Friday, November 04, 2005

A little help for Chuck Schumer....

Senator Chuck Schumer was recently on Meet the Press with Senator kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator Allen( Fortunatly for the Republicans Senator Schumer seems to be one of the few elected democratic officials allowed to talk in the Mainstream media(MSM). This is the reason the democrats are the minority party and seem destined to stay there, which puts our country in grave peril. In life though, everyone deserves a second chance, so I decided to give Senator Schumer one, unfortunatly I do not have a time machine. FYI: I will play the part of Senator Schumer in the time that this was taped, so I wont go into detail about harriet meirs being a quitter.

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the war in Iraq, and the investigation into the CIA leak case. With us, three United States senators with very different views: Republican George Allen of Virginia, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.
Then, insights and analysis from Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard; George Packer author of "The Assassins' Gate: America In Iraq"; and Frank Rich of The New York Times.
But first, three United States senators are with us this morning. Senators, welcome all.
Senator Hutchison in Texas, let me start with you. This was the headline in The Washington Times yesterday. "Insiders See Hint Of Miers' Pullout. White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, `We're not discussing pulling her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?,' a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times. ...the conservative political consultant said he had received such a query from Sara Taylor, director of the Office of White House Political Affairs. Miss Taylor denied making any such calls."
Senator Hutchison, do you think there's a possibility the White House may pull Harriet Miers' nomination?
SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, (R-TX): No, I do not, Tim. I think they have complete faith in her, as I do. I know her. They know her. She is totally qualified for the Supreme Court of the United States. Her legal background, her absolute leadership in the legal field when she was a practicing lawyer are unqualified.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, met with her. He believes that she had confirmed with him she believed the right of privacy existed in the Constitution, then called him later and retracted that. Senator Specter has also said this, and I'll show you and our viewers, "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."
Now, do you think that's appropriate? Senator Hutchison?
SEN. HUTCHISON: Oh, are you talking to me? I'm sorry.
MR. RUSSERT: Yes, ma'am.
SEN. HUTCHISON: A crash course in constitutional law? Absolutely not. I think when you look at the background of all the other justices, every one of them have served on a circuit court of appeals. She would be the only one whose entire career up until now has been in the private practice. You know, the Supreme Court handles commerce cases. They handle eminent domain. We've seen a recent opinion where many legislatures have already tried to change their eminent domain laws because they think the Supreme Court went way too far. There are cases on property rights as well as taxation. I can't imagine that we wouldn't want someone with practical real-world experience on the Supreme Court of the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hutchison, Senator Feinstein of California said that there is an element of sexism in this. Do you believe that?
SEN. HUTCHISON: You know, I don't think we even have to talk about that. I think we need to talk about her qualifications and her background and the diversity that she brings to the Court in both geography, background and experience, gender, of course. I think we don't have one justice of the Supreme Court. We have nine. We have nine because we want a collegial body. We want a body that can argue from different points of view. And I think she brings a great diversity in general on this Court that is very much needed.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Allen, this was the front page of The Washington Post yesterday: "Miers Backed Race, Sex Set Asides. As president of the State Bar of Texas, Harriet Miers wrote that `our legal community must reflect our population as a whole,' and under her leadership the organization embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal."
Roger Clegg, the general counsel for the Center for Economic Opportunity, said, "Those are quotas." Does that trouble you?
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN, (R-VA): I think that what Harriet Miers has done in the past, whether president of the state bar in Texas or any of her other writings or decisions that she has been involved in, are all probative and can be helpful for us trying to discern what her judicial philosophy is. I'm one who respects that the president has nominated well over 200 other men and women of outstanding qualifications and with the proper judicial philosophy. On that issue, that is a matter for a private organization. I don't know if that would be her views as a judge. There are other things that people have brought up on her questionnaire that she answered running for City Council in Dallas. Now, those are decisions or positions she took as a politician. I'm not sure, and I don't think--I would be surprised if she said, "Well, that's going to be my position on any case," because a judge is different than one running for elected office or, for that matter, being on the bar association, for one.
MR. RUSSERT: But would it trouble you if her views on affirmative action included racial and gender set-asides and numerical targets?
SEN. ALLEN: I think for--the concept of affirmative recruitment and trying to get diversity for the bar association of a state is completely different than setting--having quotas based on race or requiring hiring based on race. Now, there are some aspects to that I think she's going to answer to, because there have been cases come before the Supreme Court, and people ought to be judged by their character, their qualifications, and not by their race. But I do think there's a good legitimate issue in trying to get a diversity and there--and also making sure that the applicant pool has diversity so that everyone has that equal opportunity to compete and succeed in life.
MR. RUSSERT: You have heard the criticisms about Harriet Miers' nomination from Rush Limbaugh, George Will, who wrote a column today; George Will saying that "Any Republican senator who votes for Harriet Miers can never be considered presidential material." Do you agree with that?
SEN. ALLEN: I think that anybody running for any office is always looked upon by the voters on their whole body of what they have done, their past performance and their record. One's stance and determination, final determination on this particular Supreme Court justice, as well as others, certainly will be part of what people will look at for anybody running for any office.
MR. RUSSERT: But you did say that you did not believe that Harriet Miers was the most qualified person to replace O'Connor. You said, "That's his description," meaning George Bush. "[Sen. George Allen] disagreed with Bush's view that Miers is the most qualified person to replace O'Connor. `That's his description,' Allen said. `It would not be mine.'"
SEN. ALLEN: That's correct. The president said she was the best qualified and somebody asked me, "Do you think she is?" I said, "No. I would have somebody else." I had recommended other people from the 4th Circuit that I know, such as Judge Wilkinson, Luttig and Karen Williams, who actually wrote an opinion on a very--when you want to talk about activist courts, you see, for example, on the 9th Circuit they strike down the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because of the words "under God." Well, we passed such a law when I was governor of Virginia. It was challenged. The 4th Circuit accurately recognized it's not establishment of religion. It is a patriotic exercise.
And the reason why conservatives, Tim, are so concerned about this nomination is this is an opportunity for us to gain ground. Right now there are three conservatives, four activist liberals, two swing votes. This is one to gain ground.
We recognize that it is the president's right to make these decisions. He was elected. He gets to call or make this nomination. As a senator, we have responsibilities to advise and consent. I trust the president, but as Ronald Reagan said, "I want to verify"--verify that she, this nominee, regardless of gender--and by the way, Supreme Court justices, while it's nice to have people from different geographic regions, the Bill of Rights applies equally in every region of this country. So that philosophy of that justice when they get this lifetime appointment--I want to make sure that when they put on that robe, they're going--not going to be judges who take away the Bill of Rights, as the court did in this New London, Connecticut, case, where they took people's homes not for a school or a road but because they wanted to derive more tax revenue from that property. Heck, that's amending the Bill of Rights by judicial decree.
MR. RUSSERT: So you're not sold on Harriet Miers right now?
Senator Schumer: excuse me Tim, but are you going to correct him on his description of the Supreme Court or shall I?
Mr.Russert: Huh?
Senator Schumer: Ok I will. When Senator Allen says that we have three conservatives on the court and two swing votes with four activist liberals that just plain is not true. You have a repsonsibilty Tim, to stop him people when they blatantly lie like that. He could just as easily say that we have four liberals who sing show tunes for rulings out of key if you refuse to correct his misleading adjectives. When the republicans use the word activist judges applying to liberals it simple is not true. What one would fairly consider an activist judge is someone who continually votes to overturn congressional bills correct? Well we know from the lifetime record that the leader in voting against congress on this court is Justice Thomas at roughly 2 out of every 3 votes going against written law. Justice Scalia is not far behind. This is activism at its finest and never seems to be mentioned my the echo chamber. Thank you for letting me clear the air.
SEN. ALLEN: I'm undecided, but I think she ought to be given an opportunity to present her credentials. And I'm going to talk with her this week and then I'm going to watch very closely the Judiciary Committee hearings.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you have referred Judge Janice Rogers Brown over Harriet Miers?
SEN. ALLEN: I like Janice Rogers Brown, and I--yes, I would have liked Janice Rogers Brown but--and others.
MR. RUSSERT: I want to add one last comment to this and then go to Senator Schumer. David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, said this: "Most conservatives have stood with Bush from the beginning. Those of us who know him like him. We've swallowed policies we might have otherwise have objected to because we've believed that he and those around him are themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We've been there for him because we've considered ourselves part of his team. No more. From now on, this administration will find it difficult to muster support on the right without explaining why it should be forthcoming. The days of the blank check have ended because no thinking conservative really wants to be part of a team that requires marching in lockstep without question or thought, even if it is headed by the president of the United States."
Do you share that view?
SEN. ALLEN: David Keene is the one who--Tim, he's a person who I really have a lot of admiration for. And he was the one who invited me to be chairman of Young Virginians for Reagan in '76. I think that--again, understand how conservatives feel about this. I was chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee. You had me in here with Senator Corzine last time. There was no issue that motivated our supporters and inspired them more than the line that I would end every speech in after less taxation, less regulation and President Bush's outstanding nominees ought to be accorded the fairness of an up or down vote and we ought to have judges who apply the law, not invent the law.
Senator Schumer: we have already covered that and I could not agree more George. We need to steer far away from anyone who is even remotely like Justices Scalia or Thomas.
So this is a big issue, and people are concerned about Harriet Miers, understandably so. But I think that everyone ought to maybe calm down just a little, examine her record. The president's known her for 10 years. The president has an outstanding record of nominating outstanding men and women who share our judicial philosophy. And let's see how she does in the hearings and then I think we make a judgment. She ought to be accorded due process.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, you said a few weeks ago that "Harriet Miers was a very capable lawyer and perhaps a consensus nominee." Is that still your view?
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, (D-NY): No, I don't think so, Tim. "Perhaps," I guess, was the operative word. You know, I think there are three places where Harriet Miers yet hasn't sort of met the burden of proof. The burden should always be on the nominee to prove they're capable. After all, this is the most important position in the judiciary. The first is qualifications. Does she have a good, firm knowledge of the law, of constitutional law? When I met with her, I found it surprising that she was unwilling to take a position on the Meyer case or Griswold cases did, which Judge Roberts did. Almost everybody who's come by has.
Second is independence. The president seemed to nominate judge Miers or Miss Miers because he knew her, he was close to her. But the Founding Fathers created the lifetime appointment, if you read The Federalist Papers, to provide complete independence. Will she an independent mind once she gets on the Court? And we'll have to make a judgment on that.
And third, and most importantly, and in this one I would agree with George Allen and some of the very conservative people, we have to know her judicial philosophy. These decisions have huge ramifications in every one of our lives. And to nominate a judge when we have no idea of their judicial philosophy is something that I don't think we should do. And we know so little about Harriet Miers' judicial philosophy. I'd say on that one we know less about her than just about any nominee in recent memory, and I don't see--of course, she has the hearings to convince us to--to show us what her philosophy is. But so far she hasn't done that in any way. I don't think she's advanced a day from her nomination to today in giving us some idea of that.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the White House should consider pulling her nomination?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, Tim, I don't think the White House will. George Bush, say whatever else you want about him, does not back away from a fight. I will say this, if he were to withdraw the nomination, it would be a stunning defeat for George Bush, and here's what I think it would show. I think it would show that a small group way over at the extreme had power over the White House. After all, not a single Republican senator has at this point called for Harriet Miers' resignation. And so if President Bush is going to march to the drum of a group that I think most Americans would consider out of the mainstream, it's going to be a real revelation to the American people and that's why I think he can't do it. And do not forget either Tim, that George Bush called her the most qualified person to fulfill the vacancy of Justice O conner. if she truly is not the right person for this, what does that tell you of President Bush's lack of interest in governing and contempt for the process. To appoint someone who is not qualified for a lifetime committement to the most powerful court in the world is unimaginable.
MR. RUSSERT: Politically speaking, Senator, The Wall Street Journal suggested that this fight amongst conservatives has brought a smile to your face, that you couldn't have written a better script. Fair enough?
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, I don't think that was a compliment to George Bush, the fact that his moves have made me happy. Let me correct one thing though. i could of written a better script. In my script it would of ended with George Bush taking his responsibilities seriously and nominating the mosy qualified mainstream intelligent candidate that he could find. I was elected to help make this country a better place for this and future generations not to take pleasure in Republican failures.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you that questionnaire that Harriet Miers filled out when she ran for City Council in Dallas. It was asked whether she was for a human life amendment to the Constitution prohibiting all abortions except to the prevent the death of the mother, she said yes. If Roe v. Wade was overturned and the decision for abortion was returned to the state, would she support legislation that would reinstate abortion which said only abortion except those necessary to prevent the death of the mother? Yes. Would she participate in news conferences to promote the goals of pro-life movement? Yes. Will she use her influence as an elected official within the confines of her oath of office to promote the pro-life cause? Yes.
Does that trouble you, Senator Schumer?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I think it confuses me more than troubles me. About six months before she filled out that questionnaire, she sent $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee, hardly an organization that had those views on those issues. And she has said in her questionnaire how she would rule as a judge is different than how she would be as a legislator, which we accept. So I think the big question here--and this is the same for George Allen and myself, people who have strong views on these things--is: What are her views? For instance, does she think Roe v. Wade is settled law? John Roberts said it was. Most of the nominees who have come before us have said it was. We have to know answers to those questions, and thus far when asked, she has demurred. That is not going to work at the hearings.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, what are the odds of her being confirmed?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, that's a very good question. I've been thinking about that, Tim. I think if you were to hold the vote today, she would not get a majority either in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor. I think there is maybe one or two on the Judiciary Committee who have said they'd support her as of right now, and I think you have concern on these three areas, qualification, independence, judicial philosophy, by people of both parties and all political stripes.
Now, having said that, the hearings are going to be make or break for Harriet Miers in a way that they have not been for any other nominee. And she's going to have to do real well there. Right now she has a rough road to hoe.

Just as for the President, this is probably the most important thing that a Senator will do in their time as an elected official. For any Senator to make up their minds, yes or no, before the hearings and before we have all of the information on a candidate does a serious disservice to their constiuents, the country and our forefathers. I will make up my mind after the hearings are all over.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the situation here in Washington, the CIA leak investigation, very much tied in obviously to the war in Iraq and the way it was presented to the American people. And bringing you all back to September 30, George Bush addressing the American people and he said this.
(Videotape, September 30, 2003):
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Now, one week later, Scott McClellan was asked specifically about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby whether they had been involved in disseminating information about Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and this is what Mr. McClellan said.
(Videotape, October 7, 2003):
MR. SCOTT McCLELLAN: They are good individuals. They're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you. And that's exactly what I did.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "They were not involved." Senator Allen, is that statement still operative?
SEN. ALLEN: I don't know. I wasn't in any of the grand jury investigations, and I think that from what you're saying and most indications is the prosecutor, special prosecutor Fitzgerald, will be coming out with whatever the resolution of those grand jury investigations are. So I don't know what the testimony is, what the evidence is, and I guess we'll find out sometime this week.
MR. RUSSERT: Based what's in the public domain from Judith Miller when she wrote in The New York Times and others have said publicly, do you believe that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby discussed Joseph Wilson's trip and his wife's employment at the CIA?
SEN. ALLEN: I don't know. I know that's rare from a politician. I don't know. I've been more focused on Harriet Miers' qualifications and reducing energy prices and others, and I'll leave this to the prosecution and by the way, again, due process rather than a lot of speculation on what actually is known or not said in testimony in a very closed grand jury proceeding.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hutchison, you think those comments from the White House are credible?
SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.
I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.
MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.
SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, do you believe that comments from the White House are still credible?
SEN. SCHUMER: First thing Tim is you need to correct the record here. Kay Bailey Hutchison just lied to you and the American people on live television and you glossed over it. Tim many americans do not have the time to spend on much politics and take the time to watch maybe Meet the Press on Sunday morning to try and stay a little involved. When Senator Hutchison says that there were other charges against President Clinton, people watching you gloss over that will believe that. You and I and Senator Allen and Senator Hutchison all know that it is a lie. Those were the charges against President Clinton. If i remember correctly Tim, Senator Hutchison was one of the most outspoken people against President Clinton and his charge of perjury. In fact I will make a pledge right now that I will find a quote from her expressing outrage of President Clinton lying under oath by tomorrow or I will issue her an apology. Now that we have cleared that up lets address the issue. This is not an issue of if it happened. It did happen. Valerie Wilson was an undercover CIA agent and she was outted by someone trying to make a political point. Now we do not know exactly who did it or even if we will be able to actually charge anyone with the crime of treason for doing so. What we do know though, is that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove were involved in doing so to some extent. It is a shame on the country that they are still working in our government with a national security clearance. When it became clear that they were both involved neck deep in this, they should of immediately been put on leave. Since this president has not even pretended to be a fiscal conservative, they could of even been put on leave with pay until this mess was figured out.
Finally, i think the president needs to commit to not pardoning anyone involved in outting Mrs. Wilson also to show that he takes this offense seriously.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, there's been a widespread discussion that this is bigger than just Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame and White House aides; that it really goes to the core of the Iraq War, what cases were made to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and other systems and other analyses and other intelligence data. Based on what you now know today, do you regret having voted for the war?
SEN. SCHUMER: Tim, 100% absolutely YES. That was one of the biggest mistakes of my life and I regret it deeply. We now know that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that we in Congress were lied to and the american people were misled in the build up to Iraq and we need to figure out exactly who is responsible. From the Downing Street Minutes, to Paul O'Neill, to Richard Clarke, to Ahmed Chalabi and Judy Miller to Bob Woodward to Joe Wilson, to Scott Ritter and Hans Blix even to the Office of Special Plans and the White House Iraq Group. There are no WMD's, which was the initial reason given to us, there were no WMD's and we need to find out if the amdinistration seriously thought there were or not. If we were knowingly lied to or misled by someone in the administration, that person or people need to be punished and the yhave some serious explaining to do, not to Congress, but to the American people and especially to the families of our brave men and women in the military. I deeply regret my vote to authorize the President to go to war and now is time to work to fix the mistakes that were made.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Allen, you agree with that?
SEN. ALLEN: No, I don't agree with it. And Senator Schumer is a good partisan, articulate Democrat. And I don't think the president ought to be taking advice from Senator Schumer on some of these. And you can--Karl Rove, who's a very smart, sharp and very able advisor to the president--I like Karl Rove a great deal. And, of course, the Democrats would like to have Karl Rove out. Insofar as the war in Iraq...
MR. RUSSERT: But if Mr. Rove--if Mr. Rove and/or Mr. Libby is indicted, should they step down?
SEN. ALLEN: That'll be--I think they will step down if they're indicted.
MR. RUSSERT: And they should?
SEN. ALLEN: Yes, I do think that's appropriate that--I don't see where--if they're in the midst of an indictment. But let's not say that they have been indicted. Let's--I will take this point from Senator-- from Charlie Schumer, and that is: Let's see what happens rather than get into all this speculation and so forth.
Now, the war in Iraq, and Senator Schumer voted for it, based on the evidence; a lot of us voted for it. Now, he's talking about not having a game plan. There has just been a truly monumental benchmark achieved. Now, they're still counting the votes, but it appears that the people of Iraq, in stronger numbers that even in January of this year, have come out and voted for this constitution. It is a constitution that respects individual rights, men and women having freedom of expression, religious freedom, where rights are not enhanced nor diminished on account of religious beliefs. They do have the rule of law. I think this is a very important benchmark and date of progress for the people of Iraq. It will give them a motivation of what they're fighting for, for themselves, for their children. And the terrorists have nothing to offer other than wreaking havoc, disrupting and intimidating. And I think this is great progress and we ought to celebrate it.
MR. RUSSERT: But there has been no weapons of mass destruction.
SEN. ALLEN: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberators as such. Senator...
SEN. ALLEN: In some places.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Chafee, Republican from Rhode Island, your colleague, said--"After the hearing [with Sec. Rice], both Republicans and Democrats expressed disappointment about her testimony. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) said the committee had hoped for `more of a grip on reality. ...The administration is just determined to cast this as an exercise that is going according to plan, and it isn't.'"
Do you agree with that?
SEN. ALLEN: No, I don't agree with that. I think that's an inaccurate portrayal. Granted, things are difficult. Standing up a government, especially having people come out and vote where they can't even drive to the polls, as we do, and you walk maybe 50 or 100 feet. They have to walk on long distances, on dusty roads, like slow-moving targets. They're being threatened with death. They end up with a 60 percent turnout. If we ever had a 60 percent turnout, they'd say, "Oh, phenomenal. Great turnout."
The people of Iraq are choosing to select the leaders that they want, a constitution, a principle that will guide their country. They're controlling their own destiny more and more. And as that happens, more and more Iraqis will stand up to protect their streets, their communities and their country. And as the president says, and it's very logical, as more Iraqis stand up, more Americans can stand down. And we will have planted that tree of liberty in a free and just society in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: According to testimony before the Senate...
MR. RUSSERT: ...there's this one battalion of Iraqis that is fully capable and combat-ready.
SEN. SCHUMER: Exactly. And President Bush during his campaign, this is the man with the access to the most information of any one person in the world, campaigned on the fact that we had over 100,000 trained Iraqi soldiers ready. This has also shown to not be true. We are finding out that the Bush campaign was not truthful about many things during the election season and the people of America deserve better. They deserve answers and they deserve the truth.
MR. RUSSERT: But more on this...
SEN. ALLEN: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. To be continued. Senator George Allen, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Charles Schumer, thank you all. debt consolidation loans