And Still He Lies (with Apologies to Maya Angelou)

What, today, is the fourth of July?

2006-07-04T15:31:00.000-07:00

On July 4, 1852, the formerly enslaved patriot Frederick Douglass spoke to the Rochester Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society. While Douglass spoke of the contradiction between slavery and American ideals, his denunciation of "crimes that would disgrace a nation of savages" is strikingly relevant today to American practices of war and torture.

Excerpts follow. Click here for more of the text and commentary by historian Eric Foner.

"What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy--a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.

"There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

". . . . No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. . . . A change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.... Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other. . . .

"No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light."

May I (as a literary matter) suggest Cheney?

2006-05-16T12:21:00.000-07:00

I admit I worried some when, last month, Lewis H. Lapham wrote what appeared to be an abrupt goodbye. He's been writing Harper's editorial essay "Notebook" for a very long time. I worried that his call to impeach Bush and whatever editorial choices he had made to push the magazine to discuss politics as they are had offended someone with more power than he.

As I read Harper's Senior Editor Ben Metcalf's "Notebook" in the current (June 2006) issue, it became clear I have no reason to worry. We may need to begin collecting a defense fund for Mr. Metcalf however.

Wondering what the common citizen is allowed to write at this moment in history, Metcalf asks ("out of what used to be called simple human decency") whether or not he is

allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of the United States, and kill him with my bare hands?

Surprisingly, I've seen no discussion of this piece on the web. This is disheartening, since, for no other reason, we should be discussing whether Metcalf has probed the limits of dissent in the PATRIOT Act era imperial US.

The piece is brilliant political satire. Metcalf argues that the caution of having to ask the question "is despicable." Apologetic, he argues that "If I am to remain at large, then here and there a sentence must be perverted." The essay goes on to play with both the limits of the acceptable and the notion of the perversion of language we have been forced to endure under Bush and Cheney's administration.

In what is arguably the most important use of imagery in the piece, Metcalf writes, "In place of the initial question I might ask instead,"

Am I allowed to write that I would like to kidnap George W. Bush and fly him to a prison in some far-away land where his 'rights' are no longer an issue, there to put a bag over his head and make him stand for hours on one leg while I defecate on his New Testament before chaining his arms to the ceiling until he dies of a heart attack, after which I will claim that he never existed?

We must be able to use such imagery if we are to shake US citizens free of their impotence.

Yet, sadly, Metcalf answers his own question negatively: "I am not allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush and kill him with my bare hands...[A]ny outright declaration of violent intent could, and perhaps would, be considered a violation of the law."

I am therefore led to wonder, if, as a common citizen, I may comment on Mr. Metcalf's satire. If I were to suggest -- out of literary concern -- that Vice President Dick Cheney would provide a better satirical target, would that be within the bounds of what an ordinary person is allowed to say? May I discuss the characters and narrative tensions in Metcalf's satire? Or is that too, beyond the pale?

Is it still allowable for me to argue that, since Dick Cheney is himself a hunter and is clearly an adversary smarter and more wiley than George W. Bush (if not as hale), he makes a better (literary) target? Assuming, as I do, that Metcalf is "a peaceful man, with no actual wish to exact payment for anyone's continued debasement of humanity by feeling the life drain out of him", would it be within the law for me to suggest a substitution of Dick Cheney as the metaphorical debaser of humanity? He is clearly more dangerous than the "ignorant, cruel, closed-minded, avaricious, sneaky, irresponsible, thieving, brain-damaged frat boy with a drinking problem and a taste for bloodshed" who has, after all, only issued the orders that have put to death 2,376 US soldiers, and 30-some-odd-thousand Iraqi civilains? Cheney would provide a better foil as one of the principal architects of this carnage. Would US secret police appear at my door if I argued that Cheney's economic and political power, his cold-blooded, ruthless pursuit of this power, and his ability to make others pay for his misdeeds would provide more dramatic tension than does a man who barely has a command of (any) language and who cannot fend for himself against such formidable opponents as pretzels or John Kerry?

Perhaps I should make clear that I lack both the desire and the inhumanity to force the current Vice President of the United States to strip down and simulate masturbation while I order poverty-drafted US soldiers to apply electrical current to his testicles. Yet I do believe that the Cheney character would be a more powerful image. A satirical portrayal of the torture and/or death of Dick Cheney is simply more dangerous than one that only tears at the paper tiger that he and his co-conspirators carry in front of them.

Does the state allow me to make these literary suggestions? Does civil society even allow it in these times?

Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet

2006-05-10T10:44:00.000-07:00

May 10, 2006
Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE
Americans have a bleaker view of the country's direction than at any time in more than two decades, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Sharp disapproval of President Bush's handling of gasoline prices has combined with intensified unhappiness about Iraq to create a grim political environment for the White House and Congressional Republicans.

Mr. Bush's approval ratings for his management of foreign policy, Iraq and the economy have fallen to the lowest levels of his presidency. He drew poor marks on the issues that have been at the top of the national agenda in recent months, in particular immigration and gasoline prices.

Just 13 percent approved of Mr. Bush's handling of rising gasoline prices. About a quarter said they approved of his handling of immigration, as Congressional Republicans try to come up with a compromise for handling the influx of illegal immigrants into the country.

The poll showed a further decline in support for the Iraq war, the issue that has most eaten into Mr. Bush's public support. The percentage of respondents who said going to war in Iraq was the correct decision slipped to a new low of 39 percent, down from 47 percent in January. Two-thirds said they had little or no confidence that Mr. Bush could successfully end the war.

The poll comes six months before Election Day and well before Labor Day, when Congressional campaigns will be fully engaged. Mr. Bush has shaken up his staff in an effort to improve his political fortunes, and White House aides said they were confident that events in Iraq were improving and that the political effects of high gasoline prices could fade by the election.

Nevertheless, the Times/CBS News poll contained few if any bright notes for Mr. Bush or Congress.

Mr. Bush's political strength continues to dissipate. About two-thirds of poll respondents said he did not share their priorities, up from just over half right before his re-election in 2004. About two-thirds said the country was in worse shape than it was when he became president six years ago. Forty-two percent of respondents said they considered Mr. Bush a strong leader, a drop of 11 points since January.

Mr. Bush's overall job approval rating hit another new low, 31 percent, tying the low point of his father in July 1992, four months before the elder Mr. Bush lost his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton. That is the third lowest approval rating of any president in 50 years; only Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter were viewed less favorably.

Mr. Bush is even losing support from what has been his base: 51 percent of conservatives and 69 percent of Republicans approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job. In both cases, those figures are a substantial drop in support from four months ago.

"We should have stayed out of Iraq until we knew more about it," Bernice Davis, a Republican from Lamar, Mo., who said she now disapproved of Mr. Bush's performance, said in a follow-up interview on Tuesday. "The economy is going to pot. Gas prices are escalating. I just voted for Bush because he's a Republican, even though I disapproved of the war. If I could go back, I would not vote for him."

Although the composition of Congressional districts will make it hard for the Democrats to recapture control of Congress in the fall, the poll suggested that the trend was moving in their direction. Just 23 percent said they approved of the job Congress was doing, down from 29 percent in January. That is about the same level of support for Congress as in the fall of 1994, when Republicans seized control of the House.

Americans said Democrats would do a better job dealing with Iraq, gasoline prices, immigration, taxes, prescription drug prices and civil liberties.

Fifty percent said Democrats came closer than Republicans to sharing their moral values, compared with 37 percent who said Republicans shared their values. A majority said Republican members of Congress were more likely to be financially corrupt than Democratic members of Congress, suggesting that Democrats may be making headway in their efforts to portray Republicans as having created a "culture of corruption" in Washington.

By better than two to one, Democrats were seen as having more new ideas than Republicans. And half of respondents, the highest number yet, said it was better when different parties controlled the two branches of Congress, reflecting one of the major arguments being laid out by Congressional Democrats in their bid to win back the House or the Senate.

Americans said that Republicans would be better at maintaining a stronger military than Democrats. But the Republicans had only a slight edge on combating terrorism, an issue that has helped account for the party's political dominance since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The nationwide telephone poll, of 1,241 adults, was conducted from May 4 to May 8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Seventy percent of respondents said the country was heading in the wrong direction, compared with 23 percent who said they approved of the direction in which the country was heading. Those findings are not significantly different from the responses to a CBS News poll last week and suggest that Americans are more pessimistic about the country's direction than at any other time in the 23 years that The Times and CBS News have asked the question.

Immigration is another issue undercutting Republicans and Mr. Bush. As Republicans battle over how to respond to illegal immigration, the poll found considerable opposition to the strict measures being pressed by conservative Republicans in the House.

About 60 percent of respondents said they favored the plan proposed by some Republicans in the Senate that would permit illegal immigrants who had worked in the United States for at least two years to keep their jobs and apply for citizenship. Just 35 percent endorsed the view of some conservatives that illegal immigrants should be deported. Two-thirds opposed building a 700-mile fence along the United States-Mexican border.

The two biggest problems for Mr. Bush and Republicans are gasoline prices and Iraq. By 57 percent to 11 percent, respondents said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to find a way to curb gasoline prices.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents said the increase in gasoline prices was not beyond the control of a president, but 89 percent said this administration did not have a plan to deal with the problem.

More than two-thirds said the war in Iraq was to blame for at least some of the increase in gasoline prices. Seventy-one percent said they believed that oil companies were profiting from higher prices, and a majority said oil companies were much closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party.

"Bush could put in some kind of regulation to control the profits of the oil companies," said Jane North, 43, a Republican from Reisterstown, Md., who said she recently changed her registration to Democrat. "He comes from the oil business, so he certainly knows how it works. I think Bush will just run out his term and not do anything to control gas prices."

On Iraq, two-thirds of poll respondents said they disapproved of how the president had handled the war. Fifty-six percent said going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 50 percent in January. And 60 percent said things were going "somewhat or very badly" in the drive to stabilize the country. Sixty-three percent disapproved of Mr. Bush's handling of foreign policy in general.

Still, 55 percent said they believed the effort in Iraq was somewhat or very likely to succeed.

"We have enough problems here at home without worrying about Iraq," said Bill Trego, 64, a Republican from Waymart, Pa.

"I believed him at first, in the beginning," Mr. Trego said of Mr. Bush, "that there were weapons of mass destruction and if that was a fact, it was probably not a bad move to go in there. But they didn't find anything. When they couldn't prove it, I realized it was just a barefaced lie."

The problems plaguing the Republicans have clearly helped the Democrats: 55 percent said they now had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 37 percent with an unfavorable view. By contrast, 57 percent had an unfavorable view of Republicans, compared with 37 percent who had a favorable view.

The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.

And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.

Impeach Cheney first

2006-05-07T07:12:00.000-07:00

Often I hear, "It'd be great to be rid of Bush, but then we'd have Cheney as president.

The answer, of course, is that both of these criminals need to be held accountable. David Swanson, writing in Afterdowningstreet.org, argues that we should impeach Cheney first.

Read his arguments and find tools for organizing.

Stephen Colbert and the President

2006-05-03T00:47:00.000-07:00

You can watch segments of Colbert's speech here and here.

The following are also insightful commentary on the aftermath: "The Truthiness Hurts" and "Making Colbert Go Away"

Colbert Lampoons Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner -- President Not Amused?

2006-05-03T00:35:00.000-07:00

Colbert Lampoons Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner -- President Not Amused?

By E&P Staff

Published: April 29, 2006 11:40 PM ET updated Sunday
WASHINGTON A blistering comedy “tribute” to President Bush by Comedy Central’s faux talk-show host Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent Dinner Saturday night left George and Laura Bush unsmiling at its close.

Earlier, the president had delivered his talk to the 2,700 attendees, including many celebrities and top officials, with the help of a Bush impersonator.

Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk-show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,” he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.”

Colbert told Bush he could end the problem of protests by retired generals by refusing to let them retire. He compared Bush to Rocky Balboa in the “Rocky” movies, always getting punched in the face — “and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world.”

Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."

He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, just three tables away from Karl Rove, and that he had brought " Valerie Plame." Then, worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, "Uh, I mean ... he brought Joseph Wilson's wife." He might have "dodged the bullet," he said, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't there.

Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops” on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, melting glaciers and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face. He advised the crowd, "if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail."

Observing that Bush sticks to his principles, he said, "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday -- no matter what happened Tuesday."

Also lampooning the press, Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides of the story — the president’s side and the vice president’s side." In another slap at the news channel, he said: "I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the No Fact Zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on that term."

He also reflected on the alleged good old days for the president, when the media was still swallowing the WMD story.

Addressing the reporters, he said, "Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know -- fiction."

He claimed that the Secret Service name for Bush's new press secretary is "Snow Job."

Colbert closed his routine with a video fantasy where he gets to be White House Press Secretary, complete with a special “Gannon” button on his podium. By the end, he had to run from Helen Thomas and her questions about why the U.S. really invaded Iraq and killed all those people.

As Colbert walked from the podium, when it was over, the president and First Lady gave him quick nods, unsmiling. The president shook his hand and tapped his elbow, and left immediately.

Those seated near Bush told E&P's Joe Strupp, who was elsewhere in the room, that Bush had quickly turned from an amused guest to an obviously offended target as Colbert’s comments brought up his low approval ratings and problems in Iraq.

Several veterans of past dinners, who requested anonymity, said the presentation was more directed at attacking the president than in the past. Several said previous hosts, like Jay Leno, equally slammed both the White House and the press corps.

“This was anti-Bush,” said one attendee. “Usually they go back and forth between us and him.” Another noted that Bush quickly turned unhappy. “You could see he stopped smiling about halfway through Colbert,” he reported.

After the gathering, Snow, while nursing a Heineken outside the Chicago Tribune reception, declined to comment on Colbert. “I’m not doing entertainment reviews,” he said. “I thought the president was great, though.”

Strupp, in the crowd during the Colbert routine, had observed that quite a few sitting near him looked a little uncomfortable at times, perhaps feeling the material was a little too biting -- or too much speaking "truthiness" (a word Colbert popularized) to power.

Asked by E&P after it was over if he thought he'd been too harsh, Colbert said, "Not at all." Was he trying to make a point politically or just get laughs? "Just for laughs," he said. He said he did not pull any material for being too strong, just for time reasons. (He later said the president told him "good job" when he walked off.)

Helen Thomas told Strupp her segment with Colbert was "just for fun."

In its report on the affair, USA Today asserted that some in the crowd cracked up over Colbert but others were "bewildered." Wolf Blitzer of CNN said he thought Colbert was funny and "a little on the edge."

Earlier, the president had addressed the crowd with a Bush impersonator alongside, with the faux-Bush speaking precisely and the real Bush deliberately mispronouncing words, such as the inevitable "nuclear." At the close, Bush called the imposter "a fine talent. In fact, he did all my debates with Senator Kerry." The routine went over well with this particular crowd -- better than did Colbert's, in fact, for whatever reason.

Among attendees at the black tie event: Morgan Fairchild, quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, Justice Antonin Scalia, George Clooney, and Jeff "Skunk" Baxter of the Doobie Brothers -- in a kilt.

(Oh God!! It's just too good. There are too many great one-liners here. Colbert gets to roast Bush with Laura and W himself in the room! Tucker Carlson comes on after Colbert and tries to downplay what happened...)

So true, so true--a little more humor

2006-04-27T10:05:00.000-07:00

Well...ain't this the truth?

Hey! A little bit of humor...

2006-04-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

Rob, I can still laugh at my angst (and the President's perceived lack of intellect). I know you don't think I am capable of finding humor in anything (and I don't blame you, I suppose). But...HA HA!

I hate to do it again...another Bush joke/quote (you decide which)

2006-04-21T12:21:00.000-07:00

"I felt it was my obligation to intervene on her behalf, because just as a member of the religious right, I can fully identify with the brain dead."

-President George W. Bush, on his involvement in the Terri Schiavo case.

Were truer words ever spoken?

George W. Bush meets with the Queen of England (it's a joke, but you can never be too sure).

2006-04-05T18:09:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush meets with the Queen of England.

He asks her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give to me?"

"Well," says the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people."

Bush frowns. "But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?"

The Queen takes a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy. You just ask them to answer an intelligence riddle."

The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. "Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"

Tony Blair walks ! into the room. "Yes, my Queen?"

The Queen smiles. "Answer me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, "That would be me."

"Yes! Very good," says the Queen.

Back at the White House, Bush asks to speak with vice president Dick Cheney.

"Dick, answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"

"I'm not sure," says the vice president. "Let me get back to you on that one."

Dick Cheney goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an answer. Finally, he ends up in the men's room and recognizes Colin Powell's shoes in the next stall.

Dick shouts, "Colin! Can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Colin Powell yells back, "That's easy. It's me!"

Dick Cheney smiles. "Thanks!"

Cheney goes back to the Oval Office and to speak with Bush. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It's Colin Powell."

Bush gets up, stomps over to Dick Cheney, and angrily yells into his face, "No, you idiot! It's Tony Blair!"

With this administration, one can never be TOO sure of whether this is a joke or surreal event.

Iraqi Civil War

2006-04-03T16:13:00.000-07:00

Patrick Cockburn on Iraqi split

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/cock01_.html

It is strange to hear George Bush and John Reid deny that a civil war is going on, given that so many bodies - all strangled, shot or hanged solely because of their religious allegiance - are being discovered every day. Car bombs exploded in the markets in the great Shia slum of Sadr City in early March. Several days later a group of children playing football in a field noticed a powerful stench. Police opened up a pit which contained the bodies of 27 men, probably all Sunni, stripped to their underpants; they had all been tortured and then shot in the head. Two and a half years ago, when the first suicide bomb targeting the Shias killed 85 people outside the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf, there was no Shia retaliation. They were held back by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the hope of gaining power through legal elections. Since the Samarra bomb this restraint has definitively ended: the Shia militias and death squads slaughter Sunnis in tit-for-tat killings every time a Shia is killed....
The moment when Iraq could be held together as a truly unified state has probably passed. But a weak Iraq suits many inside and outside the country and it will
still remain a name on the map. American power is steadily ebbing and the British forces are largely confined to their camps around Basra. A 'national unity government' may be established but it will not be national, will certainly be disunited and may govern very little. 'The government could end up being a few buildings in the Green Zone,' one minister said. The army and police are already split along sectarian and ethnic lines. The Iranians have been the main winners in the struggle for the country. The US has turned out to be militarily and politically weaker than anybody expected. The real question now is whether Iraq will break up with or without an all-out civil war.

Most probably war is coming, but it will not be fought in all parts of Iraq. It will essentially be a battle for Baghdad between Sunni and Shia Arabs. 'The army will disintegrate in the first moments of the fighting,' a Kurdish leader told me. 'The soldiers obey whatever orders they receive from their own communities.' The parts of the country with a homogeneous population, whether Shia, Sunni or Kurdish, may well stay quiet. But in greater Baghdad, sectarian cleansing is already taking place. The place bears an ever closer resemblance to Beirut thirty years ago. The Shia Arabs have the advantage because they are the majority in the capital, but the Sunni should be able to cling on to their strongholds in the west and south of the city. The new balance of power in Iraq may be decided not by negotiations, but by militiamen fighting street by street.

John Dean to Senate: Censure Is Necessary

2006-04-03T16:09:00.000-07:00

John Dean to Senate: Censure Is Necessary

Posted by John Nichols to Portside, 03/31/2006 @ 2:27pm

"[The] president needs to be reminded that separation of
powers does not mean an isolation of powers," former
White House counsel John Dean told the Senate Judiciary
Committee Friday. "He needs to be told he cannot simply
ignore a law with no consequences."

Arguing in favor of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold's motion
to censure President Bush for illegally authorizing the
warrantless wiretapping of the phone conversations of
Americans, the man who broke with former President
Richard Nixon to challenge the abuses of the Watergate
era told the committee that Bush's wrongs were in many
senses worse than those of Nixon.

"I recall a morning -- and it was just about this time
in the morning and it was exactly this time of the year
-- March 21, 1973 -- that I tried to warn a president of
the consequences of staying his course. I failed to
convince President Nixon that morning, and the rest, as
they say, is history," Dean, who famously told Nixon
that there was "a cancer growing" on his presidency,
explained in testimony submitted to the committee. "I
certainly do not claim to be prescient. Then or now. But
actions have consequences, and to ignore them is merely
denial. Today, it is very obvious that history is
repeating itself. It is for that reason I have crossed
the country to visit with you, and that I hope that the
collective wisdom of this committee will prevail, and
you will not place the president above the law by
inaction. As I was gathering my thoughts yesterday to
respond to the hasty invitation, it occurred to me that
had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow
warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might
have been prevented. Hopefully the Senate will not sit
by while even more serious abuses unfold before it."

Republicans on the committee attempted to dismiss
Feingold's motion as a partisan gesture, rather than a
necessary reassertion of the system of checks and
balances that has so decayed since Congress ceded its
oversight role in the aftermath of the September 11,
2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch was particularly
aggressive in echoing Republican National Committee
talking points, denouncing Feingold's motion as nothing
more than an attempt to "score political points."

But Dean rejected that claim, as did Bruce Fein, a
lawyer who served in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department
and who joined Dean in testifying in favor of the
censure motion.

"To me, this is not really and should not be a partisan
question," said Dean, who served as chief counsel for
the Republican minority on the House Judiciary Committee
before joining the Nixon White House. "I think it's a
question of institutional pride of this body, of the
Congress of the United States."

Feingold went even further, suggesting that Congress has
a duty to hold president's to account for authorizing a
secretive domestic spying program that operates without
legal authorization, in clear violation the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"If we in the Congress don't stand up for ourselves and
the American people, we become complicit in the
lawbreaking," Feingold said. "The resolution of censure
is the appropriate response."

Predictably, Hatch and several of the more aggressive
defenders of the Bush administration on the committee
fell back on the "talking points" argument that it would
be inappropriate to censure Bush while the country is at
war in Iraq. "Wartime is not a time to weaken the
commander-in-chief," growled the Utah Republican.

But Feingold rejected the suggestion that Congress
should surrender its oversight responsibilities in
wartime.

"Under this theory, we no longer have a constitutional
system consisting of three co-equal branches of
government, we have a monarchy," explained the senator,
who added that, "We can fight terrorism without breaking
the law. The rule of law is central to who we are as a
people, and the President must return to the law. He
must acknowledge and be held accountable for his illegal
actions and for misleading the American people, both
before and after the program was revealed."

If an impeachment falls in the forest and no one covers it...

2006-04-03T16:04:00.000-07:00

National Impeachment Movement Ignored by Corporate Media
by Peter Phillips Published on Monday, March 27, 2006 by CommonDreams.org http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0327-29.htm

Why doesn't the media show more of the "good" in Iraq?

2006-03-26T10:12:00.000-08:00

This from a recent GOP-sponsored presentation by Bush in West Virginia regarding the progress being made in the War on Terror. This woman's question caught my interest as she presents her particular grievances on the media's portrayal of the Iraq War:

Q I have a comment, first of all, and then just a real quick question. I want to let you know that every service at our church you are, by name, lifted up in prayer, and you and your staff and all of our leaders. And we believe in you. We are behind you. And we cannot thank you enough for what you've done to shape our country. (Applause.)

This is my husband, who has returned from a 13-month tour in Tikrit.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. Thank you. Welcome back. (Applause.)

Q His job while serving was as a broadcast journalist. And he has brought back several DVDs full of wonderful footage of reconstruction, of medical things going on. And I ask you this from the bottom of my heart, for a solution to this, because it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good. They just want to focus -- (applause) --

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, hold on a second.

Q They just want to focus on another car bomb, or they just want to focus on some more bloodshed, or they just want to focus on how they don't agree with you and what you're doing, when they don't even probably know how you're doing what you're doing anyway. But what can we do to get that footage on CNN, on FOX, to get it on headline news, to get it on the local news? Because you can send it to the news people -- and I'm sorry, I'm rambling -- like I have --

THE PRESIDENT: So was I, though, for an hour. (Laughter.)

Q -- can you use this, and it will just end up in a drawer, because it's good, it portrays the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. (Applause.) No, it -- that's why I come out and speak. I spoke in Cleveland, gave a press conference yesterday -- spoke in Cleveland Monday, press conference, here today. I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing to try to make sure people can hear there's -- why I make decisions, and as best as I can, explain why I'm optimistic we can succeed.

You're right, why are we showing footage of terror and misery when we could show...what? Is an Iraqi's life worth an American's life in this woman's eyes?

Full Text of Conyers' Investigation and Censure resolutions

2006-03-19T09:46:00.000-08:00

From afterdowningstreet.org:

H.Res.635 would create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the 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 the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and – in the case of President Bush – for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.

Use the links in the sidebar to contact your US Representative or go to afterdowningstreet.org for simple instructions on how to support these resolutions.

"We are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law"

2006-03-19T09:33:00.000-08:00

Remarks of Senator Russ Feingold
Introducing a Resolution to Censure President George W. Bush

Use the links in the sidebar to contact your US Senators and demand that they support this resolution.

Excerpts from the remarks:

[W]hen the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.

The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President's actions.

...This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

...To approve the President's actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the
rule of law.

...Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution's system of checks and balances:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

...The President's own words show just how seriously he has violated that trust.

...On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo that: "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way."

In fact, a lot had changed, but the President wasn't being upfront with the American people.

Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that: "Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."

Last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S."

In all of these cases, the President knew he wasn't telling the complete story....He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the Patriot Act and his Administration's performance.

...The President's wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a response that prevents wrongdoing in the future, but a response that passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions.

Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of the Executive's conduct. It is different than passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to cut off funding for certain activities. Both of those alternatives are ways for Congress to affect future action. But when the President acts illegally, he should be formally rebuked. He should be censured.

[Emphases added]

Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill -- Verbatim Quote

2006-03-07T06:06:00.000-08:00

Apologies if you have already been subjected to this painful document, but this is the President himself explaining the Medicare Drug Bill. Can we impeach this fucking SOB on the basis of mental deficiency?? My diagnosis: President is not intellectually fit to continue as Head of State.

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is it the new plan going to fix the problem?'
Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH:
'Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'
Got that?

How is this possibly excusable? Oh yeah, I forgot. Bush has moral values...

Whitey Off to Mars

2006-03-06T10:44:00.000-08:00

From my buddy Justin:

I used to say that the Bush administration was where irony went to die, because everything was just so ridiculous, the way they attacked everyone and had such lame reasoning for everything -- EVERYTHING -- that making fun of it was pointless. You could just repeat what they said. And if irony can be applied to everything, then it is no longer relevant. Goodnight, Generation X!

But now, it’s gotten to the point where I could believe just about anything. I didn't believe the Canary Islands thing, and actually I don’t know why.

It was too clever maybe?

I mean, Cheney shoots some guy in the face and they simply do what they always do, blame the guy who got shot. "It was preemptive!" Can you see the confab where they discuss claiming that the guy didn’t look like a quail so much as a quail carrying bird flu.

Where do they go from here?

Bush was talking about going to Mars, remember? We're going to Mars? OK, I believe he thinks that will help him get votes. Maybe there are people in his constituency who want to know that we’re going to bring some water and baptize the Martians.

Going to Mars my ass.

But if it polled well, we would, in fact, be going.

"We're going to Mars and we're going to blow it up: the threat is too great."
OK, I'd believe that.

"We're going to Mars because we believe we'll find an alternative fuel source that will finally break the cycle of addiction to foreign oil."

OK, Mr. Bush, I believe you believe that. You'll get someone to stand up with a locked box, and they'll say, "In here is Martian fuel. I can't show it to you, the threat is too great, and if I open up the box, we'll all go blind and our teeth will fall out and then we’ll be incinerated by it and the Muslims and/or Martians will
win. But it's in there. Trust me."

"We're going to Mars and we're turning it into a penal colony, or, if it's really nice, we're moving there and turning Earth into a penal colony. The threat is too great."

Yeah. I'd believe this. It’s kind of been sliding that way for a while anyway. I'm sure there have been contracts with prison builders for decades. They’ll live on Mars with the superwealthy and well-connected. Katherine Harris will have a condo, or a street named after her.

"We’re going to Mars because it’s an expensive and stupid distraction."

Sure. A rat just bit my sister Nell at Gitmo, and Whitey’s off to Mars.

"We're going to Mars because we are really curious about what's there and what it can teach us about our own planet, what secrets it holds. We want to find out if there's life there, or if there was or if there could be. We're going because there is much to learn. Because we can broaden our perspective...and..."

Sadly, I wouldn't believe that. How'd you put it Mr. Bush?

Oh yeah: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again"

Wounded Patriots -- A Sign of the Times

2006-03-05T07:34:00.000-08:00

On Friday March 3rd, I composed and sent the following fake news story to a few dozen friends (with the subject line "CNN.com Breaking News")

In a press briefing moments ago, US President George W. Bush announced that he has ordered the bombing of the Canary Islands. Despite repeated attempts from within his own administration to prevent this unprovoked attack, Mr.
Bush insists that the bombing is necessary to thwart to spread of bird flu. www.cnn.com/headlines/030306/birdflusux.htm

In addition to several panicked "Ohmygod, What do we do?" emails, I received:

From an environmental scientist:
"If you must know, the fear is not unfounded. The Canary Islands are lousy with birds!
http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/africacanaryislands.htm"

From a colleague (who also emailed me the entire day's WH press briefing):
I actually looked into it and can't find ANYTHING about it on CNN.com or the White House pages. Seems George W. was greeted with burning flags in Pakistan, but the only press briefing listed for today doesn't mention anything about this (or anything I could see that might have hinted to this.)

Are my friends and colleagues simply incredibly naive and gullible? I think not.

They were willing to believe that our president would bomb a sovereign nation without provocation to protect US interests (10 of roughly 50 people have thus far emailed concerned).

There is a little bit of precedent for this (see Afghanistan 2002, Iraq 2003, Iraq 2006).

In each case where Bush's administration bombed sovereign nations without provocation, there was also a great deal of dissent (from die-hard hawks, no less). And still he bombed.

The truly disturbing thing about the emails I received is the sense of paralysis that most conveyed: "What do we do?"

As we approach the third anniversary of the bombing of Baghdad, we must, simply, do. There will be vigils to attend and opportunities for civil disobedience. But these are only temporary balms for wounded democratic, patriotic Americans.

We must call for an investigation of the Bush-Cheney administration. We must impeach them. We must find progressives and get them in the House and Senate. Only then can we hope to stem both the administration's madness and our own despair.

There are three things we can do to support “regime change” at home:

Contact your US Congressperson and ask them
to support Rep. Conyers’ resolution calling for an investigation.

Contact your US Senator and the Senators on the Judiciary Committee and tell them not to let Bush & Co. off the hook for domestic wiretapping
Start working on the mid-term elections now – There are progressive candidates running across the country. Give them your support! If you are in Pennsylvania, there’re several Democrats running against Santorum. I’m behind Chuck Pennachio and have been working to get the press to cover the fact that Bob Casey is not yet the Democratic nominee.

Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?

2006-03-03T12:04:00.000-08:00

Garrison Keillor makes an impressive argument for impeachment in the March 1, 2006, Chicago Tribune .

First he lays out the case in satiric Keillor fashion:

Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go for it. How about turning over American ports to a country more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was? Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey, you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And your blue button-down shirt--it's you.

The kicker, though, is that torture is un-American and will come out in a democracy:

But torture is something else....It goes against the American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is coming out now.

The solution?

The U.S. Constitution provides a simple, ultimate way to hold [Bush] to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the evidence.

Congress no longer part of the government

2006-03-02T05:18:00.000-08:00

The most frightening part of Bush's ports deal debacle (even worse than the fact that he didn't know about it until shortly before he gave his press briefing), was the following statement:

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

The hubris of this man and his administration, the utter disregard for our constitutional system of government, is without precedent in the US.

Bush and Cheney must go.

Bush had chance to lead and he failed us again

2006-03-02T05:07:00.000-08:00

An AP story yesterday revealed that Bush was briefed in August 28th and told

that a major levee breach was "obviously a very, very grave concern." He would lie about this point just five days later.
that if New Orleans flooded the Superdome emergency shelter would likely be under water and short on supplies, creating a "catastrophe within a catastrophe."
to prepare for "devastation of historic proportions."

According to MoveOn, "Bush didn't ask a single question during the briefing. In the next two days he campaigned, attended birthday parties and played guitar while the worst natural disaster in American history killed over 1,300 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.

"There can now be no mistake: President Bush had a chance to lead, and he failed to keep us safe."

Stop him, before he gives crocs a bad name

2006-03-02T05:03:00.000-08:00

Arundhati Roy -- Bush in India: Just Not Welcome

I thought the comparison to crocs (who are often not that ruthless and who show an uncanny ability to work "off-script" was unfair. But, otherwise, a good piece. R