tiffini responded in that UPS would pick up the package in one half hour. If there was a problem to call them back and just give them my name and telephone number. At 5:00 pm UPS had still not picked up the package. I call the UPS Customer Service Center again and spoke with a UPS customer service representative by the name of Eric Everett. I told Eric my name, telephone number, and my problem. Eric could not find my pickup request. I asked Eric to speak with a UPS supervisor. Eric transferred me over to Demont Waller, the UPS Superviser. I repeated my name, telephone number, and problem. Mr. Waller said that they would have to send an instant message to the local UPS Customer Center. I asked Mr. Waller if I could just have the UPS Driver number and speak to him myself. Mr. Waller responded that the UPS Communication system is internal and employees only. Mr. Waller then requested that he would have the local UPS Customer Service representative contact me in 5 to 10 minutes. I told Mr. Waller that would be completely unsatisfactory to me. I would rather him contact the local UPS Customer Service Center and get them to call me. Mr. Waller responded that he would call me back personally in 5 to 10 minutes. At 5:40 Mr. Waller called me back and told me that the local UPS Customer Center representative would call me within 5 to 10 minutes. I asked Mr. Waller who was at fault on this delivery. Mr. Waller stated the UPS Customer Service Center was at fault at not picking up my package. So I waited. At 6:00 pm Pat Thorn, the local UPS Customer Service dispatch representative contacted me. I asked Pat what the problem was? She told me that she did not have my information. I gave her my information and Pat told me that she would call me back in 5 to 10 minutes. At 6:15 Pat Thorn called me back. Pat found the ticket and verified that I had made the UPS request. I asked her when I could expect to get my package picked up. Pat responded that the Driver had another pickup and would be coming to my area soon. I asked Pat who she thought was responsible for this mixup. Pat responded that it was the driver's fault. I asked her if my client would be compensated for this mistake. Pat responded that she did not know if UPS does that and told me to speak to her supervisor, Richard Hall. At 7:00 pm the Mr. Davis, the UPS Driver came to pickup my package. He had my information and apoligised for the confusion. I asked him who was at fault. Mr. Davis replied that the fault was his. I asked him if he knew that I requested that this package be picked up by no later than 5:00 pm? Mr. Davis replied that he was not notified of the time requested. I admired Mr. Davis honesty. He even spoke with pride how UPS cares for its customers and how this would not happen again. I wished him good night. I hope UPS learns from this message and does not fault the driver for this major Brown up! Mr. Davis was the only one that actually took responsibility. It was apparent that it was not his. UPS did not recognize the importance of this delivery and did not give Mr. Davis the message. Another thing UPS could learn is that Fedex allows you to speak with their drivers in emergency situations. USPS allows you to speak to their drivers in emergency situations. That is not the case with the Big BROWN. I said my peace.

In six states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey and Washington), congressional redistricting is performed by an independent, bipartisan commission. In the remaining states, the state legislature has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, subject to approval by the state governor. Various states also have laws or constitutions mandating that municipal governments do this as well. You may ask yourself, “Why does neither party want to give up control of redistricting?” In most states, incumbent legislators draw the boundaries of their own districts and that of the Congressional districts. The party in power, does two things, they draw districts that favor their party winning the majority of seats, and they draw districts that protect incumbents from any challengers, creating as many “safe” districts as possible. This process has resulted in a surprisingly low number of competitive races around the country. The losers in this battle are democracy and the voters. Most voters do not live in districts where they can unseat an incumbent if they don’t like him or her because the district is stacked against them. Voters can’t hold their elected members accountable and they don’t have the real or perceived power of making a difference. In 2008, there will be more referenda regarding election reform on ballots across the country, and we need to persuade people of both parties that this is not a partisan issue, but a democracy issue. The people win if democracy works.

Joe, The problem is that currently the Able Danger members who know all about the attack on the USS Cole have been placed under gag-orders and are not allowed to speak to any Senate Committees or the media.

Let's hope it stays this way. There are alot of volunteers working to keep these boards clean. Thank you for helping as well Human.

Following is the full text of the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby With approval ratings at 35% I think it time for Rove to quietly leave and the President get some fresh new talent to lead this country. Let's move on.

So JT? Who do you want to represent Ward 3?

Here is the current list of candidates for Election year 2006 and a Declaration of Candidacy for in Adobe Acrobat file format. As you can see Jonathan Rees is listed Sam Brooks is not. DCpages_List_of_Candidates.pdf

I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, will make his first appearance in court today since being indicted last week by a grand jury investigating who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent in retaliation for her husband's criticism of the Iraq war. 1:2005-cr-00394-RBW USA vs LIBBY Judge Walton 11/03/2005 10:30AM Courtroom 5 Arraignment Libby is expected to plead not guilty.

November 2, 2005 White House Press Briefing. Scott McClellan is asked about how Karl Rove is performing and the Vice President's involvement in the leak. ********************************* Q Scott, do you think that Karl Rove can adequately carry out his White House duties with the cloud of investigation hanging -- MR. McCLELLAN: He is. Q -- over him? MR. McCLELLAN: He is. Q But it must be somewhat of a distraction -- it doesn't seem like a distraction that's going to go away any time soon? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, if you're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation, I'm just not going to do that. If you have questions that you need to direct to someone's personal attorneys, you're welcome to do that. But we're not going to be talking about it unless we're directed by the Special Counsel or in consultation with the White House Counsel's Office. Q During this period has he ever offered to resign? MR. McCLELLAN: Karl Rove continues to do his duties. He is Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the President. Go ahead. Q Given all the tantalizing questions that were left in the wake of the Special Prosecutor's news conference, et cetera, about Vice President Cheney, does the White House feel that the Vice President should, or does the White House plan to have the Vice President explain his role in all of this any time soon? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've already answered that question. I answered that question on Friday. Just to step back and again reiterate what I said, this is an ongoing investigation and a continuing legal proceeding. And while that matter is ongoing, we are not going to be talking further about it unless directed to do so by the special counsel or in consultation with the White House's Counsel's Office. Q But what about those who believe that taking that position -- in taking that position, you shirk -- "you" being the White House in general -- shirk your responsibility to the public accountability? MR. McCLELLAN: We have a responsibility to make sure that the investigation goes forward and comes to a successful conclusion, hopefully, and that the legal proceeding moves forward in a way that the individual can receive a fair and impartial hearing. Q But do you not also have a responsibility to keep the people who are your constituents, the people of the United States informed? MR. McCLELLAN: We have a responsibility to continue to cooperate with the special counsel, and that's what we're doing. And we believe the best way to do that is not to get into commenting on it from here, because we could prejudice the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. Now, I fully understand that you all are looking for more information and want to get ahead of this matter, but we cannot from our position. We need to do our part to cooperate with the special counsel. That's what we -- Q Don't you end up with a credibility problem -- MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. That's what we've done, and that's what we will continue to do. Q But don't you end up -- don't you end up with a credibility problem? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've already addressed that issue. Q Well, can you address it again? Again, the unanswered question -- MR. McCLELLAN: What's the question? Q Unanswered questions about Vice President Cheney. This is the man who -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we hope people aren't trying to politicize an ongoing investigation. People need to let the investigation continue. Some might try to politicize the investigation, and that's their business. But what we're going to do is not comment on it further from this podium in order to help the investigation move forward and to allow for there to be a fair and impartial hearing. Q But do you feel that it is necessarily politicizing an -- politicizing an investigation to seek -- seek clarification about the actions of the top levels of this White House? MR. McCLELLAN: I've already indicated, one, that we'll be glad to talk more about the matter once it's come to a conclusion

November 2, 2005 White House Press Briefing on Judge Alito's upcoming Supreme Court Nomination ******************************************** Q Let me get -- on one other -- on one other topic, on the Alito nomination. There are conservatives who are -- who relish now the ideological battle that appears to be ahead. And I wonder if you can articulate from the President's perspective the importance of that ideological battle, because there is the likelihood with Judge Alito on the Court that there would be an ideological shift on the Court -- MR. McCLELLAN: I don't see any reason why there should be, if you look back at past precedent and past confirmation hearings. All you have to do is go back and look at the most recent confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg and Supreme Court Justice Breyer were people that represented the judicial philosophy of the President that nominated them to the bench. Yet, they had civil and dignified hearings; they were well qualified, they were highly respected and they were confirmed. Judge Roberts was -- or Chief Justice Roberts, I should say now -- Chief Justice Roberts was someone who had a civil and dignified confirmation process -- in large part, at least it was civil and dignified. So you bring up a question about potential ideological battle or fight, that's up to members of the United States Senate whether or not that would happen. We certainly hope it won't be the case. This is an individual, Judge Alito, who has been unanimously confirmed to the court previously. He was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate back in 1990, to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Q Scott, you repeatedly say that he was confirmed unanimously -- that was 15 years ago, before 15 years of decisions that have allowed people to know more of what he thinks. And even Republican senators have said that this is a man who will spark an apocalyptic showdown in the Senate, that it's going to be a battle. So by pretending that this should be all fine and good you're ignoring the reality of what even members of the Senate of your own party have said -- that it's going to be a tough fight. Does the President feel any obligation or any sense of concern that he's contributed to the atmosphere of divisiveness here in Washington? MR. McCLELLAN: I think that that's an absolutely wrong way to characterize things, because it ignores history. You're ignoring history and you're ignoring recent history. As I pointed out -- remember, Justice Ginsburg replaced Justice White. Now, they were largely perceived as a conservative justice being replaced by a more liberal justice. So if you look at that, the standard has always been based on qualifications and experience. And that's what it should be in this case. Now, some people may want to change that standard. And we certainly hope that's not the case, but you have heard from people who know Judge Alito that he is someone who is highly respected -- both by Democrats and Republicans -- who know him. He is someone who has shown that he is extremely well-qualified to serve on our nation's court. There's no question about his qualifications and experience. And then you go and look at judicial temperament. He is someone that, if you look at the totality of his record, has shown that he is committed to strictly interpreting our Constitution and our laws and not trying to make laws from the bench. He is committed to respect for the rule of law. He is someone who has looked to Supreme Court precedent in making his decisions. So he's someone who is very methodical, carefully looks at the facts, and then applies the law. That's the kind of judge that the American people want on our nation's highest court. And that's why the President nominated him to the bench.