Oooh, nuance!

Oh my goodness, you mean he's NOT the Decider? Iraq 4-Evah...not so much.

Critics of a permanent presence in Iraq blasted Bush’s effort to cut Congress out of the process, saying the President had “absolutely zero credibility” to “unilaterally negotiate an agreement with Iraq on security.” Bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate that would bar the White House from making any such deals without Congressional approval.

[snip]

UPDATE: During a Senate hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that “any strategic framework agreement” with Iraq “will not contain a committment to defend Iraq.”

Look, we know we cannot trust Bush to abide by written agreements, but what he normally does with his "signing statements" is to claim that "this agreement/law does not apply to me." My sense is that even he will not be able to introduce language into the bill with a signing statement.

This is definitely a win: for Congressional Democrats, for whomever becomes President next year, and most importantly, for our soldiers in the field and at home. This agreement could have been a stone around the neck of the new Commander-in-Chief. Instead, there will be nothing to prevent the next President from immediately beginning the withdrawal from Iraq (and I hope, although this is not brought up much, either putting up or shutting up in Afghanistan).

I hope Congress continues to add cartilage to its collective spine. If this keeps up, we may actually have some accountability for the Bush Crime Family's lawlessness.

If we keep after our Congresscritters, such a thing may indeed come to pass.

Thank you, Senator Dodd! No retroactive immunity will be granted to the telecom companies for their warrantless wiretapping of American citizens - the bill has been shelved until January.

Here is an excellent clip from Countdown with Keith Olbermann discussing the exciting events of yesterday. Not only is Senator Dodd on the clip, but Ted Kennedy and SWOON! Sam Seder make appearances.

I caught some of the debate on Cspan2 over at First Draft. Senator Dodd's speeches were brilliant, passionate and morally clear, and when a Republic came on to discuss terra terra terra 9/11 9/11, it was abundantly obvious what mental midgets they were by comparison.

It was a good day for democracy. May there be many more.

The Democrats in the Senate feel confident that they can gain the 60 votes needed to beat the Fascist filibuster against debating the temporary FISA law passed last summer at the last minute. But there are more hurdles to jump after that.

Senator Chris Dodd has vowed to filibuster any bill that contains immunity for telecom companies that illegally spied on Americans for the Bushies. (Note: Senator Dodd's website has many links and updates on today's action, including the ability to reward him for good behavior.) In addition, there are several amendments that may be considered, and even if an acceptable version can be passed, the House bill must be reconciled with the Senate bill.

I don't believe the telecom companies should be given retroactive immunity for their data mining of Americans. Although it is unclear what exactly they did, since the White House is withholding that information as per usual, it seems obvious that they wouldn't be asking for immunity if they didn't do something illegal. It's like when your child won't tell you what he did to the living room walls unless you first promise that he won't get punished. It's a sucker deal if I've ever heard one.

I also don't believe that the FISA law needed any more "fixing," except to make it more restrictive than it has been. If nothing can be agreed upon by both houses of Congress, the old FISA law will be reinstated. Since the Fascists feel that the more lying and spying Bush does, the "safer" we all are, the failure of the new legislation might be the best outcome for all of us.

A very short post today (I figure I'm due):

Although the media is claiming that Judge ("Waterboarding/Unitary Executive Good") Mukasey is all but confirmed, the vote has not taken place yet. It will take place this Tuesday, so until then, our Democratic Senators can be persuaded to change their minds.

Here is a link to a form where you can email and/or call your Senators to let them know that Mr. Mukasey is completely unacceptable as an Attorney General. At first, he appeared to be a vast improvement over Gonzalez, but on the second day of his hearings, he revealed that there was a true Bush Lackey hiding under that semi-independent exterior.

The Justice Department has been the source, and the sustenance, of all the Bush Administration's anti-Constitutional, illegal actions since he took office. If we are to get any justice at all during the last days of this horror called the Bush Administration, we need a more independent Attorney General. Let your Senators know how you feel about Mukasey. At least we can try to make our voices heard.

Hint, hint.

Dear Senator Reid,

I am extremely disappointed that you would wish to circumvent Senator Dodd's hold on the reprehensible Senate version of the FISA bill. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the telecom companies be given immunity for their lawbreaking actions. Senator Dodd is right and you are simply wrong on this issue.

The American people do not like lawbreakers. By giving Bush what he wants in this bill, you are directly sanctioning lawbreaking. Is that truly the position you want the Democratic leadership to take?

Thank you,

madamab

Seriously, Harry. RULE OF LAW. Ring any bells for ya?

I'm really tired of this crap from our leadership. We need more people like Chris Dodd...and like Representative Pete Stark from California. WOW.

Of course, the pundits are clutching their pearls about Pete Stark's remarks. On Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, Dana Milbank opined that Stark should apologize. Why? Because President Bush "is a person and obviously does not enjoy killing people."

On top of the evidence in the link above, I would like to point to Bush's reputation as the "Texecutioner," executing 152 people as Governor, and to his mocking of Karla Faye Tucker's plea for leniency in her death penalty sentencing. Of course, since Bush and his cabal have taken over our government, literally millions of people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not an accident.

No, Stark should not apologize. Like Chris Dodd, he's finally telling it like it is.

It's refreshing to hear the truth coming out of Washington, isn't it?

Mukasey Wednesday: Torture is unconstitutional. The Bybee memo was a mistake, a sin, and I WILL stand up to Bush.

Mukasey Thursday: Uhhhhh, waterboarding, well, I'm not sure if THAT's torture. Hamenah hamenah hamenah...

Do they have pictures of him with a goat?

I know that this guy will be better than Alberto Gonzalez, because Ellen Degeneres' dog Iggy would be an improvement, but it looks like Mukasey won't be closing Gitmo or admitting that the United States now tortures as a matter of course.

What I wonder about is, will he finally enforce the subpoenas on Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten? If not, will the House Judiciary Committee resort to inherent contempt to force them to testify?

Hmmmm....this could be interesting.

WASHINGTON — Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey said Wednesday the president doesn't have the authority to use torture techniques against terrorism suspects, a stance not taken by predecessor Alberto Gonzales and considered key to the nominee's confirmation.

Mukasey repudiated a 2002 memo by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee that said the president has the power to issue orders that violate the Geneva Conventions as well as international and U.S. laws prohibiting torture. The memo was later disavowed and overridden by an executive order governing interrogation and treatment of terrorism suspects, which allowed harsh questioning of suspects but included a vaguely worded ban on cruel and inhuman treatment.

"The Bybee memo, to paraphrase a French diplomat, was worse than a sin, it was a mistake. It was unnecessary," Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee under questioning by Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

In the Frontline documentary on Dick Cheney and his cabal last night, one thing was very clear: The Administration was greatly assisted in its grab for extraordinary executive power by Alberto Gonzalez and the DOJ. Attorneys such as David Addington and John Yoo crafted signing statements and influential opinions that purported to justify that the President had unlimited power, and for six horrible years, the President governed just that way.

Looks like the DOJ could be a bit more principled with Mukasey at the head...

Let's face it, the Founding Fathers of our country were incredibly prescient. One of the things they were most afraid of, having just liberated themselves from the grasp of King George, was another king. Thus, they instituted a nearly foolproof system of checks and balances. If a man with dictatorial ambitions became president, voila! The Congress would be able to stop him from doing real harm to the country. If the Congress didn't stop him, well, there was always the Supreme Court.

And of course, in the extremely unlikely event that all three branches of the government were compromised, the press would surely come to the rescue. An informed population would never consent to being railroaded into fascism.

The Bush Administration is very fond of the phrase "No one could have foreseen..." They use it for every situation, including 9/11, and usually in the most disingenuous manner.

But in their own case, they were right. No one could have foreseen the Bush Administration and their conservative allies. No one could have foreseen a decades-long, systematic takeover of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. No one could have foreseen that this same cabal of determined corporo-fascists would also turn the media into nothing but a giant megaphone for their twisted, anti-American agenda.

And since no one had foreseen it, no one knows what to do to stop it. Extreme measures such as impeachment, or shutting down the government, appear to be the only way to end the war and stop the mad power grab of the Bush Administration. And although many members of Congress would have the courage to take these measures, the support of the dictator is so strong in Congress that every Democrat, and some Republics, would have to have the hearts of lions. And what are the chances of that?

I don't mean to say there is no hope. I do believe that we can find our way out of this terrible morass. But first, we need to recognize just how dire the situation is, and exactly why we are in it. Only then can we come together to make sure that we, the people, are never so powerless again.

Security. It's a word that has permeated the consciousness of Americans to oversaturation since (say it with me now) Nine Eleven Changed Everything. But what does the word "security" really mean, especially when you combine it with the word "national"?

Security used to mean many things, all of them positive. You got a college degree, you got a good job, you bought a house and had 2.5 kids, and you retired with a nice pension. While all this was happening, you were able to afford gas and food for your family, and could even save money for vacations without re-mortgaging your house. You were never without electricity, and when you drove over a bridge, you didn't worry that it might collapse underneath you.

When you died, you felt secure that your kids would have the same, or an even better, standard of living, because you had faith that your government was doing its job - the job of improving security for its constituents.

Such was the American Dream, until Ronald Reagan and his conservative followers came to destroy the New Deal policies that had strengthened the middle class and allowed the dream to exist.

Poof! Before you could say "The government IS the problem," the economy tanked, we got mired in Afghanistan and created Al Qaeda, the multinationals began conglomerating and our media started to consolidate. News began degenerating into infotainment and propaganda. Think tanks blossomed that told us that the government was bad and corporations were good, and that loving the so-called free market was a substitute for political awareness. Pundits from these thinktanks began appearing on every channel to wage their particular form of class warfare and to demonize liberal ideology. Our manufacturing and service jobs began vanishing overseas, and our pensions suddenly became unsecured, easily lost when unscrupulous, greedy mega-corporations like Enron, WorldCom and many others used the funds to cover their illegal accounting practices.

Given the obvious effect conservative policies have had on national security, it would seem obvious that if you want to feel secure about your life in America, you would make sure to elect liberals like FDR, not conservative Presidents like Reagan and the Bushes, and Congresscritters like Newt Gingrich's class of 1994. But until quite recently, Americans seemed to feel that Republics were "stronger on national security" than Democrats - and even now, the margin of favorability between the two parties is very slim. How in the world did this happen?

One of the worst things the conservatives (especially gifted framers like KKKarl Rove) have done to this country has been their Orwellian destruction of the English language. The word "security" is no exception. When an elected official, pundit or journalist says the words "national security" now, they usually refer to "fighting terrorism by means of endless war". As if the only way our nation can be secure is to go to war against non-state actors who, in reality, are responsible for far fewer deaths than the automobile industry!

The real tragedy for America was not 9/11, but the reaction to it by our benighted Deciderer-in-Chief. Had Al Gore been inaugurated president in 2001, I firmly believe 9/11 would not have happened (the 9/11 Commission agreed that the attack was preventable.) However, had we been attacked by Al Qaeda during a Gore presidency, there is no way that Mr. Gore would have used such an attack as an excuse to terrify the country into accepting more and more egregious erosions of our national security. Among the outrages we have suffered are:

• tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations, which steal money out of the pockets of the working class;


• destabilization of our infrastructure by refusing to invest in it or regulate its upkeep;


• ignoring real threats to our country and focusing on billion-dollar boondoggles like missile defense (which Condi Rice was set to speak about on 9/11) and the illegal invasion of Iraq;


• deliberate invasions of our privacy and a huge increase in identity theft which oddly seem to go hand in hand;


• allowing the rule of law, which protects Americans against their government, to become almost completely non-existent; and


• allowing predatory lending practices and prohibitive health care costs to bankrupt Americans.

For the sake of national security, it's time to stop accepting the meaningless slogans of Fear and Loathing, Inc., and remember that national security can only be provided by liberals. Conservatives do nothing but lead us down the path to endless war, and there is nothing less secure than that.