Washington Post is reporting today...

As long as the investigation is widening into Ney's wrongdoing with Abramoff and friends, might we suggest the prosecutors look into this part of it.

Thanks!

Neil Young's new protest album, Livining With War, which includes "Let's Impeach the President" and other anti-war/anti-Bush tunes, is now released for listening online at NeilYoung.com.

It's also available, if you have any problem streaming from Young's site, at Justice Through Music (their version is handy, since it also allows you to pause listening, if needed.)

Jim Cirile provided an exclusive early preview of the album for The BRAD BLOG last weekend. Feel free to leave us your review here in comments!

UPDATE: "LET'S IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT" ONLINE HERE
Though we recommend listening the whole album, as you're required to do on the Neil Young site, etc. (we've now done so twice and the whole thing kicks ass), here is a streaming version of "Let's Impeach the President" only...

"Let's Impeach the President" in Streaming Flash format...

Care to sing along?

Let's impeach the president for lying
And leading our country into war
Abusing all the power that we gave him
And shipping all our money out the door
He's the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
And bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war...

Complete lyrics here...

Guest blogged by David Edwards of Veredictum.com

Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...
Audio in MP3 format...

Earlier this week, a European Parliament committee released a report saying that the CIA had illegally detained people and used secret 'rendition' flights to transport them to other countries or secret CIA prisons where they were expected to be tortured.

Several members of European Parliament met in Macedonia today to investigate the story of Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen, who was abducted by the CIA. After being kidnapped, he was then 'rendered' to a U.S. prison in Afghanistan and held for 5 months.

Special to BRAD BLOG by BTC News White House Correspondent Eric Brewer

Today the U.S. government released its 2005 report on worldwide terrorism. It reveals that, compared to the 2004 figures, the number of terrorist attacks more than tripled and the number of people killed in those attacks more than doubled. The hard data: last year saw 14,602 killed in 11,111 attacks.

Those are startling increases. Earlier this year, I reported on a different data set, compiled by the RAND Corporation, which showed much lower, but still substantial, increases of 36% in the number of deaths and 51% in the number of attacks.

Why the big differences? Essentially, what the Bush administration has been doing, ever since terrorism numbers started to shoot up after the invasion of Iraq, is try to obfuscate and spin the numbers in order to disguise the increases.

Guest blogged by David Edwards of Veredictum.com

Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...
Audio in MP3 format...

The BRAD BLOG is reporting that Bush signed a bill into law before it passed both houses of Congress:

Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark is reported to have said, "Schoolhouse Rock has taught generations of Americans how a bill becomes a law..."

We dug up this video to remind the President of the proper Constitutional procedure for signing a law.

"Schoolhouse Rock has taught generations of Americans how a bill becomes a law," says Rep. " said Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee in a press release just issued by 11 U.S. Congressmen.

"As most school children can attest," Stark says, "a bill is just a bill on Capitol Hill until it passes both the House and Senate in identical form and is signed by the President ? or Congress overrides his veto. I'm sorry we've had to resort to this lawsuit, but I am committed to protecting our democracy."

11 ranking Members of the United States House of Representatives will be filing a law suit in U.S. District court on Friday, The BRAD BLOG has learned, seeking a permanent injunction of "Deficit Reduction Act" which George W. Bush signed into law on February 8th of this year, despite its not having passed both houses of Congress.

The BRAD BLOG has obtained an exclusive copy of the suit to be filed tomorrow by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and 10 other Democratic law makers, as well as a timeline of the events in the matter as compiled by the House members.

-- COMPLAINT IN FULL [WORD format].
-- Timeline of the events [WORD format].

"On February, 8 at 3:43 p.m.," the complaint alleges, Bush signed a bill that "never was passed by the United States House of Representatives."

The difference in the language of the House and Senate bills, is a clause requiring Medicare to cover rent for "certain durable medical equipment." The version of the bill pased by the House requires payments for 36 months. The Senate version requires payments for only 13 months.

The difference in the cost of the federal outlays for the two different versions is said to be approximately $2 billion.

The two houses of Congress were never able to pass a joint version of the bill, and yet, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and President Pro Tem of the United States Senate, Ted Stevens (R-AK), "signed a statement attesting that the bill signed by the President had been passed by both the United States House and the United States Senate."

"Once again the Administration is playing fast and loose with the Constitution," Conyers says in a Press Release (posted in full at the end of this article).

"Anyone who has passed the sixth grade knows that before a bill can become a law, both Houses of Congress must approve it. That the Bush Administration is now saying otherwise underscores the Constitutional crisis we are facing in this country."

Several other members were equally clear in the press release which excoriates the Bush Administration for yet another Constitutional transgression.

Says Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee in the release: "Time and time again the President has sought to discard the Constitution as if it were an old shoe."

Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee is quoted as saying, "the Constitution is clear --- legislation signed by the President must be passed by both the House and the Senate. In allowing the President to sign a bill that was not passed by the House, Congressional Republicans made a mockery of the legislative process."

The "FACTS" section of the complaint explains the matter quite clearly...

Guest blogged by David Edwards of Veredictum.com

Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...

George W. Bush's poll numbers continue drop in the newest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll. Americans are now most concerned about gas prices followed by Iran nuclear weapons, illegal immigration and Iraq.

2 out of 3 Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. 3 out of 4 people polled have lost confidence in the economy. 62% disapprove of the President's handling of Iraq.

Bush's approval rating dropped to 36% in this poll. Katie Couric suggests that the White House might be relieved that the President's approval only dropped one point.

There was also some bad news for Democrats in the NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll. When asked who should control Congress, people preferred Democrats over Republicans by 6%. This is down from a 13% margin in the last poll. The overall approval for Congress dropped significantly from 33% to 22% which is considered to be bad news for the Republicans who now control congress. The sinking approval of Congress may lead to low voter turnout for both parties.

Fox "News", of all sites, posts the full lyrics to Neil Young's "Let's Impeach the President" tune to be released this Friday online along with his Living With War album.

[See BRAD BLOG's (p)review of the album as posted last weekend.]

Says Roger Friedman at Fox about the album; "[It's] an incendiary, moving, totally American document of peaceful protest that is going to make a lot of people crazy one way or another."

He calls it "serious and searing" and an "extraordinary and eye opening new recording."

About "Let's Impeach the President," Friedman describes it as "a melodic, rocking, campfire ode" and "the catchiest protest song since Country Joe and the Fish's anti-Vietnam ditty, 'I Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die.'"

Enough hype for ya? Okay, then...

While waiting for Friday, be sure to check out Op-Critical's new protest songs (and video contest), which RAW STORY covered a day or two ago, along with Justice Through Music's collection of protest tunes to hold you over.

UPDATE 4/28/06: The complete album --- as well as the single "Let's Impeach the President --- is now released online for your listening pleasure...

Guest blogged by David Edwards of Veredictum.com

Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...
Audio in MP3 format...

Ex-CIA Analyst, Ray McGovern, is part of the group "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" which has been critical of the Bush Administration for the political use of National Security intelligence. McGovern also happens to be a friend of Mary McCarthy. McCarthy was recently fired by the CIA for allegedly leaking classified information to reporters.

The opinion of the intelligence community is unanimous. In general, leaking of classified information is a firing offense, possible criminal and can pose a danger to America's national interests. Ray McGovern agrees that leaks are dangerous and should not be condoned but he says that actions by the Bush Administration have created an "exceptional situation" where leaking may be the only choice for exposing illegal activities.

Ray McGovern says that the "war of aggression" on Iraq, the secret "black" prisons, torture, rendition and other activities are "war crimes". The American people deserve to know when crimes are being committed by their government. McGovern says:

This video contains about 10 minutes of clips from the interview with Ray McGovern. See PBS Newshour for an entire transcript.

We've truly enjoyed watching the contortions of Bush's GOP dead-enders who spin each and every new poll showing Bush at his lowest approval ratings yet, by trying to say that the numbers have "bottomed out", "can't get any lower" and therefore "have nowhere to go but up."

We (not so) respectfully disagree.

On the heels of last week's Fox News Poll showing Bush at 33% (which also revealed Republican voters as desperately out of touch with mainstream America,) followed by today's CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll just out showing Bush at an all-new new low of 32% with Republican support dropping off precipitously, we see no reason why numbers in the 20's (and falling) shouldn't be far behind.

Do you?

Guest blogged by David Edwards of Veredictum.com

-- Video in Streaming Flash format
-- Video in Windows Media format
-- Audio in MP3 format

Better late than never, CBS News' 60 Minutes details how the Bush inner-circle misused dubious intelligence to convince the American people to back a preemptive war on Iraq.

Ed Bradley interviews Tyler Drumheller, a retired CIA official who saw first-hand evidence of how the Bush team used selective (and discredited) intelligence to support war plans which had already been set.

This 13 minute video is the complete broadcast from Sunday night's edition of 60 minutes.

UPDATE FROM BRAD: First, thanks David for getting this up, since I only caught the last part of the report when it aired last night. Secondly, please see Josh Marshall's comments on this story, as he posted additional information last night to advance the story. His report includes new details from Drumheller last night that he'd been interviewed by the two Senate committees supposedly investigating the Bush Administration's pre-war use of intel (the Silberman-Robb committee and the Pat Roberts Senate Intel committee), but in both cases the folks working on the reports seem to have completely ignored Drumheller's testimony. Josh's reporting would seem to suggest that both reports should now be viewed as extremely suspect at best, a completely unreliable white wash at worst.

MORE... TPMMuckraker has more, this time showing how the White House's own WMD report conflicts with the information from 60 Minutes and Drumheller. And how the White House report seems to have twisted the facts to place blame on the Intelligence Communities for their own policy "failures" in selling the horseshit about Uraniam, Iraq and Niger to the American public in the mislead up to war.

Guest Blogged by Jim Cirile

Neil Young wants to keep on rockin' the free world.

His new record, Living With War, makes very clear that if the Bush regime is allowed to continue, there may not be a free world to rock for much longer.

At 7:30 PM on Friday, April 21, 2006, Reprise Records' Dan Rose ushered a small cadre of us into a Reprise's Burbank headquarters for an exclusive listen to Young's new CD. For the next 50 minutes, listen we did.

Let's get one thing out of the way right now: this album rocks. It's post '80s electric Neil Young at his grunge best, and of the 10 cuts on Living With War, the first eight are mostly uptempo rockers. In fact, this may be the 60-year-old Young's most crossover-worthy album yet, since many of the songs should appeal to fans of bands as diverse as Green Day and Pearl Jam and will likely be embraced on campuses across America.

But there's one other tiny thing that makes this record stand out: it is one mother%^&*#% of a protest album. In fact, Living With War may just be the Fahrenheit 9/11 of rock.

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) is continuing his negotation, on behalf of more than 50 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, for the release of documents related to the Bush Administration's plans for War in Iraq long prior to the beginning of hostilities, according to new letters written by the ranking member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and obtained exclusively by The BRAD BLOG.

After the revelations in Spring of 2005 from the so-called Downing Street Memo and other related documents --- a series of secret memos created by British officials documenting Bush Administration efforts to "fix" the "intelligence and facts...around the policy" of going to war with Iraq no matter what --- Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were filed by 52 House Members [PDF], including Conyers, for the release of documentation of Administration Iraq policies going as far back as the day after the 2000 Election.

The original FOIA requests were filed [PDF] with both the Departments of Defense and State, in June of 2005 after the disclosure in May, by Sunday Times of London, of the initial memo. Both federal agencies have largely stonewalled in response to the request. Correspondence from the agencies have claimed that the House Members must first agree to pay large fees for the requested material on the grounds that they do not meet FOIA standards which allow such fees to be waved.

The Dept. of Defense has estimated [PDF] the fees chargeable for answering the FOIA request would be approximately $110,000. The State Department has not yet given a similar estimate, but has also informed the members that they would have to agree in advance to such payment.

FOIA, however, allows such processing and copy fees to be waived in cases where the information provided will be widely circulated to the public and will "contribute significantly to the public understanding of activities or operations of the government."

Several communications from both DoD and State have suggested that since the requests for information did not come formally from a U.S. House Committee, the members' request does not meet the standard required for waiving fees or expediting the release of the information.

Conyers' disagrees...

Guest blogged by David Edwards of Veredictum.com

Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...
Audio in MP3 format...

I'm having a hard time understanding the logic of the Bush Administration on the appropriateness of retired military leaders speaking out about civilian leadership. On the one hand, they are saying that it is inappropriate for retired (and especially serving) military officers to criticize Rumsfeld. On the other hand, military officers who are retired or currently serving are encouraged to speak out in Rumsfeld's defense.

I just don't understand a policy that only allows the expression pro-Administration propaganda but deems all criticism - even by retired generals who are now private citizens - "inappropriate". On last night's edition of MSNBC's Countdown, Keith Olbermann posed this question to Howard Fine:

If anyone is interested, I'll be glad to post the clip from Countdown.

Anyway, Jon Stewart did a humorously "fair and balanced" report on the General's criticism of Rumsfeld. "It's not really very fair to attack Secretary Rumsfeld without giving the Secretary an opportunity to respond to thes charges that are being leveled", says Stewart. "So, here are some [video clips] of the general's criticisms of Rumsfeld and his replies which in no way have been manipulated to make Rumsfeld look foolish or out of touch."

UPDATE: Countdown Asks If Generals Can Only Express Approval of Rumsfeld

Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...
Audio in MP3 format...

Here's the video clip where Keith Olbermann asks Howard Fine, "Is this the response from the White House really that retired military personnel cannot comment on civilian leadership if they disagree with it but they are entitled to comment on leadership if they agree with it? I'm just thinking... Is there a hole in that logic somewhere?"

Guest blogged by David Edwards of Veredictum.com

Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...
Audio in MP3 format...

Colbert King, Deputy Editor of the Washington Post, appeared on this Sunday's edition of Inside Washington, a political show that's broadcast in the D.C. area. Mr. King was asked to defend an editorial recently published in the Washington Post which was titled "A Good Leak." The editorial supported President Bush's position that he participated in partial leaks of the National Intelligence Estimate for the good of the public.

From Mr. King's response it was clear that he had differences but attempted a defense of editorials flawed arguments:

An editorial with a different opinion of President Bush's leak called "A Bad Leak" appeared in Sunday's The New York Times.

This broadcast first aired on Sunday, April 17, 2006. The full transcript is available from the Inside Washington site. More details are available at The Raw Story.