Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
[....]
[A]dministration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.
"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."
Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
It is the Divine Right of Kings here. President Bush is claiming that executive privilege forces the Justice Department to abide by the administration's will. In effect, Congress cannot use the Justice Department to enforce contempt charges in its oversight investigations into the Bush administration because the Bush administration is using executive privilege in order to shield itself from those oversight investigations. This is just insane!
But it gets even better. Consider this from the WaPost story:
The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."
The Bush administration never even bothered telling Congress of its view on executive privilege. I'm guessing the Democrats in Congress learned of the administration's views through the press. This, in itself, shows just how much contempt that this Bush administration has for the legislative body. It is all about the "unitary executive." It is all about a White House dictatorship.
Some last quotes to include from the WaPost story here. I think this sums it up perfectly:
Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."
And now for today's Daily Headliners, and it is getting really sickening.
Libby, Cheney, Rove civil suit dismissed: According to this MSNBC story, the civil suit that former CIA operative Valerie Plame filed against the senior Bush administration officials has been thrown out by a federal judge. According to MSNBC News;
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.
[....]
While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.
"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."
Carpetbagger has some interesting details regarding Judge Bates. First, Judge Bates was named to the federal bench by George W. Bush. Bates was also a prosecutor on Ken Starr's Whitewater team investigating then-president Bill Clinton, and finally Bates threw out a lawsuit filed by the General Accounting Office to reveal the identities of industry executives who were involved in Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.
Top 'Attorneygate' investigator: No 'blind faith' for the White House; Raw Story is reporting that the House Judiciary Committee has voted 7-3 to rule that the Bush White House assertion of executive privilege in the U.S. attorney scandal was "not legally valid." Raw Story reports;
During the proceedings, a top House Democratic investigator of the firing of nine US Attorneys said that the White House's latest moves were not consistent with the current system of government in the United States. Another top Democrat accused the White House of turning over 'inaccurate' information about Karl Rove's role in the attorney firings.
The chair of the subcommittee that has authorized subpoenas in the investigation said that the White House was not deserving of 'blind faith.'
According to Rep. Linda Sanchez, "The White House is asking Congress and the American people to simply trust on blind faith that the documents are appropriately being kept secret....Our system of government does not allow the White House to demand this kind of blind faith and secrecy." Sanchez is the Chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. But it gets better here. Back to the Raw Story article;
Rep. Sánchez then issued a ruling declaring that the White House's assertion of executive privilege over documents sought in subpoenas issued to former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and the Republican National Committee was not legally valid. The grounds for the ruling largely echoed a similar ruling delivered last week after former White House Counsel Harriet Miers refused to appear before the committee.
In a Tuesday letter sent to Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, Conyers warned that the party organization may face contempt proceedings if it fails to abide by Rep. Sánchez's ruling today.
"If the RNC...engages in 'unilateral action' by simply refusing to comply with a House subpoena absent a court order, the refusal to produce the documents called for could subject Mr. Duncan to contempt proceedings," Rep. Conyers wrote.
A similar warning was issued regarding Bolten.
The House Judiciary Committee has ratcheted up the heat against both the Republican National Committee and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten--if you do not comply with the House subpoena requests, then the House will file contempt charges. I don't know whether the House can make the contempt charges stick on Bolten, not with the U.S. Supreme Court packed with hardline conservatives. And don't forget that the House also has contempt charges to consider filing against former Bush counsel Harriet Miers for her absence of showing up to testify on the attorney scandal.
The report also details the costs of the war in Afghanistan — $127 billion — and other Department of Defense War on Terror expenditures — $28 billion. The CRS also notes approximately $5 billion dollars that cannot be “allocated.” In total, the “Global War on Terror” has cost $610 billion.
That is over a half trillion dollars that this administration will have wasted on this Iraq war. And let's not forget that money for this war is still being budgeted through emergency supplemental funding.
In a little-noticed executive order issued on Tuesday, President Bush directed the Treasury Department to block the U.S.-based financial assets of anyone deemed to have threatened "the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" or who "undermin(e) efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."
The order empowers Treasury, in consultation with the State and Defense Departments, to target those individuals or organizations that either "have committed, or ... pose a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of harming the Iraqi government or hindering reconstruction efforts. It applies to "U.S. persons," a category including American citizens. It had not previously been disclosed -- and still hasn't -- that U.S. persons are abetting the Iraqi insurgency, nor that Iraqi insurgents have property in the United States, raising questions about who in fact the order targets.
"The part where they reserve lots of discretion to themselves is the list of conditions that goes beyond determination of acts of violence. 'Threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,' that could be anything," says Ken Mayer, an expert in executive orders and a University of Wisconsin political scientist. "Think of the possibilities: it could be charities that send a small amount of money (to groups linked to) the insurgency, or it could be the government of Iran that has assets in the U.S. and has money that flows through a U.S. bank or something like that."
The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not.
This scares me because it gives this criminal organization in the Bush White House the ability to seize assets of U.S. citizens, who oppose the war, to be labeled as harming the Iraqi government, or aiding and abetting the Iraqi insurgency. We've seen how the Pentagon is labeling Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton's criticisms as reinforcing "Enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," and that such criticisms "Unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks." It sounds to me like Senator Clinton is harming the Iraqi government. Therefore, the Bush administration is giving itself the right to seize Senator Clinton's assets because of her criticisms against this administration's disaster of a war. And if the possibility of Senator Clinton's assets being seized is too far-fetched, then how about the seizure of assets of liberal bloggers who have criticized the Bush administration on Iraq? Or anti-war groups? Or Democratic organizations like MoveOn.org? Or writers, journalists, filmmakers, former veterans--anyone who publicly criticizes this administration's pro-war policy? This administration has shown itself to break the law in personally attacking its critics of the war. Who is to say that the Bush administration will not use this tool for its own revenge? This is another attack on our civil liberties. According to TPM Muckraker:
The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Tuesday's broad executive order on freezing Iraq-related financial assets is solely intended to target supporters of the Iraqi insurgency, Treasury Department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise tells TPMmuckraker. If U.S. residents and citizens have their assets frozen by the department, it will be because they're actively abetting a panoply of insurgent and militia groups.
Previously, Treasury hasn't had the authority to target the finances of insurgent groups in Iraq aside from al-Qaeda affiliates and former Saddam Hussein regime elements. The order now provides what Millerwise calls "seamless coverage." The department is in the process of compiling a list of organizations, entities and individuals covered by the executive order, and it will include "Shia militia groups linked with Iran, Sunni insurgent groups with sanctuary in Syria and some of the indigenous Iraqi insurgent groups." Millerwise would not specify precisely which groups will find their way onto Treasury's list, but stated unequivocally that the organizations will be made public.
While some civil libertarians have raised questions about the broadness of the executive order, Millerwise says it lists a "perfectly legitimate" set of criteria for asset seizure, and that U.S. persons shouldn't fear designation by the order if they aren't supporting insurgent organizations. "Be assured that the individuals and entities we add to this list are in full faith acting in an aggressive, violent and reckless way in financing the insurgency," she says "These things are strongly vetted, going layers and layers back. (A group) donating money to orphans getting swept up in this doesn't seem to be a valid concern."
Millerwise adds that the language of the executive order was an "interagency effort," and that it "falls in line with the language found in these types of executive orders" -- a point disputed by the University of Wisconsin's Ken Meyer, an executive-order expert, who says that "this has the kind of things that jump out" in terms of broad executive discretion.
There's no timetable on when Treasury will publicize which insurgent groups fall under the order; and it will be an ongoing process, with groups added as necessary, Millerwise says. An added benefit of the publicity, she adds, is that foreign financial institutions often voluntarily comply with blocking assets of organizations banned in the U.S., and so insurgent-linked finance wouldn't just be frozen within the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department.
I'm sorry, but the administration's PR-spin of their claims that they will protect Americans' civil rights doesn't really reassure me.
This is just incredible. The Pentagon and the Bush administration can not seem to win the debate on the war in Iraq. All their happy talk of progress in Iraq is certainly not convincing the American people, and it is drawing a lot of criticism by the Democrats. But this latest MSNBC News story is just incredible:
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has issued a stinging rebuke to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, arguing that she is boosting enemy propaganda by asking how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq.
Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman wrote a biting reply to questions Clinton raised in May, urging the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
Read it again--the Pentagon has just told Senator Hillary Clinton to "SHUT UP!" All this talk of U.S. troop withdrawals is reinforcing enemy propaganda! So now the Pentagon considers Senator Clinton to be the enemy because she's providing propaganda to the terrorists and they are trying to stifle Clinton's First Amendment rights by demanding that she shut her trap! Is the Pentagon now being staffed by eight-year-olds? If Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman cannot defend the Bush administration's pro-war policy in Iraq, even as Iraq descends into a complete disaster, then the only immature argument Edelman has left is to tell Clinton to clam it? I just have to laugh at the incompetence and immaturity of Edelman and the Pentagon here. Continuing with the MSNBC Story:
Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has privately and publicly pushed Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment.
"If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way," she said then.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called the response "at once outrageous and dangerous."
"Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," said Reines, who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."
As she runs for president, the New York senator has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush administration's war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected president.
This Bush administration no longer has an argument, or a rationale, for supporting this war in Iraq. No one, except for the hard-core conservatives, even believes the stale arguments for supporting the war that are now coming out of the Bush PR Department. It is why this story is significant. It shows that since this administration can not make a convincing argument for supporting this war, that they are irrationally and illogically lashing out at their critics--SHUT UP Hillary Clinton! You're supporting the terrorists! I suspect we'll see more of this irrational lashing as September comes around.
On July 13, 2007, Max Blumenthal and videographer Thomas Shomaker visited the College Republican National Convention, located at the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. Blumenthal interviewed at least 20 college Republicans about the war in Iraq. These college Republicans enthusiastically supported the Bush administration's war in Iraq, but when asked by Blumenthal if they were planning to serve their country in Iraq, these same enthusiastic college Republican supporters of the war gave excuses as to why they couldn't serve in the military for a cause they support. Blumenthal concludes with this excellent comment from his blog:
Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP’s next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.
It is just sickening to watch these young Americans become brainwashed by such hypocrisy. From YouTube:
Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers has again rejected calls from the House Judiciary Committee to comply with a subpoena for her testimony on the firing of 9 US Attorneys in 2006 and 2007. The Committee had set a deadline of 5 PM for Miers to explain how she would comply with the subpoena.
"In light of the continuing directives to Ms. Miers and as previously indicated to your Committee, I must respectfully inform you that, directed as she has been to honor the Executive privileges and immunities asserted in this matter, Ms. Miers will not appear before the Committee or otherwise produce documents or provide testimony as set forth in the Committee's subpoena," wrote Miers' attorney, George Manning, in a letter delivered Tuesday to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
A copy of the letter was sent directly to RAW STORY.
In his letter, Manning suggested that the prohibition on Miers' subpoena compliance was 'unequivocal.'
"The correspondence communicating these unequivocal directives has been previously provided to the Committee," he wrote. "The Subcommittee has demanded that Ms. Miers do precisely what the President has prohibited her from doing."
Conyers had set 5 PM, July 17, as the deadline for Miers to make her intentions known about complying with the committee's subpoena. The Judiciary Committee had warned last week that it would contemplate other actions, including criminal contempt proceedings, if Miers failed to comply with the subpoena.
In a statement released late on Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Conyers said the committee's next move was being planned.
"The subcommittee has overruled Ms. Miers' claims of immunity and privilege," he said. "Her failure to comply with our subpoena is a serious affront to this committee and our constitutional system of checks and balances. We are carefully planning our next steps."
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against a U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), a former Postmaster, William P. MacCracken, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.
The Postmaster had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935).
Keith Olbermann has a great analysis of the Miers' controversy and Inherent Contempt. From YouTube:
The vote was 52-47 in favor of withdrawal, with four Republicans voting with Democrats, but the measure fell eight short of the 60-vote supermajority that Republicans insisted upon, using Senate rules. The total was also 15 short of the 67 that would be needed to override a veto.
What is important to understand here is that Reid did not back down against the Republican filibuster threat. He allowed the Republicans to filibuster, allowed the vote to go through, and allowed the Levin-Reed proposal to be defeated. There was certainly no chance that the Levin-Reed proposal would survive a presidential veto. What this filibuster does is that it places the Republican Party on record as being both a pro-war party, and an obstructionist party in blocking any measure to resolve the disastrous U.S. war in Iraq. Republican congressmen are supporting a failed president's pro-war strategy in Iraq over that of their political self-interest. Remember, over two-thirds of the American public does not support the Bush administration's war in Iraq. If the Republicans continue to obstruct any withdrawal, or timetable, legislation until 2008, then Iraq becomes THE campaign issue for the elections. And the Republican congressmen are going to have to explain their decisions to support this war to an American public that wants out of Iraq.
But the Republican senators have provided another short-term explanation for their pro-war vote. According to McClatchy:
Many Republicans say that the right time to re-evaluate Iraq policy will be in September, after Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, makes recommendations in a formal report.
I can pretty much guess that Petraeus' report will probably say that Iraq is a disaster, the Maliki government have not fulfilled the benchmarks set for the success of the surge, and that we must continue on with the Bush administration's war in Iraq. So the Republicans want to defeat the Levin-Reed proposal until after Petraeus' report in Congress in September. September is only six weeks away. The Republicans have simply delayed the showdown for about six weeks, until we see the real congressional fight over this failed war. Irregardless of Petraeus' recommendations, the U.S. has lost this war in Iraq. The question now will be when will the Republicans realize that their political survival in 2008 rests with the decisions they will be forced to make on Iraq this September?
Ratcheting up the stakes in the wake of the GOP's successful blocking of a vote on Iraq withdrawal just moments ago, Harry Reid just announced on the Senate floor that he won't allow a vote on the entire Defense Authorization bill until the Senate GOP drops its filibustering of votes on Iraq.
It comes only moments after the Republican filibuster succeeded in preventing a vote on the Reed-Levin amendment, which would have mandated withdrawal by April 2008.
[....]
What this means is this: Reid is basically saying he won't allow any votes on any other Iraq amendments -- not the toothless Warner-Lugar amendment, not the Ken Salazar amendment that would force adoption of the Baker-Hamilton plan, nothing -- until the GOP agrees to allow straight up or down votes.
Reid says he's directing his aides to enter into negotiations with the GOP side to see if this latest gauntlet throwing wrenches further concessions out of the Republicans. It'll be interesting to see where this goes.
Harry Reid has just upped the ante again. Now in order to confront the obstructionist Republican senators into dropping their filibusters on the Iraq withdrawal legislation, Reid is shelving any votes on the Defense Authorization Bill. In essence, Reid is telling the Republicans that if they don't give any floor votes on Iraq withdrawal measures, then Reid is not going to allow Congress to fund the Iraq war here. This is getting very ugly now, between Democrats who want to resolve the war and bring the troops home, and Republicans who want to continue the war and obstruct.
(AP) And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.
[....]
"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."
More Republicans have become apathetic about their options over the past month.
A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.
Giuliani's popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix; his support is at 21 percent compared with 27 percent in June and 35 percent in March.
The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who has become a threat without even officially entering the race. The actor and former Tennessee senator has stayed steady at 19 percent. McCain, the Arizona senator who is revamping his nearly broke campaign, clocked in a bit lower at 15 percent, while Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, remained at 11 percent.
None of the top candidates has a clear lead among Christian evangelicals, a critical part of the GOP base that has had considerable sway in past Republican primaries. Giuliani, a thrice-married backer of abortion rights and gay rights, had 20 percent support — roughly even with Thompson and McCain who have one divorce each in their pasts. Romney, a Mormon who has been married for three decades, was in the single digits.
The Republican Party is in real trouble, when about a quarter of the GOP electorate is saying that they don't want any of the top-tier candidates. I have to wonder how much of the GOP candidates' support for the Bush administration's war in Iraq is causing this apathy among the conservative voters. Here I'm looking at the moderate conservatives, or the conservatives who have been disillusioned by the disaster of this Bush war in Iraq. Have they started seeing the contradictions between the war news coming out of Iraq, and the Bush White House PR-Happy-Spin? And is this disillusionment reflected in quarter percent of the electorate voting "None of the Above?" It is an interesting question.
On Tuesday, in a dark and strikingly candid two pages, the nation’s intelligence agencies offered an implicit answer, and it was not encouraging. In many respects, the National Intelligence Estimate suggests, the threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and spreading Islamic extremism.
The conclusions were not new, echoing the private comments of government officials and independent experts for many months. But the stark declassified summary contrasted sharply with the more positive emphasis of President Bush and his top aides for years: that two-thirds of Al Qaeda’s leadership had been killed or captured; that the Iraq invasion would reduce the terrorist menace; and that the United States had its enemies “on the run,” as Mr. Bush has frequently put it.
After years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq and targeted killings in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere, the major threat to the United States has the same name and the same basic look as in 2001: Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri, plotting attacks from mountain hide-outs near the Afghan-Pakistani border.
The headline on the intelligence estimate, said Daniel L. Byman, a former intelligence officer and the director of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, might just as well have been the same as on the now famous presidential brief of Aug. 6, 2001: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
Seems like we're going Back to the Future here;
Although I would prefer Marty McFly in the Oval Office over George W. Bush....
A confidential list prepared by the Bush administration shows that Cheney and his aides had already held at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. By the time of the meeting with environmental groups, according to a former White House official who provided the list to The Washington Post, the initial draft of the task force was substantially complete and President Bush had been briefed on its progress.
In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001. For six years, those names have been a closely guarded secret, thanks to a fierce legal battle waged by the White House. Some names have leaked out over the years, but most have remained hidden because of a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that agreed that the administration's internal deliberations ought to be shielded from outside scrutiny.
[....]
The list of participants' names and when they met with administration officials provides a clearer picture of the task force's priorities and bolsters previous reports that the review leaned heavily on oil and gas companies and on trade groups -- many of them big contributors to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party. But while it clears up much of the lingering uncertainty about who was granted access to present energy policy views to Cheney's staff, it does not entirely explain why the Bush administration fought so hard to keep it and other as-yet-unreleased internal memos secret.
Contacted over the past week, several people who met with the task force's staff described their meetings as part of a normal "interagency" review of major domestic policy and expressed bewilderment that the White House and Cheney labored to keep the deliberations out of the public eye.
"I never knew why they fought so hard to keep it secret," said Charles A. Samuels, outside counsel to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, which participated in a March 13 meeting to discuss the idea of tax credits for super-efficient appliances. "I am sure the vast majority of the meetings were very policy-oriented meetings -- exactly what should take place."
Provided a copy of the list, Cheney's office said he would not comment on it. "The vice president has respectfully but resolutely maintained the importance of protecting the ability of the president and vice president to receive candid advice on important national policy matters in confidence, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court," spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said by e-mail.
Here is the list from the Washington Post. I'm not surprised that Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Mining and other corporate interests attended these Energy Task Force meetings with the Vice President Dick Cheney--it is certainly within their business interests to present their talking points with the Bush administration, just as it is within the interests of environmental groups to present their own case to the administration. And I'm also not surprised that the Bush administration would adopt an energy policy that is basically a give-away to the Big Oil, Gas, and Mining interests for their own excessive profits. The real question I have is why did Vice President Cheney spend so much time and energy to keep this list secret? Is it because many of these industry executives on the list are also major campaign contributers to President Bush? Or is it because Cheney feels so strongly in the concept of a unitary executive that he can tell anyone to "frack off" for looking into the administration's activities or any oversight? I can't say.
But now that the list has been made public, I wonder if Congress will start another series of hearings with the big energy execs and question them about their own roles in these Cheney Task Force meetings? There certainly is more to come.
ame Affiliation Date of Meeting Greg Moredock Cabot Energy March 14, 4 p.m. Jim Rouse Exxon Feb. 14, 12 p.m. Ralph J. Goehring Berry Petroleum Company March 6, 9 a.m. John Martini California Independent Petroleum Association March 6, 9 a.m. Red Cavaney American Petroleum Institute March 6, 9 a.m. Graham Ban-[sic] BP March 22, 12 p.m. Deb Beaubien BP March 22, 12 p.m. Peter Davies BP March 22, 12 p.m. Bob Malone BP March 22, 12 p.m. Eli Bebout Nucor Oil & Gas March 22, 12 p.m. William Terry Smith Tidelands Oil Production Company March 22, 12 p.m. Steen Parker Tidelands Oil Production Company March 22, 12 p.m. William Dozier Vintage Petroleum Inc. March 22, 12 p.m. Larry Bates Vintage Petroleum Inc. March 22, 12 p.m. Wayne Gibben CONOCO April 12 Alan Huffman CONOCO April 12 Alby Modiano CONOCO April 12 Archie Dunham March 21, 4 a.m. [sic?] Kevin Brown Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m. Clint Ensign Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m. Kathi Wise Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m. Willie Hensley Alyeska Pipeline Service Company March 7, 9 a.m. Lindsay Hooper Small Refiners Group March 15, 10 a.m. Paul Freer Marathon Oil, Conoco, Amerada March 29, 2 p.m. Rick Shelby AGA Leadership Council March 26 Sir Mark Moody-Stuart Shell Oil April 17, 10 a.m. Steven Miller Shell Oil April 17, 10 a.m. Jerry Halverson Interstate Natural Gas Association of America March 9, 9:30 a.m. Rick Roldan National Propane Gas Association April 20, 10 a.m. Lisa Bontempo National Propane Gas Association RENEWABLE ENERGY The Stella Group March 28, 10 a.m. National Bioenergy Industries Association March 28, 10 a.m. Jaime Steve American Wind Energy Association March 28, 10 a.m. Glen Hamer Solar Energy Industry Association March 28, 10 a.m. Karl Gawell Geothermal Energy Association March 28, 10 a.m. The Alliance to Save Energy David Nemtzow March 28, 10 a.m. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Howard Geller March 28, 10 a.m. Environmental Energy Study Institute Beth Bliel March 28, 10 a.m. Environmental Energy Study Institute Carol Werner March 28, 10 a.m. American Biomass Association Meagan Smith March 28, 10 a.m. American Green David Flory March 28, 10 a.m. INDEPENDENT ENERGY FIRMS/COUNCILS/THINK-TANKS Electric Power Supply Association Red Cavaney American Petroleum Institute March 8, 4 p.m. David Yergin [sic--Daniel] Cambridge Energy Research Associates March 12, 4 p.m. (3 other visits) Sandia National Laboratories April 20, 3 p.m. (w/VPOTUS) The Energy Council March 6 Alan Richardson Pacificorps March 28, 2 p.m. Rob Wallace General Electric March 28, 4:30 p.m. Nuclear Energy Institute Business Council for Sustainable Energy March 8, 11 p.m. Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy Feb. 22, 2 p.m. Fluor Corporation Feb. 21, 2 p.m. Alliance for Rural America (ARA) Coalition for Energy and Economic Growth (CEEG) Feb. 26, 2 p.m. American Public Power Association (APPA) National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) National Mining Association Feb. 22, 10 a.m. John Anderson ELCON Edison Electric Institute National Hydrogen Association American Society of Engineers Vernon Smith California Energy Crisis Feb. 21, 3 p.m. The Progress and Freedom Foundation Feb. 22, 10 a.m. The Progress and Freedom Foundation Feb. 22, 10 a.m. CONSUMER GROUPS The Progress and Freedom Foundation Feb. 22, 10 a.m. Paul Cicio from Dow Chemical, representing 11 companies International Federation of Industrial Energy Consumers March 7, 10:30 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS Howard Ris Union of Concerned Scientists April 4, 10 a.m. Alden Meyer Union of Concerned Scientists April 4, 10 a.m. Elizabeth Thompson Environmental Defense April 4, 10 a.m. Roger Rufe Center for Marine Conservation April 4, 10 a.m. Jim Lyon National Wildlife Federation April 4, 10 a.m. Erich Picha Friends of the Earth April 4, 10 a.m. Alyssondra Campaigne Natural Resources Defense Counsel April 4, 10 a.m. Deborah Callahan League of-Conservation Voters April 4, 10 a.m. Robert Musil Physicians for Social Responsibility April 4, 10 a.m. Anna Aurilio US Public Interest Research Group April 4, 10 a.m. Katherine Silverthorne World Wildlife Fund April 4, 10 a.m. Sandra Sshubert [sic] EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund April 4, 10 a.m. Robert Dewey Defenders of Wildlife April 4, 10 a.m. Kevin Curtis National Environmental Trust April 4, 10 a.m. ACADEMIA/THINK TANKS Robert Hahn American Enterprise Institute Philip Sharp Kennedy School of Government James M. Griffin Texas A&M James L. Sweeney Stanford University Bob Faron MRI Research March 2, 2 p.m. REGULATORY GROUP National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners STATE/REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS National Association of State Energy Officials Northeast Energy and Commerce Association CANADIAN INTEREST GROUPS BC Hydro March 26, 4 p.m. Nova Scotia Power March 26, 4 p.m. HydroQuebec March 26, 4 p.m. CEA March 26, 4 p.m. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Bob Pierce Foothills Pipelines Doug Baldwin Trans Canada Pipelines March 8, 12:30 p.m. CITY/STATE/REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS National Association of State Energy Officials Northeast Energy and Commerce Association John Fistolera Northern Calif. Power Agency Rick Grice State of Colorado, Office of Energy William Keese California Energy Commission James Brandmueller Ph.D. State of Nevada, Dept. of Business and Energy Frederick Hoover, Jr. State of Maryland Energy Administration Maurice Kaya, P.E. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Business, Economic Dev. Peter Smith NY State Energy R&D Authority Helen Hansen Metro Water District of Southern Calif. Brad Hiltscher Metro Water District of Southern Calif. Deb Taylor State of Texas Energy Conservation Office William Nesmith State of Oregon, Office of Energy Edwin Pinero State of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Protection Samuel Reid State of Rhode Island, Governor's Office John Nunley State of Wyoming, State Energy Program Kim Raap State of Wyoming Barbara McCall Texas Cities Legislative Coalition Alan N. Vallow, P.E. City of Lori, California Laura Y. Whitton City of Chicago Jim Nichols City of Lake Benton Mayor (Floyd Adams, Jr.) City of Savannah Jack Hilliard City of Florence Utilities Euline Brock City of Denton, Tex. Bern Beecham City of Palo Alto MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS/STAFF Rep. Barton (R-TX) Rep. Blunt (R-MO) Rep. Boucher (D-VA) Rep. Burr (R-NC) Rep. Calvert (R-CA) Rep. Cubin (R-WY) Rep. Pickering (R-MS) Rep. Radanovich (R-CA) Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) Rep. Tauzin (R-LA) Rep. Terry (R-NE) Staff of Rep. Nick Joe Racal (D-WV) (sic) Rep. Whitfield (R-KY) Rep. Wilson (R-NM) Republican Staff of House Energy Strategy Group Staff from House Majority Whip's Office Senator Murkowski (R-AK) Staff, Western Governors Seattle Chamber of Commerce Senator Bingaman (Ranking Minority Leader on Clean Air Sub-Committee) Rep. Ose 21-Mar Rep. Vernon Ehler 21-Mar Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX) 12-Mar Rep. Tauzin's Staff 8-Mar Reps. Tauzin and Barton (Meeting with VPOTUS) 27-Mar Sen. Voinovich 6-Apr Rep. Duncan Hunter 6-Apr Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Rep. Rick Larson (D-WA) Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) Rep. David Wu (D-OR) Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR) Rep. Butch Otter (R-ID) Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) Rep Doc Hastings (R-WA) Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) COMPANY/TRADE ASSOCIATION MEETINGS Brian Henneberry El Paso Corp. April 9 Lori Laudien El Paso Corp. April 9 Gretchen Emling Williams April 9 Janet Sena April 9 Kristen Ludecke PSEG Power April 9 Richard Goodstein American Ref-Fuel April 9 Frazier Blaylock Coventa Energy April 9 Phil Moeller CALPINE April 9 David Brown EXELON April 9 David Gilbert Constellation Energy Group April 9 Holly Nichols Reliant Energy April 9 Joe Vasapoli Reliant Energy April 9 April 9 Gene Peters EPSA April 9 Mary Doyle Dynergy April 9 Elaine Ziemba NRG Energy April 9 Melissa Lavinson PG&E NEG April 9 Tom Briggs Enron April 9 April 9 Yvonne McIntyre Mirant April 9 April 9 Jeanne Connelly CALPINE April 9 Tobyn Anderson Lighthouse Energy Group April 9 Laura Eahm PPL Global April 9 Rusty Matthews Dickstein Shapiro April 9 Barbara Burchett Aquila Energy April 9 Karen Hunsicker Billups Entergy April 9 Donn Salvosa EPSA April 9 Alyeska Pipeline Service Company American Gas Association American Petroleum Institute Arctic Power BP/AMOCO/ARCO Canadian Alliance Judy Pensavene Constellation Energy Group March 5, 9 am* second meeting CREA Beverly Marshad Duke Energy March 5, 9 am Edison Electric Institute El Paso Energy
Emerson Enron Kristie Simms Entergy March 5, 9 am David Brown Exelon Corporation March 5, 9 am
Exxon Mobil Florida Power & Light FLUOR Independent Petroleum Association of America Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Michael Flannigan Kennecott/U.S. Borax and Rio Tinto March 12 Alan Steinbeck Kennecott/U.S. Borax and Rio Tinto March 12 Tom Bunk Kennecott/U.S. Borax and Rio Tinto March 12 Bill Post Pinnacle West March 8 Robbie Aiken Pinnacle West March 8 Midwest Research Institute re: energy studies National Energy Marketers Association National Mining Association Natural Resources Canada Nuclear Energy Institute Petroleum Finance Company Phillips Petroleum Pinnacle West Bud Albright Reliant Energy Resource Development Council for Alaska Southern Company TXU United States Enrichment Corporation VECO Alaska, Inc Ambassador Smith Williams Company March 8, 5 pm Emerson Electric Company March 2, 10 am El Paso Energy Corporation* Canadian Electricity Association March 26, 4 pm Edison Electric Institute* Ken Lay Enron Corporation February 22, 5 pm and April 17 (w/VP) Alan Richardson American Public Power Association Executive Committee March 20, 3:30 pm Teamsters April 20, 11 am OTHER MEETINGS Teamsters April 20, 11 am Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas February 1 Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy for Canada Canadian Deputy Secretary of Energy The Honorable David Karnes, Former Senator, Nebraska Kutak Rock LLP Tim Peckinpaugh Van Ness Feldman Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (Van Ness Feldman client) Sandia National Laboratories Scott Sklar Executive Director, Solar Energy Industries Association Kyle Simpson Morgan Meguire LLC Angolan Ministers Paul Cicio Dow Chemical March 7 and March 21, 8:30 pm* J.J. Brown Alternate Fuels March 7 California Independent Petroleum Association Executive Board March 12 British Deputy Head of Mission March 12 Former Congressman Laughlin Former Representative Susan Molinari EXELON March 12 Beth Fowler Nils Olsen March 16 Northwest Energy Caucus (w/VPOTUS) American Farm Bureau (Speech) March 21 California Agriculture Leadership Program March 22 John Runyan International Paper March 22 Erin Schaffer International Paper March 22 Kevin Lynch Pacific Corp March 28 Alan Richardson Pacific Corp March 28 Venezuelan Delegation April 5 Steve Griles-Renewable Energy Caithness April 5 EPSA* Former Congressman Bliley Independent Gasoline Marketers Assn. Jon Doggett American Farm Bureau March 6, 3:00pm Robin West March 7, 3:00pm Linda Stuntz (Former Deputy Secretary of Energy) March 16, 2:00pm Mark Kerrigan March 16, 2:00pm Robert Priddle International Energy Agency April 17, 11:00am Rob Goldstein Princeton Plasma Physics April 18, 4:30pm Business Council for Sustainable Energy April 18, 4:30pm ENERGY EFFICIENCY GROUPS William Badger + 2 Washington Council Ernst and Young March 13, 10:00am Charles Samuels Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers March 13, 10:00am Douglass Horstman Maytag Corporation March 13, 10:00am Ayssondra Campaigne* [sic--spelled differently above] Natural Resources Defense Council* March 13, 10:00am Edward Osann American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy March 13, 10:00am David Hamilton Alliance to Save Energy March 13, 10:00 a.m. *=more than one meeting listed NOTE: Some organizations were listed as having meetings with the Energy Task Force but no individual names were given. Many of the meetings which occurred were not recorded with a specific date. Spellings of names and organizations listed are taken directly from the document.
Did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally grow some massive cajones here? This is from Think Progress:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that in response to conservative obstructionism, he plans to force war supporters to physically remain in the Senate and filibuster Iraq withdrawal legislation.
Reid accused conservatives of “protecting the President rather than protecting our troops” by “denying us an up or down vote on the most important issue our country faces.” He said that if a vote on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation is not allowed today or tomorrow, he will keep the Senate in session “straight through the night on Tuesday” and force a filibuster.
“My worst fears on this bill have been realized. We have just seen the Republican leadership again resort to technical maneuver to block progress on this crucial amendment. It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that ‘stay the course’ is the right strategy – they have the right to vote ‘No.’
“But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down – yes or no – vote on the most important issue our country faces.
“I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down. If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin-Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up-or-down vote on this amendment to end it.
“Given the Republican leadership’s decision to block the amendment, we have no choice but to do everything we can in the coming days to highlight Republican obstruction. We do this in hopes of ultimately getting a simple up-or-down vote on this and other important amendments that could change the direction of the war.
“All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case. Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate. Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment.
Harry Reid should have done this five months ago--force the Republicans to engage in their filibuster on all the legislation the Democratic-controlled Senate had brought up. This is a public relations nightmare for the Senate Democrats. The Republicans have been able to paint the Senate Democrats as being unable to pass any legislation through Congress, even though it is the Senate Republicans who are responsible for obstructing the legislation with their continual filibuster threat. It is the reason why you are seeing the congressional job approval ratings dropping down to the mid-20s.
Harry Reid needs to turn it around and show that it is Republican obstructionism that is forcing the Senate to be unable to pass legislation. Force the Republicans to continually debate on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation, or any legislation that the Republicans threaten to obstruct. Keep them endlessly debating all day and all night on a single piece of legislation until the GOP finally gives in. The Democrats should never accept compromise from the Republicans until the Republicans will blink and agree first.
There are two ways to deal with bad faith actors; to dealing with people who understand only force. One is to decide you’re willing to let them have what they want because you won’t pay the cost of opposing them. If they say “I’m going to hit you if you don’t give me your wallet” you can say “ok”. The second is to escalate. In the words of the Untouchables - if they bring a knife, you bring a gun; if they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue. When people understand only force, you must respond with maximum force. Anything else is taken as weakness and they will walk all over you.
Republicans walk all over Democrats because they can - because they know Democrats, at the end of the day, will fold nine times out of ten. It’s a good odds play. If Democrats want it to stop, they need to make the cost unbearable. Civility will return only when the costs of what amount to political violence have become to great for both sides to bear.
Slap Gonzales in jail. Make Republican Senators personally spend days or weeks doing nothing but filibuster popular bill after popular bill. Make them stay on the floor, in their diapers, with artificial bladders attached, until they can’t take it any more.
And if you do all this, Americans will see that
* Democrats are strong. (Strength isn’t about how tough you talk on killing terrorists. It’s about what you do personally. Strength is what strength does.)
* that Republicans are causing Congressional slowdowns and making it so Congress doesn’t work to pass bills most Americans favor.
* That if Americans want Congress to work, Democrats need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a working majority in the House.
When someone’s bargain strategy is “or else”, you can either back down or step up.
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
There is a nasty, internal debate going on within the Bush White House as to whether or not the U.S. should attack Iran. In one sense, that is not surprising, considering that the debate falls down along the ideological battle lines that have been drawn between the realpolitiks and the PNAC neocons. It is even more interesting that the Guardian has identified the leaders between the two ideological movements here, with the realpolitiks being led by Gates and Rice, while the neocons are led by Cheney. But this is old news.
What is scary here is how the administration's thinking is shifting over towards a military confrontation with Iran--a move that Cheney advocates. This Bush administration is under a lot of political pressure, coming from a variety of sources. There is the administration's fight with Congress over the U.S. attorney firings, Scooter Libby's commutation, the intelligence failures, Harriet Miers, and the withdrawal timetables of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Bush administration has lost the PR-war regarding Iraq. The Iraqi government has failed to meet the political benchmarks set for determining the Bush administration's success in the war. Al Qaeda has regained its pre-September 11th strength. And a majority of the American public not only believe that the U.S. war in Iraq has been a mistake, but they've abandoned President Bush to a below 30 percent job approval rating. This is an administration that has retreated into a bunker mentality as it lashes out to blame everyone for its own mistakes. What is scary here is that President Bush may just be thinking that a U.S. attack against Iran would allow the White House to institute a "rally-around-the-flag" PR-theme in hopes of increasing President Bush's job approval ratings, and continuing the Bush war in Iraq until after President Bush leaves office in January 2009. So there is a PR factor here with the Bush administration's consideration of going to war with Iran.
There is also a time factor here. Vice President Cheney knows he has got less than 18 months to continue the PNAC neocon's dream of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. If Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran, then now is the time--both before 2008 presidential elections, and before a new president takes office. Consider this quote from the Guardian:
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.
Cheney knows that a Democratic president will not attack Iran, while the U.S. is still entangled in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Republican president is probably a little more nuanced. While a Republican president will certainly continue the U.S. war in Iraq, such a president may end up purging the executive branch of the PNAC neocons who have gotten the U.S. into the Iraq mess in the first place. The PNAC influence in the executive branch may have been somewhat diminished, but it still has a great deal of power within the hands of the vice president. So time is not on Dick Cheney's side here. If he is able to sway President Bush's thinking towards a military confrontation against Iran, I fear that the best time to attack Iran will be before this year is out. The key factor here is the 2008 presidential elections. A U.S. attack against Iranian nuclear facilities will most likely be air strikes conducted over several days. If President Bush orders a U.S. attack against Iran sometime in 2008, then such an attack becomes an election year issue that could cause even more problems against the Republicans--the air strikes may fail at taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran may retaliate by attacking U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf. There may be increased terror attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq. There may also be domestic outrage and anger against the administration by a majority of Americans who oppose such an attack. Right now, the issue of an American attack against Iran is a speculative issue. It becomes a whole new ballgame once President Bush orders the attack against Iran.
If President Bush orders an attack against Iran before 2008, there will certainly be political, economic and military consequences that both the Bush administration and the Republican Party would have to endure. But the thinking here would be that these are short-term consequences, just as the U.S. air strikes against Iran would take place over a few days. Americans may be outraged, but the Bush administration may be hoping that the outrage would subside as the White House PR-machine starts spinning that this is only a one-time U.S. attack, and that the Pentagon does not have any plans for a sustained bombing campaign against Iran, or any invasion of Iran. The outrage would be short-term and not stay current through the 2008 election season--the U.S. attack against Iran is done now, it is time to move on. And remember the PR-factor here where the Bush administration may also be wishing that a U.S. attack against Iran would create another rally-around-the-flag-and-president mood within the country to support the president, thus providing an uptick in the president's job approval ratings, and greater approval for the GOP presidential candidates.
Now this is all speculation here, and I could be completely wrong in my analysis. It is difficult to make sense of the internal debates taking place within the Bush White House--especially since this administration refuses to divulge anything except their own PR-talking points. What this Guardian story reveals is that there is an internal war taking place within the Bush White House as to whether the Bush administration will attack Iran. And at this point, Vice President Cheney has President Bush's ear towards provoking a military showdown with Iran. I don't believe that President Bush has signed the order for the U.S. to conduct air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. But I'm guessing that the order is sitting in the president's desk drawer, just waiting for the president's signature.
We hiked along without care. Then we ran into a bear. He was a hairy bear, He was a scary bear, We beat a hasty retreat from his lair. And described him with adjectives.
This is a fascinating cartoon. According to Wikipedia, Der Fuehrer's Face is a 1942 animated cartoon, produced by Walt Disney Studios, which stars Donald Duck as a Nazi working in a munitions factory for the German war effort. The cartoon was directed by Jack Kinney and released on January 1, 1943. Der Fuehrer's Face won the 1943 Academy Award for Animated Short Film. In addition, the cartoon was voted number 22 of the 50 Greatest Cartoons of all time. So here is a little Walt Disney propaganda from the Second World War. From YouTube:
Damn you Disney! I'm finding myself humming song in the back reaches of my mind!
There are times when the Religious Right and their Christian fundamentalist wackos really piss me off. Just watch this YouTube video here:
Don't you just love the Christian fundamentalist wackos here? According to this CBS News story:
A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the U.S. Senate's morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors' gallery.
Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple, gave the brief prayer that opens each day's Senate session. As he stood at the chamber's podium in a bright orange and burgundy robe, two women and a man began shouting "this is an abomination" and other complaints from the gallery.
Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them with disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an Associated Press reporter, "we are Christians and patriots" before police handcuffed them and led them away.
For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god."
Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds."
As the Senate prepared for another day of debate over the Iraq war, Zed closed with, "Peace, peace, peace be unto all."
Zed, who was born in India, was invited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. Speaking in the chamber shortly after the prayer, Reid defended the choice and linked it to the war debate.
"If people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus," Reid said, "all they have to do is think of Gandhi," a man "who gave his life for peace."
"I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace," said Reid, a Mormon and sharp critic of President Bush's Iraq policies.
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."
Police identified the protesters as Ante Nedlko Pavkovic, Katherine Lynn Pavkovic and Christan Renee Sugar. Their ages and hometowns were not available.
This is just completely stupid and outrageous on the fundi wackos part. This country was founded on the belief of religious freedom, where the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights asserts that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Now I'm not too thrilled that the U.S. Senate opens their sessions with a prayer, but the Senate has been engaging in this tradition since 1789. I'd rather the Senate did not engage in such a tradition, but I doubt there is anything I could do to stop U.S. senators from creating their own little quirky traditions. But still, I'm pleasantly surprised that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invited a Hindu priest to open the Senate session with a morning prayer. This country is not simply a Christian nation, it is a nation of many different religions--Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Judaism, Orthodox, and even non-religious. If the U.S. Senate is going to open their sessions with a morning prayer, then add a little variety with prayers from all the religions. Personally, I thought it was something special for Hindu clergyman Rajan Zed to open a U.S. Senate with a prayer--it is an honor and a memory that Zed will cherish.
But the Christian fundamentalist wackos don't believe it! America is a Christian nation, and this one Hindu prayer in the Senate is destroying our fundamental family values of the United States. It is like these wackos believe that one little Hindu prayer will destroy America as a Christian nation! Apparently these wackos do not read history. According to the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, signed by the United States and the Barbary States, under Article 11 the treaty states:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I find it interesting that the leaders of the United States actually stated in this treaty that the government of the United States is specifically not a government founded on Christianity. According to Wikipedia on the Treaty of Tripoli:
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May of 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
Even President John Adams, who certainly would have read the treaty, accepted Article 11. The entire Senate accepted Article 11, and the statement that the United States government was not founded on the Christian religion. The U.S. government is stating within this treaty that the U.S. government is not founded on Christianity.
Now I know that the United States is predominantly a Christian nation. Fine. But the First Amendment of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." This amendment protects non-Christian religions from a tyranny of a Christian majority. It is a tyranny that can be seen within these Religious Right wackos protesting against a simple prayer performed by a non-Christian clergyman who does not abide by their own warped, Christian fundamentalist views. They refuse to accept any type of tolerance or compromise. Any views that do not conform to their own warped ideology is almost considered heresy, and should be extinguished. It is just incredible.
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Col., is the sole Republican candidate to address the NAACP convention. He was flanked by lecterns with placards for nine other GOP candidates -- all no-shows. Ricardo Thomas / The Detroit News.
I found this story through Daily Kos user Jeffrey Feldman, and it really shows the Republican Party's attitude on minority issues. First, I want you to look at the picture and read the cutline (here is the link to the Detroit Free Press). Look at the picture again. Only one GOP presidential candidate--Rep. Tom Tancredo--showed up to address the convention. The rest never bothered to show up. Now here is the story on the NAACP convention and the presidential debates. From The Columbus Dispatch:
DETROIT -- As NAACP Chairman Julian Bond entered Cobo Hall early yesterday, a woman slapped a Barack Obama sticker on his lapel and said, "Tell your mama to vote for Obama."
Bond laughed about the encounter moments before the eight Democratic candidates for president debated for two hours, acknowledging that delegates to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's annual convention have "a natural admiration" for the black senator from Illinois.
But Bond isn't sure the good will for Obama will translate into votes any more than the deep affection among blacks for former President Clinton will mean votes for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"She is familiar to us more than any of the other candidates, but it's an open question whether his popularity will transfer African-American votes to her," Bond said. "In a way, it's a shame because the other candidates have something to say, but everybody is focusing only on Obama and Clinton."
And so it was yesterday as the candidates met in this city for at least their sixth forum nationally. Clinton and Obama, the front-runners, received the most applause in a debate mostly bereft of verbal fireworks, except for attacks against President Bush.
All of the Republican candidates were invited, but only Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado showed up, receiving a standing ovation from the audience of more than 2,000. Even though GOP presidential candidates traditionally receive little support from black voters, delegates said it was a mistake for them to skip the debate.
"A lot of African-Americans who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates are very disgusted with Democrats, especially as we see the Democratic Congress doing little on our issues," said Erica McLaughlin of Baltimore, an NAACP national board member. "I think the Republican candidates have a great opportunity to sway some African-American voters, but they've got to show up."
I think the Republican candidates have a great opportunity to sway some African-American voters, but they've got to show up. Now that is a very powerful statement, showing some potential resentment against the Democratic Party among African-American voters. But the Republican Party does not want to deal with African-American issues, or even any issues regarding minorities. The GOP is a political party that only serves the interests of the extreme rich, white, male elites, or corporate CEOs, or the Religious Right. If you do not belong in either of those three interest groups, then you do not belong in the Republican Party. And this picture shows it. None of the Republican presidential candidates can honestly present political policies to help minority voters, nor could they present any policies to these voters--they were certainly invited to attend the debate, just as Tancredo did. Instead the Republicans are writing off the African-American vote. The Republicans could even be wishfully hoping that Karl Rove will dust off his bag of dirty tricks, or even use the Justice Department, in order to suppress the African-American vote in 2008, as he did in 2006? That may be the GOP's only game plan as the Republican candidates tie their own political careers to the sinking Bush presidency. Sponsered.
This is a wonderful song, combining elements of a haunting melody with hard rock. It is certainly one of my favorite Tina Turnersongs, where the opening melody plays slowly in the back of my mind. The song is One of the Living, from the soundtrack to the movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.From YouTube:
In the desert sun, every step that you take could be the final one In the burning heat, hanging on the edge of destruction You can't stop the pain of your children crying out in your head They always said that the living would envy the dead
DES MOINES, Iowa - John McCain's campaign is losing two veteran Republican strategists in Iowa and will report a seven-figure debt for the second quarter in a row, back-to-back blows to a presidential bid still reeling from a major staff shake-up earlier this week.
Ed Failor Jr., said Thursday that he and Karen Slifka plan to notify McCain by letter of their decisions to leave. Both are GOP operatives with deep ties in Iowa, which holds the first-in-the-nation caucuses, and national politics.
"As much as I like Senator McCain, it's not a team I'm willing to stay involved with any longer," Failor said.
The campaign also will show about $1 million in debts when it reports its second-quarter finances this weekend, according to a Republican familiar with the campaign's fundraising. The figure is smaller than the $1.8 million in the red that the campaign reported after the first three months of the year. McCain aides would not comment on the campaign's debt.
It appears that the McCain Straight Talk Express is sinking faster than the Titanic. We've already seen how the McCain campaign cut their campaign staff down by at least 50 staffers after the campaign raised a poor $11.2 million in the second quarter. In one sense, it is like everything that can go wrong for the McCain campaign has gone wrong.
CONCORD, N.H. - Republican John McCain said Friday he was to blame for the weakened state of his presidential campaign that has undergone two major staff shake-ups in a week and is nearly broke.
"We've made mistakes," the Arizona senator said during an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio. "The responsibility is mine. I'm the candidate."
Four days after accepting the resignations of his two top campaign aides, McCain said he didn't do what was necessary to run a productive campaign and spent just as much as he brought in when he should have been saving up to pay for costly television advertisements for the heat of race.
"We didn't use the money in the most effective way," he said.
McCain made the comments in the first-in-the-nation primary state as finger-pointing among his loyalists intensified in Washington over who was to blame for the one-time GOP front-runner's six-month slide and financially fragile condition.
The campaign raised $25 million in the first half of the year, but blew through nearly all of it during the same period. By Sunday, the campaign will report to the Federal Election Commission that it has $2 million cash on hand but more than $1 million in outstanding debt, according to officials. They say McCain could end up having as little as a couple hundred thousand dollars to spend as he tries to revitalize his campaign.
As July began, McCain laid off more than half of his staff and cut salaries of many of those remaining staffers to try to control costs. A week later, campaign manager Terry Nelson and chief strategist John Weaver resigned and several other senior aides loyal to the two followed them out the door. More are expected to leave in the coming days.
McCain named the chief executive officer, Rick Davis, as his campaign manager as he seeks to right his deeply troubled campaign.
"It's difficult times right now," McCain said but again vowed to press on with his second presidential bid.
The big problem for McCain now is that he has got to keep the donations coming in. He has got to keep the doners contributing money into his campaign, even as the bad news continues to mount of McCain staffers leaving, or being fired, or the continually dwindling dollar amount in campaign's bank account. If Republicans feel that John McCain cannot revitalize his campaign, they are going to look at the other contenders--which could include former senator Fred Thompson, who is still playing hard-to-get for the GOP. Senator John McCain could find himself out of the race even before the Iowa caucus begins.
