"USA Today published a brutal editorial Tuesday after President Donald Trump smeared Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) by saying she 'would do anything' for campaign contributions. 'A president who’d all but call a senator a whore is unfit to clean toilets in Obama’s presidential library or to shine George W. Bush’s shoes,'” USA Today’s Editorial Board wrote, adding Trump was clearly suggesting Gillibrand would trade sexual favors for campaign donations. The board added that Trump is a 'uniquely awful' person with 'sickening behavior.' His tweet was a new low for a president redefining rock bottom, they wrote. -- USA Today Calls Trump Unfit To Clean Obama's Toilets In Scathing Editorial (Yahoo News).
Will Trump's lows ever hit rock bottom? by The Editorial Board (USA Today)
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
The United States of America is at moral crossroads
The CIA should be shut down.
The spy work, if there was any, can be carried on gamely by the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Air Force Intelligence, the FBI's National Security Branch, the Army Intelligence and Security Command, the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Coast Guard Intelligence, the Treasury's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (sic), the National Reconnaissance Office, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to say nothing of all the state and local police spooks.
Military operations should have been handled by the Department of Defense all along.
But it will be a further crime if all that happens now is that a few relatively-low level functionaries, however blood-soaked their uniforms, are scape-goated, Abu Graib-style. This fish was rotting from the head. The only way that these and other crimes can be prevented from happening in the future is to hold the perpetrators accountable. If this were some failing garrison in the Third World, instead of the failing Leader of the World, the State Department would be piously scolding them to clean-house. The United States needs to be live up to its ideals. If we can't clean our house, if we can't prosecute the criminals ourselves, as domestic and international law requires, then we should turn Bush, Cheney, and their co-conspirators over to the International Criminal Court and let the world community help us out.
More:
CIA tortured, misled, U.S. report finds, drawing calls for action by Mark Hosenball (Reuters)
Return of the CIA's 'Rogue Elephants': The Senate's report on torture shows U.S. intelligence agencies need to be reined in again by Peter Fenn (US News)
There Is Something Worse Than Torture in the Senate Torture Report: It's not the torture—it's the CIA lying by David Corn (Mother Jones)
U.S. under fire over Senate's report on CIA torture by Bill Trott (Reuters UK)
Third party? Now? How about now? No? Maybe now?
The arguments for a People's Party become ever more compelling. Clinging to the faith that the Democrats any more than the Republicans will dismantle the corporate-security state is like believing in angels.
In a new book, Ralph Nader reminds us that the militarization of American diplomacy began with Bill Clinton and that Obama has doubled down on the excesses of George Bush and Dick Cheney. In Unstoppable, Nader demands an end to “unconstitutional wars and unchecked militarism.” Barack Obama, he writes, “has extended the Bush doctrine by declaring his unilateral right, as secret prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, to destroy anybody, anywhere in the world, including American citizens, suspected to be engaged in alleged terrorist activities, all this vaguely and loosely defined as anti-U.S. security," extending the illegal reach of wars of choice, invasions, incursions, and drone attacks, without regard for international law or national boundaries.
For the average citizen, the growth of corporate power bolstered by the security apparatus has been matched by a corresponding decline in quality of life. Enough is enough. Building new organizations, like a third party, and restoring old ones, like the Labor Movement, to challenge the status quo will not be easy. But without that effort, our national decline, now in its fifth decade. will continue until it is irreversible.
Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State by Ralph Nader (Amazon Kindle).
In a new book, Ralph Nader reminds us that the militarization of American diplomacy began with Bill Clinton and that Obama has doubled down on the excesses of George Bush and Dick Cheney. In Unstoppable, Nader demands an end to “unconstitutional wars and unchecked militarism.” Barack Obama, he writes, “has extended the Bush doctrine by declaring his unilateral right, as secret prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, to destroy anybody, anywhere in the world, including American citizens, suspected to be engaged in alleged terrorist activities, all this vaguely and loosely defined as anti-U.S. security," extending the illegal reach of wars of choice, invasions, incursions, and drone attacks, without regard for international law or national boundaries.
For the average citizen, the growth of corporate power bolstered by the security apparatus has been matched by a corresponding decline in quality of life. Enough is enough. Building new organizations, like a third party, and restoring old ones, like the Labor Movement, to challenge the status quo will not be easy. But without that effort, our national decline, now in its fifth decade. will continue until it is irreversible.
Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State by Ralph Nader (Amazon Kindle).
Standard Operating Procedure
When he was asked this morning about the conditions of Bradley Manning's confinement at Quantico, President Obama said that he had queried the Defense Department about Manning's detention and had been assured that the handling of the whistleblower -- you know, months of solitary confinement, forced nudity, and other abuses -- followed standard operating procedure and fell within the norms of humane incarceration.
Well, sure, Manning's treatment meets DOD's standards. Using nudity to impose a sense of helplessness, for example, that is, stripping detainees to "demonstrate the omnipotence of the captor," is standard operating procedure for the U.S. military now; but it has been only since being introduced in 2002 at the prison at Guantanamo by President George W. Bush to encourage cooperation from persons who were, nominally at least, enemy combatants. Not only will President Change not be closing Gitmo as he promised to do during his campaign, not only has he embraced as his own the illegal and immoral procedures introduced there by the Bush administration, but now he's gone the extra step of rationalizing abuse of an American citizen detained on U.S. soil by citing as standard operating procedure practices that were confined heretofore and only recently to military lockups.
The president's disingenuousness is almost touching. President Bush queried his people, too, on whether torture was legal and within standard operating procedure, and got thumbs-up. In claiming to accept DOD's assurances that Manning procedures meet basic standards, Obama either seeks plausible deniability or lacks a moral compass. Neither option is reassuring and both reinforce the new immorality that has become standard operating procedure under Bush-Obama.
Wait til Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio figures out how much more humiliation he can get per Maricopa County tax dollar by stripping off those pink jumpsuits and tenting his charges in the nude.
Forgetting for a moment that the obligation to treat the accused as "innocent until proven guilty" precludes any punishment before conviction, the ugly way the Marine Corps has handled Manning would be inhumane (and unconstitutional) even if he had been convicted on all counts.
How far we've come just in the two years of Obama's presidency. It was, after all, pictures of naked prisoners that inspired the outrage over Abu Ghraib. Now torture techniques that were offensive under Bush are justified as standard operating procedure. That's change, all right.
See, also: This shameful abuse of Bradley Manning by Daniel Ellsberg (Guardian UK 2011-03-11)
Manning’s Father Condemns Treatment of Imprisoned Son by Kim Zetter (Wired Threat Level 2011-03-10)
WikiLeaks suspect's treatment 'stupid,' U.S. official says by Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post 2011-03-12)
Crowley resigns as State Department Spokesman by Ed Henry (CNN PoliticalTicker 2011-03-13)
Comments on Prisoner Treatment Cause State Department Spokesman to Lose His Job by Jack Tapper (ABC News Political Punch 2011-03-13)
Well, sure, Manning's treatment meets DOD's standards. Using nudity to impose a sense of helplessness, for example, that is, stripping detainees to "demonstrate the omnipotence of the captor," is standard operating procedure for the U.S. military now; but it has been only since being introduced in 2002 at the prison at Guantanamo by President George W. Bush to encourage cooperation from persons who were, nominally at least, enemy combatants. Not only will President Change not be closing Gitmo as he promised to do during his campaign, not only has he embraced as his own the illegal and immoral procedures introduced there by the Bush administration, but now he's gone the extra step of rationalizing abuse of an American citizen detained on U.S. soil by citing as standard operating procedure practices that were confined heretofore and only recently to military lockups.
The president's disingenuousness is almost touching. President Bush queried his people, too, on whether torture was legal and within standard operating procedure, and got thumbs-up. In claiming to accept DOD's assurances that Manning procedures meet basic standards, Obama either seeks plausible deniability or lacks a moral compass. Neither option is reassuring and both reinforce the new immorality that has become standard operating procedure under Bush-Obama.
Wait til Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio figures out how much more humiliation he can get per Maricopa County tax dollar by stripping off those pink jumpsuits and tenting his charges in the nude.
Forgetting for a moment that the obligation to treat the accused as "innocent until proven guilty" precludes any punishment before conviction, the ugly way the Marine Corps has handled Manning would be inhumane (and unconstitutional) even if he had been convicted on all counts.
How far we've come just in the two years of Obama's presidency. It was, after all, pictures of naked prisoners that inspired the outrage over Abu Ghraib. Now torture techniques that were offensive under Bush are justified as standard operating procedure. That's change, all right.
See, also: This shameful abuse of Bradley Manning by Daniel Ellsberg (Guardian UK 2011-03-11)
Manning’s Father Condemns Treatment of Imprisoned Son by Kim Zetter (Wired Threat Level 2011-03-10)
WikiLeaks suspect's treatment 'stupid,' U.S. official says by Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post 2011-03-12)
Crowley resigns as State Department Spokesman by Ed Henry (CNN PoliticalTicker 2011-03-13)
Comments on Prisoner Treatment Cause State Department Spokesman to Lose His Job by Jack Tapper (ABC News Political Punch 2011-03-13)
Visual aid: The economy flatlined under Bush
Going into the general election, the Democrats had better remind voters that by any rational measure the economic performance of the administration of George W. Bush was the worst of any president at least since Herbert Hoover, maybe ever,
and that those'll be the good old days compared to what Speaker Boehner and President Gingrich (or whoever) have in store for us. (Source: Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers by Neil Irwin; Washington Post 2010-01-02).
and that those'll be the good old days compared to what Speaker Boehner and President Gingrich (or whoever) have in store for us. (Source: Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers by Neil Irwin; Washington Post 2010-01-02).
Accountability: Torture as policy in the Bush years
The Torture Report, an initiative of the ACLU's National Security Project, aims to give a full account of the Bush administration's torture program, from its improvised origins to the systematized, lawyer-rationalized maltreatment of hundreds of prisoners in U.S. custody around the world. In this video, Glenn Greenwald, one of the Report's expert contributors, and principal author Larry Siems, who directs the Freedom to Write and International Programs at PEN American Center, reflect on the Report and the ongoing struggle for accountability.
The Torture Report: Chapter 1 - Origins -- Creating the space for torture; Chapter 2 - Experimenting With Torture -- Experimenting With Torture; Chapter 3 - Black Sites, Lies, and Videotapes -- Black Sites, Lies, and Videotapes; Chapter 4, Part 1 - A Ponzi Scheme of Torture -- The Scheme; Chapter 4, Part 2 – A Ponzi Scheme of Torture -- The Story Unravels (Jose Padilla); Chapter 4, Part 3 (new) – A Ponzi Scheme of Torture -- The Story Unravels (Binyam Mohammed & Abu Zubaydah).
Chapter 5 will be released next week: Where Are We Now? by Larry Siems (The Torture Report 2010-07-14)
The Torture Report: Chapter 1 - Origins -- Creating the space for torture; Chapter 2 - Experimenting With Torture -- Experimenting With Torture; Chapter 3 - Black Sites, Lies, and Videotapes -- Black Sites, Lies, and Videotapes; Chapter 4, Part 1 - A Ponzi Scheme of Torture -- The Scheme; Chapter 4, Part 2 – A Ponzi Scheme of Torture -- The Story Unravels (Jose Padilla); Chapter 4, Part 3 (new) – A Ponzi Scheme of Torture -- The Story Unravels (Binyam Mohammed & Abu Zubaydah).
Chapter 5 will be released next week: Where Are We Now? by Larry Siems (The Torture Report 2010-07-14)
War Crimes: Spanish criminals get our criminals off the hook
The big news while I was in Spain last month was the investigation by a local judge of the policy of systematic, institutionalized torture by Bush administration officials as part of the "war on terror." When I got home, I wasn't surprised to find the story hadn't gotten similar play in American papers, even though the six former 
Bush officials in the judge's sights include former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, torture memoist John Yoo, and David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff.
The judge in question, Baltazar Garzon, one of six investigating magistrates of the Criminal Court of Spain, acts on the legal theory that there is no statue of limitations on war crimes or crimes against humanity. He has pursued investigations of massacres of political opponents by Spanish fascists, murderous regimes in Chile and Argentina, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's involvement in Operation Condor.
Now it looks like the Bush co-conspirators can rest easier in their beds, if not their souls. Judge Garzon is being targeted by the Spanish Right for investigating "disappearances" during the Spanish Civil War and Franscisco Franco era in contradiction to the granting of an official amnesty by the Spanish state. Since it seems clear the United States will not clean its own house with regard to criminal activity by past leaders, all we can hope for is now is that an international tribunal like the World Court will be moved to hold responsible for their crimes the torture perps of the Bush era.
Further reading:
Spain considers prosecuting U.S. officials for torture by Marjorie Miller (Los Angeles Times 2009-05-06)
Spain rejects US 'torture' probe (BBC News 2009-04-16)
Spanish judge opens probe into Guantanamo torture (Agence France-Presse 2009-04-16)
Spain Allows Case Against Noted Judge by Andrés Cala (New York Times 2010-03-25)
Also, although it is only tangently related, the drily titled Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century is worth filing for future reference.
Bush officials in the judge's sights include former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, torture memoist John Yoo, and David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff.The judge in question, Baltazar Garzon, one of six investigating magistrates of the Criminal Court of Spain, acts on the legal theory that there is no statue of limitations on war crimes or crimes against humanity. He has pursued investigations of massacres of political opponents by Spanish fascists, murderous regimes in Chile and Argentina, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's involvement in Operation Condor.
Now it looks like the Bush co-conspirators can rest easier in their beds, if not their souls. Judge Garzon is being targeted by the Spanish Right for investigating "disappearances" during the Spanish Civil War and Franscisco Franco era in contradiction to the granting of an official amnesty by the Spanish state. Since it seems clear the United States will not clean its own house with regard to criminal activity by past leaders, all we can hope for is now is that an international tribunal like the World Court will be moved to hold responsible for their crimes the torture perps of the Bush era.
Further reading:
Spain considers prosecuting U.S. officials for torture by Marjorie Miller (Los Angeles Times 2009-05-06)
Spain rejects US 'torture' probe (BBC News 2009-04-16)
Spanish judge opens probe into Guantanamo torture (Agence France-Presse 2009-04-16)
Spain Allows Case Against Noted Judge by Andrés Cala (New York Times 2010-03-25)
Also, although it is only tangently related, the drily titled Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century is worth filing for future reference.
Resource: Guide to Current War Dept. Expenditures
Trillions to Burn?
Commonwealth Institute's Project on Defense Alternatives has made available A Quick Guide to the Surge in Pentagon Spending, a series of charts and graphs that make it easier to understand the unconscionable expansion of the military budget under George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The rest of the story: For more detailed analysis, see An Undisciplined Defense – Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending and The President’s Dilemma: Deficits, Debt, and Defense Spending (both Project on Defense Alternatives 2010-01-18).
See, also: Pentagon’s Black Budget Tops $56 Billion by Noah Shachtman (Wired 2010-02-01)
Commonwealth Institute's Project on Defense Alternatives has made available A Quick Guide to the Surge in Pentagon Spending, a series of charts and graphs that make it easier to understand the unconscionable expansion of the military budget under George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
With his decision to further boost defense spending, President Obama is continuing the process of re-inflating the Pentagon that began in late 1998 – fully three years before the 9/11 attacks on America.You'd think that it would hardly need repeating that none of America's domestic problems -- decrepit infrastructure, declining schools, chronic unemployment, the crisis in health care, and so on -- can be addressed so long as the Pentagon is gobbling up resources.The FY 2011 budget marks a milestone, however: the inflation-adjusted rise in spending since 1998 will probably exceed 100% in real terms by the end of the fiscal year.
Taking the 2011 budget into account, the Defense Department has been given about $7.2 trillion since 1998, when the post-Cold War decline in defense spending ended. Approximately $2.5 trillion of this total is due to spending above the annual level set in 1998. This added amount constitutes the post-1998 spending surge.
The rest of the story: For more detailed analysis, see An Undisciplined Defense – Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending and The President’s Dilemma: Deficits, Debt, and Defense Spending (both Project on Defense Alternatives 2010-01-18).
See, also: Pentagon’s Black Budget Tops $56 Billion by Noah Shachtman (Wired 2010-02-01)
Accountability: Senators’ Patriot Act ‘fix’ would eliminate telecom immunity
"A group of US Senators unveiled legislation Thursday aiming to strip telecommunications firms that took part in a hugely controversial Bush-era spying program of immunity from lawsuits.
"The bill aims to 'fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens' without crippling the government’s ability to track suspected terrorists, the lawmakers said in a joint statement.
"The legislation would affect the way the US government can search Americans’ personal records, conduct wiretapping, and otherwise collect and use information on US citizens....
"Democratic Senator Russell Feingold, long a critic of government spy powers on Americans, was a chief author of the legislation presented Thursday.
"The others included the number two Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, as well as Democratic Senators Jon Tester, Tom Udall, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel Akaka, Ron Wyden, and Robert Menendez, as well as Independent Senator Bernie Sanders."
Go. Read. Senators’ Patriot Act ‘fix’ would eliminate telecom immunity by Raw Story (2009-09-17)
Update -- Reality intrudes: "The Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly passed a bill Thursday to extend several controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the counterterrorism law hastily drafted in the aftermath of 9/11...The bill - the USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act - was co-sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and committee member Dianne Feinstein, who also chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, and passed was passed by a vote of 11 to 8." - Senate Panel Extends Controversial Patriot Act Provisions by Jason Leopold (truthout 2009-10-09)
"The bill aims to 'fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens' without crippling the government’s ability to track suspected terrorists, the lawmakers said in a joint statement.
"The legislation would affect the way the US government can search Americans’ personal records, conduct wiretapping, and otherwise collect and use information on US citizens....
"Democratic Senator Russell Feingold, long a critic of government spy powers on Americans, was a chief author of the legislation presented Thursday.
"The others included the number two Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, as well as Democratic Senators Jon Tester, Tom Udall, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel Akaka, Ron Wyden, and Robert Menendez, as well as Independent Senator Bernie Sanders."
Go. Read. Senators’ Patriot Act ‘fix’ would eliminate telecom immunity by Raw Story (2009-09-17)
Update -- Reality intrudes: "The Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly passed a bill Thursday to extend several controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the counterterrorism law hastily drafted in the aftermath of 9/11...The bill - the USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act - was co-sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and committee member Dianne Feinstein, who also chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, and passed was passed by a vote of 11 to 8." - Senate Panel Extends Controversial Patriot Act Provisions by Jason Leopold (truthout 2009-10-09)
Accountability: Was the Bush administration seditious?
If you are wondering if there is legally damning evidence of a conspiracy by the Bush-Cheney crowd to overthrow the Constitution, consider this from an interview by Naomi Wolf with Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. The recently released memos by Bush justice department attorney John Yoo, Ratner says, deliver a call for "law by fiat.
I call it 'Fuhrer's law.' What those memos lay out means the end of the system of checks and balances in this country. It means the end of the system in which the courts, legislature and executive each had a function and they could check each other.Go. Read: Do the Secret Bush Memos Amount to Treason? Top Constitutional Scholar Says Yes by Naomi Wolf (AlterNet)
What the memos set out is a system in which the president's word is law, and Yoo is very clear about that: the president's word is not only law according to these memos, but no law or constitutional right or treaty can restrict the president's authority.
What Yoo says is that the president's authority as commander in chief in the so-called war on terror is not bound by any law passed by Congress, any treaty, or the protections of free speech, due process and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments -- gone.
What this actually means is that the president can order the military to operate in the U.S. and to operate without constitutional restrictions. They -- the military -- can pick you or me up in the U.S. for any reason and without any legal process. They would not have any restrictions on entering your house to search it, or to seize you. They can put you into a brig without any due process or going to court. (That's the Fourth and Fifth amendments.)
The military can disregard the Posse Comitatus law, which restricts the military from acting as police in the the United States. And the president can, in the name of wartime restrictions, limit free speech. There it is in black and white: we are looking at one-person rule without any checks and balances -- a lawless state. Law by fiat.
Who has suspended the law this way in the past? It is like a Caesar's law in Rome; a Mussolini's law in Italy; a Fuhrer's law in Germany; a Stalin's law in the Soviet Union. It is right down the line. It is enforcing the will of the dictator through the military.
quote unquote: You're outta here!
“I never felt that anxious any other time during my presidency, curiously enough.” -- George W. Bush, remembering the pitch he threw out at the 2001 World Series (in response to a question from People magazine about the moments of the last eight years he has revisited most).
A particularly egregious example of corporate media's trivialization of our politics
What's the big news this weekend? I dunno, how about Bush sanctioned torture? What does CNN want to talk about? Barack Obama's verbal "slip" that some of the residents of impoverished parts of Pennsylvania, having been abandoned by the political system, are "bitter." Here's what Crooks and Liars has to say about it: CNN Thinks Obama’s Words Are More Important Than Bush’s Torturing. If this is how the media covers Bush at this point in his sorry career, imagine the free ride John McCain is going to get as we head toward November.
See also, Clinton's "Bitter" Exploitation (DavidCorn.com, 2008-04-14)
See also, Clinton's "Bitter" Exploitation (DavidCorn.com, 2008-04-14)
The War: The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
Not only illegal and immoral, but stupid. -- J.
by Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Washington Post, 2008-03-08)
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
by Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Washington Post, 2008-03-08)
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.
The rest of the story: The Washington Post
The Senate Caves In Again to Bush on FISA
But the House shows a little moxie
The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248), an "updating" of the 30-year-old law that authorized a secret court to oversee intelligence operations by federal agencies, sailed through the "Democratically-controlled" Senate on Feb 12.
Intended to "modernize and streamline" provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, "and for other purposes" (italics added), the act includes a section authorizing warrantless wiretaps of foreign-to-foreign communications and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the administration to spy on Americans. The bill also states that the government will not need a warrant for foreign-to-American communications, with no privacy protections on the American end, and will allow the government to install monitoring stations in telephone and internet facilities inside the U.S., also without judicial review.
In effect, the statute provides retroactive immunity to government officials as completely as to the telecoms.
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrat's narrow majority was diminished by the defections of a few conservatives like Lieberman and Salazar, but you'd be wrong. The vote wasn't even close.
Sixty-eight senators voted for the bill; only 29 said nay. To put it another way, 19 Democrats -- 40% of the Democratic delegation -- joined Lieberman and the Republicans in voting to gut the Constitution.
Three senators couldn't be bothered to vote at all. One was Lindsey Graham. No loss there. But the others were the two liberal champions who seek to be the leader of their party: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's no wonder that millions of American feel disenfranchised by the current system. In the absence of party discipline, there is no downside to lying about who you are or what you'll do once you're in office. Voters pull the lever for a Democrat and wind up with a senator or a representative allied with the GOP and supporting a corrupt, incompetent and fascistic president. Why wouldn't they vote for Ralph Nader the next time, or just stay home? It shouldn't be a shock that more people vote for American Idol than for president; at least you can count on the likes of Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and Taylor Hicks to deliver as promised.
The problem with Washington is not that it is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nor is Federalism the problem. The problem is that the government -- all branches -- is firmly and utterly in the hands of conservatives. Nothing is changed by dispatching someone to the District for no more compelling reason than that s/he labels self a Democrat. We have to start choosing people who actually will take on the military-industrial complex, engage in the fight against poverty, expand democratic government, protect the environment, and rebuild the country's tattered infrastructure, regardless of party. We have to stop letting conservatives use the Democratic Party to camouflage their dominance of policy. There are no liberals in the Republican congressional delegation; why should conservatives be allowed to hide out among the Democrats? Party labels are just another way of keeping us from figuring out what's really going on.
Instead of sucking up to right wingers in order to cop the choice corner suites in the Senate office buildings, the Democrats should toss traitors like Joe Lieberman out on their Dumbo-sized ears. What has been gained by taking "control" of the Senate, beyond winning for the Democrats a share of the responsibility for the failures of George W. Bush and of the conservative majority that truly controls the legislative agenda? We would have a far more responsive, effective and democratic government if our elected officials were organized along ideological instead of partisan political lines.
With the White House already lost to the center-right, liberals, progressives, peace advocates, environmentalists, labor activists and such can more effectively deploy their time, talent and legal tender to reorienting the Congress than worrying over who's going to be president. Not that there aren't reasons to choose among them, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are more alike than they are different: none of them is going to tackle the radical adjustment in priorities needed if this is to become a just and democratic country. There should be no rush to choose one over another without getting concrete policy commitments in return.
In the matter at hand, for example, here is the list of nominal Democrats who voted with the Republicans to give the president the added power he craves: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Rockefeller (WV) -- the bill's sponsor, Salazar (CO), Pryor (AR), Webb (VA) and Whitehouse (D-RI). I'm not saying protecting your rights as citizens should be the only thing on your mind when you vote, but at least it ought to be a consideration.
Besides, many of these names -- Baucus, Casey, Conrad, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar -- come up over and over again as stalwart defenders of corporate interests and opponents of economic reform. Put a hand on your wallet and look around for a progressive alternative the next time they come conning for support in your precinct.
The list should give us pause in other ways. It turns out that a candidate's opposition to the war du jour may be an insufficient reason to endorse him if his objection to the conflict is that it has been mismanaged, the position of many corporatist Democrats, Jim Webb apparently among them. By the same token, it is hard to see what was gained by replacing the last liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee, with the conservative Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (another possible warning flag to keep in mind this particular election season: the Rhode Island Democrat's campaign slogan was "Change the Senate").
In 2006, the Democratic Senate and House election committees systematically supported conservatives against candidates who ran on such issues as peace and economic justice. With many more progressives in primary races this time than last, activists need to be on the alert for a reappearance of similar tactics in upcoming contests.
The news isn't all bad.
Although the president was at his fearmongering worst last week, in a rare demonstration of backbone, the leadership in the House, balking at shielding phone carriers from privacy lawsuits and at warrantless and unwarranted surveillance of American citizens by their government -- took a two-week Presidents' Day vacation without reauthorizing last summer's temporary domestic wiretapping law.
"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," Bush said of the House's presumption. "By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America."
The temporary provisions are set to expire at midnight tonight, but Democrats argued that the basic law will remain in effect and that the president wittingly manufactured the confrontation by threatening to veto a short-term extension that was intended to permit the Senate and House time to deliberate responsibly on revising FISA permanently. "He knows that the underlying 'intelligence' law and the power given to him in the Protect America Act give him sufficient authority to do all of the surveillance and collecting that he needs to do in order to protect the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The New York Times on Thursday.
In response to Bush's accusation that Democrats are imperiling the nation's security, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the president of "fear mongering."
"After refusing to extend current law, the president repeated today his untenable and irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps a Senate bill," Hoyer said. "In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and the intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation."
"This is not about protecting Americans," added Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, on Friday. "The president just wants to protect American telephone companies."
If the bill is so vital, some Democrats wondered, why not sign the measure without the telecoms' "Get Out of Jail Free" card and let the phone companies off the hook with separate legislation?
Whether the rare display of gumption by House leaders is evidence that the Democrats are ready at last to take on the worst excesses of the president remains to be seen. But so low are our expectations by now that it was gratifying to see them display even the faintest profile of courage, notwithstanding that to do it they had to get out of town.
Countdown Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is A Liar And A Fascist by Keith Olberman (CrooksAndLiars.com, 2008-02-14)
Putting the president above the law (International Herald Tribune, 2008-02-10)
Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger (AP/NYTimes, 2008-02-15)
Update: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance
The House approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin. (Salon.com, 2008-03-14)
The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248), an "updating" of the 30-year-old law that authorized a secret court to oversee intelligence operations by federal agencies, sailed through the "Democratically-controlled" Senate on Feb 12.
Intended to "modernize and streamline" provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, "and for other purposes" (italics added), the act includes a section authorizing warrantless wiretaps of foreign-to-foreign communications and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the administration to spy on Americans. The bill also states that the government will not need a warrant for foreign-to-American communications, with no privacy protections on the American end, and will allow the government to install monitoring stations in telephone and internet facilities inside the U.S., also without judicial review.
In effect, the statute provides retroactive immunity to government officials as completely as to the telecoms.
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrat's narrow majority was diminished by the defections of a few conservatives like Lieberman and Salazar, but you'd be wrong. The vote wasn't even close.
Sixty-eight senators voted for the bill; only 29 said nay. To put it another way, 19 Democrats -- 40% of the Democratic delegation -- joined Lieberman and the Republicans in voting to gut the Constitution.
Three senators couldn't be bothered to vote at all. One was Lindsey Graham. No loss there. But the others were the two liberal champions who seek to be the leader of their party: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's no wonder that millions of American feel disenfranchised by the current system. In the absence of party discipline, there is no downside to lying about who you are or what you'll do once you're in office. Voters pull the lever for a Democrat and wind up with a senator or a representative allied with the GOP and supporting a corrupt, incompetent and fascistic president. Why wouldn't they vote for Ralph Nader the next time, or just stay home? It shouldn't be a shock that more people vote for American Idol than for president; at least you can count on the likes of Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and Taylor Hicks to deliver as promised.
The problem with Washington is not that it is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nor is Federalism the problem. The problem is that the government -- all branches -- is firmly and utterly in the hands of conservatives. Nothing is changed by dispatching someone to the District for no more compelling reason than that s/he labels self a Democrat. We have to start choosing people who actually will take on the military-industrial complex, engage in the fight against poverty, expand democratic government, protect the environment, and rebuild the country's tattered infrastructure, regardless of party. We have to stop letting conservatives use the Democratic Party to camouflage their dominance of policy. There are no liberals in the Republican congressional delegation; why should conservatives be allowed to hide out among the Democrats? Party labels are just another way of keeping us from figuring out what's really going on.
Instead of sucking up to right wingers in order to cop the choice corner suites in the Senate office buildings, the Democrats should toss traitors like Joe Lieberman out on their Dumbo-sized ears. What has been gained by taking "control" of the Senate, beyond winning for the Democrats a share of the responsibility for the failures of George W. Bush and of the conservative majority that truly controls the legislative agenda? We would have a far more responsive, effective and democratic government if our elected officials were organized along ideological instead of partisan political lines.
With the White House already lost to the center-right, liberals, progressives, peace advocates, environmentalists, labor activists and such can more effectively deploy their time, talent and legal tender to reorienting the Congress than worrying over who's going to be president. Not that there aren't reasons to choose among them, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are more alike than they are different: none of them is going to tackle the radical adjustment in priorities needed if this is to become a just and democratic country. There should be no rush to choose one over another without getting concrete policy commitments in return.
In the matter at hand, for example, here is the list of nominal Democrats who voted with the Republicans to give the president the added power he craves: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Rockefeller (WV) -- the bill's sponsor, Salazar (CO), Pryor (AR), Webb (VA) and Whitehouse (D-RI). I'm not saying protecting your rights as citizens should be the only thing on your mind when you vote, but at least it ought to be a consideration.
Besides, many of these names -- Baucus, Casey, Conrad, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar -- come up over and over again as stalwart defenders of corporate interests and opponents of economic reform. Put a hand on your wallet and look around for a progressive alternative the next time they come conning for support in your precinct.
The list should give us pause in other ways. It turns out that a candidate's opposition to the war du jour may be an insufficient reason to endorse him if his objection to the conflict is that it has been mismanaged, the position of many corporatist Democrats, Jim Webb apparently among them. By the same token, it is hard to see what was gained by replacing the last liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee, with the conservative Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (another possible warning flag to keep in mind this particular election season: the Rhode Island Democrat's campaign slogan was "Change the Senate").
In 2006, the Democratic Senate and House election committees systematically supported conservatives against candidates who ran on such issues as peace and economic justice. With many more progressives in primary races this time than last, activists need to be on the alert for a reappearance of similar tactics in upcoming contests.
The news isn't all bad.
Although the president was at his fearmongering worst last week, in a rare demonstration of backbone, the leadership in the House, balking at shielding phone carriers from privacy lawsuits and at warrantless and unwarranted surveillance of American citizens by their government -- took a two-week Presidents' Day vacation without reauthorizing last summer's temporary domestic wiretapping law.
"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," Bush said of the House's presumption. "By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America."
The temporary provisions are set to expire at midnight tonight, but Democrats argued that the basic law will remain in effect and that the president wittingly manufactured the confrontation by threatening to veto a short-term extension that was intended to permit the Senate and House time to deliberate responsibly on revising FISA permanently. "He knows that the underlying 'intelligence' law and the power given to him in the Protect America Act give him sufficient authority to do all of the surveillance and collecting that he needs to do in order to protect the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The New York Times on Thursday.
In response to Bush's accusation that Democrats are imperiling the nation's security, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the president of "fear mongering."
"After refusing to extend current law, the president repeated today his untenable and irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps a Senate bill," Hoyer said. "In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and the intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation."
"This is not about protecting Americans," added Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, on Friday. "The president just wants to protect American telephone companies."
If the bill is so vital, some Democrats wondered, why not sign the measure without the telecoms' "Get Out of Jail Free" card and let the phone companies off the hook with separate legislation?
Whether the rare display of gumption by House leaders is evidence that the Democrats are ready at last to take on the worst excesses of the president remains to be seen. But so low are our expectations by now that it was gratifying to see them display even the faintest profile of courage, notwithstanding that to do it they had to get out of town.
Countdown Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is A Liar And A Fascist by Keith Olberman (CrooksAndLiars.com, 2008-02-14)
Putting the president above the law (International Herald Tribune, 2008-02-10)
Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger (AP/NYTimes, 2008-02-15)
Update: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance
The House approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin. (Salon.com, 2008-03-14)
Stimulus: Sanity returns -- briefly -- to the debate about fixing the economy
According to a report in this morning's Times, the Democratic majority is "short of the 60 votes needed to advance a $161 billion economic stimulus package toward approval in the Senate."
You may recall from civics class that it used to require a simple majority to pass most laws in the federal legislature. But since 2006, the Democrats have adopted a new theory of democracy under which no law can be advanced that is not veto-proof. The practical effect is to have the legislature held hostage by the president.
Some Democratic senators insist that the House stimulus plan, adopted under the super-majority theory, is a lousy bill that will benefit people who don't need help, hurt people who do, vastly increase the deficit, and not do much of anything for the economy.
Instead of crafting a responsible bill to address a perceived crisis -- and perhaps first determining whether there is a crisis, the House Democratic leadership, as is now its custom, caved in to the Bush administration's aversion to any economic program not made up primarily of tax cuts and payouts to the rich.
The senators are right. The House bill is pretty bad.
It creates humongous deficits at a time when we are already consumed with how we are going to continue to fund essential existing programs like Medicare and Social Security, let alone find the resources for important new efforts, such as universal health care. Because it consists largely of tax cuts, the resulting deficits will cause long-term interest rates to go up, an outcome more likely to further slow down the economy than to stimulate it, and add billions to the deficit by greatly increasing the cost of servicing the national debt.
And, of course, by agreeing not to raise revenues to pay for the expenditures, the Democratically controlled Congress is irresponsibly compounding an already catastrophic problem, passing it on to future generations of Americans and, more to the point, future generations of politicians.
Most important, as the latest sally in the administration's class war, the package continues the policy of redistributing national resources to those at the wealthiest end of the economic spectrum, not only sending money in the wrong direction but in this case dispatching huge amounts of it there. The average tax dividend dollar will go to superrich recipients whose primary source of income is taxable dividends, in other words, to people who not only don't need it, but, belying the rationale for the stimulus, to people who will have no incentive to spend it.
Conversely, the House proposal doesn't include immediate infusions of cash into the economy, as an expansion of the food stamp program would do; doesn't offer help to those who would be hurt by a recession, as an extension of unemployment payments would do; doesn't help state governments -- already suffering from declining tax revenues -- that bear most of the costs of social programs; and doesn't include expenditures -- on infrastructure projects, for example -- that would create jobs and improve the longterm strength of the economy.
Here's Democrat heavyweight Charles Schumer, New York's senior senator:
“If it fails, we’ll pass the House bill. But we’ll give it a try.”
Wow. The Republicans must be quaking in their Berlutis.
In case you're keeping track, here's another name you won't find in the next edition of Profiles in Courage:
Instead of fighting for better policy, the Democrats have decided to play political games with the legislative process. Having conceded ultimate victory to the conservatives, the Democrats hope to use the committee's bill and amendments from the floor to make "some Republicans potentially [pay] a steep political price, by voting against amendments that would be popular in their home states."
In opposing improved legislation, McConnell, whom the Times, as is its custom, gives the most ink and the last word, caps a recitation of the usual refrain about Democratic profligacy with a final tip of the hat to the bi-partisan, i.e., Bush-certified, House proposal.
How about this instead:
Pass the best bill you can. If Bush wants to veto it, so what? If the Republicans want to uphold the veto, same thing. Whether they succeed or fail, go to the American people in November and let them decide. Draw a clear line between the party of the people and the party of the rich. If they have an unambiguous understanding of whom they're voting for, no matter how it turns out, at least Americans will get the government they deserve.
You may recall from civics class that it used to require a simple majority to pass most laws in the federal legislature. But since 2006, the Democrats have adopted a new theory of democracy under which no law can be advanced that is not veto-proof. The practical effect is to have the legislature held hostage by the president.
Some Democratic senators insist that the House stimulus plan, adopted under the super-majority theory, is a lousy bill that will benefit people who don't need help, hurt people who do, vastly increase the deficit, and not do much of anything for the economy.
Instead of crafting a responsible bill to address a perceived crisis -- and perhaps first determining whether there is a crisis, the House Democratic leadership, as is now its custom, caved in to the Bush administration's aversion to any economic program not made up primarily of tax cuts and payouts to the rich.
The senators are right. The House bill is pretty bad.
It creates humongous deficits at a time when we are already consumed with how we are going to continue to fund essential existing programs like Medicare and Social Security, let alone find the resources for important new efforts, such as universal health care. Because it consists largely of tax cuts, the resulting deficits will cause long-term interest rates to go up, an outcome more likely to further slow down the economy than to stimulate it, and add billions to the deficit by greatly increasing the cost of servicing the national debt.
And, of course, by agreeing not to raise revenues to pay for the expenditures, the Democratically controlled Congress is irresponsibly compounding an already catastrophic problem, passing it on to future generations of Americans and, more to the point, future generations of politicians.
Most important, as the latest sally in the administration's class war, the package continues the policy of redistributing national resources to those at the wealthiest end of the economic spectrum, not only sending money in the wrong direction but in this case dispatching huge amounts of it there. The average tax dividend dollar will go to superrich recipients whose primary source of income is taxable dividends, in other words, to people who not only don't need it, but, belying the rationale for the stimulus, to people who will have no incentive to spend it.
Conversely, the House proposal doesn't include immediate infusions of cash into the economy, as an expansion of the food stamp program would do; doesn't offer help to those who would be hurt by a recession, as an extension of unemployment payments would do; doesn't help state governments -- already suffering from declining tax revenues -- that bear most of the costs of social programs; and doesn't include expenditures -- on infrastructure projects, for example -- that would create jobs and improve the longterm strength of the economy.
President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, and the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have all urged the Senate to adopt a slightly cheaper version of the stimulus plan that was approved by the House on Tuesday.This pathetic charade is an example of the behavior that has led to the public's contempt for the legislature. The senators know as well as you do that the House bill is seriously flawed, but in an election year looking responsible trumps being responsible -- we have to do something, even if we all know it's the wrong thing -- and because "(w)ithout cloture, opponents of a Senate bill would be able to prolong the debate indefinitely," the leaders of the Senate have already indicated they, too, are ready to cave.
But Senate Democrats, including the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, have insisted on pressing ahead with their own package [is that sound the Times tsk-tsk-ing?], which was approved by the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday.
Only 3 of the 10 Republicans on the committee voted in favor of the plan, though — an early sign that the bipartisan cooperation that drove negotiations over the stimulus plan in the House was crumbling in the Senate.
The Senate stimulus plan would cost nearly $200 billion over two years, about $30 billion more than the House package [tsk-tsk] — and Democrats said they still intended to offer amendments that could add even more to the cost [tsk-tsk].
Sixty votes are needed under Senate rules to shut off debate on a measure and move to consideration of the measure itself, a step known as cloture. Without cloture, opponents of a Senate bill would be able to prolong the debate indefinitely.
Here's Democrat heavyweight Charles Schumer, New York's senior senator:
“If it fails, we’ll pass the House bill. But we’ll give it a try.”
Wow. The Republicans must be quaking in their Berlutis.
In case you're keeping track, here's another name you won't find in the next edition of Profiles in Courage:
Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant majority leader, said that Democrats’ strategy was, first, to seek approval of the Senate’s stimulus bill along with a small number of amendments. If that failed, he said, they would then turn to holding a series of votes to add components to the House’s version of the bill, and then ultimately call a vote on that plan.As it emerged from committee, the Senate bill that Durbin and Schumer have already abandoned is a big improvement on the Bush-league House bill. For example, the Senate proposal provides payments of $500 each -- not rebates, but cash that in most cases will be spent immediately -- to about 20 million low-income Americans over the age of 62 who survive on Social Security benefits, and to about 250,000 veterans dependent on payouts from a grateful nation. In a perfect example of what's wrong with the lower body's proposal, neither of these groups would receive a penny from the House.
The Democrats’ willingness to publicly discuss such a fallback strategy verged on the waving of a surrender flag: It indicated that they knew Senate Republicans could block the more expensive Senate stimulus plan, and that any delay in approving the House package would be dangerous politically, since it would leave the Democrats vulnerable to charges that they were impeding efforts to prop up the economy.
Both stimulus plans are meant to encourage spending through a combination of income-tax rebates, tax incentives for businesses, and stipends for tax filers who report at least $3,000 in earnings but do not pay enough income tax to qualify for rebates.You are supposed to be excited and uplifted by the sight Democrats and Republicans voting in large numbers for the same bill, as if bipartisanship and not policy was the point of this is exercise. We are expected not to notice that, like every outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington, the legislation is a by-product of the Democratic majority's abdication of its responsibilities in the face of intransigence by the Bush administration. The unpopular, failed, corrupt, incompetent, lame-duck Bush administration.
The House plan was forged in swift negotiations among Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Boehner and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. In those talks, Ms. Pelosi ultimately [swiftly, is more like it] dropped Democratic demands that unemployment benefits be extended and food stamps be increased, in favor of sending rebates and stipends to 35 million low-income families that would not have received them under a Bush administration proposal.
Instead of fighting for better policy, the Democrats have decided to play political games with the legislative process. Having conceded ultimate victory to the conservatives, the Democrats hope to use the committee's bill and amendments from the floor to make "some Republicans potentially [pay] a steep political price, by voting against amendments that would be popular in their home states."
For instance, the Democrats were nearly certain to propose an amendment to increase government assistance for rising home heating costs and other energy expenses — a program for low-income families that is hugely popular in the Northeast. Republican Senators up for re-election this year, like Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, would be forced to choose between casting a yes vote that would break with the Republican leadership or a no vote that would be unpopular with their constituents.Not only is the Democratic plan cynical, it's a loser. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell already knows he's going to get the House bill. Do you think he won't free up his team to vote in favor of amendments their constituents favor? Sununu, for example, can vote for the heating fuel subsidy, thus gaining an advantage with the huddled masses in New Hampshire, then vote against the final version of the Democrats' bill in the name of, oh, i dunno, "fiscal responsibility."
Praising the House bill, Mr. McConnell said: “Republicans and Democrats rose above politics and put the people and our economy first.”This is how "bipartisanship" works. The White House -- not the legislature -- decides what is "acceptable." Under the 60% theory, the majority introduces legislation that will head off the threat of a veto or, in the Senate, a filibuster (the 66% theory, I guess). I stress threat. Bush has vetoed only eight bills, and you could run a decent Democratic campaign for office on most of them (stem cell research, children's health insurance, health and human services expenditures, water resources, a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq). And while there have been a large number of cloture votes in this session, the Senate majority has not forced the minority to hold real, public filibusters with whatever political consequences such confrontations might hold. All you really need to do to intimidate the Democrats is to frown at them.
He continued: “Then all eyes turned to the Senate. Would we put our individual interests aside, or would we throw the whole plan into jeopardy by loading it down with gifts for anybody who came calling? Apparently the temptation for giveaways was too great for some to resist."
In opposing improved legislation, McConnell, whom the Times, as is its custom, gives the most ink and the last word, caps a recitation of the usual refrain about Democratic profligacy with a final tip of the hat to the bi-partisan, i.e., Bush-certified, House proposal.
“As soon as the bill hit the Senate, it started to look a lot like Christmas over here. Chairman Baucus added 10 new provisions before the bill was even considered in committee. Three more amendments were added in the committee. You could almost hear Bing Crosby’s voice coming out of the Finance Committee.Bi-partisanship is a smoke screen used to obscure the fact that -- forget Democrats or Republicans -- the Congress is dominated by a conservative majority.
“So the stimulus train is slowing, grinding to a halt here in the U.S. Senate, all of which only reinforces my view that the only way we’ll get relief to the people soon enough for it to work, will be to insist on speed over spending. And the only way to do that is to pass the bipartisan, House-passed bill.”
How about this instead:
Pass the best bill you can. If Bush wants to veto it, so what? If the Republicans want to uphold the veto, same thing. Whether they succeed or fail, go to the American people in November and let them decide. Draw a clear line between the party of the people and the party of the rich. If they have an unambiguous understanding of whom they're voting for, no matter how it turns out, at least Americans will get the government they deserve.
Bush Prods Congress to Impeach **
In a surprisingly cogent lecture yesterday, the noted historian George W. Bush compared Democratic Party leaders in Congress to politicians who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler nearly a century ago, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today. Bush did not quite conclude that the inability of the U.S. legislature to rein in an out-of-control executive exactly mirrors the failure of democratic forces to act when the Bolsheviks and Nazis manipulated democratic institutions to establish totalitarian regimes in Russia and Germany, but he did say that, in his words, "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake." With the current administration assaulting democracy at home and pursuing an imperial agenda abroad, to paraphrase the president, Bush, Cheney and their "allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"
** All quotes real
** All quotes real
The War: W.Hollywood Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution in Support of the Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney
[While under normal circumstances I agree that the Santa Monica city council should stick to local issues and not spend its time on resolutions to save the redwoods or nuke the whales, these are not normal times. The very active local peace movement should follow up West Hollywood's action and get the Santa Monica council to go on record in support of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their various crimes, although the best reason to get rid of them is to prevent future debacles, like attacking Iran (according to press reports -- see, Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iraq -- the Vice has talked the Little President into war with Iran as soon as a pretext can be manufactured). - jg]
West Hollywood makes history in becoming the first city in Southern California to pass an impeachment resolution (press release)
"The City of West Hollywood was the first City to oppose the war in Iraq, as it was obvious that the United States was being dragged into a war under false pretenses," said West Hollywood Mayor John Duran. "Now the truth is out. Our President and Vice President misled the country and failed the American people, and for those reasons they should be impeached," he continued.
"The time has come to call for impeachment," said West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land. "Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American public on the justifications for the Iraq war, conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens and violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism to hold them accountable. West Hollywood is proud to add its voice to the growing movement across the nation in calling for a full investigation to be undertaken by the U.S. Congress," she continued.
The proposed resolution states that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have repeatedly violated the U.S. Constitution and other laws of the United States. Other impeachable actions cited in the Impeachment Resolution include:
For more information, please contact Hernan Molina, Deputy to West Hollywood Mayor John Duran or Lisa Belsanti, Deputy to West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land at 323-848-6460.
West Hollywood makes history in becoming the first city in Southern California to pass an impeachment resolution (press release)
"The City of West Hollywood was the first City to oppose the war in Iraq, as it was obvious that the United States was being dragged into a war under false pretenses," said West Hollywood Mayor John Duran. "Now the truth is out. Our President and Vice President misled the country and failed the American people, and for those reasons they should be impeached," he continued.
"The time has come to call for impeachment," said West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land. "Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American public on the justifications for the Iraq war, conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens and violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism to hold them accountable. West Hollywood is proud to add its voice to the growing movement across the nation in calling for a full investigation to be undertaken by the U.S. Congress," she continued.
The proposed resolution states that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have repeatedly violated the U.S. Constitution and other laws of the United States. Other impeachable actions cited in the Impeachment Resolution include:
- Stripping Americans of their constitutional rights;
- Ordering and authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to override judicial order for the release of detainees;
- Directing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans; and
- Misguiding Congress and the country on false intelligence in order to lead the United States into war.
For more information, please contact Hernan Molina, Deputy to West Hollywood Mayor John Duran or Lisa Belsanti, Deputy to West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land at 323-848-6460.
The Tarnished White House: Is it time for Bush and Cheney to go?
The media pumped for Bill Clinton's impeachment with seven months of non-stop focus on the presidential privates, while the Republican leadership bet the farm animals on ousting him 
from office for being human, but the American public never bought it. Now, with the media dismissing talk of punishing the administration for corruption and incompetence and the Democratic leadership refusing even to talk about bringing the Bush-Cheney criminal enterprise to a close, a clear majority of the citizenry has concluded on its own that Dick Cheney should be impeached, convicted and removed from office, and a large and growing number think George Bush should meet the same fate. Clearly we worry too much about the influence of the media on public opinion. Maybe, also, we should give up looking to the incumbent Democrats to represent us and try to identify new champions among the third parties and on the Dems' left flank. And maybe we should forget about impeachment. Let's just find a conscientious prosecutor somewhere -- New Orleans, perhaps? (where is Jim Garrison when you need him?), forgo the Constitutional rigamarole, and hit the White House with a RICO bust.
See also, Impeachment is Democrats' sworn duty by Cenk Uygur (The Politico)
from office for being human, but the American public never bought it. Now, with the media dismissing talk of punishing the administration for corruption and incompetence and the Democratic leadership refusing even to talk about bringing the Bush-Cheney criminal enterprise to a close, a clear majority of the citizenry has concluded on its own that Dick Cheney should be impeached, convicted and removed from office, and a large and growing number think George Bush should meet the same fate. Clearly we worry too much about the influence of the media on public opinion. Maybe, also, we should give up looking to the incumbent Democrats to represent us and try to identify new champions among the third parties and on the Dems' left flank. And maybe we should forget about impeachment. Let's just find a conscientious prosecutor somewhere -- New Orleans, perhaps? (where is Jim Garrison when you need him?), forgo the Constitutional rigamarole, and hit the White House with a RICO bust.See also, Impeachment is Democrats' sworn duty by Cenk Uygur (The Politico)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
