Lions, Tigers, Gay Sex!

The Republican Party has another sex scandal on its hands. From Roll Call:

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.

Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

Now, that seems fairly innocent on its face. It would appear, however, that there is more to the story. It would seem that a great many knowledgeable sources on such things believe that Craig's actions are those of a man who knows the "rules" of seeking anonymous male-male sex in relatively public situations. Such meeting areas are often known as "tea rooms."

This does not look good on a Republican resume. Like so many Republicans who are later hoisted on their own petards -- as it were -- Craig was a "player hater." He continually spoke out against gay rights, particularly gay marriage. In spite of this [read: because of this], he was considered to be staunchly in the "pro family" camp. He even went so far as to demand not censure, but impeachment for President Clinton during Clinton's second term. Obviously, he doth protest too much.

In spite of the relative glee that I derive from sanctimonious buffoons being found guilty of the very "crimes" for which they have so long derided others, it is not the chief topic of this writing. What I want to discuss here today is the Republican reaction to Craig's situation versus to that of another Republican also embroiled in his own sex scandal, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Vitter, you may recall, has a history of hiring prostitutes, albeit female prostitutes. However, while Republicans are falling all over themselves to jump off of Craig's bandwagon, they have by and large defended Vitter. Why?

Sure, it could be that they actually believe that gay sex is worse than straight sex. Gay rights have been the Republican bogeyman, especially in the South, for a decade-plus. It is the all-purpose political tool to fix any problem. "Our shipping ports are not secure after 9/11." Gay marriage! "We don't have health insurance for our family." Gay rights! "Our factory closed down and the jobs went abroad." Gay sex! What is surprising and sad is that it works. Still, I'm not convinced that this is the reason here. Yes, it plays to the part of the religious Republican wing that would rather die than think, but that is only a bonus. (Indeed, in going after the gay "sex," it in some ways gets them off the hook for not going after straight sex out of marriage, also a no-no in some books. Of course, Craig only initiated gay sex whereas Vitter actually did the heterosexual deed, but who is keeping count anyway?) Ultimately, I think that it is the cold, hard political calculation of numbers that answers the question.

Craig is from Idaho. A retarded monkey with no arms and only one eye could run on the Republican ticket in Idaho and win, so the seat is safe even if he is removed from office. What is more, Idaho has a Republican governor and under state law, the governor would appoint Craig's replacement if he resigns or is removed from office. Thus, it is "safe" on both fronts to move against him. Vitter, on the other hand, is from Louisiana. This state, especially in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, is anything but a safe bet for Republicans. Having Vitter run -- even in the face of scandal -- with the trappings of incumbency looks mighty nice to the party. And should Vitter leave, a Democratic governor would appoint his replacement and it is this Democrat who would enjoy incumbency in the next election. Thus, once again for the Republicans it is a case of "do as I say, not as I do." We are pro-family -- whatever the hell that means -- unless and until it gets in the way of our base ambitions!

BTW, in case you are keeping tabs on other Republicans embroiled in their own scandals -- not limited to sex -- check this out. Are there enough petards to go around?

30 August 2007

A Death in the Family

My paternal grandmother passed away this past Sunday. I got the news from my father while visiting my maternal grandparents. My grandmother had been failing for some time and much more rapidly of late. Her memory was worsening steadily and that, mixed with the fact that she was a terrible patient, did not help matters. I was hoping that when the time finally came, she would pass quietly, without a traumatic incident. Alas, this was not to be. She fell trying to go the the restroom by herself -- obstinate woman! -- and broke her right hip. Surgery was not an option and to keep her free from pain, painkillers were administered such that she was kept more or less sedated for the final day or two of her life. That is a blessing, I think, but a sad one.

We will travel to the funeral this weekend. I'm planning to speak at it and I think that in planning that, I'll get my head around this loss. I loved my grandmother, but she was very often a hard woman to like. That said, she was with me for all of my years heretofore and that alone makes it a hard loss. It is good indeed to have a loving wife and romping kittens in times such as these.

I will miss her and I loved her. I do hope that she is now in a better place. /salute

In response to my grandmother's death, I will say this: Keep your bones strong! My grandmother was a slip of a woman. She never gave any thought, even in her later years, to her health, including the health of her bones. It showed and bone breaks in her later years only sped her demise and made it more uncomfortable. Don't let that happen to you. Do whatever you need to make sure that your bones and muscles are strong throughout your life, even in your elderly years.

29 August 2007

Chertoff for AG?

There is a rumor flying that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff may be tapped by President Bush as the next Attorney General. From Bush's point of view, it is a good fit. Chertoff was part of the incompetent federal response to Hurricane Katrina, so that's good. It would appear that he's also lied to Congress, so that works, too. Plus, he'll back the President in the face of the rule of law. Folks, we have a winner!

In all seriousness, the question is this. If Chertoff is nominated, will the Senate let all of his myriad shortcomings slide or will they actually tell the President "no?" Stay tuned.

29 August 2007

Going, Going, Gonzo

As you most certainly know by now, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned on Monday. While this is most certainly good for the country, I'm a bit puzzled by it. Why after all this time did he choose -- or have chosen for him by his calculating superiors -- this time to go? While there are many possibilities, two stand out. First, one of the myriad executive-branch-based investigations of Gonzales and the DoJ scandals have uncovered evidence such that its later revelation will hurt the White House more if Gonzales remains in his current post. Second, the White House has decided to play up the "he's not even AG any more, so let the investigations go" card for public consumption and hope that it flies until January 2009. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course.

What is interesting, at least in part, is how the media have reacted to the departure. Much of the popular media is portraying it as a positive reflection on the President, as if he's somehow finally decided to put the country before his own selfish aims. The LA Times called the move a "blessing" and noted that Bush now has:

...a chance to salvage his relationship with Capitol Hill and the legacy of his second term.

Roger Simon at The Politico also believes that the president is putting his legacy above loyalty.

Once famous for his loyalty to subordinates, Bush is now showing himself very capable of jettisoning the ones who create too much controversy.

Have these people taken leave of their senses? Bush has shown himself to be loyal to the detriment of the country and his duty to it. When he sets that loyalty aside, it is only out of a greater loyalty... to himself. As David Kurtz at TPM puts it:

If, as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, Gonzales was a mere Bush flunky, a cipher, an amiable man doing the bidding of more powerful and more sinister men, then his departure can hardly be said to herald a new era so long as Bush (and Cheney) occupy the White House.


...


Nearly seven years into his Presidency, don't we have a pretty good idea of the character and abilities of this man [Bush]? There is a long track record now of truly unparalleled incompetence, corruption, and politicization. What more do we need to know? Bush's legacy is firmly entrenched, and barring any seismic historical events between now and January 2009, any changes to that sorry legacy will be at the margins.

Perhaps the main thing that Gonzales' departure highlights is how very much the Bush Administration has harmed the Department of Justice. The very fact that the department currently is missing -- if we assume that Gonzales is already out the door, but for the paperwork -- its top three appointees. This is our chief apparatus for safeguarding the American justice system -- in a "time of war against terrorists" remember -- and it is a rudderless ship. Anyone who still supports the President in any way, shape, or form should be forcibly sterilized. We don't want their genes in our pool.

Yes, that Gonzales is out at the DoJ, no doubt heading to the great lobbyist oasis on the far horizon, is good news. Until Bush and all of his ilk are gone, too, however, America will continue its slide.

29 August 2007

Vietnam, Korea, Iraq

I'm off to visit my grandparents with my wife this weekend, but before I go, I wanted to write about the President's new foray into justifying our continued presence in Iraq. He has been trying to draw parallels with two other American conflicts, Korea in the 1950s and Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s.

In a recent speech to the VFW in Kansas City, President Bush tried to especially focus on the idea that "just as in these two conflicts in SE Asia" if we leave Iraq, the country will go to hell in a hand basket and our enemies will benefit as a result. Now, I'll be the first to admit that America leaving Iraq will be destabilizing to the country in the near -- and perhaps far -- term. Of course, the question here is whether Bush's parallels with these other conflicts hold up. I think that with Korea especially, they do not.

I think if people want to make the Korean War analogy, they should do it right. Bush sees the Korean War as a symbol of our commitment to fight aggression and lay the groundwork for development and, eventually, democracy, in South Korea. But we had achieved the liberation of South Korea by October 1950, mere months after the war began. We then made the disastrous decision to push into North Korea in an effort to topple the communist government there. That triggered Chinese intervention, and the war developed into a stalemate that dragged on for three more years. The eventual ceasefire returned things essentially to the status quo ante, an outcome we could have achieved at much lower cost had we not chosen to expand the war.

So, yes, the Korean War analogy is quite apt. Just not in the way Bush means it. The decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 looks a lot like the ultimately futile decision to invade North Korea in October 1950.

In terms of the Vietnam parallel, Bush speaks in part of the Khmer Rouge gaining power in neighboring Cambodia after America began its withdrawal from Vietnam. Of course, as TPM's Todd Gitlin observes, "As anyone serious about history knows, a necessary condition for the triumph of the Khmer Rouge was the devastating American bombing campaign in Cambodia." Thus, again the parallel between the Iraq War and the Vietnam war exists, just not the way Bush would like us to believe. Al Quada of Iraq didn't exist in Iraq until Bush's war fostered it. It was the current war and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power that allowed it to rise... just as our intervention in Cambodia watered the seeds of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia three decades ago.

Bush is banking on the fact that: (1) Americans don't know history; and (2) The media won't call him on his obfuscations. Both are safe bets to be certain.

Of course, the most amazing thing in all of this is that Bush is still welcome in any VFW gathering. He has, after all, done nothing good for veterans other than offer up nice, patriotic rhetoric. Sadly, he has added to their number, so perhaps that is something...

23 August 2007

No Armor for You

One of the often-repeated criticisms of the Bush Administration is that they started the war in Iraq with a military that was unprepared for a protracted war of insurgency. This is undoubtedly the case. Of course, they didn't think that the war that we have would be the war that we have, but that is another story. Once we were in the mess that we find ourselves, however, the right steps should have been taken to correct the matter as quickly and as fully as possible. Unfortunately, the results have been rather poor. Witness a recent example.

The Pentagon will fall far short of its goal of sending 3,500 lifesaving armored vehicles to Iraq by the end of the year. Instead, officials expect to send about 1,500.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that while defense officials still believe contractors will build about 3,900 of the mine-resistant, armor-protected vehicles by year's end, it will take longer for the military to fully equip them and ship them to Iraq.

"Production is on pace, the issue is delivery," he said, adding that the lag is a disappointment and the Defense Department is still committed to getting as many of the vehicles to the war as quickly as possible.

The vehicles _ known as MRAPs _ have a special V-shaped hull that provides greater protection against roadside bombs. According to the military, no troops have been killed while riding in one.

Again, we fail our soldiers.

22 August 2007

The Bush Media Train

The White House spent months touting the so-called "Petraeus Report" that the commanding general in Iraq would issue in September. The Administration has let everyone believe through both overt exclamations and subtle slight-of-hand that the report will be the full, undiluted viewpoint of the both the general and the US Ambassador to Iraq. Of course, as I've noted here previously -- see August 15th blog post -- the report is actually being written by the White House, not Petraeus. In spite of this well-known and very important piece of information, the mass media continues to falsely refer to this writing as the "Petraeus Report." To do so lends credibility where none is due. Much rides on this report the the response of both Congress and the public to it, and the national media are enabling the White House to continue to lead us down the path of ruin. More to the point, they are failing at their job.

Greg Sargent over at TPM has written a piece that notes many of the instances of poor, misleading reporting on this subject. He also writes:

This gives rise to a key point that's getting a bit lost. The media wouldn't be shouting "Petraeus report" in unison if the White House hadn't spent literally weeks hammering the phrase into the minds of reporters and the public at every conceivable opportunity. And now, even though it's widely known that this was a total sham designed to bolster the report's credibility in advance, reporters and editors just can't seem to get it out of their heads, even though such an exercise certainly wouldn't be all that challenging.

This is a really, really big deal. The White House and war supporters are shoving all their chips onto the written report. Indeed, the credibility the public accords this thing when it comes out could have significant influence over the direction and politics of the war debate this fall, and by extension over the direction of the war itself. And every time the media repeats the Gospel According To Petraeus sham, it's helping the White House obscure the fact that this report will actually be written by the same crew who've been lying to us about the war all along.

22 August 2007

I Die, Therefore I Vote

John B. Judis of The New Republic has written an article analyzing the 2004 presidential election from the viewpoint of a relatively new psychological theory. The theory deals with the idea that when we envision our own death, both consciously and unconsciously, we tend to trigger a range of emotions within ourselves...

...from disdain for other races, religions, and nations, to a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders, to a heightened attraction to traditional mores.

The article details the rise of this theory as well as how it has been tested both in the United States and in other countries. It then applies it to the last presidential election, noting that it is particularly relevant to how certain elements of American society that would otherwise have not been inclined to vote for Bush -- indeed elements that voted for Clinton in two previous elections -- thought of Bush as their only choice.

Whether you have an interest in psychology or not, it is an interesting political read.

21 August 2007

Thompson FEC Violation?

The New York Sun is reporting that the "candidate who is a candidate for president, but who is also not a candidate for president" Fred Thompson may be in hot water with the Federal Election Commission. Finally, someone wised up and filed a complaint with the FEC regarding Thompson's campaigning activities.

While Mr. Thompson claims to be evaluating the prospect of running for president, in reality he's already running. This wouldn't matter terribly, except that it's against the law. By perpetrating this sham, he's abusing a legal status that allows him to conduct certain activities (hiring staff, conducting polling, doing limited fund raising) without the hassle of declaring that he's a candidate or filing regular reports to the FEC.

Should the FEC actually do its job and come down on Thompson, he faces fines upwards of $1 million. Of course, the FEC could simply allow him to continue to game the system. Stay tuned.

21 August 2007

Deniers of Global Warming

Back on May 11th, I wrote a piece on the movie "The Global Warming Swindle." It was created by a man who was a long-time opponent of the theory of man-made global warming and featured many prominent supporters of this view. Two weeks ago, Newsweek magazine did a cover story on the "industry" of global warming denial. As you might expect, scientists and other individuals who support this theory are funded in the main by industries such as coal, natural gas, oil, and automobiles. Conservative think tanks also play a major part. The Newsweek story, The Truth about Denial by Sharon Begley, is now available on the web. If you don't have access to the hard-copy of the August 13th issue, I recommend that you check it out on-line.

20 August 2007

Welcome Honor and Seattle

My wife and I have welcomed two new bundles of joy into our home. This week, two tabby kittens arrived after their first shots and a thorough check-up. Their mother was found as a stray, already pregnant and in need of care. She had a litter of five and ours were two of her daughters. We certainly had not planned on getting new cats so soon after the loss of our previous feline family member, but we are cat people and these wonderful little girls needed a home. Case closed.

They are now Honor and Seattle. Honor was given her name after my favorite book character, Honor Harrington, created by science fiction writer David Weber. Like her namesake, she is self-assured and feisty. While her sister outweighs her by a fair margin, Honor runs roughshod over her most of the time in their play fights. Honor was an obvious choice for me because the character is my hero. Yes, a lot of psychoanalysis could be done regarding having a fictional woman who “lives” worlds away and over 2,000 years in our future as my hero, but there you have it. Consider it my response to the real world in which I live.

Seattle was named for the city in which my wife and I began falling in love. It holds such a dear place in both of our hearts and is thus fitting for this new kitten. Seattle, too, has her own personality and while not quite as outgoing as her sister, she is inquisitive and playful. Plus, she has the cutest spots on her belly that make you just want to give her tummy rubs! We should all be so lucky.

These girls are off to a great start. They are healthy and happy. Best of all, instead of being lost and forgotten, they will be loved and cared for all of their days. They bring joy into our lives in return. I will continue to mourn Ezri, but I celebrate the gift of these two lives new to us.

17 August 2007

Giuliani & Ground Zero

Rudy Giuliani has based his entire presidential bid on the "fact" that he has foreign policy experience after his heroic efforts in taking care of New York City in the aftermath of 9/11. Of course, he has no -- and by "no" I mean none, zilch, nada -- foreign policy experience. Indeed, I have detailed elsewhere that he has specifically spurned the chance to actually get this type of experience. Today, however, I am concerned with his performance after 9/11 itself.

Giuliani recently stated that he spent as much time or more at ground zero than did most of the actual recovery workers in the months following the destructive events of that day. While this outrageous, callous, and patently false claim has only further enraged NYC police officers and firefighters, who see the former mayor as trying to falsely, self-lionizingly claim their hard, dangerous work as his own, it has garnered little coverage in the popular press. (John Edwards haircuts, yes. This, no. /sigh SOP, of course.) The New York Times, however, has finally done a bit of digging and it turns out that Giuliani spent a total -- total -- of 29 hours at ground zero in the three months following 9/11. Considering that there were relief workers doing back-to-back 12-hours shifts in the rubble in the days following the tragedy, I think Giuliani is not only crazy, but owes the men and women who were actually there a big, big apology. To the rest of us, he owes a future without him as president.

17 August 2007

Back in the USSR

President Vladamir Putin has decided to resume permanent flights of bombers armed with nuclear weapons. These flights ended for both the USSR and the US during the presidency of the elder Bush. For years, they had been part of the triad concept of nuclear deterrence, along with submarine-based weapons and those in fixed missile silos.

TPM has a very interesting and spot-on take regarding this development. It is very much worth reading. I'll quote one portion here since it is good, scary food for thought.

What is not debatable however is that there is more going on in the world -- more opportunities and more threats -- than what happens in the few hundred mile radius around the ancient capital of Baghdad. There is, as we can see, Russia, which still has a few thousand nuclear warheads which could cause some serious headaches. There's China, a vast economic and potential military power that will bulk larger and larger in our lives over the course of this century. There's Pakistan, India, half a billion people to our south speaking Spanish and Portuguese. The list goes on and on.

But our whole national dialog, hundreds of billions of dollars and a lot more are going to Iraq. And more generally the fantasy 450 year long-war epic battle with the Islamofascists. We're close to breaking the US Army and Marine Corps with over-extended deployments. And in hotspots around the world, there's a vacuum, as the world sort of rushes past us. In many ways this is the greatest danger in Iraq, not that our future as a nation is at stake in staying (as the right would have it) or even that it's necessarily at stake in leaving but that our engagement with the country has fixed us with a dangerous national myopia which is letting many other problems fester unattended for going on a decade.

17 August 2007

Death by Gonzales

From Working Assets:

When Congress re-authorized the Patriot Act in 2005, death penalty supporters slipped in a provision intended to speed up appeals in federal death penalty cases. These procedures would limit review of death penalty cases in federal court, and give the U.S. Attorney General the sole power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases.

There's no one more unsuitable to make these life and death decisions than our current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. While serving then-Governor Bush in Texas, Gonzales presented clemency briefings to Bush before each death penalty sentence was carried out. The record shows a distinct pattern of Gonzales presenting briefs that were biased towards execution, and deliberately excluding information that could have helped defendants argue for clemency.

Apart from the obvious pro-death-penalty leanings of the current Attorney General, it is a fundamental mistake to remove judgments about the adequacy of court-appointed counsel from the judicial branch -- where it currently resides -- and turn it over to the nation's chief prosecutor. No Attorney General should ever have sole and discretionary authority over fast-tracking death-row inmates towards execution.

Now, no one is going to mistake me for someone who is against capital punishment. That said, review of capital cases should indeed be with the judiciary. Congress was asleep at the wheel and Gonzales is a sycophantic idiot. Let your voice be heard. You can do so here.

16 August 2007

Petraeus Report

The Los Angeles Times has a story regarding what to expect from the upcoming report from General David H. Petraeus on the military status of US interests in Iraq. It is an interesting read. The one thing that jumped out is this:

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Apparently, the "Petraeus Report" will be that in name only. The question then becomes will Members of Congress decide to buy into the charade and if so, will they be able to sell it to the American public? My guess is "yes" on the former and "who knows" on the latter. I certainly hope not.

15 August 2007

Guns & (Presumably) Ammo

This is news that was reported some time ago, but I've been going through a series of trade shows for my business, so writing has taken a back seat. However late, they are worth noting.

Guns, Part One

The General Accounting Office recently reported that almost 200,000 guns, including automatic weapons, that the American military has provided the Iraqi military have gone missing. Further, all hope of tracing these weapons has been lost. This is a staggering, though unsurprising, level of incompetence. You can bet that these weapons will return to kill both Americans and Iraqis. We have failed our troops.

Guns, Part Two

The New Mexico National Guard, like the Guard units of most states, has been rotating troops in and out of Iraq for the duration of the conflict. A recent report noted that the NM units have been training at home with M16 automatic weapons. This is a deadly weapon to be sure, but it is behind the times. Produced for the Vietnam War, it has been replaced by the shorter, lighter M4. It seems, however, that the government has not procured enough M4s for our soldiers. As a result, after training on M16s, the first that our NM Guard troops see of the M4 is using it in field operations after arriving in Iraq. Soldiers indicate, as you might imagine, that it shoots completely differently than does the M16. Learning the in's and out's of a weapon should not take place in hostile -- potentially deadly -- surroundings. We have failed our troops again.

15 August 2007

Block Federal Judicial Nomination

A state judge from Mississippi has been nominated to the federal bench by President Bush. He holds views on subjects including gay rights, among other things, that make him unfit for this life-long post. As the HRC notes:

In Mississippi a few years ago, the courts took away a woman's 8-year-old child.

Why? In part because the child's mother was a lesbian.

Two of the judges in the majority went so far as to write and sign an additional opinion, unnecessary to the case's outcome, which stated that the mother must accept the fact that losing her biological child was a possible consequence of her sexual "choice."

One of those two judges was Leslie Southwick. And today, Southwick is dangerously close to being appointed to the Federal bench by President Bush.

America's highest courts are meant to be protectors of justice, not prejudice. Yet Southwick's record as a Mississippi judge raises serious doubts about his ability to apply the law fairly to all Americans. In this case alone, Southwick:

• Went so far as to cite Mississippi's irrelevant and outdated sodomy laws, which have since been invalidated.
• Focused on "the practice of homosexuality" - refusing to even mention gay individuals as human beings.
• Cited Mississippi's law prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting children - even though this was not an adoption case!

The American Psychiatric Association has long held that sexual orientation is not a "choice," and that lesbian and gay parents are just as successful as their heterosexual counterparts.

Yet Judge Southwick disregarded widely accepted science in favor of his personal bias. This man MUST NOT be given the responsibility to protect the basic rights of gay and lesbian Americans.

If approved to the Court of Appeals, Southwick's appointment would be for life. That's why I'm asking you to take action today - and when you're done, please forward this message on to everyone you know.

You can contact your Senators via the form found here.

15 August 2007

Patriotic Torture

TPMmuckraker has the lowdown on a new piece in The New Yorker that details so-called "Black Sites," off-the-books prisons set up to break American detainees. The author is Jane Mayer and some of the stuff that she has uncovered is quite shocking, if not surprising given the Bush Administration's track record. We are in the torture business, folks. It is another proud day for America under Bush, no?

6 August 2007

Illegal Wiretapping Program

From TPM:

According to the Post, the reason for the administration's feverish effort to get legislation to expand its surveillance powers under FISA is that earlier this year a FISA Court judge declared a key portion of the administration's program illegal. The ruling of course was secret. And it seems that until now the White House had kept this information hidden from Congress.

So why are we finding this out now? Well, that's another interesting story. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) went on Fox News Tuesday night and discussed the whole thing. But the very existence of the ruling is highly classified. So it seems he publicly revealed highly classified information.

Needless to say, his flack disagrees: claims that Boehner leaked classified secrets on Fox News are "just plain wrong and distracts from the critical task at hand -- fixing FISA to close the serious intelligence gaps that are jeopardizing our national security."

Working Assets has set up an easy avenue to speak out against the President's proposed program for wiretapping and other electronic surveillance of Americans. They have put it this way.

Congress is on the verge of giving the Bush administration the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant or court order.

According to the L.A. Times, the top-secret FISA court -- that has consistently approved Bush administration eavesdropping operations -- recently imposed restrictions on how U.S. spy agencies can intercept email and telephone calls of suspected terrorists overseas.

In response, Bush is now pressuring Congress to force Internet and telecom companies to provide access to emails and phone calls without warrants or court review.

Who decides which phones or email accounts can be tapped? The Bush administration wants the power to reside in the hands of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ironically, Gonzales now faces threats of impeachment and perjury charges as a result of lying under oath to the Congress about the NSA wiretapping scandal.

The Washington Post reports Democrats have already indicated their willingness to compromise with the Bush administration. But taking any hasty action to change surveillance laws would be premature and unwise.

Since September 11, the Congress has rolled over time and time again as the Bush administration has repeatedly played the terrorism card. If Bush gives the spying agencies unfettered access to our telephone and email systems, the privacy of Americans who may be at the other end of a phone call from a Gonzales-designated "terrorism suspect" will surely be compromised.

It's time for our Senators and Members of Congress to get a backbone and stand up to presidential bullying.

Tell your Senators and Member of Congress: Don't give Bush the power to wiretap Americans without a warrant or court review.

You can find the Working Assets response form here.


3 August 2007

Impeach Bush and Cheney

There is no more meaningful act that a citizen of this country can take than to call for the impeachment of the president. Even voting to install members of our government is secondary. Calling for the removal of our highest official, one already elected by a majority of the voting citizens of this country, should only be entertained after great deliberation. This step should only be taken when the most vital interests of the nation are at stake and politics, however intertwined, must never be allowed to play a role.

I call for the House of Representatives to draft Articles of Impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I do so because of their continuing actions which seek to subvert the notion of checks and balances within our federal government, undermining both the will and the authority of Congress and the federal judiciary. In doing so, their goal has been to superimpose the will of the executive in a monarchical fashion. What is more, knowing that this grab for power is both immoral and unconstitutional, it has largely been done in secret. The White House has time and again told both Congress and the American people that we have no right to know of their actions, actions that heretofore have been shown the light of day. The Founding Fathers knew that it is indeed transparency in government both to the people and to the other branches of government that will best keep our leaders from seizing powers not given to them by the Constitution, which is to say, by the people.

I include both the President and the Vice President in this call because they have moved in lock-step throughout the last seven years to bring about this Constitutional crisis. It has been shown time and again that Bush and Cheney work together on all matters and that the Vice President bears as much – and at times even more – responsibility for these events as does the President.

Specific charges can be filed against both men. These are for violation of federal law and, in some cases, of international treaties ratified by the Senate that thus carry the responsibility of American law under the Constitution. These violations include, but are not limited to:

1. Spying on American citizens in violation of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

2. Claiming the authority, and then acting on this claimed authority, to kidnap people, imprison them in foreign dungeons, and hold them indefinitely with no legal recourse or oversight.

3. Both sanctioning and utilizing torture as prohibited by the Geneva Convention as adopted by the United States.

Note that both numbers 2 and 3 above, in addition to being illegal under US law, also embolden foreign countries and political actors to behave in a similar fashion against citizens of the US.

The act of impeachment is needed not simply to hold the President and Vice President accountable for their actions against the country. Of much greater importance is that this action must be taken to safeguard our system of checks and balances before the next president takes office. President Bush has placed within his sphere of authority the greatest pool of powers that any president has ever had. These powers will be turned over to whoever is elected president in 2008. History has shown that presidents do not voluntarily diminish powers within their control. Congress has but this tiny window to take back what President Bush and Vice President Cheney have grabbed or the balance of power will be thrown out of kilter for decades to come, perhaps for good. This change in the balance will have disastrous consequences for the Republic and for the protection of our democratic ideals. As Josh Marshall at TPM put it:

…I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

This grab for power could not have been successful without the acquiescence of Congress. Since the events of September 11, 2001, Congress has rolled over for the President. It has handed over powers that rightly belong to the legislature. Why? It is the dominance of party politics that is the answer. Republicans were – and are – more interested in furthering party interests than in protecting not only the Congress, but the country. Now, ironically, Democrats will be loath to call for this impeachment precisely for the same reason. The party will fear a backlash prior to an election year and will again be timid, allowing Congress and the nation to be diminished.

It is in the face of this cowardice and grossly misplaced loyalty that we as citizens must call for this impeachment. Some will claim that impeachment of these men will create a Constitutional crisis, but it will not. Impeachment, as the Founding Fathers so wisely knew, is the tonic that will heal the crisis that is already in place. They have given us the tools. We must only find the courage to use them.

I am under no illusion that an act of this nature has no political consequences. The removal of the President and Vice President from office cannot help but send shock waves through Washington and the country at large. I am a close follower of American politics and I cannot say for sure what the impeachment and further conviction of these two men would mean for the balance of political power. I can, however, say that I honestly don’t care either way. As a registered Democrat, I would much rather see my country protected, with the balance of power restored between our branches of government AND a Republican win the presidency next year than for the status quo to be maintained going forward. The latter will only serve to hurt us all, both individually and as a country.

I will be writing my Member of Congress, as well as the Speaker of the House, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and the Minority Leader in the House, to call for the impeachment of the President and Vice President. I call on you to do the same. This is not an undertaking to be approached lightly. I urge you to inform yourselves on these matters and to weigh them against the standards that you have set for your nation. One place to begin this search for information would be an interview that Bill Moyers recently did with Bruce Fein and John Nichols. Moyers described these men as follows.

One of the fellows you're about to meet wrote the first article of impeachment against President Clinton. Bruce Fein did so because perjury is a legal crime. And Fein believed no one is above the law. A constitutional scholar, Bruce Fein served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and as general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Bruce Fein has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and now writes a weekly column for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and Politico.com.

He's joined by John Nichols, the Washington correspondent for THE NATION and an associate editor of the CAPITOL TIMES. Among his many books is this most recent one, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: THE FOUNDERS' CURE FOR ROYALISM.

This is as interesting and as informed a back-and-forth as you will likely encounter on this subject. It involves individuals who are political quite different, but who have put their political differences aside on this issue. The discussions are Constitutional, political, social, and ultimately quite personal. The transcript can be found here and a video of the conversation can be found here. I guarantee that you won’t come away from this discussion without a better understanding of the issues that I’ve raised. [Additional biographical information on both men can be found here.]

You can find the contact information for your Congressman or Congresswoman here. Contact information for the Speaker of the House includes the following:

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
United States House of Representatives
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-0508
202-225-4965 (DC Phone)
202-225-4188 (DC Fax)
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov (DC E-mail)

Contact information for the Judiciary Committee Chairman includes the following:

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington DC 20515
202-225-5126 (DC Phone)
202-225-0072 (DC Fax)
John.Conyers@mail.house.gov (DC e-mail)

Contact information for the House Minority Leader includes the following:

The Honorable John Boehner
1011 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington DC 20515
202-225-6205 (DC Phone)
202-225-0704 (DC Fax)
No listed e-mail address.

I call for an additional step on your part of spreading the demand for the impeachment of the President and Vice President. In this matter, I believe that the people as a whole are out in front of our Congressional “leaders.” This will take a grassroots effort. I hope to recruit as many people to this cause as possible and should those efforts go through you, so much the better.

Dear Representative XXX:

I call on you today as a citizen concerned by the actions of my government, specifically those under the direction of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Their actions seek to subvert the notion of checks and balances within our federal government, undermining both the will and the authority of Congress and the federal judiciary. In doing so, their goal has been to superimpose the will of the executive branch in a monarchical fashion. The White House has time and again told both Congress and the American people that we have no right to know of their actions, actions that heretofore have been shown the light of day. The Founding Fathers knew that it is indeed transparency in government both to the people and to the other branches of government that will best keep our leaders from seizing powers not given to them by the Constitution, which is to say, by the people.

I, therefore, call for the House of Representatives to draft Articles of Impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Specific charges can be filed against both men. These violations include, but are not limited to: (1) Spying on American citizens in violation of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; (2) Claiming the authority, and then acting on this claimed authority, to kidnap people, imprison them in foreign dungeons, and hold them indefinitely with no legal recourse or oversight; and (3) Both sanctioning and utilizing torture as prohibited by the Geneva Convention as adopted by the United States.

The act of impeachment is needed not simply to hold the President and Vice President accountable for their actions against the country. Of much greater importance is that this action must be taken to safeguard our system of checks and balances before the next president takes office. President Bush has placed within his sphere of authority the greatest array of powers that any president has ever had. These powers will be turned over to whoever is elected president in 2008. History has shown that presidents do not voluntarily diminish powers within their control. Congress has but this tiny window to take back what President Bush and Vice President Cheney have grabbed or the balance of power will be thrown out of kilter for decades to come, perhaps for good. This change in the balance will have disastrous consequences for the Republic and for the protection of our democratic ideals.

Some will claim that impeachment of these men will create a Constitutional crisis, but it will not. Impeachment, as the Founding Fathers so wisely knew, is the tonic that will heal the crisis that is already in place. They have given us the tools. We must only find the courage to use them. I urge you to do so.

Respectfully yours,

John Q. Public
555 Main Street
Anytown TX 55555

cc....Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
........Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Judiciary Committee Chairman
........Rep. John Boehner, House Minority Leader

If you have followed this blog, you may be wondering why it has taken me so long to make this call. My conviction that both the President and the Vice President have committed grievances that are worthy of impeachment has indeed been long held. I have been looking for my voice on the matter, let us say, and now it has been found. I harbor no illusions that even should the House find the moral fortitude to impeach these men that the Senate would have the wisdom to convict them. Still, this is a windmill at which it is certainly worth tilting. Please now take up your lances and have at it.

Postscript: Last month, I called for the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his crimes against the Constitution and the nation. I still stand by this. You can find that call to action posted on 10 July 2007 and titled “Impeach AG Alberto Gonzales.” Since that writing, additional evidence against Gonzales has come to light, much of which I have cataloged in this blog. I will continue to do so. The impeachment of Gonzales would stand alone and indeed, I believe that it, too, is necessary for a full defense of the Constitution and of our liberties. If you have not yet contacted your Congressperson regarding the impeachment of Gonzales, please do so. Contacting the Speaker of the House, as well as the other House leaders noted above, in this matter would be most welcome as well. Even if you have already done so, reiterating your convictions on this matter can only help. I will send out my call for these impeachments every month from now until either that call is answered or these men leave office by another avenue. Please join me.

1 August 2007

Postscript Two, 4 September 2007: On 27 August 2007, Alberto Gonzales announced that he was resigning his position as Attorney General of the United States. While I certainly hope that the criminal investigations of Gonzales both in Congress and elsewhere will continue, calls for his impeachment are no longer needed. I thank those of you who took up my challenge to call for his impeachment in the hope that justice would be done.