Drinking Liberally Cheyenne Chapter Blog

Here's a guy who definitely wants to be known as the "party" guy:

Letter from the office of Mike Enzi-

Dear Nathan:

I appreciate your thoughts on a number of issues, including the Terrorist Surveillance Act, habeus corpus, and the actions of Senator McCain.

As reported, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and several other senators met with federal banking regulators in 1987 regarding an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, a thrift owned by an Arizona developer and constituent, Charles Keating. The United States Senate Ethics Committee initiated an investigation in November 1990 related to the meeting between senators and industry regulators. In the early months of 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found Senator McCain guilty of "poor judgment", but stated that his actions were "not improper, nor attended with gross negligence." Although Senator McCain met with regulators, the committee determined his actions did not interfere with the regulators investigation.

My previous statements regarding Senator McCain's work on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in no way stated that his judgment was unquestionable. However, his experience as a naval aviator and a prisoner of war in Vietnam, affords him greater insight into this particular matter.

I also noted your concerns about the Terrorist Surveillance program. On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, was unconstitutional and must stop immediately. In her decision, Judge Diggs Taylor asserted that the National Security Agency's (NSA) use of wiretapping violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Separation of Powers, and the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Department of Justice has appealed this ruling in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a stay of ruling was granted on October 4, 2006 so that the program can continue until the Court has had the opportunity to agree with or to overturn Judge Diggs Taylor's decision.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 taught us that oceans cannot protect our nation from radical ideologies that want to destroy our way of life. The enemy changed the way they plotted attacks on the United States, and because of that, it was necessary to adapt and change our method of gathering intelligence. Were the Terrorist Surveillance Program non-existent, it is possible that plots and attacks would never be uncovered, let alone stopped. However, there are valid concerns regarding the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the protection of the civil liberties of American citizens. We must not allow the federal government to overstep its boundaries by intruding into the private lives of citizens. This is the delicate balance that we must achieve.

A number of bills were introduced by members of both parties in the Senate concerning the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Debate on the actual legislation was focused in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because I do not serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I did not have the opportunity to debate these bills with my colleagues. On December 9, 2006, the Senate adjourned, which signaled the conclusion of business in the 109th Congress. As that is the case, we did not have the opportunity to finish work on these pieces of legislation. If similar legislation is introduced in the 110th Congress, I will keep your thoughts in mind. I will continue to analyze the various issues in this debate and will support a proper balance of protecting our nation from terrorist attacks and preserving our civil liberties.

I also continually review the federal response to Hurricanes Katrina and agree that there were considerable failures on the local, state and federal level. However when reviewing the devastating destruction of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we cannot underscore the scope of these hurricanes. Hurricane Katrina devastated a 90,000 square-mile area, which is roughly the size of Great Britain. The storm also resulted in the largest displacement of Americans in our nation's history, forcing more than 270,000 Americans to evacuate. Disruption and devastation requires coordination on all levels of the response and recovery efforts. It also underscores the need to have greater access to military resources to assist in this magnitude of a disaster.

Finally, I appreciate your continued thoughts on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366). This is an area where we must continue to agree to disagree. I continue to oppose the use of torture and the United States prohibits the use of torture.

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts and comments. I respect your views, and while we may disagree on these issues, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my position.

I want my constituents to have access to a more complete view of Congress and my activities so I have started a monthly e-newsletter. It is a brief summary of important issues and happenings. I encourage you to sign up on my web page at enzi.senate.gov. You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Sincerely,

Michael Enzi, U.S. Senator

Chairman: Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

Nate- We agree to disagree, the torture has been proven, Enzi was aware of it. Boo!

New Orleans is still a mess, as well as the whole Gulf, but Halliburton and KBR AND MERCENARIES got no bid contracts.

The "oceans" comment is GOP talking points meme, google it and Bush and look at the number of entries.

So folks, either our Senator is ignorant or playing games. You decide.

Mike Enzi represents the worst in government. I don't care if you write in Mickey Mouse, do not waste your time and tax dollars on this snake oil salesman!

So let me get this straight…

The legislative delegation from Wyoming to Washington found the improvements the the CHIP program “over the top” and voted against it. The CHIP program helps insure hundreds if not thousands of children in the state whose parents make to much to qualify for Title 19 funds, but can’t afford regular health insurance.

Oh sure, some of the GOP partyliners jump on the meme “HilaryCare” or “nationalized” health care programs, but here’s the cold hard facts: It’s “WalMart” insurance or “Big Box” insurance if you will. I think Congress might have coined the phrase “scut labor” in the 80’s. You know the drill, employees get paid slightly over minimum wage with minimal health benefits, company makes millions and thanks to relaxed standards at the Dept. of Labor, company can enforce mandatory overtime, reducing number of employees.

Places the responsibility of providing healthcare squarely on the backs of taxpayers. The insiders of the GOP refer to this kind of situation as “bleeding the monster”, the ultimate goal is to bankrupt our government so the rich can get richer. Cut and dried.

Didn’t Cubin work in a dentist’s office? Isn’t she familiar with the constituents in this state who owned small businesses or had to work a couple jobs to feed a family?

Didn’t Barrasso earn his living as a surgeon? Didn’t he spend weeks of his life eating fajitas provided by a pharm reps to hock items to uninsured patients? Surely Barrasso understands the plight of the working family in Wyoming, as long as it never interfered with golf.

And Enzi, well, Enzi’s just Cheney-lite. Fishing with corrupt officials in Alaska to get a chance at Big Energy Campaign bucks, no time to worry about the little people. Hell, he helped remove Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus, along with the 4th and 5th Amendments with his votes. No skin off his wallet.

Boo to Enzi, Barrasso, and Cubin for turning their back on the working people of this state. The whole lot needs to be replaced!

Well, it’s been a little while…

Funny how in five short months, so many things could be exposed about the White House, yet very little has been done to rectify the problem…

Kinda like waiting out a hangover!

So the majority understands we were lied to going into Iraq

And the majority understands the White House has openly defied the law in numerous ways

A tip to the youngsters out there, “Conservative” has been molded into a symbol for “religious nut” or “racist” or “homophobe”, not by the radical left, but by the Republican Party in an attempt to sell some alter-reality form of the “good old days”.

Change is hard, I know. But a tax cut for the uber-rich does not create jobs in Wyoming. Neither does the implementation of laws discouraging labor organization. Coal is probably not the environmentally sound alternative resource to replace petroleum in the United States.

This country is poised for change, ready, begging for change. Not just a change from inept leadership, but a change from hypocrisy, theft, and destruction of the American Dream.

This state is ready for change as well. Enough lip service to an America that once was, time to back it up. Time to pick country over GOP or Democratic allegiance. Do the right thing, get the word out.

To vote for the current Congressional delegation party-liners holding office in the state of Wyoming is a vote against future prosperity, a vote against the future.

We’ve been subjected to mediocrity at best, rubber stamping as regular business.

Remove Cubin. Remove Enzi. It’s a great place to start!

Knocking out the number one champ for worst vice president of all time: Dick Cheney!

Well, well, well. Instead of chinks in the armor, it looks like Cheney is taking the lyrics to Barbara Bush’s favorite singerto heart. That site gives us all the warm fuzzies… Do you think if Marines are sent into Iran , George and Dick will be dancing around to this ?

Anyway, to those of you who are completely oblivious, Dick Cheney is imploding bigtime. Scooter Libby’s trial is making it blatantly obvious Cheney order Scooter to “out” a CIA agent. And whether you think this is treason or not, the White House and Office of the VP have cost taxpayers valuable money for covering up a lie.

Then the Big Dick had his wonderful interview with Blitzer. Clearly, this guy is off his rocker. So, the question for Congress is, with all the unclassified documentation available regarding Cheney’s questionable behavior, what are you waiting for?

Impeach!

It seems that whatever the worst you can imagine about the Bush Administration is, it turns out to be true.

Imagine this: the war in Iraq was not undertaken to acquire the Iraqi oil for American international corporations. It was undertaken to destabilize the international oil market, by making the Iraqi participation in it intermittent and unpredictable.

Ask yourself this: how does price gyration affect the price of oil? Over time, price insecurity drives the price up. There are still fluctuations, but the average is higher.

Ask yourself this: who benefits from oil market instability? Two groups benefit: oil companies, which are able to keep increasing the price of their product, and anyone who knows what's going to happen in advance. That individual can cash in, by investing in oil futures immediately before the price of oil is going to rise, for example. If that anyone is not an individual, but a corporation, there are much more subtle ways to prosper.

The two men at the top of the hierarchy of the Federal government are oil men. The oil business has prospered beyond any rational level of expectation during the last 10 years or so. Always the government sides with the oil companies (until this week, when government subsidies were sharply cut by the House Democrats). Doesn't even matter what the issue is. It's the Republicans and the oil business down the line.

Ask yourself this: how do you destabilize global oil production enough to cause price insecurity on the world market?

Or rather, ask George Bush and Dick Cheney.

By Mike Guyot

In this day and age of massive information available at the touch of a finger, there are certain inherent dangers the public faces.

Like the posting of a public servant’s home address being considered a personal attack , even if it available off a state run website. It’s a public record, after all.

You see, I came across this blog entry while I was doing some research, and it made me laugh out loud. There was this character constantly haranguing posters on a forum I frequent, and this post drew correlations between this obnoxious man, and a representative.

According to the administrator, this information was false. The article also ends in an inflammatory tone, which most definitely is an attack. The post was edited for content regarded as an attack.

The real funny thing about the whole story is the perceived “personal attack” did not change the facts at one time there was a rep. with a potential conflict of interest (not a crime here in Wyo), and the nutty poster was allowed to post months worth of nonsense and hatred. They were erroneously portrayed in the post as being the same person.

This outrage perpetrated upon the forum in question is a prime example of the dangers of the blogs. Personal attacks, like:

Students protesting the war in Berkeley having their names and addresses posted on-line to an audience of quasi-mentally balanced right-wing extremists.

A source for the AP, whose existence was questioned by the same blogger, now under arrest in Iraq.

A call for the death of a Supreme Court Justice (oh, wait. That’s just Ann Coulter.)

A call for the assassination of politicians. (Oops. A conservative radio show host)

Shrill, my a**! Why don’t you Republicans get off the yes-man train and try holding your “heroes” and talking heads to the standards you want everyone else to live by.

Hypocrites to the last. I take my apology back! The article was properly sourced and quoted, Big Admin, you remember that part of Communications Class?

Get used to hearing a difference of opinion from me; I don’t mind pushing back at the Sheep herd conservative mentality so prevalent in this Great State!

Cheney...the very name creates visions of a snarling, angry man. A man who went into office worth 20+ million, and will leave office worth an estimated 180+ million. What kind of return on your investment is that?

Eisenhower predicted this predicament; and he was a republican. He foresaw the danger of the military industrial complex.

Have you had a chance to watch Syriana yet?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061226_robert_scheer_ike_was_right...

inimical
One entry found for inimical.

Main Entry: in•im•i•cal
Pronunciation: i-'ni-mi-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin inimicalis, from Latin inimicus enemy -- more at ENEMY
1 : being adverse often by reason of hostility or malevolence
2 a : having the disposition of an enemy : HOSTILE b : reflecting or indicating hostility : UNFRIENDLY

Robert Scheer: Ike Was Right
Posted on Dec 26, 2006
By Robert Scheer
The public, seeing through the tissue of Bush administration lies told to justify an invasion that never had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 or weapons of mass destruction, now has begun a national questioning: Why are we still in Iraq? The answers posted most widely on the Internet by critics of the war suggest its continuation as a naked imperial grab for the world’s second-largest petroleum source, but that is wrong.
It’s not primarily about the oil; it’s much more about the military-industrial complex, the label employed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower 45 years ago when he warned of the dangers of “a permanent arms industry of vast proportions.”

The Cold War had provided the rationale for the first peacetime creation of a militarized economy. While the former general, Eisenhower, was well aware of the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, he chose in his farewell presidential address to the nation to warn that the war profiteers had an agenda of their own, one that was inimical to the survival of American democracy:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Ponder those words as you consider the predominant presence of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney in the councils of this White House, and how his old company has profiteered more than any other from the disaster that is Iraq. Despite having been found to have overcharged some $60 million to the U.S. military for fuel deliveries, the formerly bankrupt Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in lucrative contracts.

End quote.

Have you had an opportunity to consider that the local hero from Wyoming, Dick Cheney, is an international villain?

Cheney does not care if you live or die, he cares about money and the white people he knows who make the money.

Enzi is Cheney-lite. Enzi has been groomed to take Cheney place. Thomas is to good-hearted and ill. Cubin is cross-eyed and absent. Enzi has the opportunity to become Tricky Dick the III.

An open rebuttal to Senator Mike Enzi:

Sir,

Thank you for your reply. I have a many problems with the logic you have presented in your argument for full support of illegal spying on United States citizens, legalizing the degradation of habeus corpus, and refusing oversight of the executive branch of government.

To begin, maybe as a former accountant who is currently involved with Washington D.C. politics, you could elaborate on John McCain’s role in the Savings and Loans scandal . While you have taken McCain’s judgment to be unquestionable, certainly his ethics can be considered questionable when it comes to the governance of this country. If this were not true, he might actually have a shot at the presidency. Graham has been accused of misleading the Supreme Court.

Secondly, Jose Padilla, an accused terrorist, is a United States citizen. Regardless of the right or wrong of his actions, the Justice Dept. under guidance of the executive branch has violated Padilla’s constitutional rights . And, according to his defense lawyers, subjected him to torture. There are many other instances of alleged torture by the United States.

With your open support of the NSA spying on Americans, the spying a fact repeatedly documented in the press, I deny your primary argument directly.

Congress has not declared a war against terror . Because it is a verb! The powers the administration claims during wartime are moot; there is no war. Just as Oliver North and TIA got shot down during the Reagan years, supposedly part of the Cold War, the NSA spying will be shot down as well. I am supposed to feel sympathy for a Department of Justice headed by a man (Gonzales) who tried to find loopholes for torturing?

Where was your concern for tax dollars and man hours considering the outing of a CIA operative (Plame)? Plame was assigned to nuclear proliferation, dealing with Iran (a current national security concern), and outed by the White House. Clearly a treasonous action. Instead, the White House can drag these charges out for years, while you simply state “innocent until proven guilty”? Refusal of oversight is a dereliction of duty!

Senator, if you have read the news (AP) lately you will notice people released from Guantanamo without charges to their respective countries. If we are to believe your rhetoric, why are these people walking free? Again, your point does not stand up to public scrutiny and facts.

The worst part of the matter; the men who ordered these crimes of torture to be committed have placed the accountability squarely on the shoulders of our troops. Blaming the troops for following orders!

Speaking of Defense Bills, why, sir, is it so important posse comitatus be removed from the Constitution? Surely Katrina is not the answer. The blame for the poor response lies directly at the city, state, and federal level. Since you operate at the federal level, you must understand this incompetent administration does not need to pick up any more responsibilities. The DHS cannot even screen internet predators from its ranks!

Please in the future, in regard to correspondence, save the rhetoric for party liners. I had stated in my original letter; I am an informed, independent voter in the state of Wyoming. I write for the Cheyenne Drinking Liberally blog. It is well past time, sir, for you to show allegiance to our country and the great state of Wyoming over the GOP!

Thank you,

Nathan Maine

In reply to queries regarding the duties of oversight, the Senator sent me the following reply:

Dear Nathan:

On September 29, 2006, I joined 65 of my Senate colleagues in supporting the passage of S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I understand your opposition to this legislation; however, I believe it is necessary to defend our nation against terrorists.

President Bush established the original military commissions after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when he realized we were fighting an enemy that did not respect the rule of law or the sovereignty of the United States. He issued the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001 directing the Department of Defense to conduct military commissions and charges of courts-martial for enemy combatants captured during military operations in the Global War on Terrorism. On June 29, 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the President lacked the authority to proceed with military tribunals for enemy combatants. The Supreme Court ruling returned the matter to the United States Congress for resolution under American law and international treaty obligations.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is the product of work by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a prisoner of war in Vietnam; Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a military judge and military reservist member of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps; and Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA), a World War II veteran and former Secretary of the Navy. These Senators drew on their personal experiences and qualifications to draft legislation that will allow our armed service members to keep America safe while respecting the rule of law. They worked in consultation with President Bush, but ultimately the Senate passed legislation that I believe addresses the new threat of terrorists who wear no uniform, claim no allegiance to any nation, and will use any means to harm the United States and our citizens.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 creates a legal framework for the detention, questioning and prosecution of terrorists detained in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the broader Global War on Terrorism. The Senate tailored existing military and civilian tribunals that have been used to prosecute war criminals since World War II to reflect the realities of terrorist warfare that our men and women in uniform now face. The military commissions will provide all of the legal protections afforded under the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under the bill, terrorists will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They will have the right to a JAG attorney or a civilian counsel. They will have the opportunity to challenge their detention as well as the evidence against them. A Combatant Status Review Tribunal, similar to a grand jury, will determine if an enemy combatant is lawful or unlawful and if a military commission should be convened. A five or 12-member military commission, depending on the charge and potential length of sentence, will then conduct a trial fashioned after a court-martial overseen by a military judge.

I would like to dispel a falsity used by opponents of this legislation. In no way does this law allow for the use of torture by the United States of America. In 2005, following the dishonorable actions at Abu Ghraib, the Senate passed amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 and the Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 sponsored by Senator McCain that became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which reaffirmed the United States position against the use of torture and provided our armed forces with a clear definition of acceptable detention practices in the Army Field Manuel. I supported both amendments and I do not support the use of torture.

Finally, I want to address your specific concerns about habeas corpus. I want to make it clear that the provisions dealing with habeas corpus only apply to non-United States citizens. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the habeas corpus statute, 28 USC 2241, in Rasul, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Detainee Treatment Act in Hamdan, enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay were awarded the privilege of a petition for habeas corpus status before a U.S. federal court.

There have been 160 habeas petitions on behalf of approximately 300 detainees filed in federal court to date. The challenges have been filed including those questioning the quality of their food and speed of mail delivery. Others have questioned the legality of their detention, being returned to the country of their citizenship, and allotment of exercise time. The Department of Justice is devoting tremendous resources to the litigation of habeas petitions filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees. These are resources and energy that should be devoted to prosecuting terrorists.

This detainee population includes highly trained and dangerous members of the al Qaeda terrorist network, namely terrorist trainers, recruiters, bomb-makers, operatives, and financiers. The same terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 and have been fighting our armed services personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world have begun claiming the rights and benefits of the U.S. Constitution, our laws, and treaties. The Military Commissions Act clarifies the previous understanding of the habeas statute that terrorists outside the United States do not have access to our federal courts.

The House of Representatives passed S. 3930 on September 29, 2006. President Bush signed the bill into law (Public Law 109-366) on October 17, 2006.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this very difficult and complicated issue. I think we can both agree on the importance of allowing individuals being held by the United States to have the opportunity to answer to the charges they face and seek judicial resolution.

I want my constituents to have access to a more complete view of Congress and my activities so I have started a monthly e-newsletter. It is a brief summary of important issues and happenings. I encourage you to sign up on my web page at enzi.senate.gov. You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Sincerely,
Michael Enzi, U.S. Senator
Chairman: Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

MBE:bn

It seems I might be getting some Christmas love a little early via the ghost of Christmas future in the form of Congressman Henry Waxman. Seems Henry thinks Cheney’s no-bid getting Halliburton got some ‘splaining to do. Read ‘em and weep, Cheney lovers!

And then Geiger got Reid on the record: “ Reid: I closed the Senate -- closed it down, for the first time in a long, long, long time. I did it because Republicans were stonewalling us on investigating why we went to war. There were five issues that were to be looked at by that committee and since I closed the Senate, we've only gotten two of them. Now that we're in charge, with Senator Rockefeller, we'll get the other three.

We're going to find out how intelligence was manipulated, taking us to war. We have to look back to be able to look forward. We're going to do both. We're not going to limit ourselves to looking back but we have to look back in an effort to go forward.”

Get ready for investigations. The bad thing is for this administration is the dirt is not to far below the surface, this time. Its going to be like peeling the onion at a Taco Bell, first you cry, then you crap your pants.