Way to go, Dems!

I'm so excited I'm just beside myself. Finally the Democrats decided to stand up and fight. By now I'm sure you know what happened yesterday but I'm going to link to the Washington Post article about it to make sure. The article is entitled, "GOP Angered by Closed Senate Session". Here's some of what it says:

Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session yesterday, infuriating Republicans but extracting from them a promise to speed up an inquiry into the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to the war.

With no warning in the mid-afternoon, the Senate's top Democrat invoked the little-used Rule 21, which forced aides to turn off the chamber's cameras and close its massive doors after evicting all visitors, reporters and most staffers. Plans to bring in electronic-bug-sniffing dogs were dropped when it became clear that senators would trade barbs but discuss no classified information.

Republicans condemned the Democrats' maneuver, which marked the first time in more than 25 years that one party had insisted on a closed session without consulting the other party. But within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which Democrats say has been delayed for nearly a year.

"Finally, after months and months and months of begging, cajoling, writing letters, we're finally going to be able to have phase two of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq," Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters, claiming a rare victory for Democrats in the GOP-controlled Congress.
...
In July 2004, the committee issued the first phase of its bipartisan report, which found the U.S. intelligence community had assembled a deeply flawed and exaggerated assessment of Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities. The second phase was to focus on the administration's deliberations over the intelligence or how it was used. Sources familiar with the committee's work said there has been little examination of these topics to date.

Phone the Democratic Party National Headquarters and say you support Harry Reid. (Read his sizzling speech below if you haven't yet.) Better yet, give them some money. If contributions come pouring in as a result of this action by Democrats, maybe the leadership will figure it's good to show some guts. WOW!

A Democrat grows a spine

Wow. Look at this. Just look at this:

Statement by Senator Reid

Troops and Security First

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false. The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.”

The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

o How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
o Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
o How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
o What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
o How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions?
o Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.

The problem with the media

In today's media, we seem to bring on the liars in order to balance the truth.

-- NPR's Bob Edwards June 2004

The spineless Democrats

You've heard me bemoan the unwillingness of the Democrats to stand up and fight a good many times on this blog. Here's an article that reports on a speech by Bill Clinton saying that too. The article is entitled, "Democrats must address tough issues, Clinton says". Here's some of what it says:

AUSTIN - Democrats can't be afraid to talk about hot-button issues like abortion and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday.

"You can't say, 'Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.' Give me a break here," Clinton said. "If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people, then find something else to do."

Clinton, whose 2004 memoir My Life was a bestseller, drew roaring applause during his speech from the several hundred people gathered in the Texas House chamber to kick off the 10th annual Texas Book Festival, an event begun by first lady Laura Bush when her husband was governor.
...
The speech was Clinton's first in the Texas House since 1991, when Democrat Ann Richards was governor and the party controlled both chambers. Now all statewide officeholders and a majority of U.S. representatives are Republicans, and the GOP controls both chambers of the Texas Legislature.

Republicans also control Congress, a fact Clinton attributed to Democratic candidates' inability or unwillingness to "stand up and be heard" on issues that matter to people.

He said Democrats too often aren't willing to talk about abortion because they're afraid of virulent reactions from anti-abortion groups.

But the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, agreeing that abortion is a tragedy but not wanting "to go back to the days when we criminalized the conduct of scared young girls and their doctors," he said.

"So how come we can't talk about it?" he added. "Because we basically let political ads turn every player in this drama into a two-dimensional cartoon instead of a three-dimensional person."

Clinton also criticized political reporters and authors for failing to use reason and common sense in their writing and to dig deeply into stories. Instead, he said, reporters let officials get away with saying things that aren't true just so their stories include comment from both sides of an issue.

This really quite recent practice of the news media to think they're being fair by reporting "both sides" of an issue regardless of the truth leads me almost to despair. If one side says the earth is round, do we then have to be "fair" by quoting a representative of the Flat Earth Society? What about the news media's job to report the facts in an impartial manner? Instead we have stenographers for reporters who just repeat what various partisans say without taking their job to inform the public seriously.

Of course, what I've noticed is that there is only this compulsion to present "both sides" when something that supports the liberal viewpoint is being reported. The press is very happy to report events from a right-wing point of view without offering equitable balance. Yesterday, Media Matters published a chart that reveals just how one-sided TV news was on reporting the Alito nomination. It's entitled, "Cable news coverage of Alito nomination skewed right". I really recommend that you click through and read it.

Reid Statement on Alito

Well, to say that Bush's latest nominee to the Supreme Court is a disappointment would be to engage in understatement. Here's what Democratic leader Harry Reid has to say about it:

The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people.

I am disappointed in this choice for several reasons. First, unlike previous nominations, this one was not the product of consultation with Senate Democrats. Last Friday, Senator Leahy and I wrote to President Bush urging him to work with us to find a consensus nominee. The President has rejected that approach.

Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, one of only two women on the Court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club.

Justice O'Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court. The stakes in selecting her replacement are high.

I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the Court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers.

Well, I've made a personal decision on this one. If the Democrats don't fillibuster this nomination then they're not getting another penny from me. And I send a monthly pledge to the Democratic Party.

Just a reminder

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

-- Treaty of Tripoli.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

--Article VI, Clause 2, The Constitution of the United States

Ethics and the White House

Well, there's an interesting article in the Washington Post this morning about the public's view of the state of ethics in the White House. The article is entitled, "White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned". Here's some of what it says:

A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.

The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.

55 percent is a lot of people - particularly when you consider that the mainstream press is slanted to the right. Reality is starting to sink in. It's about time.

What Patrick Fitzgerald said

It's not over.

What Howard Dean said

This is a sad day for America.

Beyond the evidence that the White House manipulated the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, a group of senior White House officials not only orchestrated efforts to smear a critic of the war, but worked to cover up this smear campaign. In so doing, they ignored the rule of law, endangering our national security and the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our nation's security. I. Lewis Libby was a part of this internal White House group.

This is not only an abuse of power, it is an un-American abuse of the public trust. As Americans, we must hold ourselves and our leaders to a higher standard. We cannot fear dissent. We cannot fear the truth. And we cannot tolerate those who do.

More importantly, we can't ignore the glaring questions this case has raised about the rationale the Bush Administration used to send us to war in Iraq, a war that continues. American soldiers are still in harms way. Over 2,000 brave Americans have lost their lives, thousands of American soldiers have been wounded, and thousands of American families have made the ultimate sacrifice. Still, the President has no plan and no exit strategy. And still he hasn't answered the question, what are we doing in Iraq and when can our troops come home?

President Bush faces a serious test of leadership; will he keep his pledge to hold his Administration to high ethical standards and give the American people what they deserve, and will he answer to the American people for these serious missteps?"

What Joseph Wilson said

The five count indictment issued by the Grand Jury today is an important step in the criminal justice process that began more than two years ago. I commend Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald for his professionalism, for his diligence, and for his courage.

There will be many opportunities in the future to comment on the events that led to today’s indictment. And, it appears that there will be further developments before the grand jury. Whatever the final outcome of the investigation and the prosecution, I continue to believe that revealing my wife Valerie’s secret CIA identity was very wrong and harmful to our nation, and I feel that my family was attacked for my speaking the truth about the events that led our country to war. I look forward to exercising my rights as a citizen to speak about these matters in the future.

Today, however, is not the time to analyze or to debate. And it is certainly not a day to celebrate. Today is a sad day for America. When an indictment is delivered at the front door of the White House, the Office of the President is defiled. No citizen can take pleasure from that.

As this case proceeds, Valerie and I are confident that justice will be done. In the meantime, I have a request. While I may engage in public discourse, my wife and
my family are private people. They did not choose to be brought into the public square, and they do not wish to be under the glare of camera. They are entitled to their privacy. This case is not about me or my family, no matter how others might try to make it so.

This case is about serious criminal charges that go to the heart of our democracy.

We, like all citizens, await the judgment of the jury in a court of law.

Thank you.

What Harry Reid said

This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.

It's now time for President Bush to lead and answer the very serious questions raised by this investigation. The American people have already paid too steep a price as a result of misconduct at the White House, and they deserve better.

What John Kerry said

Today’s indictment of the Vice President’s top aide and the continuing investigation of Karl Rove are evidence of White House corruption at the very highest levels, far from the ‘honor and dignity’ the president pledged to restore to Washington just five years ago.

A chief architect of the war in Iraq, Scooter Libby, sworn to protect this country, used access to national security information not as weapons against our nation’s enemies, but as weapons against someone who dared to ask tough questions of a dishonest policy. Then they tried to cover it up rather than come clean with the American people, even as the President falsely claimed his Administration was cooperating with investigators. Not only was America misled into war, but a Nixonian effort to silence dissent has now left Americans wondering whether they can trust anything this Administration has to say.

Today, almost on cue as bad news struck, the President delivered another rhetorical blast on the war on terror. But the war on terror is not a convenient political distraction, it’s a war we have to win. And to win the war on terror, we can’t afford to have senior administration officials playing political games with national security. The President needs to get serious about addressing our nation’s problems, starting by cleaning out the corruption in his Administration and then addressing the situation in Iraq, soaring gas prices, and a still sluggish economy.

What Ted Kennedy said

Today is an ominous day for the country, signifying a new low since Watergate in terms of openness and honesty in our government. This is far more than an indictment of an individual. In effect it’s an indictment of the vicious and devious tactics used by the Administration to justify a war we never should have fought. It’s an indictment of the lengths Administration officials were willing to go to cover up their failed intelligence, their distortion on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and their serious blunders on the war. It is an indictment of their vindictive efforts to discredit anyone who challenge their misrepresentations.

The American people know the high cost of this misguided war – 2,000 U.S. soldiers dead, more than 15,000 wounded, hundreds of billions of dollars spent with no end in sight, and a continuing shameful effort by the White House to silence those who try to tell the truth about the war. Dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism, and it’s time we return to having an honest discourse in this country about changing direction and paying attention to the needs of the American people.

The President should take this opportunity to do everything he can to heal the country by not interfering with the prosecution of this case or the continuing investigation, and by cleaning house at the White House to immunize the country against any further corruption and dishonesty. As the President promised, anyone still in the White House who had anything to do with this scandalous plot or the cover-up should be dismissed immediately, whether or not they have been indicted. Something has to give — America can’t stand three more years of this failed Bush presidency.

Valerie Plame timeline

Well, by now you've heard that Libby has been indicted and has resigned. I thought you might like to see a Guardian article entitled, "Timeline: the Valerie Plame affair". It lists "Key events in the investigation into the leak of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the media". I trust the Guardian not to leave anything out that's significant.

Indictment disappointment

Well, the Washington Post is reporting that we should expect only one indictment and that Karl Rove is to be spared but will continue to be under investigation. Here's part of the article entitled, "White House Braces for Indictment; Rove Said to Be Spared for Now":

White House officials braced for the possibility that Vice President Cheney's chief of staff would be indicted in the CIA leak case today, while the lawyer for Karl Rove said the presidential confidant's case is still under investigation.

"The Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and that Mr. Rove's status has not changed," said Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in a statement released this morning. "Mr. Rove will continue to cooperate fully with the Special Counsel's efforts to complete the investigation. We are confident that when the Special Counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong."

Disappointing.

A timely prophecy

This is what he said last night:

The White House remains steadfast. They said they will absolutely not withdraw Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. You know what that means? She'll be out of there in a week.

--David Letterman

Poll on Plame-gate

Here's a CNN article that says the following on the Valerie Plame affair:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Only one in 10 Americans said they believe Bush administration officials did nothing illegal or unethical in connection with the leaking of a CIA operative's identity, according to a national poll released Tuesday.

Thirty-nine percent said some administration officials acted illegally in the matter, in which the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, was revealed.

The same percentage of respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said administration officials acted unethically, but did nothing illegal.

The article further explains the situation:

Federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a covert CIA operative, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is heading a probe into the matter. (Fitzgerald profile)

With the grand jury investigating the leak set to expire Friday, FBI agents interviewed a Washington neighbor of Plame for a second time.

The agents asked Marc Lefkowitz on Monday night whether he knew about Plame's CIA work before her identity was leaked in the media, and Lefkowitz told agents he did not, according to his wife, Elise Lefkowitz.
...
The New York Times reported Tuesday that notes in Fitzgerald's possession suggest that Libby first heard of the CIA officer from Cheney himself. (Full story)

But the newspaper reported that the notes do not indicate that Cheney or Libby knew Plame was an undercover operative.

The Times said its sources in the story were lawyers involved in the case.

The notes show that George Tenet, then the CIA director, gave the information to Cheney in response to questions the vice president posed about Wilson, the Times reported.

How could they not know? What would be the point of outing her if she were not undercover? The very idea strains credulity.

Great snark

Insiders say that if Karl Rove resigns, President Bush will not function effectively. Wait a minute, all this time he's been functioning effectively?

--David Letterman

The lie can't last forever

People are getting fed up with being lied to. That's what Dave Zweifel concludes in a brief but biting article entitled, "Bush's Lies are Coming Home to Roost" published in Madison Capital Times. Here's part of what it says:

Several months ago I suggested in this column that if Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying about his extracurricular sex life, then George Bush could be impeached for telling lies to get us involved in what appears to be a never-ending war that has taken the lives of nearly 2,000 Americans, wounded another 15,000-plus and resulted in the deaths of at least 30,000 Iraqis.

As far as I can tell, Monica Lewinsky was the only victim of Clinton's shenanigans and she's still very much alive.

I got letters, of course, telling me how stupid I was and, besides, since Congress is controlled by Republicans, there's no way that Bush will ever get impeached in the first place.

That's undoubtedly true.

But it's now turning out that quite a few folks agree that maybe this guy ought to be held accountable for the lies he's told and, I'm sorry to say, continues to tell.

A poll done in early October by the respected polling organization Ipsos found that a full 50 percent of Americans favor impeaching the president if he lied about the war in Iraq. Forty-four percent said he shouldn't be impeached, even for telling lies about his reasons for going to war. The rest either didn't know or care.

The percentage for impeachment grows considerably the younger the person is and the lower he or she ranks on the income scale.

The Ipsos poll comes on the heels of one done by the polling organization Zogby back in June of this year. The Zogby gauge of public opinion showed that in June 42 percent of Americans answered yes to the question of whether Bush should be impeached if he told lies to get us into war while 50 percent said he shouldn't be.

The change in opinion from June to October coincides with the dramatic drop in the president's approval rating, which now stands at about the same percentage as the vote that Herbert Hoover received against Franklin D. Roosevelt back in 1932 - 39 percent.

The fact that half of the people would agree impeachment is in order is surprising because there really is no one campaigning for impeaching the president in any high-profile place, like in Congress or the media.

People are coming to the conclusion by themselves.

I think most people are gullible for only so long. Then they get really offended by the con game. You can only insult people for so long. You can only lie for so long.

Please don't shop at Wal-Mart - Part 8

I've shared with you a number of articles about the shameful way Wal-Mart treats its workers as well as how it destroys local business in small towns (in large towns, too.) Today I want to draw your attention to an article about the vast sums of money Wal-Mart gives away to promote a right-wing political and social agenda. The article is by Bill Berkowitz and is entitled, "Wal-Marting Philanthropy". Here's a little bit of what it says:

OAKLAND, California - Upon the death of Helen Walton, the frail and aging widow of Sam Walton -- founder of the Wal-Mart empire -- the Walton Family Foundation could receive as much as 20 billion dollars, making it the largest and potentially most powerful foundation in the world.
...
The Walton Family Foundation currently gives out more than 100 million dollars a year - a healthy chunk of it to opponents of public school education. The Wal-Mart Foundation donated more than 170 million dollars in 2004, 90 percent of which went through local stores to small community and faith-based organizations.

The Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Political Action Committee for Responsive Government earmarks the vast majority of its contributions to Republican Party political candidates and Republican political committees. Of the 2.1 million dollars the PAC gave in 2004, 1.6 million went to the GOP while less than 500,000 dollars went to Democrats.

In its new report "The Waltons and Wal-Mart: Self-Interested Philanthropy", the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) examines the intersection of corporate philanthropy and public policy by looking closely at the philanthropic efforts of the Walton family.

"The importance of the Waltons is not how much money they are giving now, but how much money they will be giving in a few years and where the money will be going," the report states. Philanthropic endeavors and contributions to political candidates and political action committees (PACs) have increasingly become a way the wealthy can divest of surplus capital while promoting their political and social agendas. In 2004, "corporations and their foundations contributed 12 billion dollars in cash and in-kind donations to charities," the NCRP report documents.

John Walton, killed in an airplane crash earlier this year, was "the activist in the family, working to fund political campaigns for school vouchers and charter schools and directing much of the family's charitable giving". It is expected that the Walton Family Foundation's expected cash transfusion would lead to an increasing support for conservative candidates and conservative causes.

So why are the Walton's against public education? Here's one suggestion:

"Some critics argue that it is the beginning of the 'Wal-Martization' of education, and a move to for-profit schooling, from which the family could potentially financially benefit. John Walton owned 240,000 shares of Tesseract Group Inc. (formerly known as Education Alternatives Inc.), which is a for-profit company that develops/manages charter and private school as well as public schools."

Oh, my goodness. We're talking about a huge amount of money going to right-wing causes. It's very worrying.