"WASHINGTON -- New Year's Day will bring the ninth straight year in which the federal minimum wage has remained frozen at $5.15 an hour, marking the second-longest period that the nation has had a stagnant minimum wage since the standard was established in 1938.
Against that backdrop, Democrats are preparing ballot initiatives in states across the country to boost turnout of Democratic-leaning voters in 2006. Labor, religious, and community groups have launched efforts to place minimum-wage initiatives on ballots in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, and Montana next fall.
Democrats say the minimum wage could be for them what the gay-marriage referendums were in key states for Republicans last year -- an easily understood issue that galvanizes their supporters to show up on Election Day.
''It's a fairness issue, and everybody gets the concept of fairness," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, a long-time proponent of a higher minimum wage. ''It's a moral issue. It's a value."
Of the seven states that appear most likely to have a minimum wage increase on the ballot, five were decided by fewer than 10 percentage points in last year's presidential election, and all but Michigan supported President Bush. Republican senators in three of the states -- Ohio, Arizona, and Montana -- are high on Democrats' target lists, as they seek to pick up seats in Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
Congressional Republicans' efforts to block an increase to the federal minimum wage allows Democrats to take a popular stand that contrasts the priorities of the two parties, said former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democrats' 2004 nominee for vice president.
''It's a powerful political issue because it's the right thing to do," said Edwards, who visited Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio this year to rally supporters for minimum wage initiatives and plans to travel more extensively next year in key states. ''It's something that we should not be shying away from, and something we should be pushing."
Edwards, who made poverty a central theme of his presidential campaign, is working closely with local groups and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nationwide network of community groups.
In addition, Democratic-leaning religious groups are working with local churches to build support for minimum wage initiatives. The ''Let Justice Roll" campaign is asking leaders of churches, synagogues, and mosques to talk to their members on the importance of the minimum wage in a nation-wide push timed for the weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Jan. 14-16.
''We bring it straight to the voters, state by state, and all the polls indicate people want people to be paid reasonable wages for their work," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches and a former Democratic House member from Pennsylvania
''I don't think it can hurt [Democrats] next year if on five or six or seven states there's a ballot initiative that can lift the minimum wage," Edgar said. ''There's a lot of enthusiasm when you talk about minimum wage."
Republicans say they're not concerned by the efforts. Voters approach ballot measures and candidates for office differently, and the president and the Republican Congress have a strong record of job and economic growth, said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
Many Republicans support modest increases in the minimum wage when tied to economic changes such as cuts in required overtime pay.
''America's economy is best served by reasonable increases in the minimum wage, so that we don't hurt small businesses from growing and creating future employment opportunities," Diaz said. ''Nationwide, voters will continue to reject Democrat support for higher taxes and lawsuits that impair our nation's economic progress."
Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst in Washington, said the minimum wage represents an area where Democrats can put forward an accessible proposal that Republicans are uncomfortable opposing. That makes it attractive as Democrats seek to fill out an election-year agenda for a campaign they hope will turn on national issues.
''I can see it as a Democratic-labor effort to make sure that their voters turn out," Rothenberg said. ''The minimum wage hasn't been a big issue in a while, but it's always an issue that if Democrats are on the offensive, Republicans are going to be in a tough spot."
Democrats point out that under Republican control of Washington, the federal minimum wage hasn't budged since September 1997. Inflation has caused the minimum wage's buying power to erode to its second-lowest level since 1955, according to a study released this month by the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
''Things have gotten more expensive, and wages have not gone up accordingly," said Liana Fox, an analyst at the policy institute. ''People have to work more and have multiple jobs to maintain the same standard of living they would have had 20 years ago."
The inaction at the federal level has prompted a flurry of activity in various states. Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia now have minimum wages that are higher than the federal level, up from five in 1997, when the federal wage was set at $5.15. That list includes Massachusetts, where the minimum wage is $6.75 an hour.
Last year, both minimum wage increases on state ballots won overwhelmingly. Voters in Florida and Nevada -- two states that went narrowly for Bush -- overwhelmingly supported a higher minimum wage, giving ballot measures 71 percent support in Florida and 68 percent in Nevada. (The Nevada initiative must be approved again in 2006 before it can take effect.)
Democrats say they hope to replicate Republicans' success in 2004, when ballot initiatives banning gay marriage passed in all 11 states they were offered. The initiatives were credited with boosting GOP turnout in those states.
The minimum wage can have a similar cross-country resonance, particularly after Hurricane Katrina exposed the dire poverty that exists in parts of the nation, said the Rev. Paul Sherry, the Cleveland-based coordinator of ''Let Justice Roll" and a former president of the United Church of Christ. Sherry said his group is considering broadening its efforts to launch state legislative campaigns for a higher minimum wage in states including New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
''It cuts across all kinds of ideological lines," Sherry said. ''People on the conservative side of the political sphere, as well as the liberal, see the need for a decent wage for people."
Some Republicans and business groups oppose a higher minimum wage because they fear it could hurt small businesses. But some Republican lawmakers nonetheless appear reticent to oppose minimum-wage increases, since they fear Democrats could use such votes to attack them as antiworker.
Both times Kennedy offered minimum-wage increases in the Senate this year, he was narrowly defeated by Republicans. But in both instances, most Republicans voted for their own versions of a minimum-wage increase, tied to other provisions opposed by labor unions.
The votes meant that more than 80 senators twice voted this year for a higher minimum wage, but the year will end with the wage still at $5.15 an hour. Kennedy is vowing to force more votes on the issue next year.
''The support for this is off the charts," he said. ''This really is a defining kind of issue."-from the Boston Globe story today. WWJD? Rick Klein, who wrote this article, followed a bunch of us Seattle-ites around as we door-belled for Howard Dean in Des Moines in January, 2004.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
''Gregoire's juggernaut after photofinish win'' (UPDATED)
In the spirit of Xmas, and because Hannukah begins at sundown, we'll let the mainstream media paint today's political picture:
"OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Washington didn't have a governor - not for certain - until a Chelan County judge finally dismissed an election challenge in early June and Republicans decided not to appeal.
The state's longest, closest, craziest race for governor, one that produced first a Republican winner and then, on the second recount, a Democratic victor, was easily the state's top political story of the year.
It was one year ago, after nightfall on Dec. 23, when Christine Gregoire finally pulled ahead of Republican Dino Rossi when her stronghold, King County, certified its final recount numbers. Gregoire had won the unusual statewide hand recount by 129 votes, out of 2.8 million cast. That didn't settle it though, as court battles and political warfare stretched on.
Neither the gossamer-thin victory margin, nor Rossi's bid for a revote, nor the thousands of protesters massed on the Capitol lawn, nor the possibility of losing a court challenge kept her from confidently taking the oath of office on Jan. 12.
Nor did she and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate play their hand timidly. Gregoire, who had beat breast cancer and numerous courtroom adversaries, said she'd govern full-tilt every minute she had the office.
And so she and her legislative brethren ran a relentlessly expansive, expensive agenda, delighting environmentalists, labor, education forces, children's advocates and others who reveled in their best session in a decade. Transportation forces were thrilled when lawmakers approved a huge 16-year, $8.5 billion construction budget.
Taxes? Forget the phobia of the '90s. Gregoire and the Democrats ponied up more than $400 million in "sin taxes" and a new version of the estate tax to help fill a yawning budget gap as the state began pulling out of recession.
And more breathtaking than that, they approved a four-step, 9 1/2-cent-a-gallon gas tax hike just as pump prices were starting to soar.
Republicans complained about the Democratic juggernaut, but at year's end, voters confounded conventional wisdom and sustained the biggest gas-tax hike in state history. Gregoire allies saw it as vindication of her take-charge, take-risks style, but Rossi and the Republicans said Gregoire turned out to be a taxaholic.
"It was the same old left-of-center agenda we've had for the past 20 years," Rossi said recently. "They went to the tax well reflexively."
On Gregoire's watch, a robust state economy, buoyed by the housing market, world trade, and a resurgent Boeing Co., kept piling the state's projected surplus higher and higher - over $1.4 billion as of last count.
The political year also featured an unprecedented recall of a Spokane mayor who was caught in a cybersex, abuse-of-power scandal. It was a banner year for initiative politics, with Tim Eyman back on track, but fellow tax rebels failing to block the gas tax hike. Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, who faces the voters next fall, went to Baghdad as an election observer and implicitly defended her vote for the Iraq war. She also gained a Republican challenger. The fall elections favored Democrats once again.
But the big watercooler story was the prolonged election, which rewrote all the scripts for determining the winner of a near-tie.
"That will be the benchmark election for years to come, in terms of the whole theater of it and in terms of enduring impact on how we run elections," said Todd Donovan, whose political science students at Western Washington University use it as a bizarre case study.
It all seems a blur to Gregoire.
"When I think back to where I was a year ago...." she says, her voice trailing off. "That was a very difficult time."
She recalls being tucked away in an austere, depressing office suite across the street from the Capitol, not knowing if she'd be inaugurated - or unemployed.
Still, she quickly adds, the year that began in such turmoil and angst also had some very high points. The legislative session where she was given star treatment and got just about everything she asked for. Trade missions to Europe and Asia. Creation of a billion-dollar Life Sciences Discovery Fund.
At year's end, her staff and supporters were working on softening her tough-as-nails image and looking for better ways to publicize her accomplishments. Her job approval ratings remained mired below 40 percent, with pollsters calling her one of the more unpopular governors.
But Gregoire isn't deterred.
"You know what? I'm having the time of my life," Gregoire said."-from the AP story.
Or to put it another way: She got more done in one year in office than the previous occupant did in eight(sorry Mona). Also, let's not forget how Howard Dean, the DNC and John Kerry joined the netroots and individual donors from around the country to raise gobs of money for the recount. Maybe there is a Santa Claus (and/or Hannukah Harry), after all.
Update: My bad: I should have linked to Alan's post on Northwest Progessive Institute about Gregoire, "Leadership has arrived," two days ago. It's a wonky version of the AP story.
"OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Washington didn't have a governor - not for certain - until a Chelan County judge finally dismissed an election challenge in early June and Republicans decided not to appeal.
The state's longest, closest, craziest race for governor, one that produced first a Republican winner and then, on the second recount, a Democratic victor, was easily the state's top political story of the year.
It was one year ago, after nightfall on Dec. 23, when Christine Gregoire finally pulled ahead of Republican Dino Rossi when her stronghold, King County, certified its final recount numbers. Gregoire had won the unusual statewide hand recount by 129 votes, out of 2.8 million cast. That didn't settle it though, as court battles and political warfare stretched on.
Neither the gossamer-thin victory margin, nor Rossi's bid for a revote, nor the thousands of protesters massed on the Capitol lawn, nor the possibility of losing a court challenge kept her from confidently taking the oath of office on Jan. 12.
Nor did she and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate play their hand timidly. Gregoire, who had beat breast cancer and numerous courtroom adversaries, said she'd govern full-tilt every minute she had the office.
And so she and her legislative brethren ran a relentlessly expansive, expensive agenda, delighting environmentalists, labor, education forces, children's advocates and others who reveled in their best session in a decade. Transportation forces were thrilled when lawmakers approved a huge 16-year, $8.5 billion construction budget.
Taxes? Forget the phobia of the '90s. Gregoire and the Democrats ponied up more than $400 million in "sin taxes" and a new version of the estate tax to help fill a yawning budget gap as the state began pulling out of recession.
And more breathtaking than that, they approved a four-step, 9 1/2-cent-a-gallon gas tax hike just as pump prices were starting to soar.
Republicans complained about the Democratic juggernaut, but at year's end, voters confounded conventional wisdom and sustained the biggest gas-tax hike in state history. Gregoire allies saw it as vindication of her take-charge, take-risks style, but Rossi and the Republicans said Gregoire turned out to be a taxaholic.
"It was the same old left-of-center agenda we've had for the past 20 years," Rossi said recently. "They went to the tax well reflexively."
On Gregoire's watch, a robust state economy, buoyed by the housing market, world trade, and a resurgent Boeing Co., kept piling the state's projected surplus higher and higher - over $1.4 billion as of last count.
The political year also featured an unprecedented recall of a Spokane mayor who was caught in a cybersex, abuse-of-power scandal. It was a banner year for initiative politics, with Tim Eyman back on track, but fellow tax rebels failing to block the gas tax hike. Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, who faces the voters next fall, went to Baghdad as an election observer and implicitly defended her vote for the Iraq war. She also gained a Republican challenger. The fall elections favored Democrats once again.
But the big watercooler story was the prolonged election, which rewrote all the scripts for determining the winner of a near-tie.
"That will be the benchmark election for years to come, in terms of the whole theater of it and in terms of enduring impact on how we run elections," said Todd Donovan, whose political science students at Western Washington University use it as a bizarre case study.
It all seems a blur to Gregoire.
"When I think back to where I was a year ago...." she says, her voice trailing off. "That was a very difficult time."
She recalls being tucked away in an austere, depressing office suite across the street from the Capitol, not knowing if she'd be inaugurated - or unemployed.
Still, she quickly adds, the year that began in such turmoil and angst also had some very high points. The legislative session where she was given star treatment and got just about everything she asked for. Trade missions to Europe and Asia. Creation of a billion-dollar Life Sciences Discovery Fund.
At year's end, her staff and supporters were working on softening her tough-as-nails image and looking for better ways to publicize her accomplishments. Her job approval ratings remained mired below 40 percent, with pollsters calling her one of the more unpopular governors.
But Gregoire isn't deterred.
"You know what? I'm having the time of my life," Gregoire said."-from the AP story.
Or to put it another way: She got more done in one year in office than the previous occupant did in eight(sorry Mona). Also, let's not forget how Howard Dean, the DNC and John Kerry joined the netroots and individual donors from around the country to raise gobs of money for the recount. Maybe there is a Santa Claus (and/or Hannukah Harry), after all.
Update: My bad: I should have linked to Alan's post on Northwest Progessive Institute about Gregoire, "Leadership has arrived," two days ago. It's a wonky version of the AP story.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Top Ten Political Xmas Wishes
"Dear Santa: Here are ten political wishes that you can grant and make my Christmas.
10. Come out of hiding, Al Gore. The Democratic Party needs you as their environmental spokesperson. After Hurricane Katrina, and the other disastrous storms of 2005, the American people don’t have to be convinced that there’s a problem with global climate change. They need to know what to do. You understand this. Your speech, “When there is no vision, the people perish,” was a superb first step. Al, you can provide the leadership that the Party and the nation need to deal with this peril. Come out, come out, wherever you are.
9. Let go, John Kerry. You’re acting out the lyrics from Lucinda Williams’ song, “Well it's over, I know it, but I can't let go.” You lost your bid for the presidency. You couldn’t defeat an inept President who made one disastrous mistake after another. It’s over. Quit acting as if you’re the leader of the Democratic Party. You aren’t even the leader of the Senate Minority. You had your chance. Please don’t run again. Let go, John.
8. Get a job, Bill Clinton. Charging thousands of dollars for inspirational speeches isn’t a real job. It’s celebrity fluff. How about taking on a challenge? Rebuild your reputation by making a contribution that will strengthen America. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina left a mess that the Bush Administration is unwilling to clean up. America needs the kind of leadership that you can provide. Move to New Orleans. Become our champion for the reconstruction. Bring us together. Take on a real job, Bill. It’s way too early for you to retire to a life of Oprah appearances and golf.
7. Get out, Joe Lieberman. The Democratic Party has a big tent but no more room for you. Either quit backing President Bush and blasting your fellow Dems, or leave the Party. You’re worse than an irritant. You are an embarrassment. Your statements seem scripted by Karl Rove. You’re not a “centrist” Dem. You are a Republican. Get out of the Party, Joe.
6. Get a grip, Hillary Clinton. It’s time for you to quit being coy about your position on Iraq. The Democratic Party needs leadership in 2006 and you can provide it. You have an easy re-election campaign for the Senate. No harm will come to you by taking a strong position on Iraq. Support John Murtha’s position. America needs a leader not another fundraiser-in-chief. Get a grip, Hillary.
5. Leave town, Howard Dean. You’ve heard it said, “they can take the boy out of the country, but they can’t take the country out of the boy.” That’s the problem with your new job as DNC chair. It keeps you in Washington when you really should be working full-time with grass-roots activists. The heart of the Party isn’t in DC. It’s in the rest of the country – the sane part. There’s a lot of anger out here in the boonies. It needs to be harnessed. You can provide this leadership. Get out of DC town, Howard.
4. Get an agenda, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. A laundry list of scintillating ideas isn’t an agenda – it’s detritus from brainstorming sessions conducted by over-paid Washington consultants. The country needs a few clear notions about who Democrats are. Help us out. What do the Dems stand for besides not being Bushites? Get a real agenda, Nancy and Harry.
3. Convert to Christianity, George Bush. Abandon the fundamentalist pabulum you’ve been spouting – the “Weekly Reader” summary of the Old Testament and the Book of Revelations. Read the Gospels. Pay attention to the teachings of Jesus: The admonition to tell the truth. Not to murder. To care for the poor. Step into the light, George. Before it’s too late for you to save your soul.
2. Pay attention, Congress. While you’re obsessed with garnering the next big contribution, the country is going down the drain. There’s this guy Osama bin Laden and his band of thugs, Al Qaeda. While you’re wasting our money on a pointless war in Iraq, they’re gaining momentum. By the way, the people down in New Orleans who got left behind in the flight from Hurricane Katrina are still left behind. One more thing, there’s this country named China. They’re about to eat our lunch. Do your job, Congress. Pay attention.
1. Wake up, America. Democracy isn’t a spectator sport. Eternal vigilance isn’t a video game. Everything you really care about is slipping away. It’s not just about you. It’s about your family and friends – everyone you love. Wake up, America, the bad guys are winning."-Bob Burnett on The Huffington Post.
Dean has been on the road quite a bit, so I'm not so sure about #5.
10. Come out of hiding, Al Gore. The Democratic Party needs you as their environmental spokesperson. After Hurricane Katrina, and the other disastrous storms of 2005, the American people don’t have to be convinced that there’s a problem with global climate change. They need to know what to do. You understand this. Your speech, “When there is no vision, the people perish,” was a superb first step. Al, you can provide the leadership that the Party and the nation need to deal with this peril. Come out, come out, wherever you are.
9. Let go, John Kerry. You’re acting out the lyrics from Lucinda Williams’ song, “Well it's over, I know it, but I can't let go.” You lost your bid for the presidency. You couldn’t defeat an inept President who made one disastrous mistake after another. It’s over. Quit acting as if you’re the leader of the Democratic Party. You aren’t even the leader of the Senate Minority. You had your chance. Please don’t run again. Let go, John.
8. Get a job, Bill Clinton. Charging thousands of dollars for inspirational speeches isn’t a real job. It’s celebrity fluff. How about taking on a challenge? Rebuild your reputation by making a contribution that will strengthen America. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina left a mess that the Bush Administration is unwilling to clean up. America needs the kind of leadership that you can provide. Move to New Orleans. Become our champion for the reconstruction. Bring us together. Take on a real job, Bill. It’s way too early for you to retire to a life of Oprah appearances and golf.
7. Get out, Joe Lieberman. The Democratic Party has a big tent but no more room for you. Either quit backing President Bush and blasting your fellow Dems, or leave the Party. You’re worse than an irritant. You are an embarrassment. Your statements seem scripted by Karl Rove. You’re not a “centrist” Dem. You are a Republican. Get out of the Party, Joe.
6. Get a grip, Hillary Clinton. It’s time for you to quit being coy about your position on Iraq. The Democratic Party needs leadership in 2006 and you can provide it. You have an easy re-election campaign for the Senate. No harm will come to you by taking a strong position on Iraq. Support John Murtha’s position. America needs a leader not another fundraiser-in-chief. Get a grip, Hillary.
5. Leave town, Howard Dean. You’ve heard it said, “they can take the boy out of the country, but they can’t take the country out of the boy.” That’s the problem with your new job as DNC chair. It keeps you in Washington when you really should be working full-time with grass-roots activists. The heart of the Party isn’t in DC. It’s in the rest of the country – the sane part. There’s a lot of anger out here in the boonies. It needs to be harnessed. You can provide this leadership. Get out of DC town, Howard.
4. Get an agenda, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. A laundry list of scintillating ideas isn’t an agenda – it’s detritus from brainstorming sessions conducted by over-paid Washington consultants. The country needs a few clear notions about who Democrats are. Help us out. What do the Dems stand for besides not being Bushites? Get a real agenda, Nancy and Harry.
3. Convert to Christianity, George Bush. Abandon the fundamentalist pabulum you’ve been spouting – the “Weekly Reader” summary of the Old Testament and the Book of Revelations. Read the Gospels. Pay attention to the teachings of Jesus: The admonition to tell the truth. Not to murder. To care for the poor. Step into the light, George. Before it’s too late for you to save your soul.
2. Pay attention, Congress. While you’re obsessed with garnering the next big contribution, the country is going down the drain. There’s this guy Osama bin Laden and his band of thugs, Al Qaeda. While you’re wasting our money on a pointless war in Iraq, they’re gaining momentum. By the way, the people down in New Orleans who got left behind in the flight from Hurricane Katrina are still left behind. One more thing, there’s this country named China. They’re about to eat our lunch. Do your job, Congress. Pay attention.
1. Wake up, America. Democracy isn’t a spectator sport. Eternal vigilance isn’t a video game. Everything you really care about is slipping away. It’s not just about you. It’s about your family and friends – everyone you love. Wake up, America, the bad guys are winning."-Bob Burnett on The Huffington Post.
Dean has been on the road quite a bit, so I'm not so sure about #5.
Victory06.org--''Securing a Democratic Majority''
It is vital that the rovians lose their control of the Congress. This new website is another tool to accomplish this. First post on their Washington state page: "Reichert Again Votes for Cuts That Hurt Washington Families."
Blurb: "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Reichert Again Votes for Cuts That Hurt Washington Families
Congressman Dave Reichert Voted in Favor of Cuts in Education, Job Training and to Underfund Home Heating Assistance
Carnation, Wash. - Republican Dave Reichert today voted for dramatic cuts in education, job training and other middle class investments. Siding with Tom DeLay and the right wing leadership, Reichert abandoned moderates from both parties when he cast this decisive vote."-from the Darcy Burner campaign.
Blurb: "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Reichert Again Votes for Cuts That Hurt Washington Families
Congressman Dave Reichert Voted in Favor of Cuts in Education, Job Training and to Underfund Home Heating Assistance
Carnation, Wash. - Republican Dave Reichert today voted for dramatic cuts in education, job training and other middle class investments. Siding with Tom DeLay and the right wing leadership, Reichert abandoned moderates from both parties when he cast this decisive vote."-from the Darcy Burner campaign.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Iraq 101: The Post Election Report
"Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions. Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.
The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. The Sunni Arab parties who openly or covertly support armed resistance to the US are likely to win large majorities in Sunni provinces. The Kurds have already achieved quasi-independence and their voting reflected that.
The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq. Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."
The success of the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shia religious parties, has been far greater than expected according to preliminary results. It won 58 per cent of the vote in Baghdad, while Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister strongly supported by Tony Blair, got only 14 per cent of the vote. In Basra, Iraq's second city, 77 per cent of voters supported the Alliance and only 11 per cent Mr Allawi.
The election was portrayed by President George Bush as a sign of success for US policies in Iraq but, in fact, means the triumph of America's enemies inside and outside the country. Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force.
Ironically, Mr Bush is increasingly dependent within Iraq on the co-operation and restraint of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for the eradication of Israel. It is the allies of the Iranian theocracy who are growing in influence by the day and have triumphed in the election. The US will fear that development greatly as it constantly reminds the world of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran may be happier with a weakened Iraq in which it is a predominant influence rather than see the country entirely break up. Another victor in the election is the fiery nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia fought fierce battles with US troops last year. The US military said at the time it intended "to kill or capture him".
Mr Bush cited the recapture of the holy city of Najaf from the Mehdi Army in August 2004 as an important success for the US Army. Mr Sadr will now be one of the most influential leaders within the coalition. All the parties which did well in the election have strength only within their own community. The Shia coalition succeeded because the Shia make up 60 per cent of Iraqis but won almost no votes among the Kurds or Sunni, each of whom is about 20 per cent of the population. The Sunni and the Kurdish parties won no support outside their own communities.
The US ambassador in Baghdad, Zilmay Khalilzad, sounded almost despairing yesterday as he reviewed the results of the election. "It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities," he said. "But for Iraq to succeed there has to be cross-ethnic and cross-sectarian co-operation."
The election also means a decisive switch from a secular Iraq to a country in which, outside Kurdistan, religious law will be paramount. Mr Allawi, who ran a well-financed campaign, was the main secular hope but that did not translate into votes. The other main non-religious candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, won less than 1 per cent of the vote in Baghdad and will be lucky to win a single seat in the new 275-member Council of Representatives.
"People underestimate how religious Iraq has become," said one Iraqi observer. "Iran is really a secular society with a religious leadership, but Iraq will be a religious society with a religious leadership." Already most girls leaving schools in Baghdad wear headscarves. Women's rights in cases of divorce and inheritance are being eroded.
Sunni Arab leaders were aghast at the electoral triumph of the Shia, claiming fraud. Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of the Sunni Arab alliance, the Iraqi Accordance Front, said that if the electoral commission did not respond to their complaints they would "demand the elections be held again in Baghdad".
Mr Allawi's Iraqi National List also protested. Ibrahim al-Janabi, a party official, said: "The elections commission is not independent. It is influenced by political parties and by the government." But while there was probably some fraud and intimidation, the results of the election mirror the way in which the Shia majority in Iraq is systematically taking over the levers of power. Shia already control the ministry of the interior with 110,000 police and paramilitary units and most of the troops in the 80,000-strong army being trained by the US are Shia.
Mr Khalilzad said yesterday: "You can't have someone who is regarded as sectarian, for example, as Minister of the Interior." This is a not so-veiled criticism of the present minister, Bayan Jabr, a leading member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the largest Shia party. He is accused of running death squads and torture centres whose victims are Sunni Arabs.
It is unlikely that the Shia religious parties and militias will tolerate any rollback in their power. "They feel their day has come," said Mr Attiyah. For six months the Shia have ruled Iraq in alliance with the Kurds. Kurdish leaders are not happy with the way this government has worked. The Kurds, supported by the US, will now try to dilute Shia control of government by bringing in Sunni ministers and Mr Allawi. But one Kurdish leader said: "We have a strategic alliance with the Shia religious parties we would be unwise to break."
The elections are also unlikely to see a diminution in armed resistance to the US by the Sunni community. Insurgent groups have made clear that they see winning seats in parliament as the opening of another front.
The break-up of Iraq has been brought closer by the election. The great majority of people who went to the polls voted as Shia, Sunni or Kurds - and not as Iraqis. The forces pulling Iraq apart are stronger than those holding it together. The election, billed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair as the birth of a new Iraqi state may in fact prove to be its funeral."-from the article today in The Independent (UK), "Iraq's election result: a divided nation."
More Good News: "Head of CIA Tells Turks to Prepare for Attack on Iran." - from Global Research.
The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. The Sunni Arab parties who openly or covertly support armed resistance to the US are likely to win large majorities in Sunni provinces. The Kurds have already achieved quasi-independence and their voting reflected that.
The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq. Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."
The success of the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shia religious parties, has been far greater than expected according to preliminary results. It won 58 per cent of the vote in Baghdad, while Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister strongly supported by Tony Blair, got only 14 per cent of the vote. In Basra, Iraq's second city, 77 per cent of voters supported the Alliance and only 11 per cent Mr Allawi.
The election was portrayed by President George Bush as a sign of success for US policies in Iraq but, in fact, means the triumph of America's enemies inside and outside the country. Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force.
Ironically, Mr Bush is increasingly dependent within Iraq on the co-operation and restraint of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for the eradication of Israel. It is the allies of the Iranian theocracy who are growing in influence by the day and have triumphed in the election. The US will fear that development greatly as it constantly reminds the world of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran may be happier with a weakened Iraq in which it is a predominant influence rather than see the country entirely break up. Another victor in the election is the fiery nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia fought fierce battles with US troops last year. The US military said at the time it intended "to kill or capture him".
Mr Bush cited the recapture of the holy city of Najaf from the Mehdi Army in August 2004 as an important success for the US Army. Mr Sadr will now be one of the most influential leaders within the coalition. All the parties which did well in the election have strength only within their own community. The Shia coalition succeeded because the Shia make up 60 per cent of Iraqis but won almost no votes among the Kurds or Sunni, each of whom is about 20 per cent of the population. The Sunni and the Kurdish parties won no support outside their own communities.
The US ambassador in Baghdad, Zilmay Khalilzad, sounded almost despairing yesterday as he reviewed the results of the election. "It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities," he said. "But for Iraq to succeed there has to be cross-ethnic and cross-sectarian co-operation."
The election also means a decisive switch from a secular Iraq to a country in which, outside Kurdistan, religious law will be paramount. Mr Allawi, who ran a well-financed campaign, was the main secular hope but that did not translate into votes. The other main non-religious candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, won less than 1 per cent of the vote in Baghdad and will be lucky to win a single seat in the new 275-member Council of Representatives.
"People underestimate how religious Iraq has become," said one Iraqi observer. "Iran is really a secular society with a religious leadership, but Iraq will be a religious society with a religious leadership." Already most girls leaving schools in Baghdad wear headscarves. Women's rights in cases of divorce and inheritance are being eroded.
Sunni Arab leaders were aghast at the electoral triumph of the Shia, claiming fraud. Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of the Sunni Arab alliance, the Iraqi Accordance Front, said that if the electoral commission did not respond to their complaints they would "demand the elections be held again in Baghdad".
Mr Allawi's Iraqi National List also protested. Ibrahim al-Janabi, a party official, said: "The elections commission is not independent. It is influenced by political parties and by the government." But while there was probably some fraud and intimidation, the results of the election mirror the way in which the Shia majority in Iraq is systematically taking over the levers of power. Shia already control the ministry of the interior with 110,000 police and paramilitary units and most of the troops in the 80,000-strong army being trained by the US are Shia.
Mr Khalilzad said yesterday: "You can't have someone who is regarded as sectarian, for example, as Minister of the Interior." This is a not so-veiled criticism of the present minister, Bayan Jabr, a leading member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the largest Shia party. He is accused of running death squads and torture centres whose victims are Sunni Arabs.
It is unlikely that the Shia religious parties and militias will tolerate any rollback in their power. "They feel their day has come," said Mr Attiyah. For six months the Shia have ruled Iraq in alliance with the Kurds. Kurdish leaders are not happy with the way this government has worked. The Kurds, supported by the US, will now try to dilute Shia control of government by bringing in Sunni ministers and Mr Allawi. But one Kurdish leader said: "We have a strategic alliance with the Shia religious parties we would be unwise to break."
The elections are also unlikely to see a diminution in armed resistance to the US by the Sunni community. Insurgent groups have made clear that they see winning seats in parliament as the opening of another front.
The break-up of Iraq has been brought closer by the election. The great majority of people who went to the polls voted as Shia, Sunni or Kurds - and not as Iraqis. The forces pulling Iraq apart are stronger than those holding it together. The election, billed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair as the birth of a new Iraqi state may in fact prove to be its funeral."-from the article today in The Independent (UK), "Iraq's election result: a divided nation."
More Good News: "Head of CIA Tells Turks to Prepare for Attack on Iran." - from Global Research.
Where's Jim? (UPDATED)
"Co-Sponsors Begin Signing onto Censure and Investigation" from AfterDowningStreet.org has the lists of the Members of the House of Representatives who have signed on to the various inquires. Since he doesn't have much else to do, at least Jim could put his signature on one or more of these...or is he out of the country again? Just asking.
Update: Bev Marcus straightens out the record and puts me in my proper place:
"Per your inquiry about what McDermott is doing regarding domestic spying, here's a Thursday post from the Stakeholder.
He has signed on to Conyers' "Resolution of Inquiry" below:
"Congressman John Conyers, along with 26 other Members has introduced a Resolution of Inquiry on domestic spying. Says Conyers today:
"Today I am introducing a Resolution of Inquiry requesting the Attorney General to transmit to Congress documents reflecting the legal justification for spying on American soil without judicial approval. I introduce this Resolution on behalf of myself and Mr. Berman, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Waters, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Linda Sanchez, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Doggett, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Filner, Mr. Markey, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Tauscher, Ms. Lee, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Udall of New Mexico and Mr. Holt.
"It is my hope that the Administration will voluntarily comply with this straightforward request, however, if they do not, this Resolution will require a vote in the Committee, and possibly the House floor so that the Members can go on record concerning whether this is an important enough issue to warrant Congressional oversight. I believe we simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is both laying down and interpreting the law on its own accord, and not even sharing with the Members of Congress what the legal justification for such a program is.
"Last week we learned that the President has been using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, in apparent contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This week we learned that contrary to the President's assertions that the wiretapping included only foreign calls, some of the intercepted communications were conducted entirely within the United States. As a result of these disclosures, one member of the FISA Court, Judges James Robertson, resigned, and the presiding judge of the court has sought a classified briefing to address their concerns that the NSA program was illegal and may have been improperly used to gain further wiretaps from their court.
"These revelations raise some of the most serious legal and constitutional questions conceivable in our democracy - whether our own government is able to intercept our most private conversations without establishing to any independent party that such eavesdropping is in any way necessary or related to a possible crime. For 25 years under FISA we have created special procedures for obtaining intelligence information on U.S. soil. The standard for getting a wiretap warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is so low that only 5 out of the 19,000 applications have been denied since 1978. We even allow FISA orders to be obtained on a retroactive basis for the first 72 hours, in case the government needs to move with great speed.
"However, for some reason the Bush Administration has opted not to use the FISA laws to obtain surveillance orders involving a number of people located on U.S. soil. As one official told the Washington Post, "the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it."
"The purpose of this Resolution of Inquiry is to allow Congress to obtain the necessary information so we can learn precisely what the legal basis was for this great expansion of executive power. We are not asking to learn about the names or identities of the individuals who have been surveilled, at this point we simply want to learn on what legal basis the surveillance orders were issued. The Administration has proposed a number of legal theories to the press to justify the NSA wiretaps, ranging from the President's authority as Commander In Chief to general authority included in the post 9/11 Afghanistan Resolution."
Update: Bev Marcus straightens out the record and puts me in my proper place:
"Per your inquiry about what McDermott is doing regarding domestic spying, here's a Thursday post from the Stakeholder.
He has signed on to Conyers' "Resolution of Inquiry" below:
"Congressman John Conyers, along with 26 other Members has introduced a Resolution of Inquiry on domestic spying. Says Conyers today:
"Today I am introducing a Resolution of Inquiry requesting the Attorney General to transmit to Congress documents reflecting the legal justification for spying on American soil without judicial approval. I introduce this Resolution on behalf of myself and Mr. Berman, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Waters, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Linda Sanchez, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Doggett, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Filner, Mr. Markey, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Tauscher, Ms. Lee, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Udall of New Mexico and Mr. Holt.
"It is my hope that the Administration will voluntarily comply with this straightforward request, however, if they do not, this Resolution will require a vote in the Committee, and possibly the House floor so that the Members can go on record concerning whether this is an important enough issue to warrant Congressional oversight. I believe we simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is both laying down and interpreting the law on its own accord, and not even sharing with the Members of Congress what the legal justification for such a program is.
"Last week we learned that the President has been using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, in apparent contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This week we learned that contrary to the President's assertions that the wiretapping included only foreign calls, some of the intercepted communications were conducted entirely within the United States. As a result of these disclosures, one member of the FISA Court, Judges James Robertson, resigned, and the presiding judge of the court has sought a classified briefing to address their concerns that the NSA program was illegal and may have been improperly used to gain further wiretaps from their court.
"These revelations raise some of the most serious legal and constitutional questions conceivable in our democracy - whether our own government is able to intercept our most private conversations without establishing to any independent party that such eavesdropping is in any way necessary or related to a possible crime. For 25 years under FISA we have created special procedures for obtaining intelligence information on U.S. soil. The standard for getting a wiretap warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is so low that only 5 out of the 19,000 applications have been denied since 1978. We even allow FISA orders to be obtained on a retroactive basis for the first 72 hours, in case the government needs to move with great speed.
"However, for some reason the Bush Administration has opted not to use the FISA laws to obtain surveillance orders involving a number of people located on U.S. soil. As one official told the Washington Post, "the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it."
"The purpose of this Resolution of Inquiry is to allow Congress to obtain the necessary information so we can learn precisely what the legal basis was for this great expansion of executive power. We are not asking to learn about the names or identities of the individuals who have been surveilled, at this point we simply want to learn on what legal basis the surveillance orders were issued. The Administration has proposed a number of legal theories to the press to justify the NSA wiretaps, ranging from the President's authority as Commander In Chief to general authority included in the post 9/11 Afghanistan Resolution."
''DIEBOLD PULLS OUT OF NORTH CAROLINA!''
"For those who have followed the recent yet storied history of Diebold in North Carolina, The BRAD BLOG has just received word that there has been yet one more late-breaking twist! We can now confirm that, in fact, Diebold is removing their company from contention for the lucrative election systems contracts in the state in light of a state law which requires Voting Machine Companies to submit their full source-code to the state for inspection. At least for now.
A letter just obtained by The BRAD BLOG, sent from Diebold to the NC State Board of Elections, confirms that indeed, the company which had previously fought a state law requiring the submission and inspection of their voting equipment's software source code has decided they'd rather quit than fight, and is withdrawing their bid to contract with the state of NC for the time being, pending their ability to convince NC to change their laws!"-from THE BRAD BLOG.
A letter just obtained by The BRAD BLOG, sent from Diebold to the NC State Board of Elections, confirms that indeed, the company which had previously fought a state law requiring the submission and inspection of their voting equipment's software source code has decided they'd rather quit than fight, and is withdrawing their bid to contract with the state of NC for the time being, pending their ability to convince NC to change their laws!"-from THE BRAD BLOG.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
'''Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last ''
"Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in the media have started mentioning the “I” word, or at least the “IO” phrase: impeach or impeachable offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor has been sparked by the uproar over revelations of a White House approved domestic spying program, with some conservatives joining in the shouting.
Ron Hutcheson, White House correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers (known as “Hutch” to the president), observed that "some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment.” Indeed such talk from legal experts was common in print or on cable news.
Newsweek online noted a “chorus” of impeachment chat, and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman, declared that Bush opponents are “calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The ‘I-word’ is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.”
When chief Washington Post pollster Richard Morin appeared for an online chat this week, a reader from Naperville, Ill., asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment. "This question makes me mad," Morin replied. When a second participant made the same query, Morin fumed, "Getting madder." A third query brought the response: "Madder still."
Media Matters recently reported that a January 1998 Washington Post poll conducted just days after the first revelation of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky asked about impeachment.
A smattering of polls (some commissioned by partisan groups) has found considerable, if often qualified, support for impeachment. But Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll, told E&P recently that he would only run a poll on the subject if the idea really started to gain mainstream political traction, and not until then. He noted that he had been besieged with emails calling for such a survey, but felt that was a "well-organized" action.
Still, he added, "we are reviewing the issue, we take our responsibility seriously and we will consider asking about it."
Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online takes the talk seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it, practically begging Bush foes to try to impeach him. "The main reason Bush's poll numbers would skyrocket if he were impeached,” Goldberg wrote, “is that at the end of the day the American people will support what he did [with the spy program].”
And the folks at conservative blog RedState.org took issue with Fineman’s prediction, noting that for “all his fearmongering” he “fails to note the essential point: the more the Dems mutter 'impeachment' in 2006, the more it helps the GOP, because it just further entrenches the notion that the Dems are out of touch, partisan, and not serious about national security."
But John Dean, who knows something about these matters, calls Bush "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." The American Civil Liberties Union threw more fat on the fire with a full-page ad in The New York Times on Thursday calling for a special counsel to look into the secret spy operations and urging Congress to get involved in considering the possible high crimes involved. And one of those thoroughly unscientific MSNBC online polls found about 87% backing the idea through late Wednesday.
On Wednesday, Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin, declaring that “The ‘I-word’ is back," assembled an array of quotes on the subject. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he pointed out, sent a letter this week to four unidentified presidential scholars, asking whether they think Bush's authorization of warrantless domestic spying amounted to an impeachable offense.
Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News: "Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., suggested that Mr. Bush's actions could justify impeachment.” And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law, saying 'When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.”
When Washington Post pollster Richard Morin finally answered the "I" question in his online chat, he said, "We do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion -- witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls."
Morin complained that he and other pollsters have been the "target of a campaign organized by a Democratic Web site demanding that we ask a question about impeaching Bush in our polls." But Froomkin commented, “there's nothing wrong with asking the question.”
As Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said recently, referring to the spy program controversy, "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."
Froomkin's fellow blogger at the Washignton Post, Joel Achenbach, came out with a funny, if pointed, riff on Thursday: "Last night we made a pilgrimage to a friend's new house in Georgetown...We talked about gay cowboys and closeted movie stars and sex-change operations -- traditional Christmas topics, in other words -- and the conversation eventually turned to impeachment. It's true: People actually talk about impeachment, in the wilds of Inner Georgetown, not just in blogworld. I won't go into great detail about what was said, because it was highly speculative, and because I'm worried that my phone, email accounts and blog are tapped. These people don't mess around. They have secret prisons."
In any case, the debate should only grow in 2006. Fineman predicted a dark year ahead: “We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security.”-from Editor&Publisher.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor has been sparked by the uproar over revelations of a White House approved domestic spying program, with some conservatives joining in the shouting.
Ron Hutcheson, White House correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers (known as “Hutch” to the president), observed that "some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment.” Indeed such talk from legal experts was common in print or on cable news.
Newsweek online noted a “chorus” of impeachment chat, and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman, declared that Bush opponents are “calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The ‘I-word’ is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.”
When chief Washington Post pollster Richard Morin appeared for an online chat this week, a reader from Naperville, Ill., asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment. "This question makes me mad," Morin replied. When a second participant made the same query, Morin fumed, "Getting madder." A third query brought the response: "Madder still."
Media Matters recently reported that a January 1998 Washington Post poll conducted just days after the first revelation of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky asked about impeachment.
A smattering of polls (some commissioned by partisan groups) has found considerable, if often qualified, support for impeachment. But Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll, told E&P recently that he would only run a poll on the subject if the idea really started to gain mainstream political traction, and not until then. He noted that he had been besieged with emails calling for such a survey, but felt that was a "well-organized" action.
Still, he added, "we are reviewing the issue, we take our responsibility seriously and we will consider asking about it."
Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online takes the talk seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it, practically begging Bush foes to try to impeach him. "The main reason Bush's poll numbers would skyrocket if he were impeached,” Goldberg wrote, “is that at the end of the day the American people will support what he did [with the spy program].”
And the folks at conservative blog RedState.org took issue with Fineman’s prediction, noting that for “all his fearmongering” he “fails to note the essential point: the more the Dems mutter 'impeachment' in 2006, the more it helps the GOP, because it just further entrenches the notion that the Dems are out of touch, partisan, and not serious about national security."
But John Dean, who knows something about these matters, calls Bush "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." The American Civil Liberties Union threw more fat on the fire with a full-page ad in The New York Times on Thursday calling for a special counsel to look into the secret spy operations and urging Congress to get involved in considering the possible high crimes involved. And one of those thoroughly unscientific MSNBC online polls found about 87% backing the idea through late Wednesday.
On Wednesday, Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin, declaring that “The ‘I-word’ is back," assembled an array of quotes on the subject. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he pointed out, sent a letter this week to four unidentified presidential scholars, asking whether they think Bush's authorization of warrantless domestic spying amounted to an impeachable offense.
Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News: "Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., suggested that Mr. Bush's actions could justify impeachment.” And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law, saying 'When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.”
When Washington Post pollster Richard Morin finally answered the "I" question in his online chat, he said, "We do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion -- witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls."
Morin complained that he and other pollsters have been the "target of a campaign organized by a Democratic Web site demanding that we ask a question about impeaching Bush in our polls." But Froomkin commented, “there's nothing wrong with asking the question.”
As Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said recently, referring to the spy program controversy, "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."
Froomkin's fellow blogger at the Washignton Post, Joel Achenbach, came out with a funny, if pointed, riff on Thursday: "Last night we made a pilgrimage to a friend's new house in Georgetown...We talked about gay cowboys and closeted movie stars and sex-change operations -- traditional Christmas topics, in other words -- and the conversation eventually turned to impeachment. It's true: People actually talk about impeachment, in the wilds of Inner Georgetown, not just in blogworld. I won't go into great detail about what was said, because it was highly speculative, and because I'm worried that my phone, email accounts and blog are tapped. These people don't mess around. They have secret prisons."
In any case, the debate should only grow in 2006. Fineman predicted a dark year ahead: “We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security.”-from Editor&Publisher.
"Pelz to be new Dem chair? Hope he listens" (UPDATED)
"The campaign for state Democratic Party chairman is really too inside politics for me… I’ve never fully understood what the party does, let alone it’s chair. But in case you’re curious, a party insider tells me “the fix is in” and the powers that be have already settled on Dwight Pelz.
Whatever.
I wasn’t about to endorse a candidate because a) I don’t feel particularly qualified to weigh in on the matter, b) I don’t want to back the wrong horse, miffing the eventual winner, and c) my endorsements aren’t worth shit.
However, I do want something from the new chair: innovation and access. Paul Berendt and the Dems did a great job fighting the legal battle in last year’s election contest, but they and the Gregoire campaign/administration did an absolutely disastrous job fighting the PR war. This time last year I was often beside myself with frustration at the lack of cooperation (and effort) coming from the party and the campaign, as they got their asses kicked by the relentless media war launched by the BIAW and the Republicans through paid media, talk radio, the right-wing blogs, and the rest of their media infrastructure. To this day, I’d bet a majority of WA voters still wrongly believe that Dino Rossi really won the election.
Why is Gov. Gregoire’s approval rating still languishing in the mid-forty’s instead of pushing toward sixty where it belongs? You need only read the headlines from last December to learn the answer. That Gov. Gregoire’s first year in office has been remarkably successful means little to those voters who still question her legitimacy.
Last January, after snagging a free ticket to the inauguration, I finally got a chance to confront a top Dem communications staffer, and used the opportunity to plead with them to find some money to spend on radio ads and direct mail to combat the GOP misinformation campaign. The response? The staffer turned towards the surrounding throng and incredulously asked, “Is he telling me how to do my job?”
Yes I was. I’m a blogger. That’s what we do.
Things have gotten a helluva lot better since then. Last year I couldn’t even get on the party’s press list; this year, I not only get press releases, but prompt responses when I follow up with a question or comment. Staffers are now even asking us bloggers for advice on how to exploit this new media to their advantage. But I’m not sure any of this new found respect is coming from the top.
What I want from the new chair is the understanding that the party’s success depends at least as much on communications as it does on money and lawyers, and that the media doesn’t quite work the same way it used to. I want a chair who embraces innovation, and who is able to see beyond the next election towards the media and political landscape of a decade from now. I want a chair who will support the efforts by the current communications staff as they explore new media ventures.
But mostly, I want a party chair who is willing to at least listen to bloggers like me tell him how to do his job, without incredulously dismissing us out of hand."-from Goldy on Horsesass.org. I've known Dwight for 20 years and recently I've had some good conversations with Goldy. I respect them both.
Update: On another Pelz-related matter, Geov Parrish apolizes to me for his misstatement on the state of Dwight's candidacy:
"Howie,
What was I thinking? I had e-mailed you about Pelz and the appointed city council position, not the state party chair. Duh. I've got a wracking cold, and I suspect it's interfering with my brain...
Happy holidays!
Geov."
Whatever.
I wasn’t about to endorse a candidate because a) I don’t feel particularly qualified to weigh in on the matter, b) I don’t want to back the wrong horse, miffing the eventual winner, and c) my endorsements aren’t worth shit.
However, I do want something from the new chair: innovation and access. Paul Berendt and the Dems did a great job fighting the legal battle in last year’s election contest, but they and the Gregoire campaign/administration did an absolutely disastrous job fighting the PR war. This time last year I was often beside myself with frustration at the lack of cooperation (and effort) coming from the party and the campaign, as they got their asses kicked by the relentless media war launched by the BIAW and the Republicans through paid media, talk radio, the right-wing blogs, and the rest of their media infrastructure. To this day, I’d bet a majority of WA voters still wrongly believe that Dino Rossi really won the election.
Why is Gov. Gregoire’s approval rating still languishing in the mid-forty’s instead of pushing toward sixty where it belongs? You need only read the headlines from last December to learn the answer. That Gov. Gregoire’s first year in office has been remarkably successful means little to those voters who still question her legitimacy.
Last January, after snagging a free ticket to the inauguration, I finally got a chance to confront a top Dem communications staffer, and used the opportunity to plead with them to find some money to spend on radio ads and direct mail to combat the GOP misinformation campaign. The response? The staffer turned towards the surrounding throng and incredulously asked, “Is he telling me how to do my job?”
Yes I was. I’m a blogger. That’s what we do.
Things have gotten a helluva lot better since then. Last year I couldn’t even get on the party’s press list; this year, I not only get press releases, but prompt responses when I follow up with a question or comment. Staffers are now even asking us bloggers for advice on how to exploit this new media to their advantage. But I’m not sure any of this new found respect is coming from the top.
What I want from the new chair is the understanding that the party’s success depends at least as much on communications as it does on money and lawyers, and that the media doesn’t quite work the same way it used to. I want a chair who embraces innovation, and who is able to see beyond the next election towards the media and political landscape of a decade from now. I want a chair who will support the efforts by the current communications staff as they explore new media ventures.
But mostly, I want a party chair who is willing to at least listen to bloggers like me tell him how to do his job, without incredulously dismissing us out of hand."-from Goldy on Horsesass.org. I've known Dwight for 20 years and recently I've had some good conversations with Goldy. I respect them both.
Update: On another Pelz-related matter, Geov Parrish apolizes to me for his misstatement on the state of Dwight's candidacy:
"Howie,
What was I thinking? I had e-mailed you about Pelz and the appointed city council position, not the state party chair. Duh. I've got a wracking cold, and I suspect it's interfering with my brain...
Happy holidays!
Geov."
Ron Sims: 'Protect your right to vote'
Ron cracks the national blogosphere (The Smirking Chimp), with his op-ed in today's Seattle Times:
"Recently, something very troubling has been going on in America: There has been a resurgence of reprehensible efforts to harass legitimate voters and suppress turnout, an effort that is ultimately intended to weaken the protections that were enshrined in our nation's laws as an outgrowth of the civil-rights movement.
Now that effort is making headway in Washington state. There is still time to stop it, though the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
Before the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State (and Bush campaign official) Katherine Harris quietly purged thousands of legitimate, mostly minority voters from the rolls (in 2004, an identical effort was abandoned after local media exposed it). In Ohio last year, the Republican secretary of state (also a Bush campaign official) attempted to void thousands of new registrations because — I'm not making this up — they were submitted on the wrong thickness of paper. Recently, political appointees in the Bush Justice Department overrode the unanimous recommendations of career civil-rights attorneys in allowing a Tom DeLay-led partisan redistricting in Texas that diluted minority voting strength.
There is a pattern here. Also in Ohio, just before the 2004 election, the Republican Party issued mass registration challenges of tens of thousands of voters. Nine hundred seventy-six of those challenges in one county were rejected when it became apparent that the challenger had no personal knowledge of the registrations she was questioning, even though she had signed an oath claiming that she did. When testimony showed that some of her challenges were clearly false, she pleaded her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and all of the challenges were rejected.
Sound familiar? It should, because Republicans have now imported these reprehensible and disruptive mass-challenge tactics into Washington state. Our local Katherine Harris, a previously obscure Republican Party apparatchik named Lori Sotelo, challenged the registrations of nearly 2,000 King County voters on the eve of the 2005 election.
Just as in Ohio, Sotelo signed an oath "under penalty of perjury" that she had "personal knowledge" that the challenged voters were incorrectly registered at mail-drop facilities and the like. She clearly intended to insinuate that the voting rolls in Democratic-leaning King County are corrupt, and that vote fraud here is rampant — she made no such challenges in Republican-dominated counties where officials implement the exact same policies.
In at least 178 cases, Sotelo was flat-out wrong; laughably, she swore that every resident of a Belltown apartment building didn't actually live in the building.
Under press questioning, Republicans reluctantly admitted they did not have any evidence that the people on their list were engaging in vote fraud. At best, they had discovered a group of citizens who, either out of a lack of knowledge of the technical requirements of elections law or because of unusual personal circumstances, had made an innocent error on their registration forms.
That happens, and there are established ways to correct those registrations without taking away the registrant's right to vote. Despite repeated entreaties from King County officials, the Republicans rejected those routes. What the Republicans chose instead was to abuse the challenge process. By issuing their mass challenge so close to an election, they violated both the letter and the spirit of the challenge law, which exists to ferret out those rare, individual instances when some unscrupulous individual is trying to engage in outright vote fraud.
In the short term, the Republican challenge plan backfired. Most of the challenges of those brave enough to vote despite the Republican intimidation were ultimately rejected. And yet, local Republican officials are still claiming the challenge effort was a success — they are even hinting that there may be more to come in the future. They are now citing the rejected King County challenges in calling on state and local officials — all Republicans, by the way — to reinterpret or change existing election law in a way that will eviscerate the high bar of proof currently required to challenge a citizen's right to vote.
Those high standards, including the rule that requires a challenger to provide the actual address of residence of the challenged voter, exist for a reason. Remember, we have a sordid history in this country of some groups and parties using tactics such as mass challenges to disenfranchise other groups who disagree with them.
What recent developments in King County tell us is that the dark legacy of poll taxes and "literacy tests" is not as much a thing of the past as we would like to believe. Unfortunately, there is still an immediate need to protect voters from those seeking new methods to disenfranchise them for partisan advantage.
We need election-law reform, but that must mean strengthening our current protections rather than weakening them, as Republicans are proposing. What we need is strong, loophole-free legislation in Olympia that will bar, once and for all, the sort of mass-challenge abuses we just experienced here in King County."
I guess my pal Sandeep, now one of Ron's minions, isn't scoffing at the vote fraud story anymore!
"Recently, something very troubling has been going on in America: There has been a resurgence of reprehensible efforts to harass legitimate voters and suppress turnout, an effort that is ultimately intended to weaken the protections that were enshrined in our nation's laws as an outgrowth of the civil-rights movement.
Now that effort is making headway in Washington state. There is still time to stop it, though the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
Before the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State (and Bush campaign official) Katherine Harris quietly purged thousands of legitimate, mostly minority voters from the rolls (in 2004, an identical effort was abandoned after local media exposed it). In Ohio last year, the Republican secretary of state (also a Bush campaign official) attempted to void thousands of new registrations because — I'm not making this up — they were submitted on the wrong thickness of paper. Recently, political appointees in the Bush Justice Department overrode the unanimous recommendations of career civil-rights attorneys in allowing a Tom DeLay-led partisan redistricting in Texas that diluted minority voting strength.
There is a pattern here. Also in Ohio, just before the 2004 election, the Republican Party issued mass registration challenges of tens of thousands of voters. Nine hundred seventy-six of those challenges in one county were rejected when it became apparent that the challenger had no personal knowledge of the registrations she was questioning, even though she had signed an oath claiming that she did. When testimony showed that some of her challenges were clearly false, she pleaded her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and all of the challenges were rejected.
Sound familiar? It should, because Republicans have now imported these reprehensible and disruptive mass-challenge tactics into Washington state. Our local Katherine Harris, a previously obscure Republican Party apparatchik named Lori Sotelo, challenged the registrations of nearly 2,000 King County voters on the eve of the 2005 election.
Just as in Ohio, Sotelo signed an oath "under penalty of perjury" that she had "personal knowledge" that the challenged voters were incorrectly registered at mail-drop facilities and the like. She clearly intended to insinuate that the voting rolls in Democratic-leaning King County are corrupt, and that vote fraud here is rampant — she made no such challenges in Republican-dominated counties where officials implement the exact same policies.
In at least 178 cases, Sotelo was flat-out wrong; laughably, she swore that every resident of a Belltown apartment building didn't actually live in the building.
Under press questioning, Republicans reluctantly admitted they did not have any evidence that the people on their list were engaging in vote fraud. At best, they had discovered a group of citizens who, either out of a lack of knowledge of the technical requirements of elections law or because of unusual personal circumstances, had made an innocent error on their registration forms.
That happens, and there are established ways to correct those registrations without taking away the registrant's right to vote. Despite repeated entreaties from King County officials, the Republicans rejected those routes. What the Republicans chose instead was to abuse the challenge process. By issuing their mass challenge so close to an election, they violated both the letter and the spirit of the challenge law, which exists to ferret out those rare, individual instances when some unscrupulous individual is trying to engage in outright vote fraud.
In the short term, the Republican challenge plan backfired. Most of the challenges of those brave enough to vote despite the Republican intimidation were ultimately rejected. And yet, local Republican officials are still claiming the challenge effort was a success — they are even hinting that there may be more to come in the future. They are now citing the rejected King County challenges in calling on state and local officials — all Republicans, by the way — to reinterpret or change existing election law in a way that will eviscerate the high bar of proof currently required to challenge a citizen's right to vote.
Those high standards, including the rule that requires a challenger to provide the actual address of residence of the challenged voter, exist for a reason. Remember, we have a sordid history in this country of some groups and parties using tactics such as mass challenges to disenfranchise other groups who disagree with them.
What recent developments in King County tell us is that the dark legacy of poll taxes and "literacy tests" is not as much a thing of the past as we would like to believe. Unfortunately, there is still an immediate need to protect voters from those seeking new methods to disenfranchise them for partisan advantage.
We need election-law reform, but that must mean strengthening our current protections rather than weakening them, as Republicans are proposing. What we need is strong, loophole-free legislation in Olympia that will bar, once and for all, the sort of mass-challenge abuses we just experienced here in King County."
I guess my pal Sandeep, now one of Ron's minions, isn't scoffing at the vote fraud story anymore!
''Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program''
"The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.
Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court."-from the story in today's Washington Post. Thanks to Cliff Sloane for the tip.
Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court."-from the story in today's Washington Post. Thanks to Cliff Sloane for the tip.
''Murtha on the Iraq Elections''
"Well, when you say the administration is delighted, you know, Chalabi has surfaced again. They had him at the White House, they had him with the vice president, they had him with the secretary of State, and he got less than five-tenths of one percent -- he got less than half a percent of the vote. And Allawi, who was their shining star, he turns up getting 8 percent of the vote. Forty-four percent of the vote -- now, these are early returns, but 44 percent went to the clerics. We're going to have a cleric government.
I cannot believe that these folks at the White House didn't understand, if they support somebody, the Iraqis aren't going to support them. The Iraqis don't like us, they're proud people, they don't want to be dictated by the United States, and yet our folks don't understand that.
Remember, I told you a year ago that two years ago I went to Iraq and I asked Ambassador Bremer, "Who's Sistani?" -- actually, one of my guys asked him that, and he turned to his aide and they said it's a minor cleric. Two weeks later the guy had 100,000 people on the street. They don't understand what is going on over there. It's frustrating to realize how bad our intelligence are, or how they're mishandling this situation."-from CNN, with full text via Daily Dissent, with video here.
I cannot believe that these folks at the White House didn't understand, if they support somebody, the Iraqis aren't going to support them. The Iraqis don't like us, they're proud people, they don't want to be dictated by the United States, and yet our folks don't understand that.
Remember, I told you a year ago that two years ago I went to Iraq and I asked Ambassador Bremer, "Who's Sistani?" -- actually, one of my guys asked him that, and he turned to his aide and they said it's a minor cleric. Two weeks later the guy had 100,000 people on the street. They don't understand what is going on over there. It's frustrating to realize how bad our intelligence are, or how they're mishandling this situation."-from CNN, with full text via Daily Dissent, with video here.
''Senate roll calls; and new drama in the House''
According to the Washington Post story, reprinted today on the Seattle Times, "Cantwell blocks bid to drill in refuge: "But proponents were thwarted again Wednesday as Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., rounded up enough allies to derail a bid by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to attach the plan to a bill funding Iraq and Afghanistan military operations." The Seattle Times editorial today says, "Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell earned legitimate crowing rights with an impressive win that prevents oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
This fight isn't over. But the junior senator from Washington, joined and aided by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, faced a formidable challenger in Alaska's Sen. Ted Stevens. He vowed to open the pristine refuge to oil drilling to help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Maneuvering and fighting over ANWR has been going on for decades. This year, with Republican control of the House, Senate and White House, Stevens felt he had a chance to prevail.
He almost did.
But last weekend, Cantwell stayed back in Washington, D.C., while many colleagues returned home. She heard Stevens had a new plan for forcing approval of drilling. Her instincts were correct."
From Kos:
"The ANWR Senate roll call.
Democrats voting FOR drilling
Akaka (HI)
Inouye (HI)
Landrieu (LA)
Nelson (NE)
Republicans voting AGAINST drilling
Chafee (RI)
DeWine (OH)
Frist (TN)
Frist voted against it for procedural reasons. DeWine and Chafee are working to bone up their "moderate" creds in the face of tough reelection battles. Same for Nelson (NE), but on the other side.
Landrieu represents Louisiana, which is a petroleum processing state. Akaka and Inouye have a quid pro quo with Alaska on a number of issues, this being one of them.
Meanwhile, Cheney had to cast the tie-breaking vote in the GOP's efforts to cut medicare, medicaid, and student loans. The roll call:
Democrats voting FOR budget cuts
None. Hot damn. Kind of weird, actually.
Republicans voting AGAINST budget cuts
Chafee (RI)
Collins (ME)
DeWine (OH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe (ME)
Furthermore, Democrats were able to force changes to the legislation, requiring the House to reconsider the legislation. The House is in recess, and while Republicans would love to approve the cuts via unanimous consent, Pelosi won't let them. She's forcing a recorded vote.
Now remember, Republicans are afraid to bring the House back in session because it could force a leadership fight. It's the reason Hastert is keeping the House shut down until late January rather than early in the new year as is the usual custom. So it looks like the cuts are on hold for at least a month.
It also means that some endangered Republicans could be put on the spot. The cuts passed the house by six votes. Six Democrats and 10 Republicans missed the vote. Nine Republicans voted against the cuts. Of the Republicans who didn't vote, at least one is in a dogfight of a reelection -- Hostettler in Indiana's bloody eight.
Blunt (or whoever is whip) will have his work cut out making sure all their people are present for the vote. A tie vote fails. And this one will be tight."
This fight isn't over. But the junior senator from Washington, joined and aided by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, faced a formidable challenger in Alaska's Sen. Ted Stevens. He vowed to open the pristine refuge to oil drilling to help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Maneuvering and fighting over ANWR has been going on for decades. This year, with Republican control of the House, Senate and White House, Stevens felt he had a chance to prevail.
He almost did.
But last weekend, Cantwell stayed back in Washington, D.C., while many colleagues returned home. She heard Stevens had a new plan for forcing approval of drilling. Her instincts were correct."
From Kos:
"The ANWR Senate roll call.
Democrats voting FOR drilling
Akaka (HI)
Inouye (HI)
Landrieu (LA)
Nelson (NE)
Republicans voting AGAINST drilling
Chafee (RI)
DeWine (OH)
Frist (TN)
Frist voted against it for procedural reasons. DeWine and Chafee are working to bone up their "moderate" creds in the face of tough reelection battles. Same for Nelson (NE), but on the other side.
Landrieu represents Louisiana, which is a petroleum processing state. Akaka and Inouye have a quid pro quo with Alaska on a number of issues, this being one of them.
Meanwhile, Cheney had to cast the tie-breaking vote in the GOP's efforts to cut medicare, medicaid, and student loans. The roll call:
Democrats voting FOR budget cuts
None. Hot damn. Kind of weird, actually.
Republicans voting AGAINST budget cuts
Chafee (RI)
Collins (ME)
DeWine (OH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe (ME)
Furthermore, Democrats were able to force changes to the legislation, requiring the House to reconsider the legislation. The House is in recess, and while Republicans would love to approve the cuts via unanimous consent, Pelosi won't let them. She's forcing a recorded vote.
Now remember, Republicans are afraid to bring the House back in session because it could force a leadership fight. It's the reason Hastert is keeping the House shut down until late January rather than early in the new year as is the usual custom. So it looks like the cuts are on hold for at least a month.
It also means that some endangered Republicans could be put on the spot. The cuts passed the house by six votes. Six Democrats and 10 Republicans missed the vote. Nine Republicans voted against the cuts. Of the Republicans who didn't vote, at least one is in a dogfight of a reelection -- Hostettler in Indiana's bloody eight.
Blunt (or whoever is whip) will have his work cut out making sure all their people are present for the vote. A tie vote fails. And this one will be tight."
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
''Spying, the Constitution — and the ‘I-word’''
"In the first weeks and months after 9/11, I am told by a very good source, there was a lot of wishing out loud in the White House Situation Room about expanding the National Security Agency’s ability to instantly monitor phone calls and e-mails between American callers and possible terror suspects abroad. “We talked a lot about how useful that would be,” said this source, who was “in the room” in the critical period after the attacks.
Well, as the world now knows, the NSA — at the prompting of Vice President Cheney and on official (secret) orders from President Bush — was doing just that. And yet, as I understand it, many of the people in the White House’s own Situation Room — including leaders of the national security adviser’s top staff and officials of the FBI — had no idea that it was happening.
As best I can tell — and this really isn’t my beat — the only people who knew about the NSA’s new (and now so controversial) warrant-less eavesdropping program early on were Bush, Cheney, NSA chief Michael Hayden, his top deputies, top leaders of the CIA, and lawyers at the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office hurriedly called in to sprinkle holy water on it.
Which presents the disturbing image of the White House as a series of nesting dolls, with Cheney-Bush at the tiny secret center, sifting information that most of the rest of the people around them didn’t even know existed. And that image, in turn, will dominate and define the year 2006 — and, I predict, make it the angriest, most divisive season of political theater since the days of Richard Nixon.
We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security.
Some thoughts on where all of this is headed:
The president says that his highest duty is to protect the American people and our homeland. And it is true that, as commander-in-chief, he has sweeping powers to, as his oath says, “faithfully execute the office” of president. But the entity he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” isn’t the homeland per se — but the Constitution itself.
The Patriot Act will be extended, but it’s just the beginning, not the end, of the never-ending argument between the Bill of Rights and national security. The act primarily covers the activities of the FBI; the sheer volume of intelligence-gathering across the government has yet to become apparent, and voters will blanch when they see it all laid before them. The department most likely to get in trouble on this: the Pentagon, which doesn’t have a tradition of limiting inquiries, and which, in the name of protecting domestic military installations, will want to look at everyone.
If you thought the Samuel Alito hearings were going to be contentious, wait till you see them now. Sen. Arlen Specter, the prickly but brilliant chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that the issue of warrant-less spying by the NSA — and the larger question of the reach of the president’s wartime powers — is now fair game for the Alito hearings. Alito is going to try to beg off but won’t be allowed to. And members who might have been afraid to vote against Alito on the abortion issue might now have another, politically less risky, reason to do so.
Arguably the most interesting — and influential — Republicans in the Senate right now are the libertarians. They’re suspicious of the Patriot Act and, I am guessing, pivotal in any discussion of the NSA and others' spy efforts. Most are Westerners (Craig, Hagel, Murkowski) and the other is Sen. John Sununu. He is from New Hampshire, which, as anyone who has spent time there understands, is the Wild West of the East Coast. All you have to do is look at its license plate slogan: “Live Free or Die.” It’ll be interesting to see how other nominal small-government conservatives — Sen. George Allen of Virginia comes to mind — handle the issue.
For months now, I have been getting e-mails demanding that my various employers (Newsweek, NBC News and MSNBC.com) include in their poll questionnaires the issue of whether Bush should be impeached. They used to demand this on the strength of the WMD issue, on the theory that the president had “lied us into war.” Now the Bush foes will base their case on his having signed off on the NSA’s warrant-less wiretaps. He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and al-Qaida. They will respond by calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The “I-word” is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more."-Howard Fineman, on MSNBC.
Well, as the world now knows, the NSA — at the prompting of Vice President Cheney and on official (secret) orders from President Bush — was doing just that. And yet, as I understand it, many of the people in the White House’s own Situation Room — including leaders of the national security adviser’s top staff and officials of the FBI — had no idea that it was happening.
As best I can tell — and this really isn’t my beat — the only people who knew about the NSA’s new (and now so controversial) warrant-less eavesdropping program early on were Bush, Cheney, NSA chief Michael Hayden, his top deputies, top leaders of the CIA, and lawyers at the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office hurriedly called in to sprinkle holy water on it.
Which presents the disturbing image of the White House as a series of nesting dolls, with Cheney-Bush at the tiny secret center, sifting information that most of the rest of the people around them didn’t even know existed. And that image, in turn, will dominate and define the year 2006 — and, I predict, make it the angriest, most divisive season of political theater since the days of Richard Nixon.
We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security.
Some thoughts on where all of this is headed:
The president says that his highest duty is to protect the American people and our homeland. And it is true that, as commander-in-chief, he has sweeping powers to, as his oath says, “faithfully execute the office” of president. But the entity he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” isn’t the homeland per se — but the Constitution itself.
The Patriot Act will be extended, but it’s just the beginning, not the end, of the never-ending argument between the Bill of Rights and national security. The act primarily covers the activities of the FBI; the sheer volume of intelligence-gathering across the government has yet to become apparent, and voters will blanch when they see it all laid before them. The department most likely to get in trouble on this: the Pentagon, which doesn’t have a tradition of limiting inquiries, and which, in the name of protecting domestic military installations, will want to look at everyone.
If you thought the Samuel Alito hearings were going to be contentious, wait till you see them now. Sen. Arlen Specter, the prickly but brilliant chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that the issue of warrant-less spying by the NSA — and the larger question of the reach of the president’s wartime powers — is now fair game for the Alito hearings. Alito is going to try to beg off but won’t be allowed to. And members who might have been afraid to vote against Alito on the abortion issue might now have another, politically less risky, reason to do so.
Arguably the most interesting — and influential — Republicans in the Senate right now are the libertarians. They’re suspicious of the Patriot Act and, I am guessing, pivotal in any discussion of the NSA and others' spy efforts. Most are Westerners (Craig, Hagel, Murkowski) and the other is Sen. John Sununu. He is from New Hampshire, which, as anyone who has spent time there understands, is the Wild West of the East Coast. All you have to do is look at its license plate slogan: “Live Free or Die.” It’ll be interesting to see how other nominal small-government conservatives — Sen. George Allen of Virginia comes to mind — handle the issue.
For months now, I have been getting e-mails demanding that my various employers (Newsweek, NBC News and MSNBC.com) include in their poll questionnaires the issue of whether Bush should be impeached. They used to demand this on the strength of the WMD issue, on the theory that the president had “lied us into war.” Now the Bush foes will base their case on his having signed off on the NSA’s warrant-less wiretaps. He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and al-Qaida. They will respond by calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The “I-word” is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more."-Howard Fineman, on MSNBC.
''Pelosi Shows She's Serious About the Majority''
"Earlier this week, we saw Democrats lose the crucial budget vote in the House, in part, because not all of their Members showed up to actually vote. It raised serious questions about whether the party is serious about actually regaining the majority. But today there is hope - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is preparing to take a dramatic step that could send the GOP's draconian budget cuts down to defeat.
Pelosi's press release spells it out:
"The Senate passed its immoral budget by a narrow margin of 51 to 50, with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking the tie. Because Democrats forced several changes to the budget bill, it now must come back to the House to be voted on again. Pelosi will not allow approval by unanimous consent and will request a recorded vote."
Pelosi's statement in her release makes it clear why this is important:
"Democrats believe this Republican bill has the wrong priorities. That is why we will request a recorded vote where all Members return to Washington to make clear their values to the America people. Democrats will work with our allies to fight for a budget that represents the values and needs of all Americans."
This is basically an unprecedented move - Democrats have long just rolled over and allowed these "unanimous consent" agreements to pass, but now they are putting their foot down. Pelosi is saying enough is enough - no more budgets that takes billions out of health care and puts it into new tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Let's hope every single Democrat shows up for this vote, and puts this bill down to defeat."-from Sirotablog.
Pelosi's press release spells it out:
"The Senate passed its immoral budget by a narrow margin of 51 to 50, with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking the tie. Because Democrats forced several changes to the budget bill, it now must come back to the House to be voted on again. Pelosi will not allow approval by unanimous consent and will request a recorded vote."
Pelosi's statement in her release makes it clear why this is important:
"Democrats believe this Republican bill has the wrong priorities. That is why we will request a recorded vote where all Members return to Washington to make clear their values to the America people. Democrats will work with our allies to fight for a budget that represents the values and needs of all Americans."
This is basically an unprecedented move - Democrats have long just rolled over and allowed these "unanimous consent" agreements to pass, but now they are putting their foot down. Pelosi is saying enough is enough - no more budgets that takes billions out of health care and puts it into new tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Let's hope every single Democrat shows up for this vote, and puts this bill down to defeat."-from Sirotablog.
''Unembedded: Four Independent Photojournalists on the War in Iraq''
"Tell the Truth About the War Video: 'Much of what is shown in Unembedded will probably disturb many Americans who have generally watched a sanitized version of the war and occupation unfold on their TV screens. Unembedded captures the whole range of Iraqi life under US occupation from joyful wedding scenes to the carnage of civilian casualties. Its a stunning book.—Peter Bergen, author of Holy War Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden.'
Truth, it has been said, is the first casualty of war. In the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, official truth died months before the bombing of Baghdad began. Unembedded bears witness to the enduring power of independent journalism. In their unflinching look at war-ravaged Iraq, four freelance photojournalists show that life there is brutal yet poignant; that compassion co-exists with anger, hatred and fear. By gaining the confidence of Iraqi civilians and insurgents, these photojournalists have brought back images of life in wartime, from beauty parlors and joyful wedding scenes to the carnage of civilian casualties, the heartbroken faces of grieving parents, and the glassy-eyed shock of parentless children.
This is not the view from a Marine base. These photographers were on the streets of Baghdad when it fell, amid a crowd of civilians under aerial attack, and in the holy Imam Ali shrine with the Mahdi Army during the siege of Najaf. Their images document issues often underrepresented: the insurgency as seen from inside the separate resistance movements, civilians affected by the battles between U.S. and insurgent forces, growing conservatism and fundamentalism and their effects on women, and the devastating effects of ongoing civilian casualties.
Working outside the U.S. military’s official “embedding” program, the authors bring us face-to-face with the people of Iraq. They combine photographs and essays with excerpts from two years of personal letters, journal entries, and feature stories to take us across front lines and cultural barriers into the lives of a nation in crisis. Theirs is a path to understanding the cost of war.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE UNEMBEDDED VIDEO."-from Media Channel.org.
Truth, it has been said, is the first casualty of war. In the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, official truth died months before the bombing of Baghdad began. Unembedded bears witness to the enduring power of independent journalism. In their unflinching look at war-ravaged Iraq, four freelance photojournalists show that life there is brutal yet poignant; that compassion co-exists with anger, hatred and fear. By gaining the confidence of Iraqi civilians and insurgents, these photojournalists have brought back images of life in wartime, from beauty parlors and joyful wedding scenes to the carnage of civilian casualties, the heartbroken faces of grieving parents, and the glassy-eyed shock of parentless children.
This is not the view from a Marine base. These photographers were on the streets of Baghdad when it fell, amid a crowd of civilians under aerial attack, and in the holy Imam Ali shrine with the Mahdi Army during the siege of Najaf. Their images document issues often underrepresented: the insurgency as seen from inside the separate resistance movements, civilians affected by the battles between U.S. and insurgent forces, growing conservatism and fundamentalism and their effects on women, and the devastating effects of ongoing civilian casualties.
Working outside the U.S. military’s official “embedding” program, the authors bring us face-to-face with the people of Iraq. They combine photographs and essays with excerpts from two years of personal letters, journal entries, and feature stories to take us across front lines and cultural barriers into the lives of a nation in crisis. Theirs is a path to understanding the cost of war.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE UNEMBEDDED VIDEO."-from Media Channel.org.
''I am a candidate for State Party Chair.''
"maybe that is not clearly stated, so
I am a candidate for State Party Chair.
that is much better. Sorry I was so vague the first time"-Dwight Pelz, December 21, 2005, from his email message to me.
I am a candidate for State Party Chair.
that is much better. Sorry I was so vague the first time"-Dwight Pelz, December 21, 2005, from his email message to me.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
''Let's Hear It For the Women Senators''
"Along with my senator, Maria Cantwell, who's armed and set to do battle against that farty ol' gusty gut wheezer Ted Stevens tomorrow, there's Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) who has consulted "four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean's statement that President Bush admitted to an 'impeachable offense' when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge." (More about Boxer and the dimwitted but diabolical doofus dauphin below the fold.)
You'll want to be sure to turn on C-Span2 tomorrow. Maria Cantwell is leading a furious, gritty group of Democratic senators -- including Sen. Russ Feingold -- against Sen. Ted Stevens and Sen. Bill Frist -- or, as I'll call them hereafter Crank and Wank.
Update:
Maria vows to lead a filibuster against the inclusion of funding for ANWR drilling in the defense bill: "Sen. Maria Cantwell vowed Monday to keep the Senate in session until the brink of Christmas to defeat legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling." (Seattle P.I., D.C. bureau) In a floor speech Monday, Maria Cantwell took the Republicans head on.-Excerpted from Susan Hu's post on Booman Tribune.
You'll want to be sure to turn on C-Span2 tomorrow. Maria Cantwell is leading a furious, gritty group of Democratic senators -- including Sen. Russ Feingold -- against Sen. Ted Stevens and Sen. Bill Frist -- or, as I'll call them hereafter Crank and Wank.
Update:
Maria vows to lead a filibuster against the inclusion of funding for ANWR drilling in the defense bill: "Sen. Maria Cantwell vowed Monday to keep the Senate in session until the brink of Christmas to defeat legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling." (Seattle P.I., D.C. bureau) In a floor speech Monday, Maria Cantwell took the Republicans head on.-Excerpted from Susan Hu's post on Booman Tribune.
''Raising the Issue of Impeachment''
"As President Bush and his aides scramble to explain new revelations regarding Bush's authorization of spying on the international telephone calls and emails of Americans, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has begun a process that could lead to the censure, and perhaps the impeachment, of the president and vice president.
U.S. Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who was a critical player in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations into presidential wrongdoing, has introduced a package of resolutions that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.
The Conyers resolutions add a significant new twist to the debate about how to hold the administration to account. Members of Congress have become increasingly aggressive in the criticism of the White House, with U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, saiying Monday, "Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution." Even Republicans, including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, are talking for the first time about mounting potentially serious investigations into abuses of power by the president.
But Conyers is seeking to do much more than schedule a committee hearing, or even launch a formal inquiry. He is proposing that the Congress use all of the powers that are available to it to hold the president and vice president to account – up to and including the power to impeach the holders of the nation's most powerful positions and to remove them from office.
The first of the three resolutions introduced by Conyers, H.Res.635, asks that the Congress establish a select committee to investigate whether members of the administration made moves to invade Iraq before receiving congressional authorization, manipulated pre-war intelligence, encouraged the use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere, and used their positions to retaliate against critics of the war.
The select committee would be asked to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
The second resolution, H.Res.636, asks that the Congress to censure the president "for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that he and others in his Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of his Administration, for failing to adequately account for specific misstatements he made regarding the war, and for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958." (Executive Order 12958, issued in 1995 by former President Bill Clinton, seeks to promote openness in government by prescribing a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information.)
A third resolution, H.Res.637, would censure Cheney for a similar set of complaints.
"The people of this country are waking up to the severity of the lies, crimes, and abuses of power committed by this president and his administration," says Jon Bonifaz, a co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, an alliance of more than100 grassroots groups that has detailed Bush administration wrongdoing and encouraged a Congressional response. Bonifaz, an attorney and the author of the book, Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush (Nation Books), argues that, "Now is the time to return to the rule of law and to hold those who have defied the Constitution accountable for their actions."
Bonifaz is right. But it is unlikely that the effort to censure Bush and Cheney, let alone impeach them, will get far without significant organizing around the country. After all, the House is controlled by allies of the president who have displayed no inclination to hold him to account. Indeed, only a few Democrats, such as Conyers, have taken seriously the Constitutional issues raised by the administration's misdeeds.
Members of Congress in both parties will need to feel a lot of heat if these improtant measures are going to get much traction in this Congress.
The grassroots group Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), which has had a good deal of success organizing activists who want the Democrats to take a more aggressive stance in challenging the administration, will play a critical role in the effort to mobilize support for the Conyers resolutions, as part of a new Censure Bush Coalition campaign. (The campaign's website can be found at www.censurebush.org)
PDA director Tim Carpenter says his group plans to "mobilize and organize a broad base coalition that will demand action from Congress to investigate the lies of the Bush administration and their conduct related to the war in Iraq."
Getting this Congress to get serious about maintaining checks and balances on the Bush administration will be a daunting task. But the recent revelations regarding domestic spying will make it easier. There are a lot of Americans who share the view of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, that Bush and Cheney have exceeded their authority. As Feingold says of Bush, "He is the president, not a king."
It was the bitter experience of dealing with King George III led the founders of this country to write a Constitution that empowers Congress to hold presidents and vice accountable for their actions.
It is this power that John Conyers, the senior member of the House committee charged with maintaining the system of checks and balances established by those founders, is now asking the Congress to employ in the service of the nation that Constitution still governs."-John Nichols writing on The Nation Blog.
U.S. Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who was a critical player in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations into presidential wrongdoing, has introduced a package of resolutions that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.
The Conyers resolutions add a significant new twist to the debate about how to hold the administration to account. Members of Congress have become increasingly aggressive in the criticism of the White House, with U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, saiying Monday, "Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution." Even Republicans, including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, are talking for the first time about mounting potentially serious investigations into abuses of power by the president.
But Conyers is seeking to do much more than schedule a committee hearing, or even launch a formal inquiry. He is proposing that the Congress use all of the powers that are available to it to hold the president and vice president to account – up to and including the power to impeach the holders of the nation's most powerful positions and to remove them from office.
The first of the three resolutions introduced by Conyers, H.Res.635, asks that the Congress establish a select committee to investigate whether members of the administration made moves to invade Iraq before receiving congressional authorization, manipulated pre-war intelligence, encouraged the use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere, and used their positions to retaliate against critics of the war.
The select committee would be asked to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
The second resolution, H.Res.636, asks that the Congress to censure the president "for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that he and others in his Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of his Administration, for failing to adequately account for specific misstatements he made regarding the war, and for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958." (Executive Order 12958, issued in 1995 by former President Bill Clinton, seeks to promote openness in government by prescribing a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information.)
A third resolution, H.Res.637, would censure Cheney for a similar set of complaints.
"The people of this country are waking up to the severity of the lies, crimes, and abuses of power committed by this president and his administration," says Jon Bonifaz, a co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, an alliance of more than100 grassroots groups that has detailed Bush administration wrongdoing and encouraged a Congressional response. Bonifaz, an attorney and the author of the book, Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush (Nation Books), argues that, "Now is the time to return to the rule of law and to hold those who have defied the Constitution accountable for their actions."
Bonifaz is right. But it is unlikely that the effort to censure Bush and Cheney, let alone impeach them, will get far without significant organizing around the country. After all, the House is controlled by allies of the president who have displayed no inclination to hold him to account. Indeed, only a few Democrats, such as Conyers, have taken seriously the Constitutional issues raised by the administration's misdeeds.
Members of Congress in both parties will need to feel a lot of heat if these improtant measures are going to get much traction in this Congress.
The grassroots group Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), which has had a good deal of success organizing activists who want the Democrats to take a more aggressive stance in challenging the administration, will play a critical role in the effort to mobilize support for the Conyers resolutions, as part of a new Censure Bush Coalition campaign. (The campaign's website can be found at www.censurebush.org)
PDA director Tim Carpenter says his group plans to "mobilize and organize a broad base coalition that will demand action from Congress to investigate the lies of the Bush administration and their conduct related to the war in Iraq."
Getting this Congress to get serious about maintaining checks and balances on the Bush administration will be a daunting task. But the recent revelations regarding domestic spying will make it easier. There are a lot of Americans who share the view of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, that Bush and Cheney have exceeded their authority. As Feingold says of Bush, "He is the president, not a king."
It was the bitter experience of dealing with King George III led the founders of this country to write a Constitution that empowers Congress to hold presidents and vice accountable for their actions.
It is this power that John Conyers, the senior member of the House committee charged with maintaining the system of checks and balances established by those founders, is now asking the Congress to employ in the service of the nation that Constitution still governs."-John Nichols writing on The Nation Blog.
''Did George Bush break the law?''
This is not an easy letter to write, and I'm afraid it may be a hard one to believe.
By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.
These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.
I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.
You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours:
Here.
This extra-legal activity is even more disturbing because it is unnecessary -- the administration already has access to a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court was created precisely to provide speedy, secure judicial review to the actions of our intelligence agencies.
To allow authorities act as quickly as possible, officials can even apply for a retroactive warrant days after the surveillance has already begun. Secret warrants have been approved over 19,000 times -- only five applications were rejected in nearly thirty years. The court, which regularly acts within hours, is hardly a roadblock, but it prevents abuse by providing the oversight required by our system of checks and balances.
This administration must demonstrate clearly what legal authority allows it to disregard criminal prohibitions on unilateral domestic spying. Sign on to the request now -- it will be delivered on Thursday:
Here.
In an interview on Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez admitted that the administration asked certain Members of Congress about getting a new law to allow spying on Americans without a warrant. Realizing that even a Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't authorize such a measure, they decided to manipulate current law and proceed with the program anyway.
Manipulation of a law like this is dangerous. The same Office of Legal Counsel used vague assertions of sweeping authority in the infamous torture memos. The victim of this reasoning is the rule of law itself -- when this administration asserts sweeping authority to step over any line of legality, it asserts that there are no lines at all.
Does this administration believe there are any lines it can't cross? Americans deserve to know. Join our Freedom of Information Act request now:
Here.
Some Republicans will try to pretend that this is just another political fight. But Americans of every political viewpoint are rightfully disturbed by this extra-legal activity. The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, shocked by the report of this activity, promised to convene hearings in January.
Even Bob Barr, who was one of the most conservative members of Congress and the first member to file articles of impeachment against President Clinton, said:
"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."
We need to know whether George Bush went beyond the limits of the law -- and whether he and his administration believe that there are any limits at all. Please join this important request:
Here.
Even after the press found out about these actions, the administration tried to cover up its existence. According to Newsweek, George Bush summoned the publisher and executive editor of the New York Times to the Oval Office to try to stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.
We have seen this kind of arrogance of power before.
Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."
He found out that wasn't true. This administration may need a reminder.
Thank you.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D"-from his email today.
By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.
These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.
I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.
You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours:
Here.
This extra-legal activity is even more disturbing because it is unnecessary -- the administration already has access to a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court was created precisely to provide speedy, secure judicial review to the actions of our intelligence agencies.
To allow authorities act as quickly as possible, officials can even apply for a retroactive warrant days after the surveillance has already begun. Secret warrants have been approved over 19,000 times -- only five applications were rejected in nearly thirty years. The court, which regularly acts within hours, is hardly a roadblock, but it prevents abuse by providing the oversight required by our system of checks and balances.
This administration must demonstrate clearly what legal authority allows it to disregard criminal prohibitions on unilateral domestic spying. Sign on to the request now -- it will be delivered on Thursday:
Here.
In an interview on Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez admitted that the administration asked certain Members of Congress about getting a new law to allow spying on Americans without a warrant. Realizing that even a Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't authorize such a measure, they decided to manipulate current law and proceed with the program anyway.
Manipulation of a law like this is dangerous. The same Office of Legal Counsel used vague assertions of sweeping authority in the infamous torture memos. The victim of this reasoning is the rule of law itself -- when this administration asserts sweeping authority to step over any line of legality, it asserts that there are no lines at all.
Does this administration believe there are any lines it can't cross? Americans deserve to know. Join our Freedom of Information Act request now:
Here.
Some Republicans will try to pretend that this is just another political fight. But Americans of every political viewpoint are rightfully disturbed by this extra-legal activity. The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, shocked by the report of this activity, promised to convene hearings in January.
Even Bob Barr, who was one of the most conservative members of Congress and the first member to file articles of impeachment against President Clinton, said:
"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."
We need to know whether George Bush went beyond the limits of the law -- and whether he and his administration believe that there are any limits at all. Please join this important request:
Here.
Even after the press found out about these actions, the administration tried to cover up its existence. According to Newsweek, George Bush summoned the publisher and executive editor of the New York Times to the Oval Office to try to stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.
We have seen this kind of arrogance of power before.
Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."
He found out that wasn't true. This administration may need a reminder.
Thank you.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D"-from his email today.
''32% Favor Bush Impeachment''
"Thirty-two percent (32%) of Americans believe that President George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Fifty-eight percent (58%) take the opposite view.
However, just 30% of Americans would be more likely to vote for a Congressional candidate who promised to work for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Fifty-two percent (52%) would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.
Results by gender, age, party, income, and other demographic subsets are available for Premium Members.
The Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults was commissioned by After Downing Street, a coalition working "to pressure both Congress and the media to investigate whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war."
The number who support impeachment is very similar to the 33% who believe it is impossible for the United States mission in Iraq to succeed.
Thirty-five percent (35%) of Americans believe Vice President Cheney should be impeached and removed from office."-from Rasmussen Reports, tipped by AfterDowningStreet.org.
However, just 30% of Americans would be more likely to vote for a Congressional candidate who promised to work for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Fifty-two percent (52%) would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.
Results by gender, age, party, income, and other demographic subsets are available for Premium Members.
The Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults was commissioned by After Downing Street, a coalition working "to pressure both Congress and the media to investigate whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war."
The number who support impeachment is very similar to the 33% who believe it is impossible for the United States mission in Iraq to succeed.
Thirty-five percent (35%) of Americans believe Vice President Cheney should be impeached and removed from office."-from Rasmussen Reports, tipped by AfterDowningStreet.org.
Monday, December 19, 2005
''Unity Caucus to vet candidates for State Dem Party Chair''
"The State Democratic Party is getting a new Chair. At this time, the known candidates are:
Jean Brooks
Bill Harrington
Dwight Pelz
Greg Rodriguez
Laura Ruderman
Phil Talmadge
Under the leadership of Luis Moscoso, State Party Secretary, a Unity Caucus has formed and will sponsor a January 8 forum for the candidates. The following Caucuses are involved.
African American
Asian Pacific American
Disability Caucus
Fed. of Democratic Women
Hispanic/Latino Caucus
Jewish Caucus
Labor Caucus
Progressive Caucus
Stonewall Democrats
It's an inspired move -- for a more accountable and relevant State Democratic Party. Thank you Luis!-from Washblog.
Update: Geov Parrish tells me: "Pelz has withdrawn his name from consideration."
Jean Brooks
Bill Harrington
Dwight Pelz
Greg Rodriguez
Laura Ruderman
Phil Talmadge
Under the leadership of Luis Moscoso, State Party Secretary, a Unity Caucus has formed and will sponsor a January 8 forum for the candidates. The following Caucuses are involved.
African American
Asian Pacific American
Disability Caucus
Fed. of Democratic Women
Hispanic/Latino Caucus
Jewish Caucus
Labor Caucus
Progressive Caucus
Stonewall Democrats
It's an inspired move -- for a more accountable and relevant State Democratic Party. Thank you Luis!-from Washblog.
Update: Geov Parrish tells me: "Pelz has withdrawn his name from consideration."
''On Image''
"The GOP really seized its current high ground after 9/11 when they were able to take advantage of national outrage and capitalize on the fact that most Americans felt that their country was under attack. Painting themselves as the Party of Men, George Bush preened in his flight suit and cod piece, called himself a "war president," and used simple, aggressive language to convince the country he was the man to preserve our security. His popularity soared.
In the 2004 election John Kerry would be painted as a girlie man by the GOP, a "flip flopper," soft and feminine and flaccid and not at all capable of leading the troops into battle to defend the village. A pretty amazing PR feat considering the fact that Kerry actually was in the military, as opposed to Bush who spent his days in the Texas Air National Guard snorting coke off of some Texas stripper's rock-solid ass, but such is the power of a skillfully manipulated media. The Democrats were the party of women, and Karl Rove himself said they wanted to coddle the terrorists and give them therapy.
The Joe Bidens of the world think they appear strong and manly for such stances, but they only wind up looking like battered wives who bat their eyelashes and blow kisses at the men who continue to whallop them. And when someone really stands up to the bullying Republicans like Howard Dean did when he said they were the white, Christian party and Tom DeLay belonged in jail, the thoroughly useless Bidens and Bill Richardsons and Nancy Pelosis and Barak Obamas (yes, I said it) make Republican critique superfluous as they come out and discipline him themselves.
Basically, the Republicans got caught in a PR trap when there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction. They had to shift into talk about Sadaam's torture chambers, but that was quite dangerous because the American public doesn't really give a shit about stuff like that when it happens in countries like Rwanda or Sierra Leone. What they were being offered at that point was an excuse for having supported the war, because nobody in the public wants to admit that they were wrong, either. But excuses last only so long, and that's why Dick Cheney will continue to talk about ties between Al Quaeda and Sadaam every time he opens his mouth. No, he's not stupid. True or not, it offers a powerful morality play to people who want to buy into it. And he knows the other side has nothing better.
It's incredibly hoakey but it's a quite fundamental dramatic truth and until the Democrats like Joe Biden stop licking David Brooks's boots on national TV and competing for the title of Biggest Pussyman in the Democratic Party (yes I said that too, and I mean it) there will be no effective challenge to the GOP tyranny we now live under. Russ Feingold is looking awfully strong right now for having voted against the Patriot Act. The Democrats would do well to remember that and stop reaching for Dubya's prop codpiece."-excerpted from Jane Hamsher's post on firedoglake.
In the 2004 election John Kerry would be painted as a girlie man by the GOP, a "flip flopper," soft and feminine and flaccid and not at all capable of leading the troops into battle to defend the village. A pretty amazing PR feat considering the fact that Kerry actually was in the military, as opposed to Bush who spent his days in the Texas Air National Guard snorting coke off of some Texas stripper's rock-solid ass, but such is the power of a skillfully manipulated media. The Democrats were the party of women, and Karl Rove himself said they wanted to coddle the terrorists and give them therapy.
The Joe Bidens of the world think they appear strong and manly for such stances, but they only wind up looking like battered wives who bat their eyelashes and blow kisses at the men who continue to whallop them. And when someone really stands up to the bullying Republicans like Howard Dean did when he said they were the white, Christian party and Tom DeLay belonged in jail, the thoroughly useless Bidens and Bill Richardsons and Nancy Pelosis and Barak Obamas (yes, I said it) make Republican critique superfluous as they come out and discipline him themselves.
Basically, the Republicans got caught in a PR trap when there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction. They had to shift into talk about Sadaam's torture chambers, but that was quite dangerous because the American public doesn't really give a shit about stuff like that when it happens in countries like Rwanda or Sierra Leone. What they were being offered at that point was an excuse for having supported the war, because nobody in the public wants to admit that they were wrong, either. But excuses last only so long, and that's why Dick Cheney will continue to talk about ties between Al Quaeda and Sadaam every time he opens his mouth. No, he's not stupid. True or not, it offers a powerful morality play to people who want to buy into it. And he knows the other side has nothing better.
It's incredibly hoakey but it's a quite fundamental dramatic truth and until the Democrats like Joe Biden stop licking David Brooks's boots on national TV and competing for the title of Biggest Pussyman in the Democratic Party (yes I said that too, and I mean it) there will be no effective challenge to the GOP tyranny we now live under. Russ Feingold is looking awfully strong right now for having voted against the Patriot Act. The Democrats would do well to remember that and stop reaching for Dubya's prop codpiece."-excerpted from Jane Hamsher's post on firedoglake.
Two Members of Congress Raise the Impeachment Issue
"Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has become the first in the Senate to raise consideration of impeachment of President George W. Bush for authorizing spying on Americans without warrants, RAW STORY has learned.In a release issued this evening, Boxer said she's asked "four presidential scholars" for their opinion on impeachment after former White Housel counsel John Dean -- made famous by his role in revealing the Watergate tapes -- asserted that President Bush had 'admitted' to an 'impeachable offense.'
Boxer isn't the first congressmember today to float the word. Earlier today, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in the spying program."-from RAW STORY.
Boxer isn't the first congressmember today to float the word. Earlier today, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in the spying program."-from RAW STORY.
''Behind the Steel Curtain: The Real Face of the Occupation''
"The Bush Administration uses double barrel propaganda today, with Mr. Bush using a prime time television address to say things like "My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq - we are winning the war in Iraq," and responding to negative news by saying "It does not mean that we are losing." Meanwhile, Mr. Cheney, while on a heavily guarded tour of the "Green Zone" and other locales in Iraq said today, "I think the vast majority of them think of us as liberators."
While the Bush Administration portrayed Thursday's Iraqi elections as a resounding success, Iraqi political parties are complaining of violations ranging from dead men voting to murder in the streets as accusations begin to fly from all political corners of rampand fraud and violence bringing the results of the vote under suspicion. "-from Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches, tipped by AfterDowningStreet.org.
While the Bush Administration portrayed Thursday's Iraqi elections as a resounding success, Iraqi political parties are complaining of violations ranging from dead men voting to murder in the streets as accusations begin to fly from all political corners of rampand fraud and violence bringing the results of the vote under suspicion. "-from Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches, tipped by AfterDowningStreet.org.
''Ah, Mr. Bush ... About That Landmark Iraqi Election''
"Suspected polling violations on voting day last week far exceeded the number in Iraq's first election in January, local and international monitors said yesterday. On the deadline for filing complaints, the number of alleged violations which could swing results in the 275-seat parliament was "well into double figures", an accredited international election observer, who wished to remain anonymous, said.
Secular Arab parties have accused the Shia religious bloc, which dominates the current government, of intimidating voters in Baghdad and many southern cities. At the Sharqia high school in central Baghdad, which was used as a polling station, a senior election official was said to have asked voters if they were going to vote for 555. Unless they said yes, they were not given ballot papers.
A source close to Mr Allawi's campaign said that in one Baghdad polling station "around 600 men, some with walkie-talkies and purple ink on their fingers showing they had already voted, forced their way in. When the manager tried to stop them asking for ballot papers, they threatened to put him in a car boot and drive him away ... He let them in."-from the Guardian (UK) via Kos. The "boot" is what we call the "trunk" in the USA.
Secular Arab parties have accused the Shia religious bloc, which dominates the current government, of intimidating voters in Baghdad and many southern cities. At the Sharqia high school in central Baghdad, which was used as a polling station, a senior election official was said to have asked voters if they were going to vote for 555. Unless they said yes, they were not given ballot papers.
A source close to Mr Allawi's campaign said that in one Baghdad polling station "around 600 men, some with walkie-talkies and purple ink on their fingers showing they had already voted, forced their way in. When the manager tried to stop them asking for ballot papers, they threatened to put him in a car boot and drive him away ... He let them in."-from the Guardian (UK) via Kos. The "boot" is what we call the "trunk" in the USA.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
''The Most Important Question of All in Bush's Domestic Spying Scandal''
"If the surveillance operations he ordered were so crucial and so important to protecting our country, how come he didn't get a warrant? Surely something so critical to our security would have easily elicited a warrant from a FISA court already inclined to issue warrants in the first place, right?
And that gets us right back to the most important question: why would the President deliberately circumvent a court that was already wholly inclined to grant him domestic surveillance warrants? The answer is obvious, though as yet largely unstated in the mainstream media: because the President was likely ordering surveillance operations that were so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror, and, to put it in Constitutional terms, so "unreasonable" that even a FISA court would not have granted them.
This is no conspiracy theory - all the signs point right to this conclusion. In fact, it would be a conspiracy theory to say otherwise, because it would be ignoring the cold, hard facts that we already know.
Two years ago, the New York Times reported that the administration is using the FBI to "collect extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators." Then, just a few months ago, the Times reported that the FBI "has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups." And just this past week, NBC News obtained a 400-page Pentagon document outlining the Bush administration's surveillance of anti-war peace groups. The report noted that the administration had monitored 1,500 different events (aka. anti-war protests) in just a 10-month period.
These are exactly the kind of surveillance operations even a government-tilted FISA court would reject, and it raises yet more questions: Are these anti-war peace groups the targets of Bush's warrantless, illegal surveillance operations? Who else has the President been targeting? Has it been his partisan political enemies a la Richard Nixon? Or has he been invading the privacy of unsuspecting citizens in broad sweeps with no probable cause at all?"-from David Sirota on The Huffington Post, via Yahoo News.
Take a wild guess and answer the question.
And that gets us right back to the most important question: why would the President deliberately circumvent a court that was already wholly inclined to grant him domestic surveillance warrants? The answer is obvious, though as yet largely unstated in the mainstream media: because the President was likely ordering surveillance operations that were so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror, and, to put it in Constitutional terms, so "unreasonable" that even a FISA court would not have granted them.
This is no conspiracy theory - all the signs point right to this conclusion. In fact, it would be a conspiracy theory to say otherwise, because it would be ignoring the cold, hard facts that we already know.
Two years ago, the New York Times reported that the administration is using the FBI to "collect extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators." Then, just a few months ago, the Times reported that the FBI "has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups." And just this past week, NBC News obtained a 400-page Pentagon document outlining the Bush administration's surveillance of anti-war peace groups. The report noted that the administration had monitored 1,500 different events (aka. anti-war protests) in just a 10-month period.
These are exactly the kind of surveillance operations even a government-tilted FISA court would reject, and it raises yet more questions: Are these anti-war peace groups the targets of Bush's warrantless, illegal surveillance operations? Who else has the President been targeting? Has it been his partisan political enemies a la Richard Nixon? Or has he been invading the privacy of unsuspecting citizens in broad sweeps with no probable cause at all?"-from David Sirota on The Huffington Post, via Yahoo News.
Take a wild guess and answer the question.
'George W. Bush's ten-step program for destroying America' (UPDATED)
Regular visitors to this site will no doubt have own their list on their Rovian rap sheet. Jane Smiley, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1992 and bunch of other awards, lays out her indictment on The Huffington Post, where it is called "A Ten-Step Program," rather than the longer title above, which is from The Smirking Chimp. Both posts have great comments. As Howard Dean once asked, "What I want to know" .............what are we going to do about it? In addition to impeachment and a trial before the UN Court in The Hague, I'm not sure what else to do. Smiley stresses the importance of preserving our election process here. Jan Stahl on Evergreen Politics asks, "So, Can We Impeach This Clown Now?"
Update: As usual, the British are ahead of us. According to AfterDowningStreet.org:
"Not only is Scotland beautiful, but almost everyone in it opposes the war, almost everyone in it who works is in a labor union, and – above all – Scotland is the birthplace of the impeachment process. In Glasgow I spoke with Alex Salmond. He's a Member of Parliament (in London, not the Scottish Parliament), and he's the leader of the Scottish National Party. He proudly informed me that impeachment was a process that originated in Scotland before being adopted by Britain and then by the United States. He also said that there are now 87 Members of Parliament supporting the impeachment of Tony Blair over the war, that he hopes to have 100 by Christmas and 200 by January. Two hundred is what they need in order to move ahead with hearings."
Update: As usual, the British are ahead of us. According to AfterDowningStreet.org:
"Not only is Scotland beautiful, but almost everyone in it opposes the war, almost everyone in it who works is in a labor union, and – above all – Scotland is the birthplace of the impeachment process. In Glasgow I spoke with Alex Salmond. He's a Member of Parliament (in London, not the Scottish Parliament), and he's the leader of the Scottish National Party. He proudly informed me that impeachment was a process that originated in Scotland before being adopted by Britain and then by the United States. He also said that there are now 87 Members of Parliament supporting the impeachment of Tony Blair over the war, that he hopes to have 100 by Christmas and 200 by January. Two hundred is what they need in order to move ahead with hearings."
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Congress Starts to Admit They Know What's Going On
"Fumbles spur new talk of oversight in D.C." in Sunday's Washington Post is the way they put it. The story calls them "fumbles," but they are much more than that. Dana Milbank, Recording Secretary of the Beltway, starts the story like this:
"Lawmakers have been caught by surprise by several recent reports, including the existence of secret U.S. prisons abroad, the CIA's detention overseas of innocent foreign nationals, and, last week, the discovery that the military has been engaged in domestic spying. After five years in which the GOP-controlled House and Senate undertook few investigations into the administration's activities, the legislative branch has begun to complain about being in the dark."
They've been in the dark all along, and are hardly surprised. This administration has been out of control since day one. We knew it, you knew it, Congress probably knew it, too---but now we KNOW THEY know it. So what will they do about it, now, at long last?
The dictionary has two definitions of oversight:
1. "failure by omission: a mistake, especially as a result of a failure to do or notice something."
2. "supervision: the responsibility of supervising something."
Having already accomplished #1, Congress is going to perform #2?
When it comes to fumbles, we find two definitions of the word:
1. fumbled action: an act or instance of fumbling (including to grope clumsily, to hesitate, to bungle something).
2. fumbled ball: in sports, a ball that is dropped or mishandled.
This administration has done it all, and much more. Will Congress step up?
"Lawmakers have been caught by surprise by several recent reports, including the existence of secret U.S. prisons abroad, the CIA's detention overseas of innocent foreign nationals, and, last week, the discovery that the military has been engaged in domestic spying. After five years in which the GOP-controlled House and Senate undertook few investigations into the administration's activities, the legislative branch has begun to complain about being in the dark."
They've been in the dark all along, and are hardly surprised. This administration has been out of control since day one. We knew it, you knew it, Congress probably knew it, too---but now we KNOW THEY know it. So what will they do about it, now, at long last?
The dictionary has two definitions of oversight:
1. "failure by omission: a mistake, especially as a result of a failure to do or notice something."
2. "supervision: the responsibility of supervising something."
Having already accomplished #1, Congress is going to perform #2?
When it comes to fumbles, we find two definitions of the word:
1. fumbled action: an act or instance of fumbling (including to grope clumsily, to hesitate, to bungle something).
2. fumbled ball: in sports, a ball that is dropped or mishandled.
This administration has done it all, and much more. Will Congress step up?
''How the Media ''Authorize'' The Abuse of Power''
"The story of President Bush deliberately breaking the law to create a domestic spy operation is a lot of different things: it is a tale of power abuse, arrogance, and contempt for the law by an out-of-control president. But it is also a story of how today's major media behave with near total deference to power and its own profit motive. What we are watching, even in the seemingly small details of the coverage, is no less than the media's complicity in helping estsablish a quasi-legal framework for what was a clearly illegal abuse of government power. It is in the clearest sense the media being used as tools of state power in overriding the very laws that are supposed to confine state power."-excerpted from Sirotablog.
''Eavesdropping'' or ''honesty, hard work, respect and opportunity"
How can we strengthen America? Compare today's Rovian and Democratic radio addresses.
''Dwight Pelz Will Not Seek City Council Appointment''
Belltowner at Pike Place Politics has got this Deaniac covered. He also links to Dwight's updated website where he makes the case for his candidacy for WA State Dem Chair. Belltowner also floats some ideas for the city council spot in his comments on Washblog.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"Murtha sent his fellow Democrats a letter objecting to the GOP resolution. "It calls for 'complete victory' which does not define victory, is open-ended, and therefore means that our troops could be there for ten or fifteen years," Murtha said."-from the AP story, "House disavows calls for Iraq withdrawal."
Friday, December 16, 2005
''You Want Proof Dems' Iraq Strategy Is Failing? Here It Is''
"Yesterday, I wrote a long piece about how there is not one shred of actual hard data to sustain the assumption being peddled in Washington that pro-exit-strategy Democrats will be punished for their positions by voters. I also made the point that not being pro-exit-strategy is a recipe for disaster. Now today, we get a pristine example of exactly what I am talking about, from the local paper in a congressional district that is considered one of the Democrats' top potential pickups in 2006.
This story shows exactly how the Republicans are capitalizing not on Democrats who are concrete in their support of an exit strategy, but how the GOP is feasting on Democrats who try to have it both ways and split the difference, as the "strategists" in Washington are prescribing. Just read the article's subheading: "[GOP] Congressman derides other side's lack of stance on troop withdrawal question." Sadly, that says it all.
I would encourage everyone who reads this article to copy it and paste it into an email to DCCC Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D) - the guy who likens himself to the great electoral savior of Democrats, yet who publicly says Democrats will not have a position on the war. Send him this story, tell him to read it and then look at himself in the mirror: beyond the fact that he and the Democratic "strategists" in Washington are disgustingly playing politics with war and peace, this article shows exactly why they are the reason the party is not making serious political gains today."-David Sirota on The Huffington Post.
Update: "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party."-from the Washington Post story.
This story shows exactly how the Republicans are capitalizing not on Democrats who are concrete in their support of an exit strategy, but how the GOP is feasting on Democrats who try to have it both ways and split the difference, as the "strategists" in Washington are prescribing. Just read the article's subheading: "[GOP] Congressman derides other side's lack of stance on troop withdrawal question." Sadly, that says it all.
I would encourage everyone who reads this article to copy it and paste it into an email to DCCC Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D) - the guy who likens himself to the great electoral savior of Democrats, yet who publicly says Democrats will not have a position on the war. Send him this story, tell him to read it and then look at himself in the mirror: beyond the fact that he and the Democratic "strategists" in Washington are disgustingly playing politics with war and peace, this article shows exactly why they are the reason the party is not making serious political gains today."-David Sirota on The Huffington Post.
Update: "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party."-from the Washington Post story.
''Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act''
Sometimes good news is just about keeping bad things from happening.
Update: As you would expect, these people won't give up easily. Andrew at Northwest Progessive reminds us the fight isn't really over yet.
Update: As you would expect, these people won't give up easily. Andrew at Northwest Progessive reminds us the fight isn't really over yet.
''Meet the New Boss''
"There is an election taking place in Iraq on Friday. According to those who still maintain some kind of hope that the wretched situation over there can be salvaged at the ballot box, this election will be a turning point. "If the result is seen to be fair and the government elected for the next four years is accepted as broadly representative of the interests of most Iraqis," writes Liz Sly in the Chicago Tribune, "there is a real chance that the insurgent violence and the sectarian rivalries that are pushing the country close to civil war will abate."
This vote, the third since the occupation began, is meant to elect a 275-person parliamentary body called the Council of Representatives. All 18 Iraqi provinces will be participating in the election. The Sunnis, who mostly boycotted the elections last January, are expected to participate in far larger numbers this time around. Leading Sunni clerics have issued a fatwa which decrees that Sunni participation in this election is a religious duty.
This election will be no panacea, despite what the hopefuls think. Every electoral model has the Shia and Kurds assuming dominant positions in the Iraqi government. Even if every Sunni in Iraq goes to the polls, they make up only 20% of the overall population. Electoral formulas meant to enhance Sunni power within an Iraqi government will still leave them deeply in the minority.
A collection of leading Sunni parties called the Iraqi Consensus Front has been pushing a straightforward slogan: "Our goal is to get the invaders out and rebuild the country." If their minority status prevents the Sunnis from achieving their first goal according to their wishes, they may well return to violence to achieve their second goal. A leaflet was broadly distributed in the Azamiyah neighborhood of Baghdad last Monday. Sunni Arabs may have a chance to advance their cause politically in the upcoming elections, read the leaflet, but "the fighting will continue with the infidels and their followers."
The campaigning itself, which ended on Tuesday, has been a half-baked farce all too reminiscent of America's watered-down and money-driven electioneering. Thanks to the assassinations and attempted assassinations of several candidates, and thanks to the ever-present threat of violence, almost all campaigning has been done via television. Because television time is prohibitively expensive, only the campaigns with significant financial resources will ever become known to the Iraqi people. Hundreds of viable candidates, a number of them secular, don't stand a chance next to well-funded religious campaigns whose cash comes from unknown and potentially dangerous outside sources.
Juan Cole, professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan, does not see how this election can possibly be seen as credible. "As with the Jan. 30 elections," writes Cole, "the Dec. 15 elections are not being held in accordance with international standards of fairness, and cannot be. Proper elections would require that security be provided to voters and candidates. But there is no security. In many parts of the center-north, voters will have no guarantee of coming home alive. The only way the vote will happen at all is that the US military has forbidden all vehicular traffic, so everyone has to walk for the next few days. This tactic prevents car bombings from disrupting the elections, but it is a desperate measure and not a sign of an election that could be certified as free and fair."-from Bill Pitt on Peace Journal, tipped by Juan Cole on Informed Comment. I was tipped to Juan Cole by News Dissector. I can't remember who first tipped me to News Dissector, which I just started following in the last week or so. Larry Johnson worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (1985-1989) and the Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim (1989-1993). He has "Democracy and Delusion in Iraq" on AlterNet.
This vote, the third since the occupation began, is meant to elect a 275-person parliamentary body called the Council of Representatives. All 18 Iraqi provinces will be participating in the election. The Sunnis, who mostly boycotted the elections last January, are expected to participate in far larger numbers this time around. Leading Sunni clerics have issued a fatwa which decrees that Sunni participation in this election is a religious duty.
This election will be no panacea, despite what the hopefuls think. Every electoral model has the Shia and Kurds assuming dominant positions in the Iraqi government. Even if every Sunni in Iraq goes to the polls, they make up only 20% of the overall population. Electoral formulas meant to enhance Sunni power within an Iraqi government will still leave them deeply in the minority.
A collection of leading Sunni parties called the Iraqi Consensus Front has been pushing a straightforward slogan: "Our goal is to get the invaders out and rebuild the country." If their minority status prevents the Sunnis from achieving their first goal according to their wishes, they may well return to violence to achieve their second goal. A leaflet was broadly distributed in the Azamiyah neighborhood of Baghdad last Monday. Sunni Arabs may have a chance to advance their cause politically in the upcoming elections, read the leaflet, but "the fighting will continue with the infidels and their followers."
The campaigning itself, which ended on Tuesday, has been a half-baked farce all too reminiscent of America's watered-down and money-driven electioneering. Thanks to the assassinations and attempted assassinations of several candidates, and thanks to the ever-present threat of violence, almost all campaigning has been done via television. Because television time is prohibitively expensive, only the campaigns with significant financial resources will ever become known to the Iraqi people. Hundreds of viable candidates, a number of them secular, don't stand a chance next to well-funded religious campaigns whose cash comes from unknown and potentially dangerous outside sources.
Juan Cole, professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan, does not see how this election can possibly be seen as credible. "As with the Jan. 30 elections," writes Cole, "the Dec. 15 elections are not being held in accordance with international standards of fairness, and cannot be. Proper elections would require that security be provided to voters and candidates. But there is no security. In many parts of the center-north, voters will have no guarantee of coming home alive. The only way the vote will happen at all is that the US military has forbidden all vehicular traffic, so everyone has to walk for the next few days. This tactic prevents car bombings from disrupting the elections, but it is a desperate measure and not a sign of an election that could be certified as free and fair."-from Bill Pitt on Peace Journal, tipped by Juan Cole on Informed Comment. I was tipped to Juan Cole by News Dissector. I can't remember who first tipped me to News Dissector, which I just started following in the last week or so. Larry Johnson worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (1985-1989) and the Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim (1989-1993). He has "Democracy and Delusion in Iraq" on AlterNet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)