In light of the recent tragic events at the University in Blacksburg,
Virginia, I propose 7 days of official mourning from this point
onward.

In light of the recent tragic events at the University in Blacksburg,
Virginia, I propose 7 days of official mourning from this point
onward.

C U'z all in 7 days time.

HOOROO & GOD BLESS

UNCLE WALLY

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601412.html


Are They Serious?




By Eugene Robinson

Tuesday, April 17, 2007; Page A21

Today's topic is credibility -- specifically, recent claims by certain
high-ranking present, former and perhaps soon-to-be-former Bush
administration officials. The aim is to answer a simple question:
Should we believe these three Bush loyalists if they tell us that rain
falls down instead of up, or should we look out the window to make
sure?

The present official is political czar Karl Rove, long regarded by
friend and foe alike as some kind of cutting-edge genius, who seems to
have the darnedest time figuring out this newfangled e-mail stuff.


Apparently he thought he had it figured out. The congressional
investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has revealed
that Rove and other political staffers at the White House conducted a
good deal of business using private e-mail addresses-- and laptop
computers -- provided by the Republican National Committee.

This was supposed to have been a way to avoid using government
equipment to conduct partisan political business. But the White House
now acknowledges that official business may have been done through
this parallel system.

By law, official White House communications are supposed to be
preserved. But the administration says that many of the RNC e-mails
have somehow been lost-- and also that millions of e-mails seem to
have vanished from the official White House system, although they
might have been captured on backup tapes.

We're supposed to believe that Karl Rove doesn't bother to keep track
of his electronic correspondence.

On to the former official: World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, who
until 2005 was deputy secretary of defense and a chief architect of
the calamitous Iraq war. Not that Wolfowitz had much credibility left,
after predicting before the war that Iraqis would greet U.S. troops as
"liberators" and that the cost of the war would be mostly defrayed by
Iraq's oil revenue.

Now we learn that when he took over at the World Bank, Wolfowitz
personally dictated the terms of an agreement under which his
girlfriend -- Shaha Riza, a longtime World Bank employee -- would be
detailed temporarily to the State Department and receive generous pay
raises. By the end of Wolfowitz's five-year term, Riza will be making
$244,960 a year. That's considerably more than the salary of her
nominal boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- and Rice has to
pay income taxes, whereas Riza and other World Bank employees do not.

Ironically, Wolfowitz has railed against corruption as the scourge of
many developing countries, making World Bank aid contingent on
transparency and accountability. Yet Wolfowitz first gave the
impression that he recused himself from involvement in the Riza deal
when, in fact, he was right in the middle of it.

We're supposed to believe that for a central bank official in, say,
Nigeria to arrange a sweetheart employment deal for his girlfriend
would be corrupt, but for Wolfowitz to do so is perfectly legitimate.

Finally, the perhaps soon-to-be-former official: Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, who is certain that nothing improper happened in the
firing of the U.S. attorneys but seems terribly confused about what
role he might have played in the whole affair. Or might not have
played. Or whatever.

The question at the heart of the affair is whether the eight federal
prosecutors were fired for reasons of politics rather than of justice.
Gonzales maintains that politics had nothing to do with the firings.
But if you take his version of events at face value, Gonzales doesn't
actually seem to know just why the prosecutors were canned.

At first, he said he had nothing to do with the whole thing. Then he
acknowledged that he did -- after it was disclosed that he attended a
meeting on the firings, held in his own office. Now he says that, yes,
he was given updates on the situation, and, yes, he did approve the
"final recommendations" of his aides to fire the U.S. attorneys. But
somehow, in his mind, this doesn't add up to material participation.

Gonzales had an op-ed Sunday in The Post that included this positively
breathtaking claim: The attorney general of the United States writes
that "to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or
should not be asked to resign."

To his knowledge? What on earth does that mean? Is Gonzales in the
habit of making decisions without his own knowledge? Does he have
multiple-personality issues?

Rove, Wolfowitz and Gonzales are making the last-ditch argument of a
cheating husband caught in flagrante: Who are you going to believe, me
or your lying eyes?

====================================

In light of the recent tragic events at the University in Blacksburg,
Virginia, I propose 7 days of official mourning from this point
onward.