Month: January 2007

Open Your Wallet And Show Us What You’ve Got

by digby

A lot of folks don’t seem exercized that the government might be listening in on their phone calls without a warrant or reading their e-mails and letters with no oversight from anyone. But I have noticed for years that people would much rather tell you every detail of their sex lives than reveal their financial status.

So, I wonder how happy they are going to be to know that the Pentagon and the CIA have taken it upon itself to investigate the finances of American citizens with no warrants or oversight and keep the information on file forever:

The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.

The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.

Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.

The F.B.I., the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of national security letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provoking criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who see them as unjustified intrusions into Americans’ private lives.

But it was not previously known, even to some senior counterterrorism officials, that the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been using their own “noncompulsory” versions of the letters. Congress has rejected several attempts by the two agencies since 2001 for authority to issue mandatory letters, in part because of concerns about the dangers of expanding their role in domestic spying.

The military, the clandestine spy service and the FBI have all been gathering financial information on American citizens. Nobody knows what they have, who’s been targeted or if the information is correct or useful.

Usually, the financial documents collected through the letters do not establish any links to espionage or terrorism and have seldom led to criminal charges, military officials say. Instead, the letters often help eliminate suspects.

“We may find out this person has unexplained wealth for reasons that have nothing to do with being a spy, in which case we’re out of it,” said Thomas A. Gandy, a senior Army counterintelligence official.

Except the records are going into a database:

But even when the initial suspicions are unproven, the documents have intelligence value, military officials say. In the next year, they plan to incorporate the records into a database at the Counterintelligence Field Activity office at the Pentagon to track possible threats against the military, Pentagon officials said. Like others interviewed, they would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

Military intelligence officers have sent letters in up to 500 investigations over the last five years, two officials estimated. The number of letters is likely to be well into the thousands, the officials said, because a single case often generates letters to multiple financial institutions.

[..]

Some national security experts and civil liberties advocates are troubled by the C.I.A. and military taking on domestic intelligence activities, particularly in light of recent disclosures that the Counterintelligence Field Activity office had maintained files on Iraq war protesters in the United States in violation of the military’s own guidelines. Some experts say the Pentagon has adopted an overly expansive view of its domestic role under the guise of “force protection,” or efforts to guard military installations.

[…]

“There’s a strong tradition of not using our military for domestic law enforcement,” said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, a former general counsel at both the National Security Agency and the C.I.A. who is the dean at the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific. “They’re moving into territory where historically they have not been authorized or presumed to be operating.”

Similarly, John Radsan, an assistant general counsel at the C.I.A. from 2002 to 2004 and now a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, said, “The C.I.A. is not supposed to have any law enforcement powers, or internal security functions, so if they’ve been issuing their own national security letters, they better be able to explain how they don’t cross the line.”

I thought the Intelligence Czar was supposed to coordinate all this; the whole idea was that DNI and DHS was that they were going to streamline things and end the useless duplication and cross wires in the investigative agencies. Instead, it appears that we have the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, local and state police agencies all running amock and using the provisions of the patriot act in the most expansive way possible to spy on US citizens without warrants and then each keep the information they have on file forever.

I have written before that the most dangerous thing we have done to ourselves domestically since 9/11 is to hugely expand our policing powers and throw unlimited funds at the agencies who will find a reason and a way to flex their new, expensive muscle. It is a law of nature. If you build it they will use it.

We have thrown so much money away on the Department of Homeland Security that they can’t even account for billions in missing funds. Small towns in the Alaskan Bush are putting camera’s on every street corner with their free money from Uncle Ted Stevens. (To catch the terrists, dontcha know.)

We are building a well funded national police state apparatus at the same time that we are giving unlimited money and power to our military and foreign intelligence agencies to operate in the United States. This is incredibly dangerous and I can’t help but wonder why there is so little effort on the part of anyone in public life to educate the public on the inherant dangers of such powerful, unaccountable institutions. This is why we had a revolution to begin with. It’s why we fought two world wars in the last century. (Where is the Al Gore of civil liberties?)

And the most laughable thing is that all of this is apparently perfectly acceptable to the principled right wingers and “libertarians” who spent decades railing against the jack booted government thugs — at least until a Republican administration was wielding the power. It seems that unless the target in question is buying weapons or explosives (in which case they come roaring in to protect the only amendment in the Bill of Rights they care about) these people are just fine with all this. After all, only the “right” people are being spied upon — Muslims, war protestors, liberals, Democrats and other enemies of the state.

But guess what? That could change. The list of enemies will grow longer. It always does. And you never know who might land on it. This is not a partisan issue and it’s tragic that there are so few on the right who can’t extricate themselves from their pep club and cheerleader team sport world to consider that this is one issue we civil libertarians and at least some conservatives should be able to agree upon. I can say with absolute confidence that if a Democratic administration were institutionalizing spying on Americans and building a new all-powerful unaccountable police state apparatus, I’d be screaming just a loudly.

This exposes the right’s total intellectual bankruptcy as nothing else has, in my opinion. They are nothing more than rich authoritarian thugs whose only real mission is to maintain their prerogatives. One of these days somebody is going to find a reason to think they are unamerican too — and they are probably going to use that very same police state power against them. Then they’ll screaming too — but it will be too late.

.

Urban Legend

by digby

Yesterday on The Situation Room:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, there was a U.S. military strike in northern Iraq against an Iranian facility. And that, perhaps, is causing just as much consternation as the president’s new Iraq plan.

It was during his speech, the president gave, perhaps, his most aggressive warnings to date to Iran and Syria to stop meddling in Iraq’s affairs. The president saying that he would seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weapons and training to U.S. enemies in Iraq.

Now, there have been many political observers, military observers, who took this to mean that this was, in fact, some sort of signal that perhaps a military operation was ready to go, was poised to strike either Iran or Syria.

What we’re hearing from White House officials and Pentagon officials, they are pouring cold water on this, trying to dismiss that notion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I want to address kind of a rumor and urban legend that’s going around. And it comes from language in the president’s Wednesday night address to the nation that, in talking about Iran and Syria, that he was trying to prepare the way for war with either country and that there were war preparations underway. There are not.

GEN. PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: We can take care of the security for our troops by doing the business we need to do inside of Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: So, Wolf, they’re trying to make that very clear here, that this is not a war that they think is going to escalate or cross borders. The White House also, of course, engaged in an all out charm offensive. The president trying to win over at least members from his own party to come and support this new Iraq plan.

The president is hosting the Republican Congressional leadership at Camp David over the weekend, along with the wives, to try to help mend fences, if you will. And White House aides are saying, look, the president is under no delusions here that he’s going to win support right away. What they are counting on is simply buying time here to see if Iraqis come through.

They do believe that they’ll get a sense of that at least within a couple of months, whether or not those Iraqi forces are able to perform — Wolf.

So, Bush’s left field bellicose talk about Syria and Iran in his speech to the nation was meaningless. Pay no attention to the fact that he’s suddenly talking about patriot missiles and carrier groups and he’s assigning admirals to run the entire mideast military operation

I honestly don’t know what purpose Suzanne Malveaux’s report served except to have a pretty face deliver the white house spin. Her story was technically correct in that this was the official white house spin, but completely misleading. So was Tony Snow’s “urban legend” nonsense. Bush’s speech and recent actions cannot be interpreted any other way than they have been. If he didn’t mean to signal that he was ratcheting up the war in the mid-east to include Iran and Syria, then he has made another huge blunder by using language and taking actions that clearly indicate he is.

Here’s Flynt Leverett:

According to the President, the Iranians are providing “material support” to attacks on U.S. forces. That is a casus belli. It fits in with the administration’s escalating campaign — encompassing rhetoric and detentions of Iranian officials in Iraq — to blame Iran for a strategically significant part of the ongoing instability and violence in Iraq.

In the context of describing the deployment of additional U.S. forces to Iraq, the President also noted the importance of securing Iraq’s borders. I suspect that at least some of the additional U.S. soldiers going to Iraq will end up on the border with Iran.

Moreover, the President strongly implied that the U.S. military would start going after targets in countries neighboring Iraq to disrupt supply networks for insurgents and militias.

The deployment of a second carrier strike group to the theater — confirmed in the speech — is clearly directed against Iran. Since, in contrast to previous U.S. air campaigns in the Gulf, military planners developing contingencies for striking target sets in Iran must assume that the United States would not be able to use land-based air assets in theater (because of political opposition in the region), they are surely positing a force posture of at least two, and possible three carrier strike groups to provide the necessary numbers and variety of tactical aircraft.

Similarly, the President’s announcement that additional Patriot batteries would go to the Gulf is clearly directed against Iran. We have previously deployed Patriot batteries to the region to deal with the Iraqi SCUD threat. Today, the only missile threat in the region for the Patriot to address is posed, at least theoretically, by Iran’s Shihab-3.

Here’s Condi:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused yesterday to rule out cross-border US military action against Iran, a day after President Bush pledged in a major speech to “seek out and destroy” Iranian and Syrian networks providing weapons and training to anti-American forces in Iraq.

Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rice said the United States plans to target the networks inside Iraq, but added, “obviously the president isn’t going to rule anything out to protect our troops.”

Her comments followed questioning from three senators, including a high-profile Republican, on whether Bush believes he has the authority to conduct military missions in Iran without congressional approval. Rice said she wanted more time to study the question and would answer in writing. The three senators expressed fears that Bush’s new initiative might escalate into a wider regional conflict.

There are only two feasible interpretations of what the president is doing. He is either trying to provoke the Iranians or he and his Mayberry Machiavellis had no idea what his words were conveying. I could believe either. If it was just the latest in a long series of tactical and strategic blunders then we are in the soup now and it will take a combination of luck and skill to get us out of it — I don’t have much hope. If the president was rattling the sabre at Iran and Syria and preparing the ground for expanding the war, then I have even less. These people are deluded and incompetent on a level not seen since the final days of Rome.

This is very bad.

Update: Dick Cheney has consolidated his power and influence throughout the government and has the strongest underground network among all the various players, even with Rumsfeld gone. This article by Laura Rozen about how few restraints he has, either bureaucratically or politically, is chilling in its implications. Apparently, we must hope that the bureaucracy that still exists after six years of purges and quashing of dissent speaks out. Great.

.

Unfit For Office

by poputonian

This post was actually written a week or so before Bush’s detached, out-of-body, all-in, war-escalation speech:

Bush Breakdown Dead Ahead?

Although the thought has crossed my mind many times in the past, I have to admit that my concern for the psychological stability (or lack thereof) of George Dubya has increased tenfold since his joint appearance with Tony Blair a few weeks ago. In the wake of the release of the ISG Report the day before, Bush’s statements and mannerisms during that press conference revealed a level of disconnect and desperation that I had to wonder if the men with the big nets and white coats might be lurking in the White House somewhere.

Bush’s statements were not anything that we hadn’t heard in the past, but when taken in the context of the present situation he and his administration find themselves in, those statements took on a darker connotation. We were watching a man whose main concern was that his world was falling apart while failing to comprehend that the real world was also crumbling due to his ineptitude. But after a few minutes into the question and answer session, a troubling thought occurred to me; what if Bush’s infamous bubble is really beginning to break?
…
There are those who would take great pleasure in witnessing a Bush Breakdown. He is the most unsympathetic character to ever hold the office he now occupies and many wish to observe him actually recognizing some sense of reality, of the blood that stains his legacy because of his personal need for vengeance and the destruction resulting of his ignorance of the world around him. The breaking of Bush’s bubble, however satisfying, could be a double-edged sword.

Unlike Hitler in his last days, who had no armies or recourse, Bush has more than a few options should he suffer any form of breakdown – should he become aware that he has no escape from those whom he has infuriated – and none of them are in anyone’s best interest, including his. But something makes me think that consequences mean little to Bush.

Isn’t it clear that it’s comeuppance-time for the boy-president, and that the nation is at grave risk while Bush has his meltdown?

I think so. He gambled his presidency on Iraq, he was wrong. There is no reconciliation between his ideological vision and truth, which makes him ever more dangerous.

Now there is only one thing to do, and, as this letter from a Vermont citizen indicates, the people support it.

Impeachment would be heroic

January 13, 2007

This is copy of a letter sent to Rep. Peter Welch:

Checks and balances demand you act. The Constitution is being made invalid by this executive. You’re either for it or him. If you protect him and do not impeach, as he leaves office in ’09 you will have gone down before him in ’08, so I vow. So be a hero and a leader and break from the leadership by insisting on impeachment hearings. The state of Vermont will hail your adherence to the principle of the rule of law that no man is above justice, and our support will overcome any flack you will get from your party. You will never fear from public disapprobation, the only thing you need fear is if you do not act.

For the sake of the world, we need to get this thing on its way.

Like a snowball rolling.

Positioning

by digby

Matthew Yglesias explains why some of the Republican presidential candidates are inexplicably behaving like Bush cultists and some are not:

The oddity of the emerging GOP presidential field is that it’s dominated by candidates — John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney — who are, in one way or another, importantly unorthodox conservatives. Consequently, they need to hew very closely to hawk dogma in national security policy to prove their bona fides even at the moment where political support for the hawkish position is collapsing. Sam Brownback, a distinctly second-tier contender but one who benefits from being a committed social conservative with standard conservative economic views, is taking the chance to be the exception and resist the urge to surge…

The only thing I would add to this analysis is that, as best I can tell, ever since the war began in March 2003 it’s been the case that any given dovish position looks better and better as time goes on. When thinking about positioning yourself for primaries that won’t be held until a year or more from now, it’s worth keeping in mind that things will almost certainly look worse 9-15 months from now than they do today.

For the Republicans being a true blue conservative is so important that a candidate who is not an unreconstructed hawk or a religious nut (preferably both) cannot get past the primaries. That puts the “electable” (appealing to independents) candidates in a very difficult position and they have obviously decided they are better off with Bush and the war than being out there without any wingnut credentials at all. It’s very risky.

I remember writing a long comment somewhere on the day of the Iraq war resolution that the Democratic presidential contenders were stupid to vote for the war for purely political reasons because if the war was going ok in 2004, Bush would almost certainly win and if it wasn’t their vote would be hung around their necks like a dead albatross. John Kerry certainly paid that price for his vote which made it virtually impossible for him to make a coherent case against the war.

The problem was that most of these people were fighting the last war, Gulf War I, when many of them felt burned by their vote against a war that ended up being a glorious (and painless) victory. The Republicans never let them forget it. It was understandable that they were unsure of themselves and thought it was a good bet to go with the war — it was just a year after 9/11 and Bush was at 65% in the polls. It wasn’t a good bet at all.

I thought long and hard about that since then, wondering how a politican can truly know the smart move in cases of war and I concluded that they probably can’t. They simply have to do what they think is right. It’s a different case than most legislation where you can horsetrade and think about positioning for the future and otherwise play politics. War is a wildcard — you can’t know in advance how things are going to go or what position taken today might benefit you tomorrow. The risks are so high and the moral questions so profound that you are better off just trying to make a reasoned decision and being open minded about changing your mind if things go differently than you expect.

It’s an unsatisfying and frightening way for politicians to deal with big questions like this, but I don’t see any way they can avoid it. Many of the Democrats followed their instincts in 1991 and were humiliated — so they didn’t follow their instincts in 2002 and they were trapped. I’m not disagreeing with Yglesias that they should keep in mind that there is an ever reduced risk in being against the war, but I don’t think as a general rule it’s a good idea to put too much stock in such things. War is not predictable.

.

Pig Slop

by digby

Shakespeare’s Sister and Punkass Blog riff on an ignorant little screed by Baby Ben Shapiro in which he says:

Nancy Pelosi, however, could breastfeed on the speaker’s podium and receive the plaudits of the mainstream media.

and

No woman in the history of politics has used her womb like Nancy Pelosi.

Think Progress picked it up, too.

It should be noted that Baby Ben didn’t come up with this puerile sexist drivel all by himself. There are millions of people all over the country chuckling about Pelosi “breastfeeding” on the speaker’s podium because one very highly paid and influential sack of moronic nonsense said this:

PELOSI : I want to thank Paul and our five children, Nancy Korynn, Christine, Jacquelyn, Paul Jr. and Alexandra, and our magnificent grandchildren for their love, for their support, and the confidence they gave me to go from the kitchen to the Congress.

LIMBAUGH: Yes, you see, ladies and gentlemen, this is a triumph of feminism and estrogen, as Wes Puden says today. And ladies, the long 200-year national nightmare without a woman at the top is now over.

PELOSI : We have waited over 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren’t just waiting; women were working.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah.

PELOSI : Never losing faith.

LIMBAUGH: Right.

PELOSI : We worked to redeem the promise of America —

LIMBAUGH: Right.

PELOSI : — that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling.

LIMBAUGH: No, you have cracked it, but you have not broken it. I wonder when she loses next if she’ll go back to the kitchen. If her kids and family allowed her to go from the — what do you bet she hasn’t been in the kitchen in a long time anyway?

[…]

RUSH: One of the latest Democrat — one of the new freshman, Heath Shuler, not the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with — I have a story in which he says his 2-year-old daughter, who he named Island, his 2-year-old daughter is inspired by Nancy Pelosi’s ascension to the speakership. Now Heath — I don’t have — what? What do you mean — oh, come on, of course it can’t be. His 2-year-old can’t possibly know who Pelosi is other than as a cartoon figure on television. Maybe Pelosi breastfed him, I don’t know, when the kid was pregnant. Who knows? She’s capable of doing everything else.

[…]

LIMBAUGH: And we’re being told by her and the “drive-by media” that this is something brand new and revolutionary, and better than we have ever, ever had. Note — we’ve never had old Grandpa Newt [Gingrich] up there with the kids on his lap, because he didn’t care about kids. That’s the assumption. Men don’t just care — ’cause look, kids are fine just as long as they’re at home and the woman is raising them. But don’t bring them to the office, I want nothing to do with — that’s the image that is portrayed. But look at Ms. Pelosi. Why, she can multitask. She can breastfeed, she can clip her toenails, she can direct the House, all while the kids are sitting on her lap at the same time. Take care of the children, take care of the country at the same time. Never, ever been done before. It’s all about the feminization of culture, and if you think I’m going overboard on this, stay tuned for the next story.

The president of the United States appeared with this gelatinous pile of fetid sewage just days before the election and treated him with the utmost respect.

.

There But For the Grace of God

by digby

So Dan “Scumbag” Burton broke with his party and voted for the Democratic bill calling for the government to be able to negotiate drug prices for people on Medicare. Very compassionate of him.

He did this because his wife died of breast cancer a few years ago after a long illness and he was personally exposed to the way the medical system works for average people when he would sit with his wife at the cancer center and listen to what the cancer patients said. Because his family was going through a medical crisis he understood why it was so stressful for people to be unable to afford prescriptions under such circumstances.

This is a big problem with Republicans. They reflexively object to any government program until they are confronted personally with a situation that requires such intervention. They have no empathy for people in the abstract, always assuming that whomever is saying they are in need is a whining malcontent who could be just as healthy and self-sufficient as they are if they truly tried.

Until something happens to them or someone they love, that is, at which point they are converted.

Burton isn’t the only one. There are always a smattering of Republicans who don’t follow the party line on a particular issue like stem cell research or mental health coverage. When you look beneath the surface it’s always because they personally know someone, usually a family member, who would benefit from the program. (You can often see this in national emergencies where they suddenly clamor for federal help after disdaining the same requests by people in other parts of the country and constantly voting against such measures on a programmatic level.)

I think this is one of the defining aspects of conservatism. They have a stunted sense of empathy and an undeveloped ability to understand abstract concepts. It makes them unable to fashion any solutions to common problems, which they blame on “poor character” because they cannot visualize themselves ever being in a vulnerable or unlucky position through no fault of their own. Until it happens to them or someone they know, in which case they never question their philosophy as a whole but merely apply a special exemption to whichever particular problem or risk to which they have personally been exposed.

Empathy is not some altruistic concept. In fact, it’s quite selfish and designed to make humans better able to survive. It allows a person to walk in another’s shoes so that they might have an inkling of what it would be like if that person’s experience became their own. It is necessary to understand how to head off problems that you might someday have to confront and it is certainly necessary to fully understand other necessary concepts such as justice, fairness and love.

I’m not drawing any conclusions from this, but it’s interesting. It seems that when they test psychopaths, they find that they can’t understand abstract concepts. I’m just saying.

.

Scraping The Bottom Of The Wingnut Barrel

by digby

How pathetic is it that the White House is now depending on Michele Malkin to tell their “real story” of Iraq? You would think that they could have found a journalist who writes for a real rightwing rag somewhere to go over to Iraq and tell the story they really want told.

Apparently all the FOX News, NY Post and Washington Times reporters are too chickenshit or have too much integrity (not bloody likely) to go over there to pump up Bush’s deflated codpiece. So, they have been reduced to touting the talents of second rate internet wingnut welfare queens to do the job.

I’m beginning to think that their new strategy is to gain support through pity. This is the most pathetic thing they’ve ever done.

.

TIME Goes Unhinged

by digby

I have to say that I’m kind of enjoying Swampland, TIME‘s attempt to ape The Corner with Ana Marie Cox, Joe Klein, Jay Carney and Karen Tumulty. But I’m a little bit concerned that Joe Klein is travelling in company that’s going to embarrass him with its intemperate and provocative language.

Joe is going to have to have a talk with the fellow blogger who wrote this:

Condi at the Foreign Relations Committee:

“The Iraqis have developed a plan…and we will support that plan.”

The most blatant nonsense in the President’s speech was that we’re just supporting an Iraqi plan to escalate. Now Condi’s doing it. Disingenuous and insulting.

Oh my. Hugh Hewitt is going to be fuming over that one.

How about this:

This dual escalation–in Iraq and, especially, against Iran–is the most reckless thing I’ve ever seen an American President do. God help us.

Using the hysterical, liberal word “reckless” sounds unserious to me. Shouldn’t this blogger be using more measured tones?

And Joe is surely going to have to have a talk with the blogger who typed this immoderate blast:

The absolute worst moment of President Bush’s dreadful speech last night was when he threatened to take action against Syria and Iran…

Now he appears to have done so, attacking the Iranian consulate in Irbil. This is an outrageous escalation–very similar to Richard Nixon’s attack on Cambodia, late in the Vietnam war. Bush has been trying to provoke the Iranians into a shooting war for the past month–detaining Iranian diplomats in Baghdad, sending an additional carrier battle group to the Gulf. The Iranians have ignored the provocations, but one wonders how long they will and how they might respond. More support for the rogue wing of Muqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Army? A Hezbollah terrorist attack against us?

For those who didn’t think things could get much worse, well, good morning.

It sounds as though this person is accusing the president of setting up a phony cassus belli for war with Iran. That kind of obnoxious rhetoric is what makes the real Americans in this country mistrust the angry left. It’s one thing to have disagreements with the administration, it’s quite another to accuse them of lying and acting in bad faith. There can be no serious bipartisan agreements among centrists of good will with this kind of talk coming from the left.

The Washington editor of TIME.com is going to have to have a chat with her bloggers — this could get out of hand. Joe Klein is not going to put up with offensively imprudent rhetoric on his blog for very long.

Update: Another Swampland blogger broke the primary journalistic unwritten rule by pointing out that St John McCain might just be being a wee bit disingenuous:

“I’d much rather lose a campaign than lose a war.”

It’s true, Jay, that few people doubt McCain sincerely believes in what he is advocating. But when he first took this position of calling for more troops, it was something of a free shot for him: It didn’t look all that risky politically, because Rumsfeld was still running the Pentagon, and nobody thought Bush would actually do it.

Ooopsie. Somebody let the cat out of the bag that St John took a phony position he thought would cover him politically as long as nobody took him seriously. That’s not supposed to be noticed or commented upon by respected media people. Only the filthy hippie bloggers on the left even whisper such things. Joe Klein is going to be furious at this lack of civility at TIME.com.

.

Fingers Crossed

by poputonian

January 12, 2007

Land of Enchantment and Impeachment

By David Swanson

There is a decent chance that within the next month or two the New Mexico State Legislature will ask the U.S. House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And there is the definite possibility that a Congress Member from New Mexico will take up the matter when it gets to Washington. The Jefferson Manual, rules used by the U.S. House, allows for impeachment to be begun in this manner. It only takes one state legislature. No governor is needed. One Congress Member, from the same state or any other, is needed to essentially acknowledge receipt of the state’s petition. Then impeachment begins.

Last year the state legislatures of California, Minnesota, Illinois, and Vermont introduced but did not pass resolutions to send impeachment to the U.S. House. The State Senator who introduced the bill in Minnesota is now a member of Congress, Keith Ellison. He is one of many Congress Members waiting for the right moment to impeach Bush and Cheney. The state of New Jersey has a strong activist movement working to introduce and pass impeachment this year. There’s a race now to see which state can do it first, which state can redeem these United States in the eyes of the world. New Mexico is jumping into the contest in a big way, with a terrific leading sponsor of the bill, strong Democatic majorities in both houses, and a citizens’ movement ready to hold its government to account.

Of course, it is cities, not states, that have really taken the lead on impeachment, as on ending the war. Dozens of cities have already passed resolutions for impeachment. Dozens more have introduced them, and they are pending. [Visit one of the best impeachment resources around – afterdowningstreet ] A handful have introduced them and voted them down. On March 6th about 100 towns in Vermont will vote at public meetings for impeachment. But by March 6th, impeachment may already be underway.

There is a conflict brewing between Congress and the White House over the war and over the division of powers created by the U.S. Constitution and eliminated by this administration. If Bush attacks Iran and/or Syria without approval from Congress, or escalates the war in Iraq without approval from Congress, we may finally see Congress fight back. This President has rendered Congress almost meaningless. He reverses laws with “signing statements.” He disregards laws at his whim, openly bragging about doing so. And he makes many operations secret, hidden even from Congress, refusing requests for information, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act. When this President does communicate with Congress, he often provides false or misleading information, most notably in making the case for the current war.

I don’t know anything about the Jefferson Manual, or what happens procedurally or practically if impeachment begins in the way described, but whatever gets the snowball rolling, I am for it.

Nice Try

by digby

I’ve heard a lot of questioning around the sphere about whether the president was authorized by the AUMF to invade Iraq Iran.

Absolutely not and the record is very specific and very clear. He’s on his own. Dover Bitch reminds us that there were two drafts of the AUMF and the first one was expressly rejected because it included language that would have given the president the right to take his war regional. I assume the Democrats remember this too.

.