House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is investigating whether or not the travel done by the Drug Czar in 2006 was politically motivated. Throughout 2006, Drug Czar John Walters’ travel schedule was a roster of the some of the most vulnerable Republicans in Congress.
In an email passing along thanks from Karl Rove for these visits, the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) White House liaison Douglas Simon wrote:
Folks,
I just wanted to give you all a summary of a post November 7th update I received the other night. Presidential personnel pulled together a meeting of all of the Administration’s White House Liaison’s and the WH Political Affairs office. Karl Rove opened the meeting with a thank you for all of the work that went into the surrogate appearances by Cabinet members and for the 72 Hour deployment. He specifically thanked, for going above and beyond the call of duty, the Dept. of Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, AND the WH Drug Policy Office.
This recognition is not something we hear everyday and we should feel confident that our hard work is noticed. All of this is due to our efforts preparing the Director and the Deputies for their trips and events. Director Walters and the Deputies covered thousands of miles to attend numerous official events all across the country. The Director and the Deputies deserve the most recognition because they actually had to give up time with their families for the god awful places we sent them. I attached the flnal list of all of the official events that the Director and Deputies attended.
One of those “god awful places” they sent Drug Czar Walters to was Kent, where he met with Dave Reichert in March of 2006. Granted, they talked about meth, which is certainly a valid concern to people in “god awful places” like Kent. But I’d imagine there’s more of a concern that their federal tax dollars were being spent on the Drug Czar being a Republican campaign prop for all of 2006 as well.
[emphasis mine in the email]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Democrats are such hypocrites.
Why, according to Al Gore, Iraq is THE sponsor for international terrorism…
What happened? Saddam changed his colors? No, just the political ambitions of Democrats.
Iraq is the proximate cause for the tripling or quadrupling (depending on your endpoints) of the number of world terrorist attacks since 2001.
Of course, once that information came out, the administration announced it would stop releasing this information.
Not that Republicans have any political ambitions, or course.
If they do, the 2008 landscape should make them forget about them pretty quick.
@1
HAHAHAHA, that’s from 1992, you buffoon!!! What changed? Saddam was pressured into destroying all the weapons we helped him acquire, he had his autonomy over certain regions of his country limited, and he became a pariah to the other leaders in the region. In other words, by 2003, he WASN’T THE sponsor for international terrorism. That’s like arguing that someone who said Moammar Qaddafi was a major sponsor of terrorism in 1986 is a hypocrite for saying the opposite today.
Do you have to practice to be that stupid?
Lee
Sorry my friend, but you are totally mistaken. Yes things changed. 9.11 happened. And in the post 9.11 world, the madman that Al Gore descibes, rightly so, had to be dealt with.
Saddam never changed his stripes, he was always an international sponsor of terror. You convieniently forget about paying suicide bombers….. etc etc etc…
You won’t change my mind, I won’t change yours. I just let the words of Democrat leaders who crow about how dangerous Saddam Hussein was to the free world.
By the way, you could not have watched the whole video. I recommend it. It’s a real hit on Saddam..
This visit was to the Pediatric Interim Care Center, a facility that helps drug addicted babies. Why would you use something wonderful like this place to make a political point? All of the proceeds from Reichert’s book about the Green River Killer case go to this facility (not that I expect you to go buy it). It is fairly unique in the country (unfortunately) – it specializes in taking in babies that are born drug addicted and nursing them back to health. Two of Reichert’s own grand-children were adopted from here. You might want to choose a different “hit” on him in your shameless efforts. He got involved with the organization because one of the Green River victims had a child there. Is there something wrong with highlighting this facility by bringing out the head of ONDCP to see a local facility like this that should be replicated across the country? I guess if you’re a partisan so full of hate for the other side you’ll use anything to make your point.
I don’t really, um, know how to tell you this, but I guess it must be done. Saddam Hussein is gone. Yes, way. He is no longer in charge of Iraq, and thus is no longer involved in anti-Israel terrorist activities.
You see, it turns out that a blundering superpower invaded Iraq, swept aside his puny, weak army (many of whom just left to join the later insurgency), and totally smashed the entire civil infrastructure of Iraq but failed to provide internal security in the nation it destroyed. Since then, the corrupt, mismanaged, and ineffective occupation, the incompetent dismissal of the Army and civil service, and the installation of a puppet government have all somehow failed to provide electricity, sanitation, water, security, or employment to Iraqis, who originally protested by attacking the occupiers but are now engaged in a civil war for control of the country. God knows what will happen after the Kurds vote for autonomy.
So, you see, it turns out that NOT thinking that Iraq today is the same as in 1992 might actually make fucking sense.
I especially like how he opines that sanctions would never change a madman like Saddam…
Those are his words…Words of your hero.
6 RS
Wrong. Re: “paying suicide bombers.”
Saddam offered to pay the FAMILIES of those who had died in suicide attacks against Israel. You know, widows and orphaned children.
It’s certainly true that Saddam didn’t like Israel too well. But he never “paid suicide bombers.” When you distort the facts, it just weakens your argument and makes you look desperate.
It’s also true that Saddam never attacked the US, never tried to attack the US, was not involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way, and that his ability to wage any kind of external attack against any enemy was all-but-absent by 2002-2003.
9 RS
In 1992, many people thought so. But by 2002, it was clear that inspections and sanctionas had worked to defang the Saddam regime. It’s only Republicans who refuse to see the truth.
Back on topic. RS, you’re done. Here’s a fork.
The entire US government is just a prop for Bush/Rove political purposes. The PowerPoint presentations that Rove’s boys gave all over the government to run the machinery of government to Republicans advantage was the original smoking gun. Waxman doesn’t have to scratch very deep to get more and more.
7
“I guess if you’re a partisan so full of hate for the other side you’ll use anything to make your point.”
Uh, you don’t get it at all, do you? The venue for the drug czar’s visit is irrelevant. The point of the post is that the drug czar’s travels were apparently arranged to promote partisan interests of Republican congressional members or aspirants running for office. Taxpayer dollars were used to finance such travels, rather than campaign dollars from whomever was getting the visit. That is simply wrong, shamelessly wrong. Are you people ever capable of seeing the log in your own eyes when you criticize the speck in the eyes of your opponents?
7 This is actually pretty interesting stuff. We might hope that Karl Rove isn’t dictating every detail of the Drug Czar’s itinerary.
Question: Would Walters hae visited this facility had Reichert not been present, or if it had been in Jim McDermott’s district? In fact, did he stop anywhere else in the area on this trip? Seems if not it would have been a waste of transportation costs…or is Seattle a little too “God Awful” to warrant his attention. Has Mr. Walters also consulted with Maria Cantwell, who has made legislation to deal with the meth problem a major priority?
Sorry my friend, but you are totally mistaken. Yes things changed. 9.11 happened.
Yes, and a big part of why 9/11 happened is because we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, which gave Bin Laden a certain level of support for his crazy plans. Is that necessarily fair? No. But you can’t deal responsibly with the Middle East unless you understand these things.
And in the post 9.11 world, the madman that Al Gore descibes, rightly so, had to be dealt with.
No, that’s simply not correct. In the post 9/11 world, the threats had changed drastically, and Saddam was simply not the primary concern any more. It’s as ridiculous as if we’d invaded Libya after 9/11 because of what Qaddafi did in the 80s.
Saddam never changed his stripes, he was always an international sponsor of terror. You convieniently forget about paying suicide bombers….. etc etc etc…
Please, when it comes to sponsoring terrorism, Saddam is chump change compared to what our buddies in Saudi Arabia do. That’s as lame an excuse for war as you can possibly get.
You won’t change my mind, I won’t change yours.
One of us believes in facts and is dealing with reality, and one of us is not.
I just let the words of Democrat leaders who crow about how dangerous Saddam Hussein was to the free world.
And we dealt with him throughout the 90s so that he wasn’t so dangerous any more! What the hell is so hard to understand about this?
By the way, you could not have watched the whole video. I recommend it. It’s a real hit on Saddam..
Why don’t we watch a video of Reagan talking about Qaddafi and then advocate that we invade Libya?
Why would you use something wonderful like this place to make a political point?
Aidan,
That’s my whole point. The Bush White House used this great facility as a political prop. And they used your tax dollars to do so.
14 I don’t know. Did any of the dems in the state bring President Clinton out to facilities that were important to them? I’m guessing they did. I do know that Walters came to Seattle to demo some new meth TV ads with Patty Murray so I guess that answers your question right there.
13 Very ironic statement. The venue is only irrelevant if you think using a great charity that helps children to make your point is ok. Yes the posting was about political travel, but maybe in this case it was a worthy project and you should try using a different example. Reichert is a member of congress after all. To my knowledge no campaigning went on during his trip and I don’t think you’ll find any of Reichert’s constituents who would have a problem with thier tax dollars being used to have the drug czar come learn about this place and talk about meth. Then again, I’m guessing not many of his actual constituents read this blog anyway.
@6
Where I grew up, we measured the success of our leaders by how things worked out. Forget whether Saddam was a baaad guy, he was that and a lot of folks thought it would be a good idea to do the bastard in. Read Ken Pollack’s great book. OK?
Now look at what happened? Is there any conceivable point of view from which one can not smell the cess pool of Bush’s failures?
This has nothing to do with whether Gore et al were wrong in 92. However, if Gore (or almost any other imaginable Prexy) had decided that he did need to take out Hussein, I somehow doubt Al (or almost anyone BUT GWB)would have:
1. begun by insulting all of our potential allies. Sure was great to keep ‘dem ruski’s, krauts, and franchies out of the war! They would have REALLY screwed it up! Doncha love freedom fires! And look how we do not need to share oil revenoos with then Saddam lovin Europeans!
And the Turks! Can you imagine having a Muslim ally? One with military resources, membership in NATO, and a border to defend. Nahhhhhhhhh.
2. sent in a miniarmy, w/o support for a border control, people who spoke Arabish, but with the advice of a couple of sleezeball ex-Iraquis under indictment for fraud in Jordan.
3. dissasembled the only coherent police forces in the Country while we searched for non existant WMDs.
4. sent in US forces backed up not by linguists and cultural experts but with swimming pool equipped baptismal evangelists! Isn;t the wave new Christians in Oraq wonderful? How to win the hearts and minds of the people!
5. Fantasized that the Iraqui people would be enthusiastic recipients of the holy waters of democracy! Some Bush Buddy should have told little George and uncle Darth that the only liberals in Iraq were secular folks … as it were secular humanists like the real founder s of our Democracy. Somehow I don’t think GWB was ready to support an Iraqui Thomas Paine even if he found one!
Oh yeh … and then the US Prexy lied and lied and lied to the world until our credibility has fallen lower than that enjoyed by Mr. Saddam himself.
PROPOSAL
We need a monument to this era. The VietNam memorial idea has already been taken and somehow I do not see anything like the IwoJima statue to commemorate this event. I propose we pick another mountain like Rushmore and carve Bush’s ass on it. Ideally, it will be volcano to get the full effect!
@18
SeattleJew brings it! Very nicely done, sir.
@17
Yes the posting was about political travel, but maybe in this case it was a worthy project and you should try using a different example. Reichert is a member of congress after all. To my knowledge no campaigning went on during his trip and I don’t think you’ll find any of Reichert’s constituents who would have a problem with thier tax dollars being used to have the drug czar come learn about this place and talk about meth.
As the documents linked from the post clearly show, the trip was done in the effort of “campaigning” at the request of Karl Rove. You’re certainly right that this was also something that fits into the Drug Czar’s job description, but it was not the root reason for the trip.
We do a lot of things right in this state when it comes to drug treatment (much better than other states), and this facility is likely a good example of that. But I think you’re underestimating how many people (even Republicans) are unhappy with their tax dollars being used for politicized events.
@17
I do know that Walters came to Seattle to demo some new meth TV ads with Patty Murray so I guess that answers your question right there.
That was in December 2005. The Drug Czar’s campaign road show didn’t begin until February 2006 (see the linked PDF).
Lee,
I figured you would like the monument idea. Imagine using Mt. Baler and waiting for a mud flow. Gak!
BTW, I have correspondent form Israel, a fellow named Mirel, who might interest you if you get the time to look at hois posts. He is an awfully good hearted but despair filled Israeli.
Also, too bad we doi not have a bigger to last nite, I thought the presentation was first class and enjoyed listening to the tactical discussion in re Darcy’s campaign. She, herself, is the best answer to the experience issue … given the long lead time the more folks she meets the better she is going to do.
I really wonder how one uses the media to convey this sort of thing? Is it televisable?
Be good.
Lee,
I figured you would like the monument idea. Imagine using Mt. Baler and waiting for a mud flow. Gak!
BTW, I have correspondent form Israel, a fellow named Mirel, who might interest you if you get the time to look at hois posts. He is an awfully good hearted but despair filled Israeli.
Also, too bad we do not have a bigger turnout last nite, I thought the presentation was first class and enjoyed listening to the tactical discussion in re Darcy’s campaign. She, herself, is the best answer to the experience issue … given the long lead time the more folks she meets the better she is going to do.
I really wonder how one uses the media to convey this sort of thing? Is it televisable?
Be good.
oops
sorry
posting glitch. Ignore first copy.
The war on drugs is a bigger boondoggle than the Iraq adventure.
I hope they put that dumb Harriett Miers in the Texas hoosegow for contempt.
I hope she spills the beans on GWB.
I hope GWB thinks she’s going to spill the beans and she takes a long trip on a small airplane — if you know what I mean.
re 24: Wherever ther’s a chance for corporate welfare, there you will find the Republicans — with their not so invisible hands in the public till.
What a bunch of crooks.
The GOP makes EVERYTHING political. They don’t give a good golly fuck about anything or anyone. All they want is power and money. They’ll sacrifice your kids, your grandkids, their ethics and our freedom to get it.
The next time I get some of Reichert’s four-color, glossy campaign materials in the mail that have been paid for on the taxpayers’ dime, I am going to contact every blogger in my town about it.
Paraphrased from Andrew Sullivan:
Q: How many neocons does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. The socket welcomes the light bulb with flowers as a liberator.
Direct quote from Andrew Sullivan:
Q: Why do you never want to date a neocon?
A: Because they always say they’re going to pull out and they never do.
More from ANdrew…:
Read the whole thing:
http://men.style.com/gq/featur.....ntent_5782
28
Are you going to send Reichert a letter like this?
“Dear Congressman Reichert:
I am writing you from the smallest room in the house.
I have your four-color glossy campaign flyer disguised as a mailout before me.
Soon it shall be behind me.
Sincerely yours,
Headless Lucy”
So Reichert slavishly does the bidding of people who think he represents a “god awful” district. Is anyone surprised?
In DimDave’s defense, I really don’t think he could grasp the nuanced distinction between a campaign appearance and a constituent service appearance. We really can’t expect someone with his intellectual challenges to make such distinctions.
I have an interesting find. It’s from compete.com and provides here some maps comparing the source locations for clicks the the (leading) Presidential candidates sites.
Republicans:
http://blog.compete.com/2007/0.....on-mccain/
Democrats:
http://blog.compete.com/2007/0.....ichardson/
If clicks ARE votes, the Republican candidate is in a world of shit.
Regarding Al Gore’s 1992 speech, I’d love to see the whole speech. Unfortunately, the video covers less than 10 minutes from a speech that was likely in the neighborhood of 30 minutes long if not longer. Why would wingnuts want us to see only a third of that speech? Because the rest of the speech is where Gore shows how Reagan/Bush policies, both during and subsequent to the Iran/Iraq war, turned Saddam Hussein into such a bad guy in the first place.
It almost goes without saying that those policies were no longer in place following Clinton’s election, and, by the time we’d invaded Iraq in 2003, UN sanctions and weapons inspection programs had gutted Saddam Hussein’s ability to project any kind of threat beyond his own borders.
All of this goes to show that wingnuts cannot win an argument by citing the full record and all the facts. The closest they can come is to tell only half the truth, which is just as bad as lying.
36 DJ
I think they’d rather lie than tell half the truth, though.
Speaking of god-awful – I bet Senator Vitter was in a god-awful place when his ugly wife found out he was banging hookers.
re 38: It’s the diapers fetish that makes this whole thing creepy.
How does she explain at the church social that her husband hires hookers to service him while he wears diapers. I mean: What does a grown man do when wearing diapers — if he’s not in the ‘Depends’ demographic?
re 38: How would Tim Russert broach the subject?
re 41: Can you see him debating with Jim Webb and you could practically see the thought bubble over Webb’s head:
“DIAPERS!!!????!!”
The right is very silent about Vitters. I guess they are only interested in morality when it falls on the Dems.
Painful as it is to do so, I must support Senator Vitter in his decision to hang on to his seat. He is plainly a hypocrite and, by his own standards, morally unfit to serve the good people of Louisiana as their senator. But, paying to wear a diaper and having a hooker tell him he’s been a bad boy is his own private business. Our public servants should be entitled to have their own private lives. Barring illegal conduct, we should stay out of their private lives. I don’t want only saints (if there be such people) representing us.
I’ve been to Kent. I can confirm that it really is a “God Awful Place.”
@43
While I agree private life is irrelevant, Vitter’s job uis not private. If you hire someone to influence others and they become tarnished even by something utterly innocuous what would you do?
Suppose you were selling widgets and the vatican was buying the same, would you send a devout catholic sales person or a militant aetheist?
Remember Tom Eagleton?
SJ @ 45
I’m not saying Vitter should be reelected. I just don’t think he should have to resign. Who knows, this tawdry little episode might even make him a better senator if it teaches him something about the evil of sanctimoniousness (though given his political persuasion, he’ll probably just convince himself he’s been victimized and become even more sanctimonious).
@46
Nah, he’ll just find a way to blame Mexicans, or gays, or Rosie O’Donnell, or PBS, or…
But it’ll be a fresh look at paranoia.
Maybe Rush can convince his listeners that Vitter is a victim of the L_I_B_E_R_A_L diaper wearing agenda.
The right started this demonizing people’s private sex-lives.
This stuff is just payback. And it’s just gonna take time until I forgive these DIAPER WEARING Anti-Gay Gay-REPUBLICAN PEDERASTS for what they did to Clinton.
DIAPERS!!! (hehehehehe)
Maybe Boener can get into a crying-jag over the fact that the MSM is running with the DIAPER!!!! STORY!!!
Stupidman: It’s the leftist Moonbat!s who are putting forth the crap like your brother Cluelessman over the “diapers” issue. I would request Vitters take a lie detector test to debunk or prove the New Orleans whores (Cluelessman’s good friends) and diapers.
Cluelessman – loves to play with conjecture. I think he likes soiled diapers. That’s what I heard.
DIAPERS!!! (hehehehe)
And how does one free one’s dingle for the main event while wearing a diaper? I can’t work those things.
I would request Vitters take a lie detector test to debunk or prove the New Orleans whores (Cluelessman’s good friends) and diapers.
Considering that the man who broke the story and forced Vitter’s confession (Larry Flynt) also says he has proof that Vitter also visited the New Orleans brothels, I don’t think Vitter’s getting near a lie detector machine any time soon.
Somebody roll out the sapphire throne and remind puddypoo he shouldn’t be ignoring truth just because it tarnishes the holiness of one of his own. Snort.