DFA - Send a thank you to those taking a stand... for the people!

Let's be clear: A Healthcare bill without a public option is D.O.A. in the House. Period.

To pass any bill in the House they need at least 218 votes but 64 House Democrats have stood up and said they will not vote for a bill without a public option. That means a bill without a public option would only have 193 votes.

It's up to us to make sure these Democrats stand strong and never back down to the insurance industry or pressure from insider Democrats.

All signatures delivered directly to every single Democratic member of the House. We'll make sure they know we're watching. We will support those who stand and deliver real reform.

For those who don't, it will be a strong reminder: if you stand against the 76% of Americans who want a choice of a public health insurance option, you will stand alone for re-election.

Here Are the Names of All 64 House Democrats Who Are True Healthcare Heroes
Albio Sires (NJ-13) Alcee Hastings (FL-23) Andre Carson (IN-07)
Barbara Lee (CA-09) Barney Frank (MA-14) Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Bill Delahunt (MA-10) Bill Pascrell (NJ-08) Bob Filner (CA-51)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01) Corrine Brown (FL-03) Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Diane Watson (CA-33) Donald Payne (NJ-10) Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) Ed Towns (NY-10) Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07) Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) Eric Massa (NY-29)
Pete Stark (CA-13) Grace Napolitano (CA-38) Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jackie Spier (CA-12) Jerry Nadler (NY-08) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Jim McDermott (WA-07) Jim McGovern (MA-03) John Conyers (MI-14)
John Olver (MA-01) John Tierney (MA-06) John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-16) Judy Chu (CA-32) Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Laura Richardson (CA-37) Linda Sanchez (CA-39) Lloyd Doggett (TX-25)
Lucille Roybal-Alard (CA-34) Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11) Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Maxine Waters (CA-35) Mazie Hirono (HI-02) Mel Watts (NC-12)
Michael Honda (CA-15) Mike Capuano (MA-08) Nydia Valezquez (NY-12)
Peter DeFazio (OR-04) Phil Hare (IL-17) Raul Grijalva (AZ-07)
Robert Wexler (FL-19) Rush Holt (NJ-12) Sam Farr (CA-17)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) William Lacy Clay (M0-01) Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)

Connections Count in Obamaland

Cross posted at Antemedius and Blazing Indiscretions.

According to the website of the Dutch Royal House (Dutch), U.S Ambassador to The Netherlands, Fay Hartog-Levin, has presented her credentials to the queen today. NRC/international reports today that Ms. Hartog-Levin has traveled a very interesting road indeed. She has Dutch roots.

Hartog-Levin's parents were Dutch Jews who lived in The Hague and owned a meat-processing factory in Oss. When World War II broke out, they fled to Suriname, then a Dutch colony, where her father served in the Dutch army. In 1948 the family emigrated to the US, where daughter Fay was born shortly afterwards.

Those Dutch family roots notwithstanding, the newspaper highlights her connections to the Chicago elite and US pols.

Hartog-Levin became acquainted with Obama through her membership on the board of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History.

She is also connected to the president through her husband, Daniel Levin, who founded a real estate firm, The Habitat Company. Habitat's CEO until recently was Valerie Jarrett, a good friend of the Obamas and currently a senior adviser to the president for public engagement and intergovernmental affairs. Jarrett was also on Obama's transition team.

Levin, who is a cousin to both senator Carl Levin and congressman Sandy Levin, was also on the board of the Chicago sports club where president Obama often worked out and played basket-ball. The Hartog-Levins were contributors to Barack Obama's campaigns for both the US senate and the presidency.

Not surprising at all, Hartog-Levin's new position is typical of US ambassadorial appointments. Even Obamafreaks who rallied for his message of change will find that money trumps merit.

From the sidebar in the NRC report, a list of previous ambassadors to The Netherlands:

All the president's men and women

Most US ambassadors to the Netherlands have come from a business background and were involved in fundraising for their respective presidents' election campaigns.

Fay Hartog-Levin replaces James B. Culbertson as US ambassador. Culbertson was only in office for six months; he replaced his predecessor Roland Arnall who suddenly died in March last year. Arnall left the Netherlands after two years just weeks before his own death because his son had taken seriously ill. Arnall was controversial because his company, Ameriquest, was the market leader in the high-risk subprime mortgages which led to the current economic crisis.

Arnall's predecessor Clifford Sobel was a donor to former president George W. Bush's campaign.

The last female US ambassador to the Netherlands was Cynthia Schneider (1998-2001), an art historian specialised in Rembrandt, and a personal friend and fundraiser to president Bill Clinton.

Q: How Many Republicans Does It Take To Screw Up The Health Care Reform?

A: None. They can just leave the job to the Democrats.

Alright, Mr. President, please forgive my forthrightness, but enough with the charade. We all like a good thriller from time to time, but this ain't one of those times. So please don't keep us in the dark. End the suspense already. We are waiting for that audacity with hope -- and it's nothing outstanding, mind you, just a belief that what's right and just will prevail and that you still stand for it, with us, not against us.

The hands-off un-Clintonian approach you've learned to cultivate for our own good has not worked all that well and we are pleased to see that you're traveling and meeting with people now that the wingnut crock has hit the fan. You put out new messages on your website trying to undo the Limbaugh-Beckian nonsense and that's all good too, but it seems that somehow the kick-ass attitude from your campaign has gotten lost or diluted. Supposedly because you have gone all bipartisan on us.

Why on Earth would you do THAT? Is there anything in the Republicans' staunch opposition to ANY health care reform that would make you think they:
a. are interested in the good of the nation?
b. know what they are talking about?
c. give a damn?
d. make sense?

If not, then why the hell are you so willing to compromise with them? You don't compromise with idiots -- or not very bright children -- playing with destructive toys. You step in and take their toys away -- for their own and everyone's good.

I've never thought I'd say so, but I have to agree with some Republicans* here who, ever so gleefully, notice that the only bipartisan thing you have accomplished so far is to raise criticisms of your nebulous health care reform proposal, which is getting fuzzier by the day. No one is sure what it'll look like, but pretty much everyone has already found things in it to be angry about.

To be sure, the Republicans' idea of the health care reform appears, so far, to be just more of the same for-profit private insurance bonanza.

But is yours really that different?

I've listened to your town hall meeting a couple of days ago, where you showed up with your sleeves rolled up (a nice touch, that), and responded, to a woman inquiring why we can't do a single-payer government-run system, a Medicare for all, by saying something along the lines of it not being feasible or such. Then you added that what we will get is going to be a "uniquely American system."

Forgive my cynicism, but when I heard that, I thought immediately that this, translated into plain English, means just more fleecing of the American middle-class and the poor. It seems that this uniquely American thing will be trying to achieve the impossible: combine for-profit medical "care" with, well, you know, medical care. It indeed seems uniquely American to keep screwing up while the whole world is laughing at us and to do the right thing only after we exhaust all other idiotic options.

The progressive bloggers, in general, have been quite forgiving toward you -- it just shows that you've generated a massive supply of hope and good will in people. But not every one of your supporters is so patient and kind, and I have had my doubts too. Now you're telling us you are ready to drop the public option.

So let's get it straight. We are learning about your secret deals with Big Pharma after you've promised to make any such negotiations public and transparent. Then you -- or your people -- issue unconvincing denials about those.

But we have not been born yesterday, and we realize that profit-making behemoths do not, all of a sudden, grow hearts and consciences, so you must have promised them something pretty sweet in exchange for their support. That 50 million new customers does sound good on its own, to think of it. Add to it a promise of no cost controls, and hallelujah! There is heaven on Earth, after all -- for some of us (OK, not us, but them) at least.

So please tell us straight what this is all about: deal or no deal with the Big Pharma? And if there is a deal, then why? How does this advance your and our cause of the health care reform? No cost containment. No regulation. No public option.

Where does the reform part begin?

Yes, we get the insurance reform proposal shtick going on now. We do notice that you have switched from health care reform to health insurance reform. We totally get it -- it's more palatable and less scary to average Americans to hear that you are going to push for consumer protection laws in the insurance industry rather than a total overhaul of the system, although the latter is what this country desperately needs. The switcharoo is part of that crazy pragmatism your own doctor warned you about. Personally I think you should have listened to him, because that kind of pragmatism is dangerous to your own and our health.

However, we also get the pragmatism part, if we must. And health insurance consumer protection laws are nothing to sneeze at (no pun, I swear), to be sure.

But, still, where is the reform? As in, the single-payer not-for-profit system, which, as you well know and as everybody who has seriously studied the issue clearly states is the only sensible way to reform our health care? How is pouring more money into this bottomless pit of greed and human misery called the American health "care" system going to change it for the better?

Yes, there is that whole thing about politics and sausage-making. None of it pretty, sure. But making compromises with the medical insurance industry in the name of reforming our health care is sorta like negotiating chicken coup's security with the foxes. Sure, they are promising to do a good job of it, but, historically speaking, their record in that matter is not encouraging, to put it gently. See that drool dripping from their chins already?

So while the wingnuts are raving about offing grandpa and palining about with imaginary death panels, we, your supporters, worry too -- that maybe you are punking us, after all.

Please, Mr. President, say it ain't so. Americans are patient people, they can wait when necessary, they've been waiting for, oh, 70 years or so, but I'm not sure how much longer they can manage it, you know, with 14,000 people losing their insurance coverage each day and close to 2,000 dying every month because of lack of adequate health care. 2010 isn't far away, nor is 2012. If Democrats want to have anyone voting for them, they better get this right.

*Thus the picture above. Pigs must be flying as I'm saying this.

Cross posted at The Middle of Nowhere.

Howard Dean, M.D. Supports the War Drug

JUAN GONZALEZ: In terms of the—to get back again to other issues right now, I’d like to ask you about the continuation and expansion of the American war in Afghanistan. Do you have concerns about—that this is becoming really President Obama’s war—

HOWARD DEAN: It is.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —and the impact on our country in the future?

HOWARD DEAN: Look, again, you know—and I don’t have to say anything nice; I’m not in the administration. But I’m with Obama on his conduct of the war. I always said, when I was running against the Iraq war, that Afghanistan was different.

Let me tell you what the stakes are now. And what I find incredibly refreshing about this president is he uttered words that Lyndon Johnson never said, which is that we cannot win this war militarily. He knows that from the get-go. Here’s what’s at stake. It’s not just the Taliban. I think we could probably control the Taliban and the al-Qaeda in the Northwest territories by doing some of the things we’re already doing—drones and air power and so forth. Roughly 50 percent of the Afghan people are women. They will be condemned to conditions which are very much like slavery and serfdom in a twelfth century model of society where they have no rights whatsoever. So, I’m not saying we have to invade every country that doesn’t treat women as equal, but we’re there now. We have a responsibility. And if we leave, women will experience the most extraordinary depredations of any population on the face of the earth. I think we have some obligation to try and see if we can make this work, not just for America and our security interests, but for the sake of women in Afghanistan and all around the globe. Is this acceptable to treat women like this? I think not.

AMY GOODMAN: We just interviewed an Afghan parliamentarian, Dr. Wardak. She said the opposite. She said, yes, she agrees with you on the way women are treated, but that this is worsening the treatment, that the increased number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan, the huge number of troops that are coming in right now, are alienating the Afghan population.

The above is an extract from an interview last week on Democracy Now! with Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont and establishment Democratic celebrity. It was also included in a post at Ten Percent, which I also recommend to readers of The Peace Tree for further context on the escalating, brutal war in Afghanistan.

Cross posted at Antimedius and Blazing Indiscretions.

Photo: Ghazni protest in February against an attack on civilians by coalition forces.

A New Policy

To paraphrase Michael Ledeen, a former advisor to Karl Rove, every sixty or seventy years, the American public has to grab big business by the collar, slam it against a wall and teach it some manners.

Someone should tell the Democrats you can't do that while you're kissing their ass.

Come Home America: An Interview With Truth Teller William Greider

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

I first became aware of William Greider after the publication of his 1981 Atlantic Monthly profile of President Reagan’s embattled Office of Management and Budget Director (“OMB”), David Stockman. At the time I was just a kid and the Reagan administration insisted they could simultaneously balance the budget, cut taxes and increase defense spending exponentially.

Greider’s reporting however exposed that even Stockman, doubted the fiscal prudence of Reaganomics. After the article’s publication, Stockman absorbed public humiliation when President Reagan took him “to the woodshed.” I trace that article as a seminal moment in my own political awareness.

Over the years, Greider has been a determined voice of truth against a backdrop of America’s pro-war, pro-Wall Street governing elites and their enablers inside the corporate media. While Alan Greenspan was celebrated, Greider warned that the Federal Reserve and other regulatory agencies were guilty of dereliction. When celebrated economists such as Paul Krugman extolled the virtues of free trade and globalization, Greider warned of diminished wages at home and condemned the shameful exploitation our consumption habits subsidized abroad.

Read More +/-

Greider’s latest book, Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country, just published by Rodale, is a manifesto of hope and warning. In Chapter One, Greider writes:

“Think of America at this point as a muscular teenager, full of talent, adolescent energy, and youth’s over-reaching impulses. This is a critical stage in human development and for our nation it could go either way. Some nations that acted like willful children when they were young formed balanced societies when they became adults. Other nations have never really grown up.

The question, I think is whether-we-the people who proudly call ourselves Americans – can mature as a society. The country can develop a deeper sense of what matters most in life and what doesn’t. It can shed some self-destructive reflexes and acquire a wiser sense of national self-interest that is anchored in the nation’s ideals. Wisdom tempers egotism. This is true for both people and nations.

Or, the United States can plunge ahead self-indulgently, repeating destructive habits, acting out reckless ambitions, and getting into deeper trouble. We all know children who, for whatever reason, got older but never found themselves. This is possible for nations too, especially ones that refuse to reconcile themselves to new realities.

I am betting we will grow into our maturity and hoping that lots of Americans agree.”

Greider’s book chronicles why America is in dire straits and proposes numerous solutions to facilitate a better economic foundation for America's struggling middle class. His recommendations include consolidating many of the Federal Reserve’s functions within the executive branch to ensure public accountability for monetary policy, replacing private pension plans such as 401ks with government pension plans instead and capping U.S. trade deficits through a general emergency tariff authorized under the charter of the World Trade Organization.

Even more than any singular remedy however, Greider’s book urges outraged citizens to embrace activism as a means of forcing the powerful in the public and private sectors to finally put our national interests above corporate greed. Ultimately, Greider's book argues that the current crisis is an opportunity for citizens to reengage and facilitate a more just and equitable society.

Greider is the best-selling author of five previous books, including One World, Ready or Not; Who Will Tell the People; and Secrets of the Temple. He’s written for the Washington Post and Rolling Stone as well as serving as an on-air correspondent for six PBS Frontline documentaries. Currently, Greider is the national affairs correspondent for The Nation.

Greider agreed to a podcast telephone interview with me this afternoon about his book and views. Our conversation was just over forty-eight minutes and among the topics we discussed were the current A.I.G. bonus controversy, the Democratic Party’s culpability in overriding state and local laws against usury, his recommendations to overhaul the Federal Reserve and America’s pension system, our destructive relationship with China, America’s excessive militarism and the fine line being walked by activists who support the Democratic Party and President Obama while simultaneously pushing for real change.

Please refer to the flash media player below.



This interview can also be accessed via the Itunes Store at no cost by searching for either the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

Reminiscing About the Future

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Watching McCain/Palin rallies it seems as if Republican Party jihadists are praying for a bullet, a bimbo or a bomb. They know only a catastrophic event will prevent Senator Obama from becoming president while the Republican Party is poised for disintegration from coast to coast. In my home state of New York, Democrats finally outnumber Republicans in Nassau and Suffolk Counties! Nassau County was home to the vaunted political machine of Al D'Amato and bastion of GOP money and patronage. No more and Democrats are poised to capture the New York State Senate for the first time since 1965 as a result. I realize most regard New York as the bluest of states but that's a big deal and symptomatic of the political terrain nationwide.

Memo to Republicans: Obama's ascendancy does not mean the "end of days." However, the combination of George W. Bush's two mismanaged military occupations, crony capitalism and the resulting economic calamity mean even Jesus Christ will not save the GOP's rotting corpse. Republican salvation will only come from repentance of their failed corporate theocratic ideology and cultural contempt for intelligent secular people.

Republicans eminently deserve the pasting they're about to receive. More importantly, Republicans have thoroughly demonstrated how incapable they are of competent governance; especially during times of crisis. For the moment, America and the world can't afford to have the GOP anywhere close to the reigns of power beyond a few state and municipal governments. Republicans also need this beating as an impetus to reform themselves.

Ultimately, I hope judicious Republicans rise above the mob that their party has pandered to. Democrats do not have a monopoly on wisdom and will not be above hubris with one party domination. Progressive Netroots activists like myself will do our best to keep Democrats honest but what's really needed is the competition of strong adversarial parties (note I didn't write party singular) engaged in the intellectual marketplace of ideas.

The years ahead will be challenging and tumultuous. Americans will be tasked with creating a new economic social/paradigm on the fly that works in the 21st century while too many of us are struggling to survive and avoid destitution. Our country will be further challenged because we can no longer effectively sustain an empire and that will require a major adjustment as the world is experiencing both shortages of oil and water. Indeed, a large dose of humility will be needed after the hyperpower post Cold War presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Culturally, we Americans have never done well with humility so that too represents a challenge.

Senator Obama is far from perfect but he appears to have the right stuff for the challenges ahead. Initially, however, should Obama become president Democrats will largely be debating with themselves as the GOP is poised for irrelevancy after November 4th. In the short term that is necessary and good. In the long run that will be a recipe for disaster. Even Franklin Roosevelt had Republicans he could reach out to during World War Two such as Indiana Senator Arthur Vandenberg. As of now though virtually the entire Republican Party establishment is discredited.

It takes more than one party to govern a country especially during times as challenging as these. Hopefully, a landslide down the ticket on November 4th will facilitate the emergence of a new generation of Republicans who are part of the "reality based community" and ready to vigorously compete in the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise we'll all go down together.

The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping out on Iraq

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history.” While this may be true, I believe there is a deeper explanation for Reid’s timidity.

Democrats cower in fear of being called “soft on terror/national defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is political suicide because they are confirming the Republican charges.

This doesn’t make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could shove the charge of softness down the Republican’s throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is that they are afraid, “George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying that the Democrats betrayed the troops.”

Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war, and that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused them of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a robust Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real threat to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by another nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld’s doctrine was that an army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up?

And you dare accuse us of not supporting the troops!

You have allowed a cabal of bilious old men, who are nothing more than Pollyannas with PMS, to hijack our foreign policy so they could pursue their demented fantasies of power and world domination. In doing so, they have violated every precept that has made this country a beacon of decency and freedom to the world.

And you dare accuse us of disloyalty!

You have degraded and shamed our brave men and women in uniform by sending them off on an ill-fated war of aggression that violates international law just to enrich your wealthy cronies. The shedding of their blood to improve the corporate bottom line is a shameful act driven not by patriotism, but by ego, greed and stupidity.

Your accusations ring hollow, Mr. President. We stand firm in our commitment to end the military disaster you have visited upon the land. We will fund no more madness; we will fund no more slaughter; we will fund no more pipe dreams.

Okay, maybe they might want to tone it down a bit, but the above shows that it would not be that difficult to kick the sand right back into Bush’s face. The reason the Democrats won’t do this has to be more than mere timidity.

Contrary to appearances, the United States Congress is not an elected body; it is a corporation. Its shareholders are the corporate benefactors who fund reelection campaigns. A majority shareholder in this corporation is the Military-Industrial Complex.

To the Military-Industrial Complex, peace is not a profit center. Its survival and health depends upon war, or the threat of war. Iraq is the hen that is laying golden eggs at a prodigious rate. The first rule of the Complex is that you don’t make chicken soup out of the hen. This means the main thrusts of this Congress has been to keep the war going as long as possible. It was an embarrassment when the Democrats took over the Congress with the expectation that they were going to end the war. Fortunately, Reid and Pelosi came to the rescue and have been heroic in their efforts to keep the war in good running order.

Tragically, it does not make any difference who wins the 2008 election, nor would it make any difference if the Democrats achieved a veto-proof majority in Congress. As long as their majority shareholder wants this war to continue, it will, and the public be damned.

The general tone of this statement was suggested by Drew Weston, author of The Political Brain, when I heard him speak at the Daily Kos convention last August.



Political satirist Case Wagenvoord blogs at http://belacquajones.blogspot.com/.

Can We Please Get On With the Capital Crimes Trial of George W. Bush? via The Existentialist Cowboy

...before Bush starts World War III! Word is Israel is planning to strike Iran. That takes the heat off Bush while giving him the war he wants in the Middle East. Scenario: Israel strikes Iran. Iran retaliates. The US joined Israel and Bush get his jollies watching mushroom clouds from afar! Gog Magog, my ass! Bush his psychotic.

The debate about whether "waterboarding" is or is not "torture" is another GOP red herring. Anyone who denies waterboarding is torture should prove it's not by public submitting themselves to it! That just might end another stupid obfuscation by the GOP. Then again, it doesn't really matter what it's called --especially by the liars of Bush's illegiimate regime. By any defintion, it is a violation of Due Process of Law and the various international conventions to which the US is bound.

I have yet to find anything in the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the various treaties to which the US is bound by law and convention that gives anyone in the US --including persons who call themselves "President" --a right to violate Due Process of anyone. There are numerous laws, however, which bind the US to the Geneva Convention despite unconstitutional attempts by both Bush and Congress to exempt Bush from Geneva but only after he had already violated it! The statute, in effect at the time Bush committed the crime, makes Bush a war criminal, subject to prosecution for capital crimes. Congress may change the law but the Constitution forbids they "back date it".

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

--Article 1, US Constitution

Now --can we please get on with the capital crimes trial of George W. Bush?

Bush is a Bigger Threat Than "Terrorists"!!

The charges against Rumsfeld are a good first step! My goal is to see the lot of them in the dock ---Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Ashcroft!!! Americans: let me put this bluntly. The Bush administration is not a legitimate administration. It is a crime syndicate, in office because the GOP helped them steal two elections. Being illegitimate, nothing done by this gang is legal or has the force of law. Let me put this yet another way: a criminal occupies the White House and presumes to rule by decree. In the words of Che, the peace must be considered "already broken".

The World Wide Campaign to

Bring Bush's War Criminals to Trial

Bush's arrest for his a seemingly endless list of crimes and outrages is long overdue.

The right not to have one's person violated arbitrarily in the absence of probable cause or evidence, is a crime against humanity. There is, moreover, no evidence, that anyone tortured by George "Torguemada" Bush or his minions in crime, has ever been connected with terror at any time, in any way. Show me some evidence! Show me a single "terrorist" that Bushco has ever brought to justice! Show me something other than bullshit!

And --today --we learned that the cowardly Democrats have confirmed yet another "torturer" as Atty General. Democrats, this is not good enough. How about the American people boycott this election and hold an alternative election? How about the people form a legitimate government under the law. At present, a lawless gang occupies Washington. What do the Democrats in Washington proposed to do about it. I learned early in my broadcasting career that one was either a part of a solution or part of the problem. The cowardly Demos are quickly becomming a part of the problem, if not co-conspirators!

Now from the department of "Big Frickin' Deal"!!!

Democrats To Tie War Funding, Pullout

The AP reports, "Under pressure to support the troops but end the war, House Democrats said Thursday they would send President Bush $50 billion for combat operations on the condition that he begin withdrawing troops from Iraq." The proposal, "similar to one Bush vetoed earlier this year, would identify a goal of ending combat entirely by December 2008.

"The Politico notes Speaker Pelosi "told reporters yesterday that the new proposal "would leave a small force in the country to pursue Al Qaeda, protect US interests and train Iraqi security forces." The New York Times says the plan "is certain to be opposed in the House by many Republicans as well as some strongly antiwar Democrats who want tougher restrictions on the president." The Hill notes Republicans "attacked Democrats for going to the well once again with votes calling for a withdrawal of troops." The measure "also caught many Democrats off guard. In the early afternoon, most legislators interviewed said they hadn't seen the legislation, even some who were actively trying to obtain a copy."

...I am unimpressed! Democrats could have ended this war but haven't. The attitude is typified by Hilary who obviously believes that "Anti-war nut jobs" have no place to go.

In the meantime, it's time for Bush's criminal regime to put up or shut up! It's time Democrats grew a spine! It's time that the people of the US overthrew this government and replaced it with a lawful one under the Constitution.

In the meantime, Democrats have helped Bush get another torturer appointed to Attorney General. Bush will not have improved his horrible, criminal record with his appointment of 66 year old Michael Mukasy can be expected to follow the the example set by John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, two liars remembered for their contempt for the laws they swore to enforce and uphold. Congress has failed to find redemption.

Mukasey, 66, a former federal judge from New York, told senators he considers waterboarding "repugnant," but he could not categorically say whether the technique amounts to torture, which U.S. and international law bans.

(CBS) Waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning, dates back to at least the Spanish Inquisition, and has been used some of the world's cruelest dictatorships, according to Human Rights Watch.Forms of waterboarding vary but generally consist of immobilizing an individual on his or her back - head inclined downward - and pouring water over the face to induce the sensation of drowning.

Other techniques include dunking prisoners head-first into water, as was used by Chadian military forces in the mid 1980s. The Khmer Rouge, responsible for the deaths of approximately 1.5 million Cambodians during the 1970s, strapped victims on inclined boards, with feet raised and head lowered, and covered their faces with cloth or cellophane. Water then was poured over their mouths to stimulate drowning.

Waterboarding, long considered a form of torture by the United States, produces a gag reflex and makes the victim believe death is imminent. The technique leaves no visible physical damage.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, considers waterboarding a form of torture. McCain has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank."

--CBS News, Waterboarding: Interrogation Or Torture?

The single shread of good news:

U.S. Hawks Dive For Cover

Dennis Kucinich didn't vote for the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq. Several Democratic senators who voted for that resolution and who are currently presidential contenders for the 2008 election have expressed regrets; the only candidate who has not done so is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, amazingly the current Democratic front-runner. ...

This move by Kucinich puts more heat on Democrats than on the GOP. We know the GOP to be crooked war whores but we expected more from Democrats. Perhaps we should not have. We were taken for granted by a party that drinks from a poisoned well, a party that thinks we have no place to go.


Thank you,
thepoetryman

WHA’ HAPPENED? (here are our Democrats)

If there can be something worse in politics than having no power, it would be to have power, but no clue about what to do with it. Chipping away at the Bush administration via subpoenas and committee hearings is starting to feel like working through endless sheets of bubble-wrap one pop at a time. They’ve insulated themselves with enough inexperienced hacks to last forever it seems. Around the time when Democrats in Congress wise up to the fact that this was part of the design all along - to stock up on sacrificial lambs for the specific purpose of protecting the real players once the testimony started flying - it could be too late. For them and for the American people who lost their taste for these appetizers long ago.

The strategy seems to have been decided on prior to the opening of this session, and in that sense it’s not all that different from the neoconservatives who took office looking to take out Saddam. Much like how 9/11 was said to have “changed everything”, when internally it changed nothing, a USA Today poll that came out this week showing that the portion of Americans who think the surge is “making the situation better” jumped up to 31% from last month’s 22%, and those who say the surge is “not making much difference” dropped to 41% from 51% a month ago.

There’s barely 2 hours of water and electricity per day in 125 degree Baghdad, the initial focal point of the surge. We hear a lot about Anbar and other places, but the strategy was to make it work in Baghdad first and foremost. President Bush even went so far as to reveal the locations of our cooperative police stations in front of an audience, the visual projected up for everyone to see. This strategy was genius and it was led by a genius named Patraeus, who is following the trend himself, having understood that “things are getting better and we’re making good progress” before he even arrived in theatre.

This much you can count on, that while Baghdad is dying of thirst, his schedule is packed solid with trial runs of what he’s going to say in front of Congress, all practiced over right-wing talk radio. McCain, Graham, Lieberman and the Dixie Sound Machine have the general ranked somewhere directly below Zeus, as the days leading up to his testimony will absolutely be an exercise in rewriting the Constitution so that the military alone will make all relevant judgements regarding war. Just disregard that mention of Congress possessing the sole power to wage war. And while we’re at it, let’s pretend from here on out that there is no such thing as the State Department.

And to hell with the Constitution altogether while we’re at it. The Reid-Pelosi-Hoyer brain trust is in favor of that, aren’t they? Well, anyways, they’ll figure it all out. Whatever happens, as long as we never threaten to impeach President Bush, everything will fall into place. Indeed, the voters clearly wanted Democrats to tread water until 2008 and play the Bush administration’s game.

http://deadissue.com/archives/2007/08/09/wha-happened-here-are-our-democrats/

No More Honeymoon

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal and the Independent Bloggers Alliance.

Election night 2006 was a satisfying result after the calamity of one party reactionary rule. On a personal level, I juggled my day job and after hours phone banking to help in the effort. Many other activists did the same out of patriotism and desire to establish a bulwark against the corporate theocrats in Washington. It feels like another lifetime and as The Nation duly noted in their latest edition, “The Honeymoon Is Over”:

“As Congress left town for its Memorial Day recess, the euphoria cast by the 2006 election victories was gone. Disappointed by the Democrats' inability to force a withdrawal timeline into the war-funding bill, angered by a trade deal hatched in secret, dismayed at backsliding on cleaning up Capitol Hill, progressives were faced with the unpleasant reality of the new Congress, warts and all.

The slim Democratic majority in both Houses is not a progressive majority. Just as distressing as the cave-in on war funding was the continued power of the bipartisan money party. Beyond ending the war, Democrats were elected because of popular rejection of corporate trade policies and the stench of corruption in Washington. Tom DeLay is gone, but the corporate lobbies just reloaded with Democrats. When the House leadership announced a trade accord that the Chamber of Commerce celebrated as a model for giving Bush renewed fast-track authority, hopes for a new economic course were punctured. Then, House Democrats wouldn't support even a two-year hiatus that would slow the revolving door between Congress and the lobby world. (‘That's our retirement plan,’ complained anonymous legislators.)”

I largely agree with that assessment about the Democratic majority’s corporatist leanings and sympathy for the K-Street industry. As for the war, even before Democrats assumed control, I advocated for either invoking the War Powers Act or cutting off funding. Timid and feckless, the Democrats were more concerned with implementing a political strategy of bleed and win. While the ongoing war continued to bleed Bush and the GOP, the Democrats were content to pass bills that scored political points and accomplished very little. The so-called benchmarks the Bush Administration agreed to is window dressing.

Ultimately, the plug will be pulled on this war by the GOP in September. Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said his party doesn’t want another election campaign about Iraq. All that remains is for some more soldiers to “die for a mistake” as the young John Kerry once put it, while the Iraqis continue to kill each other. Bush had hoped to hand off the war to his successor so defeat would not happen on his watch. How ironic that Bush's fellow Republicans who enabled him to pursue this immoral and diastrous war of choice, will have their fingerprints on our withdrawal.

But the overall problem of combating radical Islam with a foreign policy based on international cooperation and strategic logic remains. We're losing Afghanistan and getting little value from our support of Musharaff in Pakistan. Democrats deliver platitudes about sending more troops to Afghanistan after we leave Iraq. Yet they don't explain why an escalation in Afghanistan would be any more successful than the current surge in Iraq.

Meanwhile, an economic policy guided by corporatism at the expense of working people struggling to keep up with the cost of living is not being reversed. Why don’t they pass a bill overturning the hideous Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 passed by the Republican majority? Or make a push for reforming healthcare?

Granted, President Bush remains an obstacle to enacting a progressive program and more can be accomplished if the right person is elected to the White House next year. But that is no excuse for not maximizing their majority platform today to build public support and educate the citizenry. Congressional Democrats have wasted five months. Precious time that could’ve been used to aggressively advocate for replacing this insipid era of deranged privatization and cronyism, with bold initiatives designed to lift the working poor, nurture a vibrant middle class and yes provide healthcare for all.

However, the elections of 2006 were simply a first step in a long journey. Expecting a progressive reformation after one midterm election cycle was never realistic. Progressive activists, bloggers and citizens nationwide need to put their cynicism aside and remain engaged. The Nation put it best in their editorial’s closing paragraph:

“Democratic majorities have provided us with relatively progressive leaders in both houses of Congress and several aggressive committee chairs who are beginning to unearth the hidden horrors of this rogue Administration. But we still don't have the progressive strength in Congress or the leadership in the White House that can change this country's course. The serial disappointments of recent weeks are but a reminder that we've got work to do.”

We’ve only begun to fight for what is right.