Month: December 2007

Shake It Up

by digby

Chris Dodd’s campaign is asking for your help:

Today, that FISA fight we’ve all been waiting for begins.

In a few hours, Majority Leader Harry Reid will ask for something called a “motion to proceed” on FISA, effectively disregarding Chris Dodd’s “hold” on the bill.

Remember when this all started playing out? A lot of people rushed to send out strongly worded press releases about how committed they were to “supporting a filibuster.”

Call or email the Senators that pledged to support a filibuster and ask them to be there when it happens to pick up the ball after Chris Dodd can go no longer.

Leadership is demonstrated through action.

Click here for more information.

Dodd is way out on a limb on this. He’s been abandoned by his party leadership and he’s being forced to leave his Iowa campaign in the middle of the battle to come back to DC and do an old fashioned filibuster of this bill.

Senators Clinton, Biden and Obama said they would support a filibuster. Edwards said he supported one too. If they would agree to come back to the Senate and help Dodd talk all night, it would bring much need attention to the issue and show the Democratic base that these candidates value them. Imagine if they all (including Edwards) agreed to suspend their campaigns and come back to Washington to stand with Dodd. It would be electrifying — and it would show the country that the Democrats are prepared to fight. (It would also give them a bunch of free TV time.)

Will any of them (all of them?) do the right thing or will they blow it off?

Go here and ask them.

*And no I am not an idiot Pollyanna who was just born yesterday, so save your insults for the next post, ok? This is rhetorical.

But if people contact them in large numbers they will at least be on notice that they will get a lot of love or some really harsh criticism from the netroots depending on what they do with this. If they want to avoid the unnecessary unpleasantness of a lot of angry blognats swirling around their campaigns in the last weeks before the vote, the three of them could think about placing a little call to the majority leader and suggest that this is more trouble than it’s worth and that he should, at the very least, table this pos. That’s all I’m saying …

.

Shocked, simply shocked

by digby

Who could have ever predicted this?

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to give Congress details of the government’s investigation into interrogations of terror suspects that were videotaped and destroyed by the CIA. He said doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry is vulnerable to political pressure.

In letters to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees that oversee the Justice Department, Mukasey said there is no need right now to appoint a special prosecutor to lead the investigation. The preliminary inquiry currently is being handled by the Justice Department and the CIA’s inspector general.

“I am aware of no facts at present to suggest that department attorneys cannot conduct this inquiry in an impartial manner,” Mukasey wrote Friday to Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat and Republican, respectively, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If I become aware of information that leads me to a different conclusion, I will act on it.”

Addressing congressional demands for facts in the CIA tapes inquiry, Mukasey noted that the Justice Department generally does not give out information about pending cases.

“This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence,” Mukasey wrote. “Accordingly, I will not at this time provide further information in response to your letter, but appreciate the committee’s interests in this matter.”

An almost-identical letter was sent Thursday to Democratic leaders of the House Judiciary Committee.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike angrily denounced Mukasey’s refusal, which they said blocks congressional oversight of the Justice Department.

Additionally, lawmakers from both parties accused the Justice Department of obstructing a House Intelligence Committee inquiry by advising the CIA against cooperating with it.

“Earlier today, our staff was notified that the Department of Justice has advised CIA not cooperate with our investigation,” House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, and the panel’s top Republican, Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, said in a joint statement Friday.

“We are stunned that the Justice Department would move to block our investigation,” Reyes and Hoekstra said. “Parallel investigations occur all of the time, and there is no basis upon which the Attorney General can stand in the way of our work. … It’s clear that there’s more to this story than we have been told, and it is unfortunate that we are being prevented from learning the facts. The executive branch can’t be trusted to oversee itself.”

Leahy said he was disappointed that Mukasey denied the details to his committee — even in a classified setting.

“Oversight fosters accountability,” Leahy said. “This committee needs to fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation techniques and torture, contrary to our basic values.”

[…]

During his confirmation hearings in October, Mukasey promised senators he would review Justice Department memos after becoming attorney general to determine whether waterboarding amounts to torture — which would deem it illegal. Earlier this week, however, Mukasey said he has not yet finished that review, and rebuffed calls from Congress to make a speedy decision.

“This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence“

This guy’s a laugh riot.

But hey, everybody loves watching the congress get punk’d by Dick Cheney. They should turn it into a sit-com. They could call it “Waddaya Gonna Do About It?”

.

Priorities

by digby

For some reason the political class and the gasbags don’t seem to get what this means:

If we don’t reform the health care system overall, that’s what’s going to happen.

Via K-Drum

.

Bush Incarnate

by digby

Matt Yglesias says that Democrats should stop wishing for the perfect candidate and just be grateful they aren’t faced with the clown show the Republicans are putting up:

He says that the Republicans could be having an interesting debate about the nature of conservatism and the direction of their party. But they’re not. He points to this post at the American Scene which explains:

In fact, there is no ideological fighting going on, except between Ron Paul and the rest of the field. Instead, the GOP is engaged in an identity-politics-driven contest. The GOP is not debating what it stands for, nor is it a party that knows what it stands for and is looking for the best candidate to win a general election and/or to effectively carry out the party’s program. The GOP is not trying to find a leader for the party. It is looking for a candidate who is the incarnation of the party. No wonder they’re having a tough time.

That’s what they always do. They want a living incarnation of the party (Jesus, maybe, if he hated racial minorities and liked torture and tax cuts.)

The problem is that it’s not easy to find a walking incarnation of a party based entirely on a dissonant image of narrow regional folkways and aristocratic privilege. Now that the Bush political franchise has been permanently tarnished, you can’t just pull one off the shelf.

.

The Don’t Make Trouble Strategy

by digby

So, it’s looking very much like the big corporations are going to get retroactive immunity for helping the government defy the constitution and break the law. The Democratic leadership either agrees philosophically that these wealthy telecoms are innocent victims (which sets a very interesting precedent)or they feel it is too politically risky to take a stand. Whatever the motive, it appears that they are willing to give the Republicans another victory. Evidently, they believe this will make them look better in the eyes of the voters.

If you wonder why that might be, here’s an interesting reportfrom the Village media:

BLITZER:Democrats were rushing back to Washington to participate in some voting, and then rushing back to Iowa. What’s the latest, Brianna?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, they sure did rush back, even though it’s make or break time on the campaign trail. They scrambled back here to Washington in an attempt to get some legislation moving, and the operative word there is “attempt.”

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KEILAR (voice over): Democratic presidential candidates hot off the campaign trail sped into Washington today, spending less than an hour on the Senate floor to vote yes on two measures, votes that in the end didn’t really matter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The motion is not agreed to.

KEILAR: And with that, a Democratic push on a critical energy bill fell short. It’s a different day, but in a way, the same old story. Faced with a determined president and a unified Republican minority, this Democratic-led Congress has held many votes that have failed.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: When one side or the other tries to jam their agenda down the throats of the other side, it doesn’t work, and exhibit A is the dismal record of this broken Congress during this last year.

KEILAR: On the flip side, Democrats accuse Republicans of stonewalling.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: My Republican colleagues are filibustering themselves out of their seats come 2008.

KEILAR: In recent weeks, Congress has stalled on legislation to expand the children’s health insurance program, stopped the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions more Americans, and reformed the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program, not to mention the failure to fund almost the entire federal government and give the president more money for the war on Iraq. Democrats say their votes are important even if they don’t win.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: We signaled change, we’ve made a difference, and now we’re showing, in order to get much more of this done, we can do some of it this year, but we need a Democratic president and we need stronger majorities in the House and Senate.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: Democrats are showing some signs of giving into the president’s demands in the hopes that they can get some of this taken care of ahead of the holidays. It looks like ultimately they will approve the latest installment of war funding without strings attached. And Senate Democrats have a plan to scrap tax increases for oil companies from the energy bill in the hopes that they can pass that in the next couple hours — Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Brianna. Thanks very much.

She’s on the Hill.

Let’s get to the Americans public’s dim view of the Democratic Congress and of President Bush. Our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, is here with some brand-new poll numbers as well.

Which side is in a stronger position politically, Bill? Would it be the president of the United States or the Democratic-led Congress.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: The Democratic Congress. And they don’t want to risk it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER (voice over): The Democratic Congress and President Bush are nearing a showdown. Should Congress stand up to the president? Congressional leaders are painfully aware of what happened when the Republican Congress stood up to President Clinton at the end of 1995, but things are very different now.

In November 1995, President Clinton’s job approval stood at 52 percent. What’s President Bush’s job rating now? Thirty-two percent.

STUART ROTHENBERG, ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT: The Democrats ought to have a freer hand here. They ought to be in a stronger position. But they don’t quite see it that way.

SCHNEIDER: Why not? Here’s one reason. The job approval rating for the Democratic leaders of Congress is only slightly higher than President Bush’s. That’s partly because Congress isn’t standing up to President Bush. Most liberals say they disapprove of the job the Democrats in Congress are doing.

Moreover, when it comes to making tough budget choices, the public prefers the Democrats in Congress over President Bush by better than two to one. So why don’t the Democrats stand their ground? Because they don’t want to risk handing President Bush an issue.

ROTHENBERG: I think they figure if they can go into the election running against Republicans in the Senate, running against George Bush, they’ll take that now rather than risk a big blowup.

SCHNEIDER: Of course, there’s also a risk if they give into the president.

ROTHENBERG: If they look weak, if they look ineffectual, they could suffer some costs as well there, but they don’t see those as great as a big blowup, what’s often referred to as a political train wreck.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: Congressional Democrats don’t want to be soon as causing a train wreck, even if that makes them looking weak and ineffectual — Wolf.

I think that’s actually a pretty accurate analysis. And what a winning strategy it is. After all, it’s not like the Republicans have ever been able to make any political hay out of Democratic weakness. From his remarks this morning on FISA, Reid seems to think he can get away with this by blaming “the blogs” for being unreasonable. (Hey — maybe he can get a bipartisan vote together to condemn us! That usually soothes the savage beasts for a few days anyway.)

I think the train wreck avoidance strategy is shockingly naive. The real risk is allowing the Republicans to define the agenda and drive the election storyline. As bad as they are at everything else, they are very, very good at that. The Democrats should use the temporary advantage they have while the Republicans flail about for a candidate, to bury them, not appease them. They are taking a huge, unnecessary gamble by just trying to get in under the wire without creating any controversy. It means they are automatically on defense — the Republicans thrive on the fight and they will bring it if they have any opening at all.

Reid and the Democrats should be defining all this legislation around election themes. In this case, you have powerful interests getting special laws that benefit only them, ordinary citizens being denied their day in court, and Bush’s mindless and counterproductive national security policy. There are many ways to attack these things that would set the table for the arguments we are going to have. Right now, the Republicans can’t really get their preferred narrative out there because they can’t settle on a candidate. It’s a rare opportunity to take charge of it and the Dems are foolishly laying out. They think they are playing it safe, but they aren’t. They are hiding in plain sight, waiting to be ambushed as soon as the Republicans regroup.

There will probably be a lot of bloggy activity over the next few days on this FISA bill, so stay tuned. There is some slim hope that Harry Reid can be persuaded to change his mind and show Chris Dodd the same respect he shows to Republicans like Tom Coburn. But there’s always the risk that such a thing might make some waves and cause the Republican thugs and the Village media to start running around shrieking and wailing about “train wrecks” and we can’t have that. So you’ll have to pardon me if I’m not entirely sanguine that it will do any good.

Here’s a little story from a book called “The Genius of the Jewish Joke” by Arthur Asa Berger:

Three Jews were going to be executed. They were lined up in front of a firing squad and the sergeant in charge asked each one whether he wanted a blindfold or not.

“Do you want a blindfold?” he asked the first. “Yes,” he said, in a resigned tone.

“Do you want a blindfold?” he asked the second. “Ok,” said the second.

“Do you want a blindfold?” he asked the third. “No,” said the third.

At this point the second leaned over to the third one and said “Take a blindfold. Don’t make trouble.”

That’s the Democratic electoral strategy in a nutshell.

.

Torture Society

by digby

I have a post up over at CAF about what happens to a society that lets it collective id off the leash. I suspect it’s something that tends to happen when a country is so powerful it feels it can get away with anything.

.

Smell That Freedom

by digby

More pirate privilege:

Congress is asking questions about another ex-employee of government contracting firm KBR who claims she was raped in Iraq.

Letters to the Pentagon and the Justice Department today from Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. underscore congressional concern about a second alleged assault, this time of a woman from Florida who reportedly worked for a KBR subsidiary in Ramadi, Iraq in 2005.

“I am deeply troubled by recent reports that at least two women who worked in Iraq under contractors for the Department of Defense were sexually assaulted by male coworkers,” Nelson wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates Thursday.

In particular, Nelson expressed concern that in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, the U.S. Army doctor who examined her turned over the rape examination kit, thought to contain useful evidence, to KBR officials. In the letter, Nelson also asked for an investigation to determine how many rape examinations were performed by U.S. military doctors in Iraq, and what was being done to ensure the cases were prosecuted.

In a separate letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Nelson asked why there has been no criminal prosecution in the case of the alleged Florida victim. The woman, reportedly now 41, has alleged she was raped in her living quarters. She has sued KBR and Halliburton in civil court, but the judge ordered the case into private arbitration.

Contacted Thursday, the woman’s lawyer said the rules of arbitration prohibit her from discussing the case or making her client available for an interview.

Man, those employment contracts are awesome. You get raped. There’s no criminal jurisdiction (because your employer is the former employer of the most powerful man in the world and he’s made sure of it.) And you have to go to arbitration and haggle across a table with your former employer over the details and the damages you incurred when you were raped by their employees (who suffered no criminal penalties — or no penalties at all.) Sweet.

I suppose this isn’t quite as bad as punishing the victims for being raped with corporal punishment as they do in Saudi Arabia (and which “disappoints” George W. Bush) but I would imagine the difference feels like one of degree rather than substance.

Meanwhile back in Iraq, where the surge is making Iraq a peaceful paradise:

Wave Of Violence’ Against Women In Iraq Undercuts White House’s Claims Of Success

In recent weeks, the Bush administration has cited declining violence in Iraq as evidence of the success. Earlier this month, President Bush said that Iraqis are slowly “taking back their country.”

But last night, NBC Nightly News aired a segment about a “wave of violence that’s gone largely unreported lately against women in Iraq.” The report noted that Iraqi women, once “the most emancipated in the Arab world,” are increasingly unable to walk around without a hijab, wear cosmetics, or work. (YouTube here.)

The biggest irony here is that the war was marketed as a great advance for women’s rights in the middle east. But it was obvious early on that it was a joke, and one of the biggest clues was the complete disregard for the fact that the women of Iraq were actually losing their freedom from the moment we invaded.

I wrote about it three years ago:

Despite what the right wing would have everyone believe, one of the primary reasons liberals supported the invasion of Afghanistan was to end the documented horrors that women suffered under the Taliban. Long before the Bush admnistration was negotiating with the Taliban or Republican congressmen were holding privatre meetings with Mullah Omar’s lieutenants trying to make deals for pipelines, Hollywood liberals like Mavis Leno were spearheading the despised Feminist Majority Foundation’s Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan. Everything about the Taliban was anathema to people like us who value freedom and equality. When that religious fundamentalist government enabled the direct attack on the United States there was every reason on both moral and national security grounds to support the invasion of that country. Life could not be much worse than it was under the Taliban.

Iraq was always much more complicated. Many of us were extremely suspicious of the evidence that Saddam posed a threat to the United States and as horrible as his regime was, there was always the liklihood that the country would eventually fall into civil war and itself become a fundamentalist theocracy — thus making daily life for a full fifty percent of the population many degrees worse than it was under Saddam. It was never a pretty calculation but it was realistic. We knew all this going in and it is one of the reasons why it was never easy to simply wave the flag and proclaim ourselves liberators. Unless everything went exactly as envisioned by the starry eyed neocons, there was every chance that we would actually make many people less free by our actions.

It appears that this is happening. Not that anyone cares, mind you. If half of the Iraqi population sees a substantial loss of personal freedom from our liberation, it isn’t really a problem. They are, after all, only women.

We on the left are being chastized daily for being terrorist sympathizers. Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are said to be on the other side. Any criticism of the government is Unamerican. And all of this is based upon the idea that liberals are rejecting Western values and putting ourselves in league with Islamic fundamentalists. This is literally nonsensical.

In point of fact, the argument could much more easily be made that it is the other way around. It grows more and more likely that the right, who wholeheartedly supported the war and are currently supporting the political handling of the occupation, deposed a totalitarian dictator to install a repressive fundamentalist theocracy in its place. I fail to see how that advances the cause of our country or western civilization. Indeed, it is a betrayal of everything we stand for.

Who are the real traitors to western enlightenment values — those of us who find both totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism abominations or those who topple dictators to install theocracy? I’d ask the women of Iraq in about five years what they think. Of course, they won’t be allowed to speak freely, so we’ll probably never know.

I don’t think we have to wait another two years, do you?

.

That’s My Boy

by digby

I’m not big on attacking politicians’ family members, but this Huckabee kid sounds like a real piece of work:

David Huckabee, a son of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, was arrested at Little Rock’s airport Thursday after a federal X-ray technician detected a loaded Glock pistol in his carry-on luggage.

“I removed the bag and asked Mr. Huckabee if he knew what he had in the bag,” Little Rock police officer Arthur Nugent wrote in a report after being summoned to a security checkpoint. “He replied he did now.”

Huckabee, 26, later pleaded guilty in Little Rock District Court after being charged with possessing a weapon in a prohibited place. District Judge Lee Munson gave Huckabee a one-year suspended jail sentence and ordered him into 10 days of community service — which Huckabee can avoid by paying $100. Huckabee will be on probation for a year. Fines and costs totaled $605.

The son of the former Arkansas governor holds a concealed weapons permit. The elder Huckabee, who said last week that Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui perhaps could have been stopped if a teacher or student had also been armed, also has a concealed weapon

[…]

In 1998, David Huckabee was among two boys fired from a Boy Scout camp after a stray dog was killed after wandering onto camp property. David Huckabee, 17 at the time, said the dog appeared ill; no charges were filed. The elder Huckabee said then that politics was behind the dog-killing accusation.

All right, whatever. Another gun-toting moron with powerful connections gets away with something that would land us in jail. Fine.

But that 1998 thing is a lot more creepy than it appears:

Two boy scout counselors, 17 year old Clayton Frady and 18 year old David litickabee, the son of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, have admitted to catching a stray dog during their summer session at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, AR, and hanging the dog by his neck, slitting his throat and stoning him to death.

Camp officials, who did not report the crime to law enforcement officials, have admitted that the act did occur and have fired the boys from their positions. However, no charges have been filed against the young men.

Michael Vick got 23 months for killing dogs.

I’m just saying.

More on Huckabee today from Huffington Post.

Update II: The site that hosts that story is the “old site” of the animal rights group run by Kinky Friedman which is called Utopia Animal Rescue. It’s quite well known and entirely legitimate. I don’t know where they got the details about dog, but I believe they are a credible source on this subject.

Update: I’ve updated on this post here.

The Enemies In Our Midst

by digby

Following up on the post below about the Democrats’ bold advance in the war on Christmas, I see that, once again, I completely missed the point:

9 Dems Say No to Christmas Resolution

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. Jim McDermott says he is no Grinch, even though he voted against Christmas.

The Democrat from Washington state says he was protesting an expected veto of a children’s health insurance bill when he voted against a resolution recognizing the importance of Christmas.

“While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, the president was vetoing health care for children. There’s a little bit of irony going on around here,” McDermott said Thursday.

The Christmas measure was approved 372-9 on Tuesday night. Democrats cast all the no votes. Beside McDermott, the other dissenting votes came from Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of New York; Barbara Lee, Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey of California; Diana DeGette of Colorado; Alcee Hastings of Florida; and Bobby Scott of Virginia.

[…]

“I guess I’m the only guy left in Congress who still gets angry, but there are some things that are just not right,” McDermott said.

On that last point, at least, Republicans agreed.

“I think there’s an anti-Christian bias,” said Rep. Steve King, who sponsored the resolution. “I would not have thought that five or 10 years ago that we’d need to make a statement” affirming the importance of Christmas and Christianity.

King’s resolution stated that Christianity was the predominant faith in the United States and contributed greatly to the development of the country and Western civilization.

“I’ve watched Christ be eradicated by ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lawsuits and people be afraid of confrontations. They wish (people) ‘happy holidays’ but not ‘Merry Christmas’ because they might be offended,” King, R-Iowa, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

See, those 9 Democrats who voted against Christmas represent that vast anti-Christian bias that’s destroying the country. Until they get to a unanimous vote, the war rages on. I’m glad the AP informed us of what is truly at stake here.

.

Yes Master

by digby

He’s a good person who said a bad thing. Again:

IMUS: What do you like on the other side. Well, Huckabee, is he for real?

SEVERIN: I don’t think so. First of all, full disclosure, I’m for Mitt Romney, always have been. I believe he’d be a great president of the United States, also a great candidate against the Democrats, and I believe Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. That having been said, certainly Huckabee is making mischief, and he could make serious mischief such that he could throw the Republican thing back out into the, you know, completely up in the air.

The Huckabee surge in Iowa is attributable to a singe factor, and that is Iowa is unique in that the largest group of Republican voters, the largest discernible group of Republican voters in Iowa are self-described evangelical Christians.

IMUS: Why don’t you like Huckabee? Because you’re gay, or what?

All those fine mainstream media mavens and Democrats who are flocking back to Imus should be so proud.

SEVERIN: I would like to make another admission on the Imus in the Morning program. I am, I am very happy, yes. And no, I would think that would make me — I would think that would make me like Huckabee, think a little different than what I see of this guy.

IMUS: Here’s what you have to wonder, is here I am picking on poor Jay Severin, who couldn’t be more loyal to me —

McCORD: No.

IMUS: — unless he were Sean Hannity, who was magnificent in his support of me, and I don’t know why I’m being mean to you. But, so I apologize.

I don’t know why he didn’t mention all the Democratic politicians who supported him too. He really is mean.

I actually believe him that he doesn’t know why he said it. Being an asshole is just a reflexive, uncontrollable response for him. Bullies are like that — it’s lizard brain, primitive pecking order stuff. He was just making sure that Severin and other supporters understand that just because they spoke up for him it doesn’t change the fact that Imus is the alpha. And he is.

.