So I'm just poking around the Series of Tubes, Not Trucks on my Thanksgiving Break, and I stumble upon this little nugget from the Conservative alternative to the perceived liberal bias of Wikipedia:
Seriously. I couldn't make up a top ten list like that.
While Bush and his accomplices on the right argue that Congress has no authority to meddle in one of the worst foreign policy blunders of a generation, the Constitution, and the founding fathers, disagree. Congress controls the budget, and while Republicans cry foul if this is ever discussed, the power was intentionally given to the legislative branch. James Madison, author of what I believe to be the most impressive of the Federalist Papers (51), stated that controlling the purse strings provides "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."
Reject Judge Mukasey
As discussed in a previous blog, our nation's top lawyer should not argue that the President is exempt from laws he feels limit his Constitutional authority. This President believes that as Commander-in-Chief, he is able to lawfully detain people in secret prisons, wiretap without warrants, and torture detainees. He should also be able to admit that waterboarding is torture. Daniel Levin, a former Department of Justice official who underwent the waterboarding process, wrote in a December 2004 DoJ memo that "conduct intended to cause 'severe physical suffering'" is prohibited. It cannot be argued that waterboarding does not violate that DoJ legal interpretation.
Initiate Impeachment Proceedings
As Rachel Maddow said on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann, (Video At Bottom Of Blog), "The reason you impeach somebody is not because you hate them, or because they're a bad guy. You impeach somebody because you want to save their office, because you respect their office and you respect the Constitution that granted the powers to that office that exist."
FISA made it a criminal offense to wiretap Americans without judicial oversight. President Bush himself said that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program wouldn't work with FISA, so he ignored FISA. He is on record admitting that he willfully broke the law. I can think of no other example where a sitting President confessed to an impeachable offense, let alone suffered no consequences.
Add to that how he blatantly lied to the American people about judicial oversight before the program's existence was revealed when he said "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon simply said "making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States." And let's not forget why FISA came into existence in the first place...
New Attorney General Same As The Old Attorney General
Category: News and Politics
My personal fall recess has come to an end, and apparently just in time to see Mukasey receive Senate approval for the recently vacated Attorney General spot. Lucky me.
The first problem, although not the most significant, is that this guy doesn't know if waterboarding is torture. It was a war crime fifty years ago when we sentenced Yukio Asano to fifteen years of hard labor for, among other things, waterboarding. Two decades later on January 21st, 1968, this photo of an American soldier waterboarding a Vietnamese POW graced the cover of The Washington Post:
That soldier was court-martialed less than a month later. Thirty years later, a potential Attorney General is still unclear on the issue? Quite unimpressive, and also a bit scary. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 that President Bush signed says that no "treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteen Amendments" can be used on those in our custody. If the administration is allowing detainees to be waterboarded, then they must also believe that the technique doesn't violate the Constitution, and can also be used on citizens. To argue otherwise would mean that they are intentionally violating the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
While Mukasey's refusal to call waterboarding torture is foolish, it isn't his most significant failing. As Russ Feingold said in a statement released on Sunday, the Attorney General nominee is "unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward."
During his testimony a few weeks ago, Mukasey was considerate enough to say that "the President doesn't stand above the law." Unfortunately, he went on to say that the President doesn't need to obey all laws. He instead says that it depends "on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."
According to Judge Mukasey's statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president's authority "to defend the nation" trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president's lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way "to defend the nation."
If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.
Under the American Constitution, federal statutes, not executive decisions in the name of national security, are "the supreme law of the land." It's that simple. So long as a statute is constitutional, it is binding on everyone, including the president.
Mukasey also frequently refers to "the gap between where FISA left off and where the Constitution permitted the President to act." This sounds remarkably similar to Gonzo's stance that the Constitution made FISA approval unnecessary. Apparently, this warrantless wiretapping program was so far into the realm of being legal that the Bush administration is continuing to demand retroactive immunity to telecom companies. Oddly, they don't see any disconnect between demanding immunity and their claims that no laws were broken. The only comments Mukasey has made on this program appear to indicate he shares the White House philosophy that if the President does it, it can't be illegal.
John W. Dean last week wrote of the parallels between this situation and that of Nixon:
Nixon's Attorney General had been removed (and was later prosecuted for lying to Congress) – a situation not unlike Alberto Gonzales's leaving the job under such a cloud. Nixon was under deep suspicion of covering up the true facts relating to the bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, not to mention widespread rumors that he had engaged in abuses of power and corrupt campaign practices. Today, Bush is under even deeper suspicion for activities far more serious than anything Nixon engaged in for there is evidence Bush has abused the laws of war, violated treaties, and ordered (or approved) the use of torture and political renditions, which are war crimes.
Since Judge Mukasey's situation is not unlike that facing Elliot Richardson when he was appointed Attorney General during Watergate, why should not the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly make it a quid pro quo for his confirmation that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes? Richardson was only confirmed when he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor, which, of course, he did. And when Nixon fired that prosecutor, Archibald Cox, it lead to his impeachment.
YouTube has not been kind to the GOP Presidential candidates this election...
Here is Giuliani, the GOP frontrunner, distancing himself from the GOP:
Uh, I th-think that, uh, this...sec-second place guy...uh, is m-maybe not the, uh, next Reagan: (This covers 14% of his face time in his first debate)
Here is the third place GOP candidate affirming his long history of supporting a woman's right to choose, plus a heart-felt about why he thinks Roe v. Wade should be upheld:
Here is John McCain telling America that the Iraq War would be easy, even though he "knew all along it would be tough:"
Here is Mike Huckabee congratulating Canada on preserving their capitol building, which is a scale model of Arkansas' capitol building, but made of ice (At the end of the video):
Anybody Who Approves Of Al Gore Must Suck
Category: News and Politics
On Friday, Former Vice President Al Gore won an extremely prestigious award. The Nobel Peace Prize is not for liberals. It is not for Democrats. According to the Nobel Committee's site:
The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who
"shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,
for the abolition or reduction of standing armies
and for the holding of peace congresses."
Many great people have been awarded this prize in the past, and also some less than amazing people who have attempted to accomplish something amazing. Winning this prize should not get you labeled as "anti-American or anti-Bush," as was done this morning on FOX News Sunday. Teddy Roosevelt, still with the Republican Party at the time, won the Nobel Prize in 1906. Woodrow Wilson also won. As did Martin Luther King, Jr. To declare that there is anything "anti-American" about Al Gore winning this award also deals a blow to the patriotism of those men.
But, let us not forget that there were a great number of unhappy Americans when Woodrow Wilson won the award, and even more so when Martin Luther King did. Wilson's short-sighted opponents ridiculed his League of Nations, refused to secure our entry into that organization, and derided the Nobel Committee's choice. King was subject to even harsher criticism, as the FBI launched a concerted effort against him "by attempting to undermine his reception by foreign heads of state and American ambassadors in the countries that be planned to visit." Even years after his death, J.Edgar Hoover told reporters from Time Magazine (12/13/1970) that MLK was the "last one in the world who should ever have received" the Nobel Peace Prize, as he was actively seeking to convince Congress not to dedicate a day to honoring his memory. James Fallows from The Atlantic reminisces about reaction in his small-town community when King was awarded the Nobel prize:
"...the stated form of the objection concerned not King's race but his obnoxiousness as a man.
He was a windbag.
He was pompous and self-dramatizing,
He was holier than thou.
Plus, he had started getting involved where he didn't belong,
in raising questions about the Vietnam War.
Through the rest of Martin Luther King's life,
the father of my best home-town friend always
went out of his way to refer sneeringly to 'Martin Luther Nobel.'"
Hot Air complains that the Nobel Prize cannot be degraded any further. FOX News is calling for it to go to General Petraeus. Michelle Malkin, while simultaneously complaining about Gore not being a scientist, cites global warming doubter and non-scientist Vaclav Klaus, a politician from the Czech Republic. It should also be noted that this politician from the Czech Republic also cites a science fiction author's fiction book as part of his argument, just like Senator James Inhofe.
The right wing smear machine has apparently grown tired of making unfounded accusations against a 12 year old Frost boy, and has decided to begin leveling them at those nasty Scandanavians and a former Vice President.
In related news, Rush Limbaugh has proven what a big man he is by deciding, after much consideration, to not file an official protest or demand a recount for a prize he wasn't actually nominated for. (Notice how he claims that the committee is a 100% joke, but then proudly declares his great pride for having been "nominated" for this prestigious award)
Two weeks ago, the Democratic Radio Address was delivered by a 12 year old boy who has benefited tremendously from SCHIP. Republican fury that Democrats had the audacity to have a child tell his story was quick to emerge. Representative Boehner said Frost was being used as "a human shield." The never-lovely Michelle Malkin called for Democrats to "Fight your battles like adults and stop hiding behind youngsters..." Loser of the Nobel Prize Rush Limbaugh was quick to join in the smear campaign and also attempted to draw a self-serving parallel with the reaction to his use of the term "phony soldiers" and the later expansion of that term to include veteran Jack Murtha, and then comparing a soldier who criticized him to a suicide bomber.
From the way Republicans make it sound, you think that children have never been a part of any of their policy PR campaigns...Unless you count Bush's "Snowflake Chidlren" that he used as a backdrop for his opposition to stem-cell research:
Or when he's trying to garner support for his "No Child Left Behind" legislation:
Or when he recruits a 9 year old to win support for his social security plan:
Joh Boehner, another critic over the radio address, also gets in on the action:
Putting a human face on an issue is unacceptable, unless you're a Republican.
Much of the criticism leveled at the Frost family by the likes of Malkin, Limbaugh and the NRO are centered around their income. The parents have a combined income of about $45,000. Maryland's SCHIP program allows coverage for those with incomes of up to 300% of the federal poverty line. Being a family of four, the Frosts clearly qualified for the program as the income ceiling would be $61,950.
This program wasn't designed to help those below the poverty line, as they are already covered by Medicaid. When this program was passed by the Republican Congress in 1997, it's goal was to expand coverage to "uninsured low-income children." In the original bill, there was no definition provided for "low-income," but the current structure continues to reflect that original intent. According to the Census Bureau, the median income for a family of four in Maryland for 2006 was about $94,000. With Maryland's current SCHIP income ceiling of $61,950, this program is targeting those whose income is significantly less than average. This program was designed precisely for families like the Frosts.
I believe that there can be a legitimate argument against SCHIP, and I don't contend that it is a perfect program. But the right's approach to debating this legislation has been little more than a smear campaign and character assassination.
Freedom From Torture Is An Inalienable Right
Category: News and Politics
Remember when the Bush administration silenced all the critics of a 2002 DoJ memo that appeared to condone torture by releasing another memo in 2004 stating that "Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms." But as the New York Times is reporting, Gonzo decided to get into this business of writing torture memos. He had also learned from the mistakes of his predecessors, and kept his thoughts on terror a secret.
His secret memo, according to the New York Times, "provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures." James Comey, the problem child of the Justice Department that also had objections when Gonzo tried going over his head to an incapacitated John Ashcroft a few years earlier, told Gonzales and his co-workers that they will be "ashamed" when this memo came to light. This memo was written shortly after Gonzales took the reigns of the Justice Department in February of 2005. James Comey, perhaps one of the few principled men to be connected to this administration, announced his resignation in April of 2005, and officially left in August.
Gonzales' first super-secret memo was such a huge success, he felt an obligation to his fans to come out with a super-secret sequel. So while Congress was debating a bill in July of 2005 "To affirm that the United States may not engage in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," Alberto Gonzales wrote that super-secret sequel that his torture-enthusiast fanbase demanded. This one simply negated all the work that Congres was doing, and declared that none of the CIAs "enhanced interrogation techniques" are cruel, inhuman or degrading. Gonzales had so much confidence in the accuracy of his legal opinion that he didn't publicly release this interpretation.
Folks over at the Justice Department point to Dick Cheney and his thugs as the primary force behind memos like the above. The Office of the Vice President's overbearing nature and the weakness of Alberto Gonzales caused the perfect storm that eliminated opposition to a practice that America has been opposed to since before these states were united. The author of Washington's Crossing notes that during the Revolutionary War:
American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war.
They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society
and the principles of their cause
. One of their greatest achievements …
was to manage the war in a manner that was true
to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution.
Instead of men like that, we are cursed with men like Dick "fairly robust interrogation" Cheney, David Addington (Author of a White House memo condoning torture), John Yoo (Who believes the President may have the authority to crush the testicles of children), and Steven Bradbury (Who testified before Congress last year that "The President is always right.")
The President also said that "Freedom from torture is an inalienable right." Bradbury's defense of torture and Bush's stated opposition to it seem to be a odds, not to mention Gonzo's torture memos.
President Bush's "Coalition" of the willing is on the verge of getting a little smaller...
Andy Cobb created this great video in celebration of the end of Iceland's involvement in Operation Iraqi Liberation and the withdrawal of its troop:
Apparently after watching the video, Britain's resolve weakened. They announced yesterday that they will be reducing their Iraqi forces by twenty percent. That is certainly doing to embolden a high number of those emboldenable bunch of terrorists. Today, the White House responded by saying that "...British forces have performed poorly in Basra," and expressing "concern" about Prime Minister Brown. Quite mature, guys. Quite mature.
Australia, as usual, is quick to follow the path that Britain makes...With two-thirds of Australians opposing their involvement in the Iraq War (About 900 soldiers) and an election around the corner, the Labor Party is making withdrawal a central pillar of its campaign.
The coalition of the willing will soon consist of just the American military and Blackwater.
Fred Thompson: Saddam Would Be Ruler Of Middle East By Now
Category: News and Politics
The requirements to impress GOP voters seems to be exceptionally low this go-around. This can easily be demonstrated by the feigned "excitement" surrounding Fred Thompson's campaign. I think it's seldom that such an unimpressive candidate gains so much national attention.
The most obvious indication that he is a less than stellar candidate is his apparent ignorance of the world around him.
Last week, when he was asked about his position about drilling for oil in the Everglades, his response was "Gosh, no one has told me that there's any major reserves in the Everglades, but maybe that's one of the things I need to learn while I'm down here." I can understand if many people are unaware of the controversy in Florida over the possibility of drilling in the Everglades. It's an issue that hasn't received much national attention since 2002, when President Bush helped out his brother Governor Bush by purchasing privately held drilling rights near the Everglades. Where was Fred Thompson hiding in 2002, where such a perfect complement to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan would go completely unnoticed by him? In the United States Senate, of course! How's he supposed to know what he's voting for?
If that was his only foolish remark, it might be dismissed as simply an off day. Regrettably, it hasn't just been once. Remember how the a cornerstone of his original Senate was his support for the death penalty? He apparently hasn't even been keeping up on an issue that is allegedly important to him, as he was completely surprised that a judge ruled that the way his home state performs lethal injections is unconstitutional. He also had no clue that Supreme Court had agreed to hear a case about the constitutionality of the lethal injection.
Fred Thompson had also never heard of the Jena Six...Doesn't know enough about the Terri Schiavo case to have an opinion. Didn't that show Law & Order do a show based on that case? That man should watch more television.
No longer content to limit his ignorance to domestic issues, Thompson has now started to dabble in international affairs. In a bizarre speech earlier today he seemed to indicate that he does believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and treated it as mere inconvenience that we did not find them. A bit more surprising was his belief that had we not gone into Iraq, Saddam Hussein would be the leader of the entire Middle East:
"Saddam Hussein, today, had we not gone in, would be sitting on this power keg and be in control of the whole thing. He would have been the new dictator of that entire region in my estimation. He is–was–a dangerous irrational man who, by this time, would have been well on his way to having the nuclear capability himself."
Fred Thompson has gone off the deep end. I think Saddam did enough in his life that you don't need to exaggerate in order to make him look bad. A belief that Saddam would have somehow dominated Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel or Iran makes it sound like he's been reading a few too many State of the Union addresses, and not enough newspapers.
And his fundraising, despite what his campaign is claiming, is certainly lackluster. In his first quarter of being in the race, Mitt Romney raised 21.2 million. Rudy Giuliani raised 16.6 million. John McCain raised 13 million. Fred Thompson's first quarter? About 8 million. That puts him in the same ballpark as Bill Richardson, who is clearly not a first tier candiate. And this is the GOP's greatest hope?
The more hopes are placed with Thompson, the better the future looks for Democrats.
