The study was conducted on more than 3,000 HIV-negative South African men, ages 18 to 24. Half of the men were randomly selected to be circumcised while the other half remained uncircumcised.
After following the men for a year, the researchers found that for every 10 uncircumcised men in the study who became infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, only an estimated three circumcised men contracted the virus, the newspaper reported.
The study is considered significant because scientists have yet to discover an effective vaccine against the HIV virus or develop a reliable way to prevent infection other than through abstinence or safe-sex practices.
Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.
Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.
If you study the history of male circumcision, you will see a repeating pattern of claims that it prevents any number of different ailments from epilepsy to penile cancer to venereal disease. Invariably, the “protective effects” of circumcision vanish when the variables are properly controlled.
Here is a news article about Dr. Mishra's research.
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-scr ... 003191.htm
Male Circumcision May Not Protect Against HIV Infection: Presented at AIDS 2006
By Danny Kucharsky TORONTO, CANADA — August 17, 2006
HIV prevalence is not necessarily lower in populations that have higher male circumcision rates, according to findings from a study of African countries presented here at the 16th International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2006).
The study, which examined the association between male circumcision and HIV infection in 8 Sub-Saharan African countries, contradicts the findings of previous research and the opinion of several prominent personalities active in the fight against AIDS, such as former US President Bill Clinton.
While several studies have indicated that male circumcision has a protective effect against sexually transmitted infections (STI), including HIV infection, the evidence is inconclusive, said investigator Vinod Mishra, MD, director of research, ORC Macro, Calverton, Maryland. “We're just questioning that push,” he said of the optimism displayed by Clinton and others.
The study used demographic findings from recent demographic and health surveys in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, and Malawi, and AIDS indicator surveys from Tanzania and Uganda. The surveys were conducted from 2003 to 2005 and sample sizes ranged from 3,300 men in Lesotho to 10,000 men in Uganda.
In survey fieldwork in each country, men aged 15 to 59 gave blood for anonymous HIV testing. Information on circumcision status and on STI/STI symptoms was based on men's responses to questions in survey interviews.
Prevalence of male circumcision ranged from a high of 96% in Ghana to a low of 21% in Malawi. Among the other countries, circumcision rates were 84% in Kenya, 89% in Burkina Faso, and 25% in Uganda.
HIV prevalence was markedly lower among circumcised than uncircumcised men only in Kenya (11.5% among uncircumcised men vs 3.1% among circumcised men). A small protective effect of male circumcision was also seen in Burkina Faso (2.9% vs 1.7%, respectively) and Uganda (5.5% vs 3.7%).
In the other countries, there was either no difference in HIV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men or circumcised men were more likely to be HIV-positive than uncircumcised men. For example, in Lesotho, HIV was seen in 23.4% of circumcised men compared with 15.4% of uncircumcised men.
“If anything, the correlation [between circumcision and HIV infection] goes the other way,” in most of the countries studied, Dr. Mishra said during his presentation on August 15th.
When adjusted for sociodemographic and behavioral factors, a small protective effect was observed in 6 of the 8 countries, but it was not statistically significant in any country, Dr. Mishra said.
In Kenya, and to a lesser extent, in Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda, circumcised men were less likely than uncircumcised men to report having had an STI or STI symptoms in the 12-month period prior to the survey (2.1% vs 5.4%, respectively). The relationship was reversed in Cameroon (8.0% vs 2.5%) and Lesotho (12.1% vs 7.5%).
With other factors controlled, male circumcision had some protective effect in 5 of the 8 countries, but the effect was statistically significant only in Tanzania.
In addition, “circumcised men tend to have more lifetime sex partners, so there's some [high-risk] behaviors that go with circumcision status,” he said.
A study limitation is that it was based on self-reported information on circumcision status and STI/STI symptoms. It also lacks data on age at circumcision and degree of circumcision, which might influence susceptibility to HIV infection.
However, Dr. Mishra said the study is consistent with other research that has failed to find a protective effect of male circumcision on HIV and STIs.
And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.
4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife.
5 And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come.
6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him.
7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter: which thing ought not to be done.
8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.
9 And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.
10 And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.
11 And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.
12 Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.
13 And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:
14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:
15 But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised;
16 Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.
17 But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.
18 And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son.
19 And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his father.
20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,
21 These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.
22 Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.
23 Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of their's be our's? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.
24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.
25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.
27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.
28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,
29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.
30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.
31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?
As I listened to your story discussing the impediments to Mayor Giuliani's presidential campaign, I expected that you would address the biggest blot on his character — his former partnership with Bernard Kerik, disgraced Police Chief of New York City. Kerik has pled guilty to State court charges of accepting graft, and is likely to be indicted for conspiring with former New York Attorney General candidate Jeanine Pirro to place illegal wiretaps on her husband. Kerik took over $7 Million in stock profits by plugging the TASER lethal-non-lethal stun gun to police agencies across the nation, while being a TASER stockholder and the Police Chief of New York. Then he went into business with Giuliani, who put him up for the office of Head of Homeland Security after Tom Ridge resigned. But you didn't mention Kerik at all, even though the news of his impending indictment appeared in the New York Times on Wednesday March 14th, the same day as your article. Way to drop the ball!
June 30, 2006
Kerik Pleads Guilty for Gifts and a Loan
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM and JOHN HOLUSHA
Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, pleaded guilty today to two misdemeanor charges as the result of accepting tens of thousands of dollars of gifts and a loan while he was a city official in the late 1990's.
He entered the pleas, one to a violation of the city charter and the other of the city administrative code, in a Bronx courtroom before Justice John P. Collins and was sentenced to a total of $221,000 in fines. He was accompanied by three lawyers and three supporters for the proceeding, which lasted about 10 minutes.
Speaking in a quiet voice, Mr. Kerik admitted that he had accepted renovations to his Bronx apartment from a company he believed to be “clean.”
Justice Collins acknowledged Mr. Kerik's past career. “The court recognizes the contributions made by Bernard Kerik, particularly on Sept. 11, 2001, and the days after. Still, the defendant has violated the law for personal gain.”
Outside the court, Mr. Kerik said he should have been more “focused and sophisticated” in dealing with contractors who worked on his Bronx apartment.
“From this moment on, it's back to work,” he said before getting into a black B.M.W. and driving south on the Grand Concourse toward Manhattan.
City officials insisted that Mr. Kerik received no special treatment. “He was arrested and booked,” said Rose Gill Hearn, the city's investigations commissioner. “He was fingerprinted and photographed like every other perp who gets arrested and processed.”
One of Mr. Kerik's lawyers, Joseph Tacopina, disputed this account. He said Mr. Kerik was not arrested or processed in central booking like a common criminal. He was instead afforded the opportunity to be processed at the district attorney's office and allowed to walk to court. He was fingerprinted in the executive wing, Mr. Tacopina said.
Robert T. Johnson, the Bronx district attorney, noted that the grand jury considered and rejected more serious charges of bribery. He termed the outcome “fair and just” based on the evidence and circumstances and questions about how the statute of limitations applies to public officials.
The pleas completed a stunning fall from grace for a public official who rose in a decade's time from a third-grade police detective to police commissioner and a nomination as secretary of the federal Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Kerik accepted the subsidized work on his Bronx apartment in the late 1990's, while he was correction commissioner under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to investigators.
Investigators said Mr. Kerik paid about $30,000 for renovations worth about $200,000, a violation of the city's administrative code. The work was performed by an affiliate of a construction company that the city has accused of having ties to organized crime.
The company, Interstate Industrial Corporation, had sought Mr. Kerik's assistance in obtaining a license from the city to operate a construction debris transfer station and held meetings in Mr. Kerik's office. The license was ultimately not granted.
One of Mr. Kerik's pleas was for accepting the gift of the subsidized remodeling. The other was for failing to report a loan of $29,000 from a friend for a down payment on the apartment.
Mr. Kerik, a former driver and bodyguard for Mr. Giuliani while he was campaigning for mayor, was named police commissioner in 2000 and held that post on Sept. 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center was attacked.
On the basis of his performance then, President Bush nominated him to be the head of the Homeland Security Department in December 2004. But he withdrew a week later, citing possible tax problems related to the family's nanny.
Mr. Kerik also left Mr. Giuliani's private consulting firm within days of his failed federal nomination. He has been doing independent security consulting work since then, most recently in Jordan.
Alan Feuer contributed reporting for this article.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
This could be fun:
News Channel 4 has learned former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik has rejected a plea deal offered by federal prosecutors that would have required Kerik to serve time in prison.
Federal prosecutors offered Kerik a deal where he would plead guilty to tax fraud and illegal eavesdropping conspiracy charges, sources familiar with the negotiations say.
In exchange for his guilty plea, investigators were willing to end the federal criminal probe into Kerik's alleged wrongdoing which includes allegations of mortgage fraud, tax fraud, conspiracy to eavesdrop and making false statements on his application to become U.S. Homeland Security Secretary....
Quite a list. Oh, and that's “conspiracy to eavesdrop” as in “conspiracy to bug the yacht of the felon husband of the Westchester County DA, Jeanine Pirro, who thought hubby was having an affair.”
More from The New York Times:
...Daniel C. Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Fordham University School of Law, said that when plea negotiations fail, federal prosecutors nearly always seek an indictment....
An indictment would be a setback for the presidential campaign of Mr. Giuliani, who supported Mr. Kerik in his failed bid to become the nation's Homeland Security director in 2004....
Would an indictment mean a high-profile trial? Just as the GOP race heats up?
Now, it's quite possible that all those Rudy-crazed Republicans don't know who Kerik is, or just don't associate him with Giuliani. If so, Rudy dodges another bullet.
But it may be enjoyable to find out.
And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment about the President's address last night.
Only this President, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even Messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.
Only this President, could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say "where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" -- only to follow that, by proposing to repeat the identical mistake in Iran.
Only this President could extol the "thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group," and then take its most far-sighted recommendation -- "engage Syria and Iran" - and transform it into "threaten Syria and Iran" -- when Al-Qaeda would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when President Ahmmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.
This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes.
And to Iran and Syria -- and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq -- we must look like a country, run by the equivalent of the drunken pest, who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy's friends, "ok, which one of you is next?"
Mr. Bush, the question is no longer "what are you thinking?," but rather "are you thinking at all?"
"I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," you said last night.
And yet -- without any authorization from the public who spoke so loudly and clearly to you in November's elections; without any consultation with a Congress (in which key members of your own party like Senator Brownback and Senator Coleman and Senator Hagel are fleeing for higher ground); without any awareness that you are doing exactly the opposite of what Baker-Hamilton urged you to do, you seem to be ready to make an open-ended commitment (on America's behalf) to do whatever you want, in Iran.
Our military, Mr. Bush, is already stretched so thin by this bogus adventure in Iraq, that even a majority of serving personnel are willing to tell pollsters that they are dissatisfied with your prosecution of the war.
It is so weary, that many of the troops you have just consigned to Iraq, will be on their second tours, or their third tours, or their fourth tours -- and now you're going to make them take on Iran and Syria as well?
Who is left to go and fight, sir?
Who are you going to send to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria"? Laura and Barney?
The line is from the movie "Chinatown" and I quote it often. "Middle of a drought," the mortician chuckles, "and the water commissioner drowns. Only in L.A.!"
'Middle of a debate over the lives and deaths of another 21,500 of our citizens in Iraq... and the President wants to saddle up against Iran and Syria.'
Maybe that's the point: to shift the attention away from just how absurd and childish, is this latest war strategy (strategy, that is, for the war already under way, and not the one, on deck).
We are to put 17,500 more troops into Baghdad and 4,000 more into Anbar Province to give the Iraqi government "breathing space."
In and of itself, that is an awful and insulting term.
The lives of 21,500 more Americans endangered, to give "breathing space" to a government that just turned the first and perhaps the most sober act of any Democracy -- the capitol punishment of an ousted dictator -- into a vengeance lynching so barbaric, and so lacking in the solemnities necessary for credible authority, that it might have offended the Ku Klux Klan of the 19th Century.
And what will our men and women in Iraq do?
The ones who will truly live -- and die -- during what Mr. Bush said last night will be a "year ahead" which "will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve"?
They will try to seal up Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad, in which the civil war is worst.
Mr. Bush did not mention that while our people are trying to do that, the factions in the civil war will no longer have to focus on killing each other but rather, they can focus anew on killing our people.
Because last night the President foolishly all but announced that we will be sending these 21,500 poor souls over -- but, no more after that -- and if the whole thing fizzles out, we're going home.
The plan fails militarily.
The plan fails symbolically.
The plan fails politically.
Most importantly, perhaps, Mr. Bush, the plan fails because it still depends on your credibility.
You speak of mistakes, and of the responsibility "resting" with you. But you do not admit to making those mistakes.
And you offer us nothing to justify this clenched fist towards Iran and Syria.
In fact, when you briefed news correspondents off-the-record before the speech, they were told, once again, "if you knew what we knew... if you saw what we saw..."
"If you knew what we knew," was how we got into this morass in Iraq, in the first place.
The problem arose, when it turned out that the question wasn't whether or not we knew what you knew but whether you knew what you knew.
You, sir, have become the President who cried wolf.
All that you say about Iraq now, could be gospel. All that you say about Iran and Syria now, could be prescient and essential.
We no longer have a clue, sir. We have heard too many stories.
Many of us are as inclined to believe you just shuffled the Director of National Intelligence over to the State Department, because he thought you were wrong about Iran.
Many of us are as inclined to believe you just put a pilot in charge of ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because he would be truly useful in an air war next door in Iran.
Your assurances, sir, and your demands that we trust you, have lost all shape and texture.
They are now merely fertilizer for conspiracy theories.
They are now fertilizer indeed.
The pile has been built slowly and with seeming care.
I read this list last night, before the President's speech, and it bears repetition, because its shape and texture are perceptible only in such a context.
Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital.
He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Last night he promised to embed them, in Iraqi units.
He told us about WMD. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubes. Yellow-cake.
He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a material threat. Because of 9/11. Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaeda. Terrorism in General. To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases. Because this was a guy who tried to kill his Dad.
Because 439 words in to the speech last night, he trotted out 9/11 again.
In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. To get Muqtada Al-Sadr.
To get Bin Laden.
He sent in fewer troops than the Generals told him to.
He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government "De-Baathified."
He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence.
He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. Gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
He and his government told us "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".
He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary.
He has insisted it's up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.
He has trumpeted the turning points: The fall of Baghdad; the death of Uday and Qusay; the capture of Saddam; A provisional government; a charter; a constitution; the trial of Saddam; elections; purple fingers; another government; the death of Saddam.
He has assured us: we would be greeted as liberators with flowers; as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about "stay the course." We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And last night, that to gain Iraqis' trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad.
He told us the enemy was Al-Qaeda, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria.
The war would pay for itself. It would cost 1.7 billion dollars. 100 billion. 400 billion. Half a trillion. Last night's speech alone cost another six billion.
And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
Oh, and one more to add, tonight: Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Mr. Bush, this is madness.
You have lost the military.
You have lost the Congress to the Democrats.
You have lost most of the Iraqis.
You have lost many of the Republicans.
You have lost our Allies.
You are losing the credibility, not just of your Presidency, but more importantly of the office itself.
And most imperatively, you are guaranteeing that more American troops will be losing their lives, and more families their loved ones. You are guaranteeing it!
This becomes your legacy, sir: How many of those you addressed last night as your "fellow citizens" you just sent to their deaths?
And for what, Mr. Bush?
So the next President has to pull the survivors out of Iraq instead of you?
Good night and good luck.
Dear Senator / Congress-person:
As one of your voting constituents, I would like to be heard on the issue of the Attorney General scandal. It is time for Alberto Gonzales to return to Texas. He has done enough damage in Washington to merit pulling him off the field. You have a good memory, no doubt, but to refresh my own recollection, and explain my position, allow me to recap some of Mr. Gonzales’ “greatest hits.”
My dissatisfactions with Mr. Gonzales began when I read some of the memoranda that he approved, urging President Bush to apply a hyper technical, absurd definition of “torture” to skirt the obvious meaning of the term. While the “Geneva Conventions” have been the focus of the flap in the public eye, the focus of John Yoo’s memo to Mr. Gonzales on the subject was 18 USC § 2340, that makes it a felony to commit torture under color of law outside the United States, and a capital offense to kill someone while torturing them. The attempt to circumvent the obvious effect of US law in order to give US soldiers and interrogators immunity to do what Congress declared repugnant was truly shocking.
I was further disturbed by Mr. Gonzales’ use of a strategy to assert that the executive branch could avoid the jurisdiction of the US Courts by holding “enemy combatants” in Cuba. This is a new use for a Communist jurisdiction that would truly make Mephistopheles clap his hands in glee! In olden times, the Devil merely quoted scripture. Nowadays, with Mr. Gonzales’ assistance, he would simply create his own Holy Writ.
Spying on Americans
Along with Sen. Specter, I became disturbed about NSA spying, and suffered disappointment when nothing came of his rhetoric. All of this spying hasn’t turned up any real terrorists anywhere. Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield got an apology and a settlement of $2 Million after his home and office were sneak-searched by the FBI, and he was secretly interned at who-knows-what location. Fortunately he wasn’t sent to Syria, like poor Mr. El-Masri, and fortunately his lawsuit wasn’t filed in the Fourth Circuit, or he would have gotten nothing. Mr. Mayfield has received a measure of vindication. But where will our nation go to recover its honor?
Justifying the Abuse of National Security Letters
Now we have FBI Director Mueller tossing out mea culpas over the abuse of National Security Letters. Congress had an opportunity to return the nation to somewhat of the civil rights status quo when National Security Letter legislation was about to expire back at the end of 2005, but Congress renewed this power. The Dept of Justice fought and won a lawsuit that would’ve required a more detailed accounting of the FBI’s use of NSL’s, because the people are supposed to “trust.” Now we discover, no surprise, that trust has been grossly abused. As Congressman Barr said back in 2005:
“The beef with the NSLs is that they don't have even a pretense of judicial or impartial scrutiny. There's no checks and balances whatever on them. It is simply some bureaucrat's decision that they want information, and they can basically just go and get it.”
No surprise to discover that without judicial oversight, the bureaucrats have gone hog-wild. And please don’t tell me nobody has been harmed. Can you imagine the harm you would suffer, without even discovering the cause of the harm, if one of our “Men In Black” went to your employer, bank, business associates, local police, Internet service provider and cell phone company, and gave them a letter that required them to turn over your records? In a small town in Oregon, that could be the end of your business reputation, and you would never know why.
Discarding the Good Prosecutors, Keeping the Corruptible
Now, we have the newest scandal – the firing of seven – not just one, but seven US Attorneys. I have practiced in Federal Court for twenty years. US Attorneys are generally considered unassailable, and for good reason. Prosecutors like Patrick Fitzgerald make the nation proud, and cleanse the system of corruption, unless they are themselves purged. These seven US Attorneys who were fired are also just the tip of the iceberg. They are only the ones who fought the corrupting pressures that were brought to bear upon them! What tainted acts were others forced to commit in order to avoid losing their positions? And Mr. Gonzales calls it an “overblown personnel matter.” Well, speaking of personnel matters, it’s high time he received an exit interview!
Time for An Exit Interview
Mr. Gonzales has been at the helm next to our Chief Executive during six years of sailing ever farther into strange and hazardous waters. Congress must not stand idle while he pilots us even farther away from the safe harbor of justice and fair play. As my representative, and that of all Americans who are alert to the threats to our freedom and dignity as a nation “of laws, not men,” I implore you to call for Mr. Gonzales to resign his office immediately.
Please act with alacrity to get to the bottom of US Attorney-gate. Congress must subpoena former White House Counsel Harriet Myers to testify concerning her efforts to purge the entire United States attorney corps, and her conspiracy with Mr. Sampson to engage in a targeted campaign to destroy obstacles to vote manipulation. The claim that the discharged US Attorneys were unwilling to pursue “vote fraud” cases is as familiar as Jim Crow, the Poll Tax, and the KKK.
Let's face it, the Republicans, under the leadership of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, were trying to rig the 2008 election, by pursuing dirty tricks in crucial electoral states, in an effort to subvert the popular will. This was a “Plot Against America,” and you must either expose it, or allow it to continue.
Power-intoxicated criminals have their hands on the throat of the American people, and they will not rest, as the Declaration of Independence states, until we are “reduced to a state of absolute subjection.” The American people have already endured “a long train of abuses” aimed at achieving this repugnant goal.
Let us dig up the entire graveyard, and put the skeletons on view! Courage is required at this time, of course, but nothing like the courage our Founding Parents showed when they faced the wrath of George III. Think nothing for your career, and abandon diplomacy — this is the time for heroic action. Make a bet on freedom. Take a risk, and you will take the pot.
Keep your spirits up. The American people are behind all of your best impulses. You are a good man, and many of us are counting on you.
Very truly yours,
Attorney at Law
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests