Will There Ever Be Accountability For The CIA? Don't Be Silly

The redacted, but still horrifying, Torture Report that the Senate Intelligence Committee released Tuesday, isn't the same as the stunning revelations that Senator Mark Udall made on the Senate floor yesterday. The disclosure of portions of an internal CIA review, the so-called Panetta Review, by Udall was absolutely riveting-- and stunning. The review backs up the Senate report and puts to the lie all the Cheney, Yoo, Hayden apologist palaver dominating corporate media since the release Tuesday. This is the document-- which Udall called a "smoking gun"-- the CIA was trying to steal when it illegally hacked into Senate computers in January.

The CIA has insisted the Panetta Review stay secret, since it contradicts all the blatant, calculated lies propagated and systematically spread by the John Brennan and the other avatars of the Surveillance State. What disturbs these people most is that the Panetta Review clearly shows that the CIA and Brennan consistently and consciously lied to Congress, the president, and the public on the efficacy of its coercive techniques and it identifies dozens of documents based on these lies that were used to justify torture. Timelines make it clear that the use of torture wasn't useful in helping the CIA acquire any actionable information and it shows that the CIA was torturing people willy-nilly, including innocent people with no information whatsoever. "Director Brennan and the CIA today," intoned Udall, "are continuing to willfully provide inaccurate information and misrepresent the efficacy of torture. In other words, the CIA is lying." He reiterated his demand that Brennan resign or be fired.

To date, there has been no accountability for the CIA’s actions or for Director Brennan’s failure of leadership. Despite the facts presented, the president has expressed his “full confidence” in Director Brennan, and demonstrated that trust by making no effort at all to rein him in. The president stated that it wasn’t “appropriate” for him to wade into the issues between the Committee and the CIA.

The White House has not led on this issue in the manner we expected when we heard the president’s campaign speeches in 2008 and read the executive order he issued in January 2009. To CIA employees in April 2009, President Obama said, “What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and ideals even when it’s hard-- not just when it’s easy; even when we are afraid and under threat-- not just when it’s expedient to do so. That’s what makes us different.”

This tough, principled talk set an important tone for the beginning of his presidency. However, fast forward to this year, after so much has come to light about the CIA’s barbaric programs, and President Obama’s response was that we “crossed a line” as a nation, and that, quote, “hopefully, we don’t do it again in the future.”

That’s not good enough. We need to be better than that. There can be no cover-up. There can be no excuses. If there is no moral leadership from the White House helping the public understand that the CIA’s torture program wasn’t necessary and didn’t save lives or disrupt terrorist plots, then what’s to stop the next White House and CIA Director from supporting torture?

To students of history this should all sound very, very familiar-- nauseatingly so. In his new book, The Invisible Bridge, Rick Perlstein wrote extensively about both the Church Committee in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House delving into the same kind of CIA malfeasance 40 years ago. Does this sound vaguely familiar? It's what Church appended to his committee's report and was basically most of what the media covered about that report:

"The committee does not believe that the acts which it has examined represent the real American character... They do not reflect the ideals which have given the people of this country and of the world hope for a better, fuller, fairer life. We regard the assassination plots as aberrations." (He did not note that the "aberrations" spanned two decades and spanned four presidential administrations.) "The United States," he continued, "must not adopt the tactics of the enemy." He concluded, "Despite our distaste for what we have seen, we have great faith in this country. The story is sad, but this country has the strength to hear this story and to learn from it. We must remain a people who confront our mistakes and resolve not to repeat them. If we do not, we will decline, but if we do, our future will be worthy of the best of our past."

There was no accountability and America ignored-- or discredited-- the revelations rather than confronting them. The CIA denied everything and, according to Walter Mondale (D-MN), used a system "clearly designed for fog-- to hide responsibility and prevent anyone from ever being called to account." Today the criminals don't even bother to hide. Cheney and his crew are front and center, still lying, still strutting around proud of their work... still not called to account.

Have You Ever Done Anything To Stop Our Government From Torturing People? You Can

You may have noticed that we're not big on asking DWT readers to sign petitions. Groups like the DCCC ruined them just the way they ruined crowd-sourcing e-mails. They always use they as a means to get people to give over their contact information so that they can be preyed upon by people looking for contributions. Recently, though, we did urge people to sign a petition to keep Nancy Pelosi from appointing Wall Street's Jim Himes chairman of the DCCC. It appears to have worked. So let's try another! This one is a wide coalition effort that was organized by our friends at Daily Kos and the goal is to get outgoing Colorado Senator Mark Udall to officially expose the CIA's absolutely illegal use of torture, especially in the light of the breakdown in negotiations over releasing the report voluntarily. The Administration insists on redacting too much information, gratuitously. This is the petition:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's "torture report" is expected to detail shocking abuse of prisoners at the hands of the CIA during the Bush administration, and even possible CIA lying to Congress.

But seven months after the Senate Intelligence Committee voted overwhelmingly to release the report to the American people, the White House is stonewalling Congress and demanding "redactions"--blacked-out sections and information-- before making its contents public.

But there's a way around that-- and before the end of the year, we have a rare chance to make it happen.

Members of Congress have an absolute right to free speech, and a member could enter the report into the Congressional Record in its entirety-- just as the Pentagon Papers were in 1971-- without fear of prosecution.

That's exactly what transparency advocates are calling on outgoing, staunchly anti-torture and pro-transparency Sen. Mark Udall to do.

Sign the petition to Sen. Mark Udall: If you enter the torture report into the Congressional Record, we'll have your back.

Our Message to Sen. Mark Udall:

Before leaving office, please submit the Senate Intelligence Committee's torture report to the Congressional Record. We know that you are considering undertaking this heroic and courageous act, and we and countless others will support you if you choose to do so.

We will deliver a copy of this petition and a list of signers to Sen. Mark Udall, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein and President Obama to make sure our message is heard.

Blue America
CREDO
Daily Kos
Demand Progress
Digby's Hullabaloo
Fight for the Future
Just Foreign Policy
The Nation
RH Reality Check
RootsAction.org
USaction
Win Without War

You can sign it here. Because we really don't ever want more of this crap:

And this is the letter Blue America is sending out to all our members in the morning:

There have a been many dark days in America during the past decade but the revelation that the government had authorized the torture of prisoners has to be one of the darkest. It took a lot of painstaking journalism to uncover what we know even as the government did everything in its power to cover up the details, going so far as to destroy evidence and immunize the perpetrators from prosecution.

Nonetheless, the Senate Intelligence Committee went to great lengths to compile a 6,000 page report on this ugly chapter in our history. It was approved for release by a majority of the committee many months ago but the White House insisted on a further review and approval process even going so far as to insist that pseudonyms be redacted. They are still dragging their feet.  If they have their way the report will be issued with every word blacked out except  "the" and "end." As of yesterday, the outlook for its release any time soon looked bleak.

The Senate is going to lose one of its foremost civil libertarians at the end of this congress. Senator Mark Udall, who lost his seat  in the midterm election, has been among the few in congress who performed his oversight duties as a member of the Intelligence Committee with independence and integrity and he will be missed.

But he could do one last act of conscience before he goes: as a sitting Senator, he can place the Torture Report into the congressional record as former Senator Mike Gravel did back in 1971 with the Pentagon Papers.

Udall himself has said he is considering it: Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who was defeated in the midterm elections, has threatened to read the unredacted report into the Congressional Record on the Senate floor, a rare and provocative move that is nevertheless protected by the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause.

"I'm not going to accept the release of any version of the executive summary that doesn't get out the truth of this program," Udall told the Denver Post last week.

"Not only do we have to shed light on this dark chapter of our nation's history, but we've got to make sure future administrations don't repeat the grave mistakes."

We are hoping that Senator Udall will cap his Senate career with this act patriotism and we have joined with several other groups to petition him to do it. If you would like to sign on to this request along with us, you can click here.

This isn't an easy thing to ask of any Senator. But torture isn't just another issue. It goes to the very heart of who we are as a country. Senator Udall can help this nation face up to what happened and let the government know that it must never, ever, happen again.

Thank you for all you do to make this world a better place.

Is The CIA Stealing The Colorado Senate Race?

No one can understand how such a weak sad sack candidate like Cory Gardner can be beating one of the Senate's true civil liberties champions. Colorado voters (and non-voters) are probably not seeing that Mark Udall is one of the only bastions left in the entire Congress standing in the way of a profound CIA takeover of the entire government. I know, I know... it sounds paranoid. That's how the CIA want it to sound. But if you don't think the CIA is willing and capable to move against Udall in Colorado, you don't know anything about the history of the CIA. This is one of the most venal-- and anti-democracy-- institutions to ever rise to power anywhere. The KGB, the Gestapo, the Mossad and Shin Bet, Pakistan's ISI, China's Ministry of State Security, and Egypt's General Intelligence Service don't have anything on the CIA.

The CIA assassinated several heads of state, worked with the Mafia, spied on American politicians, ran vicious campaigns against domestic groups from Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Urban League to anti-war groups and even experimented on innocent Americans with drugs, killing at least one. You think they wouldn't do everything in their power to replace a man like Udall with a worm like Gardner?

Yesterday, The Hill wondered aloud why the tech industry wasted so much money on 100% safe corporate whore Cory Booker while nearly ignoring Udall's race.

Critics of government surveillance say the tech industry made a major blunder in its midterm election giving.

While the industry showered cash on Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a candidate in no danger of losing in November, they provided nearly half as much financial backing to Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), one of the fiercest opponents of National Security Agency spying.

With Udall now fighting for his political life, some are questioning why the tech industry didn’t mount an all-hands-on-deck effort to help him.

“I would like to see the tech industry make more noise about this issue of surveillance, because they are losing money every day these programs are allowed to continue,” American Civil Liberties Union Washington office Director Laura Murphy told The Hill in a recent interview.

“If they don’t see fixing this problem as an emergency, I just don’t get it,” she added. “I would’ve thought that the tech industry would’ve been more involved with Udall’s race.”

Silicon Valley has warned that American surveillance programs are costing companies billions of dollars and eroding trust in their brands.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation-- an industry-associated think tank-- has estimated that the U.S. cloud computing industry could lose up to $35 billion over the next few years because of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency. Forrester Research, an advisory firm, pegged the number closer to $180 billion.

“The simplest outcome [of continued American spying] is we’re going to end up breaking the Internet,” Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt warned in a discussion with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in Silicon Valley earlier this month.

“The costs of that are huge.”

Along with Wyden, Udall has been the Senate’s strongest critic of those spying programs. He has pushed for strong rules to prohibit the NSA’s “back door” searches of Americans using a law meant to target foreigners, among other measures.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, Udall is one of the privileged few lawmakers with access to secret details of spy agencies’ operations.

Yet he is in one of the toughest races for the Senate and might lose his seat in just over a week. His opponent, Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) has led by a small margin in every single poll this month.

Tech companies have not been a major force in that race, and it could cost them.

It could cost all of us... a lot.

Colorado Voters Are Making The CIA Domestic Spy Agents Very Happy-- Very, Very Happy

Getting control over congressional oversite was the biggest goal of the CIA and NSA in this election cycle. They’re actively infiltrating CIA agents into Congress itself. On the Democratic side, Steve Israel conspired with them to push forward several CIA candidates, including, among others, Kevin Strouse (PA-08) and Bobby McKenzie (MI-11). They were unable to gain any traction and were eventually abandoned by the DCCC to their own miserable fates. Both are expected to lose badly November 4. But don’t feel badly for the CIA.

The National Surveillance Establishment’s top goal of the election season is to replace their most fearless and relentless critic in the Senate, Mark Udall (D-CO)— to send a message to the rest of Congress that they can be taken out— with a slimy little right-wing worm who has shown a willingness to acquiesce to whatever the CIA and NSA want— so long as he can target women’s rights, equality and working families struggling to get a fair shake.

I bet the CIA would rather see Udall defeated— and will do anything and everything they can to get Cory Gardner in— than even catch Ed Snowden. In fact, let me turn, once again to Michael Gurnow’s book, The Edward Snowden Affair, for some insight into why the CIA is so freaked out about having someone as courageous as Mark Udall in Congress.

Snowden reiterates from his interview with Poitras that there are no technological limitations to what can be gathered and requested. Previewing a forthcoming disclosure, he states, “[T]he intelligence community doesn’t always deal with what you would consider a ‘real’ warrant like a [p]olice department would have to, the ‘warrant’ is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.” Policy, which is subject to administrative whim, is the only restraint, but Snowden declares “policy protection is no protection— policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens and one very weak technical protection— a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the ‘widest allowable aperture,’ and can be stripped out at any time.” Like the NSA’s reminder to its analysts that accidental intercepts are “noth ing to worry about,” Britain’s system of checks and balances for query protocol is equally lax. “For at least GCHQ,” Snowden tells his audience, “the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.” It is worthy to note Menwith Hill is over— seen by a Royal Air Force officer.

Toward the end of the interview, Snowden overtly condemns America’s invasive surveillance policies and practices: “Journalists should ask a specific question: [S]ince these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source?” He assures his audience that regardless of what happens to him or how strict whistleblowing legislation becomes, gray hat leaking will not cease, because “[c]itizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they’ll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it.” He boldly proclaims, “Truth is coming, and it can- not be stopped.”

I wonder if the CIA and NSA agents were laughing when they read that— or just too busy trying to undermine Mark Udall to stop long enough to laugh. The latest poll— released by Quinnipiac yesterday— is bad news for America, bad news for Colorado… good news for the CIA and other agencies that are spying on Americans.

U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican challenger in the Colorado U.S. Senate race, leads U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, the Democratic incumbent 47 - 41 percent among likely voters, with 8 percent for independent candidate Steve Shogan, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Another 4 percent are undecided… Colorado likely voters give Sen. Udall a negative 42 - 49 percent favorability rating, compared to Gardner's positive 47 - 41 percent rating. [Wait! An even more recent poll was released by the more accurate Mark Mellman and it shows Colorado voters coming to their senses and giving Udall a 44-41% lead over Gardner. This is going to be a nail-biter... for ordinary Americans as well as for the spy-masters of the CIA and NSA.]

How Close Is 1984 Today?

When I think back to high school and recall the books I read that have had the most impact on my thinking since then, certainly the dystopian novels 1984 (1949) by George Orwell and Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley ranked high among them. Our world must never turn into the world’s created by Huxley and Orwell. This afternoon we looked at a reason to cast a vote to reelect Colorado Senator Mark Udall based on his role in preventing 1984 encroachment by the CIA and the rest of the U.S. Military-Industrial-Intellegence Complex on our society and our democracy. Will Colorado voters appreciate how important this Udall ad is for them-- and for all of us?



After wrting it, I came across a summary of a Guardian investigation in the homeland of both Brave New World and 1984 that reveals that most telephone carriers automatically give all of their customers’ information to the police.

Most of the U.K.’s big mobile carriers give the police automated access to their customers’ metadata, the Guardian reported on Friday.

British data retention laws, notably the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), ensure that operators must hang onto call records so they can be queried without a warrant by the authorities-- but they don’t say the cops should get direct access. Nonetheless, that seems to be what EE, Vodafone and Three allow, with O2 being the only standout.

The Guardian compared this direct-access program with the Prism scheme in the U.S. Indeed, though Edward Snowden’s revelations have been wide-ranging, the first one to emerge was about the NSA accessing Verizon call records— more of a scandal in the U.S., which doesn’t have U.K.-style data retention laws.

RIPA has recently been implicated as a mechanism for the police to secretly figure out the identity of journalists’ sources. According to a separate Guardian report on Sunday, the government will alter the law so that any requests relating to journalistic sources must be approved by a judge.

As over half a million RIPA requests were made by UK public authorities in 2013 alone, it’s not hard to see why an automated system is preferable for efficiency reasons, though I’d argue that the fact it has to do with customer privacy means the practice is ethically questionable.

One of the things we found out from the Snowden revelations is that the US indeed did share the PRISM spy technology with the U.K. and that the U.K., like the NSA and CIA uses it to illegally spy on its own citizens. In fact, the two countries’ spy establishments work together— much more than anyone ever imagined. In his book, The Edward Snowden Affair, Michael Gurnow paints a frightening picture of how the spy establishments in the U.S. and U.K. trample their own laws to spy on everyone and everything always.

A week after Snowden had gone public and two days after the SCMP [South China Morning Post] went into greater, more incriminating detail about American surveillance in China, Ewen MacAskill led a team of Guardian journalists with “GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians’ communications at G20 summits.” Whereas the SCMP’s exposés only made reference to unseen, unverified directives and forms, The Guardian provided its readers with primary documentation. The article’s sources are a top secret January 20, 1999 briefing paper, various classified documents and confidential PowerPoint slides all provided by Snowden. The report debuted a day before the eight wealthiest countries— all of which were potential targets of the headline spying— were to meet in Ireland at the annual G8 Summit.

Started in 1999, the G20 Summit is the once biannual and now annual aggregation of 19 of the world’s top financial leaders with the European Union (EU) as the final member. They represent two-thirds of the world’s population and 80 percent of its gross product and trading. Its purpose is to discuss and examine international economic policy issues which lie outside the scope and capability of any one particular country or organization to address. Due to the growth of other world nations, in 2009 the G20 replaced the G8— started in 1975— as the main economic forum for wealthy nations.

MacAskill and Co. offer no quarter from the beginning: “Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by The Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using Internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.” GCHQ’s stated eavesdropping agenda was to learn each country’s negotiating position and leverage so Britain could have tactical advantage during the April and September 2009 meetings. However, Snowden’s documents make clear the confiscated user access data, i.e., user names and passwords, was intended to be used to continue spying on various nations’ officials after the summit ended: “[We] were able to extract key logging info, providing creds for delegates, meaning we have sustained intelligence options against them even after [the] conference has finished.” England’s specific targets were its allies South Africa and Turkey. South Africa was a crucial swing vote. With the latter, Britain’s ob- jective was to “establish Turkey’s position on agreements from the April London summit” and its “willingness (or not) to co- operate with the rest of the G20 nations.” The overriding concern was the various countries’ positions and attitudes regarding financial reform after the 2008 global banking meltdown.

British intelligence had already hacked into South Africa’s foreign affairs network in 2005. It had gathered information by “investigating” the country’s telephone lines and compromising diplomats’ user accounts. The mission was successful, because South Africa updated its systems shortly thereafter. GCHQ countered by immediately installing electronic backdoors “to increase reliability.”

Multiple delegates had been led into Internet cafes that had email filtration and keystroke logging software installed on the diners’ computers. For wireless communications, remote relays retrieved the politicians’ cell phone data, which was telecast almost live to 45 stand-by GCHQ analysts. The analysts would make their assessments then “provide timely information to UK ministers.” Keystroke logging is the recording of what is being typed as it is being typed. This permits the viewer to see the content of any document as it appears on the screen as well as login information, including passwords and phrases, as it is being entered. Over 20 new email “selectors” were obtained by GCHQ.

The Guardian highlights that the covert directives originated at the senior level during then-prime minister Gordon Brown’s time in office. Once finalized, orders were issued to various ministers. They were therefore sanctioned by the British government. Like the NSA’s data intercepts within Hong Kong and mainland China, none of the G20 targets were under any suspicion of wrongdoing by GCHQ. Britain legally justified its eavesdropping with the 1994 Intelligence Services Act, which states clandestine foreign intelligence is “in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Island.” Britain had given itself permission to spy if not doing so risked financial loss or inhibited economic growth.

As disclosed in a classified report titled, “Russian Leadership Communications in support of President Dmitry Medvedev at the G20 summit in London— Intercept at Menwith Hill station,” the NSA intercepted and decrypted then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev’s telephone calls as they dispatched through satellite links to Moscow starting the day he arrived at the first summit, April 1. Menwith Hill is an NSA outpost located in Harrogate, North Yorkshire in England. Until 2013, it was believed to be the largest intelligence facility in the world. Menwith Hill occupies 560 acres.


Without having to lend a word to the topic, MacAskill made demonstrably clear the United States was in espionage cahoots with England. As Gellman had reported, the NSA had given Britain PRISM and was in possession of classified GCHQ documents. Like Greenwald, MacAskill left the reader to discover that Menwith Hill had been in operation since 1966, is leased to America and suspiciously staffed with both American and British intelligence agents. As of March 2012, there is a one-to-three mix of British to American Menwith employees: 400 to 1,200. Menwith Hill is so productive it was given the NSA’s “Station of the Year” award in 1991. The obvious question remained: Why wouldn’t Britain be concerned with more powerful attendees’ data, such as its former colony, Australia, or America’s neighbor, Canada? The answer was coming.

Turkey flipped out and today we’re seeing the results in their refusal to cooperate with the West’s strategy against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. “Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, reports Gurnow, “specifically cited the BBC as sustaining and advocating civil unrest in Turkey amid nationwide demonstrations and violent protests.” China and Russia noted the behavior against them as well. Rest assured. Doesn't Ron Paul look young in this clip from the House floor?

The CIA Wouldn't Try To Undermine Mark Udall's Reelection... Would They?

In 2006, Blue America backed Tom Udall, a congressman from New Mexico when he ran for the Senate. He was an excellent congressman and he's been a good, solid, progressive senator. We didn't back his less progressive cousin, Mark Udall, a congressman from Colorado running the same year, also for the Senate. We weren't against him and we hoped he'd been right-wing extremist Bob Schaffer-- which he did, 1,230,994 (53%) to 990,755 (42%). 3 weeks from today, both are up for reelection. Tom doesn't have much of a contest against Republican Allen Weh. It's unlikely Weh will even crack 40%. The most current poll, by YouGov for CBS, shows Udall leading 53-35%. According to ProgressivePunch, the 2013-14 session shows Tom Udall with a spectacular crucial vote score of 94.94, the same score as Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkely.

His cousin Mark hasn't done badly either. His crucial vote score for the 2013-14 session is 80.77, just above Jon Tester (D-MT) and just under Tim Kaine (D-VA), a moderate voting record for a Democrat in a swing state. His polling is much-closer and, although he is running against a bizarre far right lunatic, Cory Gardner, this is a neck and neck race Udall could actually lose. That latest YouGov poll for CBS shows him with 48% to Gardner's 45%. Other polls-- albeit less dependable ones-- have shown Gardner ahead. As of the last FEC filing deadline (June 30), Udall had $5,733,007 cash-on-hand and Gardner had $3,441,574 cash-on-hand. Right-wing groups have thrown $11,392,484 in a relentless broadcast smear campaign against Udall, Rove throwing in another $1,511,685 this week (to bring the Crossroads total to $5,581,832. The Chamber of Commerce put up $3,403,275 for Gardner ($801,183 last week) and the NRA kicked in $2,680,390 while the NRA SuperPAC put in another $469,553. Another Rove front group, the Crossroads SuperPac kicked in over a quarter million so far... and counting. About $35 million has been spent by outside groups in the race so far.

Blue America isn't involved in either race-- not in New Mexico because Tom Udall pretty much has it in the bag and not in Colorado because Mark Udall is a decent moderate and Blue America supports progressives, not moderates. We thought about it though. That's because on one issue we care about a lot Mark has been way ahead of almost any other senator: constitutionally guaranteed privacy. When the CIA and NSA are caught lying and cheating most senators run for cover; in fact, almost all members of Congress run for cover. But not Mark Udall. His responses to the illegal domestic spying scandals have been the best in the entire Senate. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Udall was the first out of the box suggesting CIA Director John Brennan be held accountable for his criminal behavior. Resignation or firing, he said, is a good first step.

"After being briefed on the CIA Inspector General report today, I have no choice but to call for the resignation of CIA Director John Brennan. The CIA unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into Senate Intelligence Committee computers. This grave misconduct not only is illegal, but it violates the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of separation of powers. These offenses, along with other errors in judgment by some at the CIA, demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership, and there must be consequences.

"The CIA needs to acknowledge its wrongdoing and correct the public record in a timely, forthright manner-- and that simply hasn't occurred under John Brennan's leadership. Such an acknowledgment is necessary, whether we're talking about spying on Senate computers or about correcting misleading and inaccurate information about the CIA's detention and interrogation program. An internal CIA accountability board review isn't enough."

If you don't think the CIA and other arms of the National Intelligence State are looking for ways to replace Udall with a compliant, low-grade little twerp like Gardner, you haven't been paying any attention. The CIA will stop at nothing to further its own ends... nothing at all.

Elizabeth Warren is on her way to Colorado to help rally progressives for Udall. "In Colorado," she wrote yesterday, "one poll shows Mark Udall up by three points, and another shows him down by six to extreme conservative Cory Gardner. I'm going to Colorado to remind everyone that this election is about whose side you stand on, and Mark Udall stands with women and families... I'm doing what I can to talk to people about why this election is so important, but it takes a lot of us pulling together." She didn't bring up Udall's battle with the spy agencies as one of the reasons she's going to help. But she knows. I hope someone starts talking about it in Colorado. It's probably an issue that would resonate there in a big way. Even Fox News seems to think Udall's leadership on this is admirable.

Cory Gardner…The Far Right's Very Own Champion Of Free Sex?

Cory Gardner has never tried to sell himself as anything but a hard core right-wing ideologue. His district, CO-04 is the eastern third of the state, most of it the part that wants to secede. It's 91% white and very, very Republican. The R+11 district gave Romney a 210,019 (59%) to 140,855 (39%) victory over Obama-- even while Obama was winning the whole state, 51-46%. As we explained last month, Gardner never had any reason to paint himself as a moderate or even a mainstream Republican. His reputation is hard right. Part of the deal to get him the Republican Senate nomination this year was to give lunatic fringe teabagger Ken Buck the congressional district. The crackpots who live there have no problem with that and the DCCC isn't contesting the seat or backing the local Democrat who's running against Buck.

If Gardner has been known for one thing, it's been his fanaticism when it comes to opposing women's Choice. His ProgressivePunch lifetime vote score on abortion is ZERO and his ProgressivePunch lifetime vote score on availability of contraception is also ZERO. In the eyes of the fanatic anti-Choice fringe, you don't get any better than two fat zeroes. Well, one thing was better… he was a sponsor of a so-called personhood amendment, the most radical right anti-Choice move short of bombing a clinic or murdering an abortion doctor. Gardner wanted to give fertilized eggs the same rights as people. That even failed in Mississippi! That didn't stop Gardner from co-sponsoring legislation in Congress to make it the law for the entire country.

But now Gardner is running not among a bunch of lunatics in the High Plains who listen to Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh and religionist claptrap all day, but in his first statewide election, in a state that has been trending away from extremists like himself. So he tossed aside the whole Personhood thing, claiming, incongruously, that he never really understood what it meant. Oh, and when the voters voted on Gardner's Personhood Amendment in 2010, it lost 71-29%. Many on the far right see him as a flip-flopper and worse. But worse was yet to come-- for them. See that ad up top? It's the new avatar of free love, Cory Gardner. He's trying to woo the women of Colorado as their champion.

Yesterday, trailing Democrat Mark Udall, Gardner released that bizarre new ad embracing the pill. Will anyone believe it? Will he get tarred as an opportunist? How much damage will it do him on his right flank? The Denevr Post ran the ad-- along with a press release from Udall's campaign:

Congressman Gardner today released a jaw-dropping ad in which he claims he wants to expand access to birth control, despite still supporting a bill to ban it. Gardner is a cosponsor of the Life at Conception Act, the federal Personhood bill that would ban common forms of birth control in addition to outlawing abortion nationwide.

“Congressman Gardner will do anything to hide his backwards agenda from Colorado women,” said Udall for Colorado spokesperson Kristin Lynch. “The undeniable fact is Gardner continues to push radical, anti-woman measures that would ban common forms of birth control. One 30-second ad doesn’t make up for that.”

FactCheck.org, PersonhoodUSA, and Planned Parenthood have all weighed in and confirmed that Gardner’s bill in Congress is the same as the statewide ballot measures that Coloradans twice rejected by overwhelming margins.

Just keep in mind if you're trying to sort this out in your mind and trying to figure out what Cory Gardner really stands for, if his bill were to ever pass, a doctor performing an abortion on a woman who was raped could face a harsher sentence than the rapist. That's the twisted Republican position that has turned Cory Gardner into a pretzel.

Jackbooted Thugs-- Not Just Ferguson But Facebook Too

The erosion of accountability for criminal activities by our elites will lead to the end of democracy… or worse

I'm not the first one to point out that in the last week we've seen what conservatives, tea-tards and libertarians have been warning us about for years: the thuggish jackbooted foot of the overly militarized government on the throat of the citizenry. Except, for the tea-tards and conservatives, it's just fine since the citizenry with the jackboots on their throats are African-Americans. And by "conservatives," I'm not just talking about Republicans. How many Democrats do you hear speaking up against the police brutality and authoritarian excess? Some… but not enough.

So what's overbearing police brutality Ferguson, Missouri got to do with unconstitutional domestic spying by the U.S. government? Do you want your entire online life opened to the world? Looking at pornography and interacting in sexual ways online is still the biggest function on the worldwide web. Imagine that. The NSA had a record of every single thing you've ever said or searched for online. Everything-- and forever. You comfie with that?

In his recent book, The Edward Snowden Affair, Michael Gurnow reminds us that when Cheney made the decision to throw caution to the winds and shred the constitution, he was able to coerce-- sometimes without much coercion at all-- Microsoft (which includes Hotmail and Skype), AOL, Facebook, Apple, YouTube, PalTalk, Yahoo, Google and Dropbox into complete cooperation with the Bush Regime's decision to spy on the entire country.

What is considered of interest to an analyst has mind-numb- ing implications. When a person is cited as a target of suspicion, the NSA starts “contact chaining” at a minimal distance of "two hops." For example, Bob is an American foreign exchange student spending a semester abroad at the University of Oxford in England. He wants feedback on his paper comparing suicide bombers in Iraq to acts of domestic terror in the United States. He sends it to his Harvard advisor for review. The essay includes the keywords "al Qaeda," "White House," "jihad," "bomb," "Iraq," "Koran" and "Obama administration." This throws up a red flag, and the NSA designates Bob as a person of interest. Intelligence will then investigate any- one found in his email account or whom he has “friended” on Facebook. This is the "first hop." The NSA then proceeds to the second hop. It looks into anyone electronically associated with the people now under the radar after the first hop. In other words, Mary has emailed Bob and Susan has "friended" Mary. Even though Bob has never met and does not know Susan, she is now being investigated by the NSA. (Six days after Gellman’s article debuted, NSA Deputy Director John Inglis informed Congress that analysts were permitted three hops.) Scientific studies of social networks show at three hops, roughly half the American population can be permissibly surveilled. For Facebook and Twitter account holders, the likelihood is greatly increased. The average degree of separation between random users is only 4.74 and 3.43 respectively. Statistically, someone utilizing Facebook has an 84 percent chance of being “targeted by association.” A person posting on Twitter runs an 87 percent risk. Before 9/11, the Justice Department had deemed American contact chaining illegal.

Perhaps the only thing more frightening than "friending" a person who "liked" something which a government target also listed as a Facebook hobby, thereby placing an innocent websurfer under federal suspicion, is the NSA can access real-time data, i.e., live surveillance. This means an analyst has the ability to watch people as they casually surf the Internet.

Gellman highlights one of the primary differences between the participating Internet businesses and the NSA-mined telecoms: The Internet firms didn’t have to be ordered to submit their data. They merely acknowledged a "directive" from the attorney general and director of national intelligence in exchange for legal impunity. In the event a developing Internet enterprise refuses to play along, 2008 legislation permits the FISC to make a company "comply."

Suggestive of a gag order being in place, a Google representative speaking on condition of anonymity stated, "From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'backdoor' into our systems, but Google does not have a ‘backdoor’ for the government to access private user data." Gellman specifies that the few congressional members privy to PRISM, such as Wyden and Udall, are also not allowed to express their opinions because they are "bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues."

When a guy like Mark Udall speaks up-- and very publicly-- and says CIA Director John Brennan should be fired, that's a really big deal… even if the corporate media completely ignores it and buries it. Udall: "After being briefed on the CIA Inspector General report today, I have no choice but to call for the resignation of CIA Director John Brennan. The CIA unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into Senate Intelligence Committee computers. This grave misconduct not only is illegal, but it violates the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of separation of powers. These offenses, along with other errors in judgment by some at the CIA, demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership, and there must be consequences. "The CIA needs to acknowledge its wrongdoing and correct the public record in a timely, forthright manner-- and that simply hasn't occurred under John Brennan's leadership. Such an acknowledgment is necessary, whether we're talking about spying on Senate computers or about correcting misleading and inaccurate information about the CIA's detention and interrogation program. An internal CIA accountability board review isn't enough."

Obama Hasn't Fired John Brennan Yet-- Let Alone Had Him Arrested

We've been suggesting that it is past due to disband the CIA for many years. And that includes the NSA (which has illegally intercepted virtually every e-mail ever sent by every American citizen). Most senators don't care who the CIA spies on-- other than… senators. Then they get a little riled up. Yesterday the CIA finally admitted they had indeed hacked into Senate computers to spy on senators. Caught like a rat, John Brennan said... he is sorry.

One senator who actually does care about unconstitutional domestic spying on Americans is Mark Udall (D-CO). He's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he was the first out of the box suggesting Brennan be held accountable. Resignation or firing is a good first step.

"After being briefed on the CIA Inspector General report today, I have no choice but to call for the resignation of CIA Director John Brennan. The CIA unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into Senate Intelligence Committee computers. This grave misconduct not only is illegal, but it violates the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of separation of powers. These offenses, along with other errors in judgment by some at the CIA, demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership, and there must be consequences.

"The CIA needs to acknowledge its wrongdoing and correct the public record in a timely, forthright manner-- and that simply hasn't occurred under John Brennan's leadership. Such an acknowledgment is necessary, whether we're talking about spying on Senate computers or about correcting misleading and inaccurate information about the CIA's detention and interrogation program. An internal CIA accountability board review isn't enough."

You may recall that when senators first accused the CIA of spying on them in March, Brennan just lied right to their faces. It's good at it. "Nothing could be further from the truth," he told Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the committee and a huge backer of the National Security State. NOTHING! "We wouldn’t do that," he continued. Us? How could you even suggest it! My feelings are hurt. "That’s just beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we’d do." Obviously, Obama has to get rid of this clown. He can't be effective working with Congress again.

But there's a far more important reason. If he isn't held accountable-- seriously accountable-- can you imagine what the next Republican CIA director will feel he can get away with? Or, just as bad, Hillary's CIA director? Brennan seriously broke the law. He should seriously pay for it with some serious prison time. By the end of the day, Harry Reid had chimed in with… a stern rebuke, a step in the right direction but he should be following Udall's lead on this.

The CIA Inspector General’s report describes actions by the CIA that are appalling and deeply threatening to our system of checks and balances. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and the CIA’s actions were an attempt to undermine that responsibility.

What is even more disturbing is that the unauthorized CIA actions come in the context of the Senate’s effort to complete a report of the CIA’s interrogation program. The deeply troubling CIA actions show to what lengths some in the CIA are willing to stoop in order to prevent the report’s release and to avoid accountability.

The CIA is comprised of good men and women of integrity who sacrifice a great deal to protect our nation. The actions of a few risk tarnishing the work of many. The CIA’s leadership must take action to address these misdeeds, restore its trust with Congress and ensure that this episode will never, ever be repeated.

Anyone who isn't demanding Brennan be removed has to be looked at with suspicion. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), another member of the Intelligence Committee, noted yesterday that "I voted to approve John Brennan to lead the CIA, in the hope that he could help rebuild some of the trust between the agency and the Intelligence Committee. But that trust has only deteriorated during his tenure. I have lost all confidence in Director Brennan's leadership of the CIA and forthrightness in dealing with the Committee." That's a diplomatic way of telling Obama to get rid of him.

There Are Democrats And Then There Are Democrats... Take Bruce Lunsford For Example

Not all Udalls are equal

Lately I've has a lot of calls from friends of Bruce Lunsford. Some are Democratic Party insiders and some are genuine Kentucky grassroots activists. Generally they go like this: "Yeah, yeah, Lunsford is a nightmare and will vote like a Republican half the time, but the idea of getting rid of Mitch McConnell overshadows any other consideration. And, after all, McConnell votes like a Republican 100% of the time; half the time Lunsford may be with us."

My heart goes out to Kentucky activists who can almost smell McConnell's defeat. I want to smell McConnell's rotting political corpse as well. But Lunsford? First off, "half the time" is very arbitrary. Maybe Lunsford will vote with the Democrats 40% of the time or 60% of the time or, like Tim Johnson (D-SD) 39.57% of the time when it really counts. But, let's assume that Lunsford votes just like arch-conservative Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, an overly generous supposition based on what Lunsford has been all about politically. That means he'll vote with Democrats on most housekeeping and non-controversial bills and with the Republicans on many of the really keys issues that matter most to working families and people concerned about civil liberties and the future of our nation. Better than Mitch McConnell? Unquestionably. But there's more to it than that.

McConnell doesn't subvert progressive values and principles from within the Democratic Party and move it inexorably rightward. Ben Nelson does. Zell Miller and Lieberman used to. Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Tim Johnson, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper, Ken Salazar, Max Baucus can usually be counted on to shill for Big Business interests and pull the Democratic caucus rightward away from positions that are family-friendly. That's exactly what Lunsford will do doing.

This morning's CongressDaily has a story by Darren Goode called "Centrists Might Be Moving Party Leaders." Goode buys into the Beltway definitions of "centrists" and fails to see that what the reactionaries he's writing about are actually just pulling Democrats further away from populist and progressive stands. Otherwise, it's a good story-- except that he stains to prove-- with no evidence whatsoever-- that Republican "moderates" (mainstream conservatives) are also moving GOP extremists towards the center. They're not.

House and Senate coalitions of centrists that were formed to work on compromise plans on gas prices were built on growing frustration among the rank and file-- and voters-- over political gamesmanship employed by party leaders.

This might be leading to more access for these members to party leaders in the debate. House Speaker Pelosi met Tuesday with a group of oil-patch Democrats who recently voted against her "use-it-or-lose-it" plan targeting a lack of production on existing federal areas open for oil and gas production.

She met later in the day with a partially overlapping batch of Blue Dog Coalition members on how they could support a revamped use-it-or-lose-it package heading to the floor Thursday.

"I've seen a shift in leadership," said Texas Rep. Gene Green, who heads an informal batch of oil-patch Democrats and was among those who met with Pelosi Tuesday. "And I'd like to see even more of a shift."

So what is Goode extolling? That a bunch of bought off Democrats whose careers are financed by Big Oil can force Pelosi to bend to the will of Republican grandees? The use-it-or-lose-it bill, sponsored by Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) was defeated when virtually all Republicans were joined by the treacherous, bribed Blue Dogs.

I can certainly understand local voters casting their ballots against the worst servants of the Military Industrial Complex and against the authors of so much of the economic misfortune that has befallen our country. But, remember, it isn't just Republicans who fall into those categories. The attack on Iraq was a bipartisan affair-- even if a majority of House Democrats-- voted against it (while a majority of Senate Democrats voted for it). Democrats control both houses of Congress and the war rages on. Why? Because there are enough Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the DLC and the Blue Dogs basically-- who consistently vote with the GOP on substantive matters. Bush's contemptible and neo-fascist FISA bill-- giving him the right to spy on American citizens-- read our e-mails, listen to our calls-- without any kind of supervision or court order, would never have been given any serious consideration, let alone passed into law, without the active connivance of Democratic leaders who have been paid off-- gigantically-- by the Telecom industry. Of course the main target of the telecoms giants' bribes was John McCain ($365,955) but, not counting presidential candidates, the biggest telecom bribe takers were Senator jay Rockefeller (D-WV- $51,500), who led the battle in the Senate for retroactive immunity, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel ($49,950), who was able to bully enough Democrats-- reminiscent of his actions during the NAFTA debate-- to vote with the Republicans to pass the single worst piece of legislation to come out of this disgraceful Congress. Do we want more of this kind of "bipartisanship?" Or do we want brave and courageous independent-minded leaders who will stand up for American values and ideals-- men and women like Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, Carol Shea-Porter, Tom Udall, Tom Allen...?

If you have all the money in the world to donate to candidates, I guess it makes sense to donate to reactionaries like Lunsford with the rationale that he's better than McConnell. But that would be premised on having maxed out to real Democrats first-- and their are hundreds of them. Or let's put it another way. The Udall cousins are both in the House and each is running against an extreme right wing lunatic for the Senate, Tom Udall in New Mexico and Mark Udall in Colorado. I want to see both the crazy neo-fascist Republicans lose. But Tom voted against FISA and has taken up the cause of defending constitutional government. Mark voted with the Republicans and has taken up the cause of abandoning principles to get elected. Who you think deserves support more?

History? Get me rewrite! Does it count for anything that bizwhores like Colorado's Bob "Man of Much Wind" Schaffer have developed a bit of shame?

We bring you another touching vignette from the impossibly overworked (election year, you know) DWT You Can't Make This Stuff Up Department.

Over at ProgressNowAction, Alan Franklin is asking whether Bob Schaffer, the Republican candidate for the Senate seat being vacated by Colorado superslug Wayne Allard "is lying on his bio again?" [Note: For a stirring note about our Wayne, one that's all but guaranteed to put a lump in your throat, or somewhere, see below.]

It seems that the bio of our Bob posted on the website of the employer he left on December 31 to make his Senate run, CHx Capital, LLC / Aspect Energy, LLC, has mysteriously changed. "A few months ago," Alan explains, "we took a routine screenshot of Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's biography web page at his former employer's site, Aspect Energy. Here's what it said."

Bob Schaffer

CHx Capital - Vice President Emeritus

Bob Schaffer is Vice President for business development at CHx Capital, LLC where he is involved with a variety of energy, mining and education projects. Additionally, Bob is actively involved in international business development activities for Aspect Energy, including sourcing and development of international oil and gas exploration opportunities for the Company. In 2007, Bob Schaffer provided notice to Aspect and CHx of his intention to run for the United States Senate. Bob Schaffer resigned his position with CHx Capital, LLC / Aspect Energy, LLC effective December 21, 2007. We wish him the best of luck and offer him our congratulations for his contributions to energy and wind development efforts.

"Sounds about right, doesn't it?" Alan says. "I mean he doesn't come right out and say 'he led Aspect's delegation to Iraq in search of oil development contracts,' but it doesn't seem at first glance like he's hiding anything. Unless you read the bio they replaced it with a few weeks ago:"

Bob Schaffer

CHx Capital - Vice-president Emeritus

Bob Schaffer previously acted as Vice-President for business development at CHx Capital, LLC. Bob was involved in a variety of wind power investments, international energy opportunities, and education projects. Bob worked to improve the US Wind Industry. Specifically, he worked to increase entrepreneurial opportunities for small business owners by ensuring that wind-specific tax credits could be utilized indirectly by wind developers classified as small business owners. Bob helped educate Congress about the benefits of wind power including its positive impact on the environment, job creation, and its importance to making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil. In 2007, Bob Schaffer provided notice to Aspect and CHx of his intention to run for the United States Senate. Bob Schaffer resigned his position with CHx Capital, LLC / Aspect Energy, LLC effective December 31, 2007. We wish him the best of luck and offer him our congratulations for his contributions to energy and wind development efforts.

Um, uh, say what? Our Bob is suddenly the wind-energy guy?

Here's Alan's take:

Amazing how quickly you can go from Aspect Energy's point man for "sourcing and development of international oil and gas exploration opportunities" to helping "educate Congress about the benefits of wind power including its positive impact on the environment, job creation, and its importance to making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil," don't you think? Were precautions against whiplash necessary?

From everything we hear, the Schaffer campaign appears to be a carnvial of banana peels, with the candidate slipping and sliding hopelessly. All the more reason to get behind the strong Democratic Senate candidate, Mark Udall.

(In case you have as much trouble as I do keeping track of all those Udalls, Colorado's Rep. Mark U is the son of the late 15-term Arizona Rep. Mo Udall, one of the most beloved figures in modern American politics. Mark's cousin Rep. Tom U, currently running for the New Mexico Senate seat being vacated--and not a moment too soon--by sad old Pete Domenici, is the son of another highly regarded public servant, Mo's older brother Stewart U, who served as secretary of the interior for the full eight years of the presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.)


NOW FOR THAT WORD ABOUT WAYNE ALLARD, MAN OF PRINCIPLE

To call retiring Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard "undistinguished" would be an understatement, or maybe an overstatement, considering how little there is to talk about. But just today our Wayne sounded a sentimental note. Howie of course has kept us up to date on the rousing triumph today of the incorporation of Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's long-overdue revamping of the GI Bill -- providing benefits to U.S. military veterans which most Americans probably thought they were already getting -- into the Iraq military appropriations bill.

The final 75-22 tally makes it sound like the bill was a shoo-in, when it was anything but. As we all know, thanks to the Senate "leadership" of Doctorbill "I'm a Whore for For-Profit Healthcare" Frist and Mitch "Show Me the Money" McConnell, two of the lowest life forms to slither the planet, you now need 60 votes to do pretty much anything in the Senate, and while it was thought that the 60 votes would be there for the Webb initiative, that assumed no slippage among the Blue Dog Democrats or among the hardy band of Republicans trying their hand at, for once, not being Bush-regime rubber stamps--on a vote that would have had them voting squarely against "supporting our troops."

As Howie already reported, once it became clear that the 60 votes were there, something of a stampede took place, among senators who--all but after the fact--decided that it would be better to go on record as supporting rather than spitting on the troops. I'm not sure that we have a definitive rendering of which Republican "yea" votes were which, but in general the Republican votes for the Webb initiative fell into two groups: incumbents facing reelection in this dangerous-for-Republicans election year, and Republicans who are retiring.

About this latter group, our colleague Marcy Wheeler observed just as the vote tallies were being made known, that all the Republican retirees save one voted the sensible way, suggesting that impending retirement had had a salutary effect on the clarity of their moral judgment.

And the exception? You got it: Wayne Allard! Whatta guy! One who doesn't let his sense of rightness be affected by petty electoral considerations. Not our Wayne. As a pol, a useless void of a human being, not just when the klieg lights are shining on him, but who to the bitter end can look at our military veterans and the sacrifices they make for their country and say to them:

"Screw you!"

Yessir, meet Wayne Allard, Man of Principle.

#

MARK UDALL STANDS UP TO THE HILLARY-McCAIN GAS TAX HOLIDAY CYNICSIM

Hillary made a big mistake pissing off Mark Udall

No credible economists are backing Hillary and McCain on their lame brain gas tax summer holiday/vote-buying scheme. Funny that today's NY Times points out that as the Bush Recession increases in intensity and as inflation increases in intensity, and as the price of gas soars, Americans are doing just what Europeans have done about high gas prices: moved to smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. I look forward to the day when I can stop worrying about some cell phone chattering a-hole in a 20 ton SUV barreling down the road and paying no attention to anything around her (or him).

Anyway, I was very impressed when I noticed this morning that middle of the road Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO) took offense at Hillary's Bush-like attack against fellow Democrats yesterday on this matter.

“Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren’t looking for bumper sticker fixes that don’t fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy. We can’t afford more Washington-style pandering while families keep getting squeezed."

It's a damned shame that Hillary has gotten herself bogged down with McCain in this senseless ploy to make Obama-- the one guy willing to stand up and talk straight on this-- look like he's an out-of-touch elitist. I would expect more from her.

As Obama has pointed out, the $25-30 that the average driver will save, isn't worth the damage it will cause to American infrastructure. Speaking in Indiana this morning, he hit back at Clinton's attack against him. "Senator Clinton does have some support for her plan in Congress. After all, the person who first proposed it was John McCain. On this issue, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are reading from the same political playbook.''

Oh, and about Udall... Hillary shouldn't get members of Congress like him pissed off. Not only is he highly favored to win an open Senate seat in November, he's also an uncommitted superdelegate-- or he was uncommitted last time I checked.