Take a look…talk about the unpopular kid in class.

Per the Associated Press

McALLEN, Texas — A South Texas grand jury has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County’s federal detention centers.

The indictment criticizes Cheney’s investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and “at least misdemeanor assaults” on detainees by working through the prison companies.

Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation into abuses at the federal detention centers.

Link

According to KRGV-TV the indictments are not yet public.

WILLACY COUNTY - A Willacy County grand jury has indicted a number of political figures, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

Indictments have not yet been made public and we’re told a district judge still has to sign the indictments. Two state district judges are also indicted along with Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr.

NEWSCHANNEL 5 is digging to find out more. Senator Lucio has already issued a statement in response to the indictment. It says a motion will be filed to quash Senator Lucio’s indictment this week.

NEWSCHANNEL 5 is working in Willacy County right now and will bring you the latest when it becomes available.

Another indictment charges state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. with profiting from his public office by accepting honoraria from prison management companies.

The indictments were first reported by KRGV-TV.

Former National Security Council counter-terrorism adviser and Obama supporter, Richard Clarke, spoke yesterday about the judgment of John McCain.  Clark monikers the Arizona senator “quick draw McCain” due to his eagerness to go to war with Iraq after 9/11.  Apparently, McCain was pushing for war with Iraq while the Bush administration was merely thinking about the possibility.  Clarke went on to say that McCain and other neocons are one of the reasons that Bush went to war with Iraq in the first place.  This is why McCain has the reputation as a war monger.  And there is a strong possibility that McCain plans to staff these wars of his……….by reinstating the draft.  When asked about the draft yesterday, McCain indicated that he would be open to the idea.  Last September when asked about the draft, McCain said “I might consider it, I don’t think it’s necessary, but I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally could serve.”  I guess you would have to consider it if war is your first line of defense in dealing with conflict.  One wonders how many wars American can be involved in at one time.  Lets see, we’re in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Russia may be possibilities (depending on who wins the White House)……..after all when McCain looks in Putin’s eyes he “sees a K…a G..and a B,” nice way to approach the negotiation table.  It is statements like the former that are telling when it comes to the judgement McCain would provide in the White House.  It appears that if McCain had his way he would take us back to the Cold War.  The Arizona senator has also promised that “there will be more wars.”  Personally the idea of another President who uses military might as a first line of defense is very scary given our current national security situation and the state of our economy.  The military does not like wars and there is a reason why the majority of such military support Sen. Obama for president.  We already have China paying for the wars that we are currently fighting.  Our military is already overstretched.  This is a new global environment that is constantly changing, we need a leader who is capable of adapting.  Does anyone see McCain as an adaptable kind of guy?  I didn’t think so.  We also must use other ways to get along with the world community.  We are all for a strong defense but our defense and our nation is weakened if we continue to engage in useless wars.  We found out with the Bush administration that a President can enter us into a war under false pretences, so we must make sure that we have a person with a global perspective holding that position.  Sen. McCain has demonstrated that he has a penchant for war.  We have just had seven and a half years of cowboy diplomacy………and………….this past year, Sen. John McCain has voted with Pres. Bush 100% of the time……..100%!  By McCain’s own admission, he has voted with Bush 95% of the time throughout Bush’s tenure in office. Do we really want someone in the White House that voted with George Bush 95% of the time?  How is that not a continuation of the policies of the Bush administration?  In what universe does that represent change?  We have to ask if the person has the intellectual capacity and temperament to be the leader of the free world?  We need to rebuild our moral standing through our willingness to engage and work with leaders, adversaries and friends, of other nations.  We cannot do that with a hair-trigger finger on the war gun.

Is Bush/Cheney about to be impeached?  Congressman John Conyers may be ready to do just that. The Bush presidency is just bad precedent for future presidents.  Imagine if all presidents entered the White House thinking that could get away with what this administration has attempted to get away with.  Accountability is essential to any democracy.  

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has taken the highly unusual step of calling his committee back from summer recess in order to investigate allegations by Ron Suskind that the Bush administration forged a letter to buttress the links made between Saddam and 9/11, and Saddam and WMD. The congressional Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq, the “”War Resolution” which, as far short as it fell of a congressional declaration of war, gave the invasion its constitutional legal cover, and gave Bush the authorization to invade only after he had certified to congress the existence of these two critical links. If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and if he did not possess WMD, the war was off.

Yesterday, George W Bush held a press conference urging Congress to take up a vote on off-shore exploration thereby lifting its ban on off-shore oil drilling.  Even though his administration has done absolutely nothing, for seven years, toward energy independence.  But when it comes to drilling for more oil, this administration and McCain has concluded that it is the only way we can become more energy independent.  McCain voted against a bill that would have increased fuel economy standards in 2006 while Obama voted for the bill.  An increase in fuel economy standards would require that automobile manufacturers increase the number of miles per gallon of gas on all newly manufactured cars.  In China, because of a mandate by the Chinese government, cars get 43 miles per gallon.  Such a bill would have made a significant difference in today’s gas prices had it been adopted in 2006 when it was proposed.

Something else that this writer finds a little disturbing is a Washington Post report that campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain increased dramatically at the end of June, right after McCain made a high-profile split with environmentalists and flipped from his orginal position against off-shore drilling.  As for the Bush administration’s hand in the oil well, the Wall Street Journal reported that influential former Pentagon official Richard Perle is going into the oil business in Iraq and Kazakhstan according to sources close to the deals.  Perle was one of the security experts helping to make the case to the Bush Administration for taking down Saddam Hussein. 

Therefore, when the current President and John McCain continually push the idea that off-shore drilling is the best solution for the American people, I tend to suspect their motives.  I would trust their motives more if they at least had a past record of working toward energy independence and were not so inextricably linked to the oil industry.

Sen. John McCain made a major foreign policy shift with respect to Afghanistan yesterday when he said that we should transfer US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.  Prior to yesterday’s change in strategy, McCain had been pushing for NATO to send troops to Afghanistan rather than the US troop transfer that Obama has been proposing for almost a year now.  But wait, Obama’s position has always been to send at least TWO brigades from Iraq to Afghanistan.  Months and months later McCain all of sudden has an epiphany and says, lets send, “THREE brigades from Iraq to Afghanistan.”  McCain changed his policy yesterday after Obama wrote an Op-Ed last Sunday highlighting this approach.  As for who makes the better Commander-in-Chief, it looks like McCain is doing more following than leading in his approach to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Judgment.

There was also another interesting development that occurred last night.  The Bush administration announced that it will be making a major policy direction shift and following Obama’s “naive” foreign policy strategy.  After a year of criticizing Obama for his willingness to meet with our enemies, the Bush administration has decided to do just that…..again!  First, with Korea and now with Iran. Our third highest ranking diplomat, William Burns, will meet with Iran’s top nuclear negotiator.  Up until this point, the Bush administration has refused to even sit down with Iran.  Obama hates to say I told you so.  But he did tell you so.  The disastrous foreign policy of the current administration has resulted in severe consequences to our nation.  It’s nice to see that they are following a sound foreign policy approach for a CHANGE.  Judgment

George W. Bush has decided to lift the Executive off-shore drilling ban in an effort to goad Congress into lifting its ban.  I guess he forgot that the oil companies already have 1000’s of leases for millions of acres of oilfields that they have not bothered to drill on.  Fortunately, the President also needs Congress to lift its legislative ban in order to begin exploration.  As we have mentioned here before, off-shore drilling will produce zero short term benefits to our oil crisis but would have long term repercussions to our coastlines.  The negligible affect that drilling would have on gas prices would not accur until 2030. The ten year timeline being pushed by the GOP  is the timeline for pumping the oil.  Any consumer benefit would not be felt until twelve or thirteen years following.  By then we will have alternative energy mechanisms in place so that the drilling and its minor benefit will be moot.  Sen. Barack Obama proposes giving a $1000 middle class tax cut that would go to 95 percent of all families and off-set the burden that such skyrocketing gas prices have presented.  In addition, Obama proposes investing in renewable energy sources for the long term.  While the Bush-McCain solution would only worsen our addiction to oil by increasing our dependence.  McCain claims that he would like to employ a cocktail of solutions to solve the energy crisis, but including off-shore drilling in his mixture is unnecessary and meaningless.  We have the technology and supply on hand today (wind, solar, biomass, strategic petroleum reserves) to affect the price of gas, so giving oil companies more oilfields to hoard in their reserve is just greed and completely pointless.  This solution does nothing more than increase the value of the stock of oil companies.  One other possible piece of legislation affecting gas and oil prices that Congress plans to address next week is to the Enron loophole.  The democrats in Congress plan to introduce a Speculation bill next week that will address the loophole.

As for the Bush-McCain plan, exactly the type of sensible solution that would be utilized by a drug addict. 

Our airline and trucking industries are collapsing as a result of  skyrocketing gas prices.  Our president went to Saudi Arabia and begged them to produce more oil…Saudi’s response?  Tell you what Mr. Bush, we will THINK about producing more oil if you sell us nuclear technology and materials.  President Bush and Condoleeza Rice’s response…sounds good, lets do it.  Okay, so we are selling nuclear technology and power plants to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a mere promise from Saudi Arabia to THINK about producing more oil.  When asked if he thinks that this deal will compromise U.S. security, Bush responded that he trusts the King of Saudi Arabia.  I am by no means a foreign policy expert but that leaves this writer a little uneasy.  There is a consensus among those who are experts in this area that any domestic drilling will not produce a drop of oil for at least ten years.  However, listening to Bush, McCain, and the republican party, you would think that domestic off-shore drilling is the panacea for our energy crisis.  So their answer to our “oil addiction” is to drill more oil to feed our habit?  Hmmm………the crack addict strategy…….works for me!  Even Ruper Murdoch’s conservative Wall Street Journal agrees that if domestic drilling were to take place, the American people would not see any oil for seven to ten years. This seems to be a last minute grab from the two oil men before they leave office.  Oil companies or republicans never seem to mention that U.S. oil companies already have over 400 oil leases that allows them to drill domestically and are only drilling on 20% of those leases.  So, although 68 million acres are already leased to the oil companies for domestic drilling, they are not drilling.  Reason claims said oil companies…..a lack of the necessary equipment or not enough acres to make drilling profitable.  Yea right!  It seems that they and the republican party have decided to obtain and hoard as many leases as possible while the gettin is good, i.e., before the oil men administration leaves office.  McCain has also decided to flip-flop and jump on the bandwagon by changing his position regarding off-shore drilling.  Originally, McCain’s position was no off-shore drilling domestically.  Interesting tidbit….Wall Street values oil companies based on their reserves.  The more reserves the oil company claims that it has, the greater the value of said oil company.

Off-Shore Drilling

The moratorium on off-shore drilling was put in place two decades ago in an effort to preserve the environment (routine leaks, spills, pollution from rigs, affect on climate change when burning the end product, tar bogs on the beach) and to prevent damage to oceanlife that off-shore drilling would cause.  Further, residents of coastal communities do not want to see parts of their coastline industrialized nor do they want view eyesore oil riggs from their coastlines.  Also, business and residential communities of such coastlines do not want the on-shore development of support facilities and refineries that come along with off-shore drilling.  For these communities, the coastlines are huge economic engines that drive business to their localities.  Side point: Even if the ban is lifted, there is a shortage of ships available to oil companies to do the off-shore drilling.  Back to my main point.  The U.S. is the third largest producer of oil in the world. We cannot produce enough oil to meet our huge demand.  Better solution, drive down demand in the U.S. and become much more fuel-efficient and energy independent.  We cannot produce enough oil domestically to meet our demand.  Fuel efficiency will have a much greater effect on our dependence than any negligible effect achieved by increased domestic drilling.  Even though McCain has been quoted to say that domestic oil “resources will take years to develop,”  he is now pushing for us to become more fuel dependent by agreeing with Bush in his proposal to increase off-shore drilling.  Funny thing, Jeb Bush is Against lifting the ban. However, current Florida governor and vice presidential hopeful Charlie Crist supports lifting the ban.  Another interesting tidbit is that John McCain has received $800, 000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry.  Though Sen. McCain is advocating otherwise, less drilling and renewable energy such as wind and solar seems to be the quickest and more preferable methods. After all, experts confirm that it will take 20 or 30 years before consumers will actually see cheaper gas as a result of domestic off-shore drilling.  Sen. Barack Obama supports maintaining the ban.   

Will not make a difference in gas Prices 

Claiming otherwise is political pandering.  Selling more domestic drilling leases to oil companies will not make a difference in the price of gas. This is a world market and individual fields do not have a big influence on how the price of oil is set. Further, the U.S. has only 2% of the worlds proven oil reserves yet we consume 21% of global oil demand.  We import 60 percent of our oil.  We will never be able to drill enough oil to make us energy independent simply with domestic off-shore drilling.  Fuel efficiency and alternative forms of energy are our best options.  Off-shore drilling is a red herring that will not come anywhere near solving our current energy crisis

Speculators  (Enron loophole)

Speculators have also been cited as the reason for high gas prices by way of the Enron loophole.  The Enron loophole, proposed by then Sen. Phil Gramm(TX) now McCain’s Chief  Financial advisor, is a provision in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that exempts electronic trading of energy (oil) from oversight of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.  In 2000, Gramm and former CEO of Enron, Kenneth Lay, convinced Congress that the energy market would be much more “efficient” without federal oversight.   Actually, Gramm slipped the Enron, backed and drafted, provision into the CFM Act.  Also, at the time, Wendy Gramm, Phil Gramm’s wife, was on the board of directors of Enron.  Nothing like keeping it in the family.  The Enron provision allows for energy trading in unregulated markets, also referred to as “dark markets.” American investors and hedge funds can purchase an unlimited number of energy contracts on foreign exchanges.  This practice artificially inflates oil demand.  Because of the lack of federal oversight with respect to foreign exchanges, traders are able to avoid the ”position limits” set by the Commodities Futures Trade Commission for American markets resulting in ”price distortion and supply squeezes.”  Trading in such unregulated markets have soared in the last three years.  Speculation appears to be playing a significant role in driving up the price of oil.  Oil is being used as a hedge against the dollar.  As the dollar falls foreign investors buy oil using dollars because it is perceived as discounted.  This then increases the demand for oil in the energy market.  Further, to purchase stocks on margin in regulated markets, investors must put down at least 50 percent of their own money.  However, in the unregulated energy (oil) market, investors need only put down seven percent of their own money and hedge funds need only put down 1 percent or less. This allows speculators/investors to take huge bets with tiny amounts of money.  Raising the margins for such speculators would make this type of trading less profitable by decreasing the demand for energy contracts.  Some say that the Enron loophole can account for as much as $80 of the $140 cost of  a barrel of oil.  Such speculation has also been estimated to account for as much as 60 percent of the price for a gallon of gasoline.  Lack of policing by the government allows traders to manipulate, if not outright control, the market.  Legislators took a small step towards reform in the farm bill legislation but they need to go much further and close this loophole altogether.  McCain opposed the farm bill and defended the Enron loophole.  The Arizona senator claimed to oppose the bill because he did not want to reward lobbyists.  However, a McCain aide speaking on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that McCain opposed the bill after being advised by Gramm to resist it because of the regulatory language affecting the energy futures market.  Speak to you congressman about closing this loophole and increasing margin requirements.

Supply and Demand 

Many claim that the increased demand for oil by developing countries China and India is the reason for the high oil prices.  “World demand for oil is projected to increase 37% over 2006 levels by 2030, according to the US-based Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) annual report.” India and China are becoming big oil consumers as a result of urbanization, development, and pursuit of higher living standards.  China’s oil consumption doubled from 1996 -2006. It also imported over 50 percent of its oil in 2005.  India’s oil imports are expected to triple by 2020.  The increase demand for cars and trucks in India and China will be the primary cause of 75 percent increase of oil consumption.  This number will only increase as more and more countries develop.  The price of oil has risen 400 percent in the last six years. Yet the demand for crude oil has has only risen a little over nine percent in the last six years.  In 2002, the price of oil per barrel was $20.  Last week a barrel of oil reached an all time high of $142 a barrel.  Though oil production has outpaced demand 9.87 to 9.38, the price of oil has increased spectacularly.  The way market forces usually work is when supply is less than demand, the price of oil increases.  When supply is greater than demand, the price of oil should go down.  Deductive reasoning dictate that because oil production exceeded oil demand and the price of oil still increased 400 percent within the last six years, China and India are probably not the reason for the meteoric rise in oil prices.

Gas Tax Holiday

A gimmick.  Nough said.

What We can Do

America needs to become more energy independent.  What can we the consumers do?  We can do our part.  We are already parking our cars, driving less, and moving more towards mass transit.  Driving 60 mph will eliminate 2 million barrels of oil a day and will significantly affect our demand thereby impacting the price of gasoline in the U.S.  We do not need politicians to tell us this.  These are things that we can do as consumers.  What can Washington, DC do with pressure from us the consumers?  Renewable energy and heightened fuel economy standards can have a substantial impact.  Fuel economy standards were only recently increased after being frozen since the Reagan era.   Congress is finally telling Detroit that its cars must be much more fuel efficient.  For goodness sake…..cars in Japan get 50 miles per gallon of gas.  Trucks in Japan get 40 mile per gallon of gas.  Ninety percent of the new cars sold in Brazil this year will be flexible-fuel vehicles operating on a mixture of sugar based ethanol and gas.  Why are we so far behind this trend?  Complacency.  America is fully capable of jumping on this bandwagon but has not had the incentive up until this point…..well circumstances have changed dramatically and the US is forced to move toward the gasoline alternative direction.  With respect to Detroit making these large fuel-inefficient vehicles, Detroit posits that its predicament of having to pay pensions and high healthcare cost necessitate that they make larger cars because the profit margin on such cars is much greater than that on small vehicles.  Now however, the demand for compact, fuel efficient cars is imperative and Detroit needs to adjust its business model.  Many suspect that we need $8 dollar a gallon gas to incentivise Americans to use less gas.  I don’t think so.  As previously mentioned, we have already begun to take big steps in this direction by driving less and moving to mass transit as our primary mode of transportation.  Mass transit ridership is up15 percent in some metropolitan cities.  The demand for hybrid cars is enormous, so much so that the length of time that a hybrid car stays on the sales lot after delivery from the manufacturer is 17 hours.  Mercedes Benz, maker of the SmartForTwo, says it will stop producing  gasoline cars altogether in 7 years.  The company is now testing their SmartForTwo as an Electric Vehicle in LA using lithium batteries.  Nissan plans to roll out its electric car in significant quantities to the American market by 2010 and mass market the electric vehicle by 2012.  The cars release zero emissions.  We sent a man to the moon for goodness sake, I do not buy the excuse that it is impossible to become less oil dependent.  Denmark and Israel have already moved in this direction.  Denmark especially are using wind energy to power their electric cars.  One mid-size two mega watt windmill can supply the energy needed for 3000 cars.  700 mid-size two mega watt windmills can power two million passenger cars.  Given that our reliance on foreign oil undermines our national security and defense capabilities, a move in this direction makes sense.   We have the science and technology to go all electric today.  We just need the car companies to begin the process.  If you think about the evolution of mail from letters (snail mail), to fax, to email; the evolution of the electric car is on the same path.  First we have the gas vehicle, then we have the hybrid, the next logical step is an all electric vehicle.  Electric cars are inevitable, call your congressman and express your backing of putting in place incentives to Detroit and other car companies to begin producing them in large quantities. 

President Bush announced this morning that the United States has moved closer to its goal of ridding the world of North Korea as a nuclear threat and dismantling the socialist state’s nuclear programs.  North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006 and has the capability to produce more.  Therefore, the fact that North Korea has handed over documents regarding its nuclear activities is a big step towards the larger goal of nuclear disarmament.  The United States intends to lift sanctions and its designation of North Korea as a terrorist state in 45 days if North Korea follows through with its promises.  Bush says that if North Korea does not follow through with its promises more restrictions will be placed.  Noteworthy Comment:  It is only because Bush changed his policy about direct talks with our enemies that this development took place.  Can you say thanks Sen. Obama.  Apparently the criticism of Obama as being naive is without merit.  This is the third time Bush has changed his position to that of the Illinois senator regarding foreign policy and received successful results.  FYI:  John McCain takes an even harder line against and regarding talking to our enemies than President Bush.  Sen. MCain has called Obama’s policy in this regard inexperienced.  Obama has said that he has better judgement and that experience in Washington does not substitute for such judgement.  Todays development seem to ram forward that point.  Ding, ding, ding,…..another round for Obama.

Under mounting pressure from Israel, CBS is reporting that President Bush is actually considering leaving office with a BANG!  Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen left Tuesday night on an overseas trip to Israel where Israel is expected to beg the U.S. to strike Iran before Bush leaves office.  Israel does not want Iran to be nuclearized and it is counting on President Bush to strike in the next six months because they are unsure of the foreign policy of the next administration regarding Iran.  Welcome October surprise!  CBS reports that “[t]he Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize,” [CBS also reports] “Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran.” So they are in the process of  applying immense pressure on the current administration to complete a military strike before it leaves in January 2008.  The current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposes such a strike because he says that “it could touch off a third war in the region.”  Question: how could a President who has judgement, a conscience, or a semblance of intellect enter us into another war when our military is already completely overstretched and our country is facing a deficit unlike any in recent history?  The Answer: we are dealing with a President that does not seem to possess any of these things.  What we seem to have is a President who is trying to get his party re-elected by way of political expediency perhaps? Who we are dealing with is a president who believes in cowboy diplomacy regardless of the consequences to the American people.  Who we are dealing with is a president who does not seem to care what happens once he leaves office and figures that the aftermath of his actions will be President Obama’s problem.  Big surprise, vice President Cheney is also for striking Iran.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush on the floor of the House yesterday.  The Ohio Representative and former presidential  contender requested that the House consider impeaching President Bush for decieving the country and breached his oath of office by leading into the Iraq war.

The articles of impeachment named by Rep. Kucinich were violation of the Geneva conventions, misprison of a felony, torture, war criminal, and many more.  The Ohio representative also introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney last year.  The resolution didn’t go very far even though republicans voted to debate the measure.

Scott McClellan, former White House Secretary, has accepted the invitation from the Judiciary Committe to testify before Congress on the Bush Administration’s action regarding the Valerie Plame affair.

According to the Associated Press “President Bush’s former spokesman, Scott McClellan, will testify before a House committee next week about whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to make misleading public statements about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity.”  “McClellan will testify publicly and under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 about the White House’s role in the leak and its response, his attorneys, Michael and Jane Tigar, said on Monday.”

John McCain was all for talking with Hamas two years ago before he started running for president.  Now the Arizona senator has flip flopped on the double-talk express.  A pattern is developing here.  This was written in response to McCain’s outrageous statement yesterday in support of President Bush’s outrageous and unprecedented comments regarding “appeasement” that Bush made about Sen. Obama on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence.  Bush also violated 60 years of uninterrupted american foreign policy in that you do not criticize american foreign policy on foreign soil.  See interview with James Rubin:

RUBIN: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCAIN: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”