Jeanne d’Arc:
Goin’ Back to New Orleans

A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post ran a good piece showing the real life consequences of Bush’s decision to suspend Davis-Bacon on post-hurricane reconstruction projects: A small, minority-owned business in New Orleans initially got a contract to provide electricians (to a larger, Alabama-based company working for Kellogg, Brown & Root). But the NOLA company, Knight Enterprises, hired local workers and paid union wages — $22.09 per hour, plus health benefits. Other companies, paying $14 an hour, with no benefits, came in, and Knight lost its contract. The local employees were replaced by out-of-state workers.

It gets worse:

An electrician and foreman with Knight Enterprises cried as he recounted how his team of workers were kicked out of government tents by an out-of-state firm and forced to sleep in their cars.

"Most of our workers, some of whom had lost their homes to the two hurricanes (Katrina and Rita), were sleeping in their personal vehicles and showering in a car wash located on base," Mike Moran said.

So much for helping Katrina’s victims.

Now, about the workers who have replaced the locals:

Housing for workers often lacks running water and contractors have failed to provide food, training and wage rates as promised, James Hale, vice president with the Laborers’ International Union of North America, told a policy conference of opposition Democrats in the US Senate.

In one case, workers had not been paid for three weeks and at another site there were allegations that security guards were mistreating laborers, said Hale, who supported his allegations with photographs.

Many of the out-of-state workers are, unfortunately, used to this kind of treatment, and facing problems of their own:

Local Hondurans, who comprise the city’s largest Latino population, report being the object of the anger from blacks and whites, who fear losing their livelihoods to low-wage Latino workers. Zapotec-speaking Oaxacan Indians walk the streets of New Orleans and elsewhere throughout Louisiana and Mississippi after being threatened with deportation and kicked off local military bases, where they worked for local contractors without getting paid.

Latinos in the Gulf region are being racially profiled by local and federal authorities, says Victoria Cintra of the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance, one of the only organizations addressing Latino immigrant concerns in the region. Cintra believes the Bush administration’s suspension of the Davis Bacon Act, which requires payment of prevailing wages, along with its temporary removal of documentation requirements on I-9 forms has strained race relations by lowering wages and fostering competition between groups.

"The Bush administration is inviting Latino workers to New Orleans and the south without creating conditions to protect them," says Cintra, who recently provided a tent to more than a dozen unpaid Oaxacan worker in New Orleans. "These workers are extremely vulnerable."

Senate Democrats are, to their credit, trying to publicize this outrage. The press is showing about as much interest as you might expect. Apparently there’s nothing here to make Anderson Cooper cry.

Tom Tomorrow:
A tiny slip

Rush Limbaugh, being interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox last night:

The Democratic party’s stuck in the past. Their presumed glory years are Watergate and Iraq, and they can’t look forward, they don’t look forward…

It took me a second: Watergate and Iraq? Does he mean the first Iraq war? Does he somehow think that was such an unpopular war that…

Oh. He meant to say Watergate and Vietnam. But for some strange reason, Iraq and Vietnam are categorized in the same little subfolder in his brain.

Wonder why that is?

A tiny slip

Rush Limbaugh, being interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox last night:

The Democratic party’s stuck in the past. Their presumed glory years are Watergate and Iraq, and they can’t look forward, they don’t look forward…

It took me a second: Watergate and Iraq? Does he mean the first Iraq war? Does he somehow think that was such an unpopular war that…

Oh. He meant to say Watergate and Vietnam. But for some strange reason, Iraq and Vietnam are categorized in the same little subfolder in his brain.

Wonder why that is?

Greg Saunders :
Bush Caught In A Lie?

Ummm….I told you so. Two weeks ago when everyone was buzzing about The National Journal report that Rove lied to George Bush, I wrote :

I don’t doubt for a second that Murray Waas’ sources are correct about what the grand jury has been told, but let’s be serious here. What’s the more likely scenario? Karl Rove lying to the Patrick Fitzgerald or George W. Bush?

And it turns out, Rove didn’t lie to Bush after all :

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.
. . .
A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

“Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way,” the source said.

But here’s something to chew on. What if both stories are correct? On the surface, they seem contradictory, but let’s look at that National Journal piece again (emphasis added) :

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors.

Isn’t it equally plausible that both of these stories tell different sides of the same story? Let’s assume for a moment that Murray Waas’ sources didn’t lie to him about what Bush and Rove told Fitzgerald. If that’s the case and today’s story is also true, then we’ve got a President who’s in “cover your ass” mode. Regardless of whether or not the President was under oath, lying to federal prosecutors seems like a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice.

Of course, proving the President’s involvement is another matter entirely. Can Fitzgerald prove that the President lied? If the rumors are correct that someone in the Administration has “flipped”, then there’s a good chance that the President’s “displeasure” towards Rove was well known within the White House. After all, this is a President who wears his heart on his sleeve getting pissed at his most trusted advisor over an issue that everyone was talking about. This wouldn’t just get the rumor mill buzzing, but would likely lead to some communications within the White House about the President wanting everyone to get their shit together. Remember, the big news out of today’s scoops isn’t just when the President found out but his anger that his team “did a clumsy job”. A single saved email along these lines and some fibbing by the President about what he knew and when he knew it could be all the rope Fitzgerald needs to hang Bush out to dry.

Bush Caught In A Lie?

Ummm….I told you so. Two weeks ago when everyone was buzzing about The National Journal report that Rove lied to George Bush, I wrote:

I don’t doubt for a second that Murray Waas’ sources are correct about what the grand jury has been told, but let’s be serious here. What’s the more likely scenario? Karl Rove lying to the Patrick Fitzgerald or George W. Bush?

And it turns out, Rove didn’t lie to Bush after all :

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.
. . .
A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

“Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way,” the source said.

But here’s something to chew on. What if both stories are correct? On the surface, they seem contradictory, but let’s look at that National Journal piece again (emphasis added) :

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors.

Isn’t it equally plausible that both of these stories tell different sides of the same story? Let’s assume for a moment that Murray Waas’ sources didn’t lie to him about what Bush and Rove told Fitzgerald. If that’s the case and today’s story is also true, then we’ve got a President who’s in “cover your ass” mode. Regardless of whether or not the President was under oath, lying to federal prosecutors seems like a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice.

Of course, proving the President’s involvement is another matter entirely. Can Fitzgerald prove that the President lied? If the rumors are correct that someone in the Administration has “flipped”, then there’s a good chance that the President’s “displeasure” towards Rove was well known within the White House. After all, this is a President who wears his heart on his sleeve getting pissed at his most trusted advisor over an issue that everyone was talking about. This wouldn’t just get the rumor mill buzzing, but would likely lead to some communications within the White House about the President wanting everyone to get their shit together. Remember, the big news out of today’s scoops isn’t just when the President found out but his anger that his team “did a clumsy job”. A single saved email along these lines and some fibbing by the President about what he knew and when he knew it could be all the rope Fitzgerald needs to hang Bush out to dry.