Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]
|
| Think at your own risk. |
| Sunday, April 30, 2006 |
| Un dia sin immigrantes |
Monday's the day of the big pro-amnesty protest. But much of the controversy over the weekend was over the "Nuestro Himno" version of the U.S. national anthem. The song -- the brainchild of the British head of Urban Box Office (formerly run by a group of African-American hip hop empresarios) was supposed to be part of an upcoming album -- sort of a "we are the world" for the issue of immigrants in the U.S. and their passion for America. But from what I'm hearing from my sources, the single that causing all the controversy might just be a case of some of the artists involved being used -- or rather misused -- in a project they themselves never meant to be political. Long story short, don't look for the brief verses by at least one artist, out of Miami, to be on the final record. Stay tuned, this one's developing...
Previous: Tags: immigration, Politics, border, MEXICO, McCain, illegal aliens, Illegal-Aliens, Illegal immigration, Mexico, Mexican flag |
posted by JReid @ 10:21 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bush: Igoring the law |
One of the principle pledges of the president of the United States is that he will "faithfully execute the laws of the United States" and uphold the Constitution. What is clearly emerging with the Bush administration is a sentiment that they need do neither, and that the president can instead claim for himself unlimited war powers that supersede the Constitution, and make the laws passed by Congress irrelevant. What the difference between such a belief and dictatorship is difficult for me to see. From the Boston Globe:
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.
''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant." ... There's much more. Read the whole thing.
More on this chilling subject, with a hat tip to Crooks and Liars, from Arthur Silber, and Jacob Hornberger, whose "A Democratic Dictatorship" is this week's must-read. Says Silber:
In his bracingly clear and concise article, Hornberger debunks two common but utterly misguided objections to these statements of fact. The first objection is that Bush can be trusted and that, in effect, he "means well," that he's only trying "to protect us." Among many other problems, this ignores that every authoritarian leader in history has made the same claim: that his regime is concerned only with the good of his people, or the good of his country, or to further the will of God, or... Except for the rare cases of sadists who glory in their openly acknowledged cruelty, rulers and their henchmen always claim to have the best of intentions, at least in the beginning.
It is worth noting Hornberger's response to the second objection: "Well, then, where are the mass round-ups, and where are the concentration camps?"
Again, people who ask that type of question are missing the point. The point is not whether Bush is exercising his omnipotent, dictatorial power to the maximum extent. It’s whether he now possesses omnipotent, dictatorial power, power that can be exercised whenever circumstances dictate it — for example, during another major terrorist attack on American soil, when Americans become overly frightened again.
I've made this point repeatedly over the last several years, and it is only a measure of the remarkably primitive quality of our national conversation that so many Americans seem incapable of grasping it.
To put the point the other way, which will hopefully penetrate the wall of resistance erected by so many people: the only reason you aren't in a concentration camp right now is because Bush hasn't decided to send you to one -- yet. But he claims he has the power to do so -- and there are almost no voices of any prominence to dispute the contention. What is even worse than the loss of liberty is the fact that most Americans aren't even aware that the loss has occurred. If there are any national leaders who understand these issues and have the courage to fight for our freedom here at home, they ought to realize that the battle must be waged now. Given the hysteria that followed 9/11 -- and the hysteria that would certainly follow another terrorist attack in the U.S. of the same or even greater magnitude -- protesting against round-ups at that point would be entirely futile, and would come far too late. [Emphasis mine.] The bottom line question really is, if you trust the Bush administration so coompletely that you're willing to permit that in theory, he could jail you without trial, but you assume he won't do so because 1) he's a "good man" and 2) you're an "innocent" American, then you've already lost your grip on the bottom line values of democratic citizenship. Unfortunately, when I listen to about half the callers on C-SPAN or read folks like my friend AJ Strata, whose cheerleading and propagandizing for the Bush administration and its blatant seizures of power takes on an almost 1930s Bavarian quality, I really do fear that it is already too late, and that many well-meaning Americans, like AJ, are all-too ready to give their liberties away, on Bush's word alone -- and worse, to cheer and applaud as the Constitution is swirling down the drain.
And at least people like AJ are talking aobut it. Most Americans are watching this country lose its representative democracy and they don't even know it's happening.
Tags: freedom, government, civil liberties, Politics, Bush administration |
posted by JReid @ 4:24 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote of the day ... from a FReeper! |
"Bush support is down to those who want Bush to make money for them and those who want Bush to conquer all the Muslims. If either of these fade away, Bush will be at the Alamo with those who think he is on a mission from God, those who think he is God and Texans. And there is probably a lot of overlap there. Bolten and Snow better have some life savers handy for GOP candidates who might also try to swim away." --
27 posted on 04/30/2006 1:08:21 PM PDT by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.") See? Smart ones do exist. Here's the thread.
Tags: Bush, Conservatives, Politics, Republicans, FReepers |
posted by JReid @ 4:17 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Speaking 'truthiness' to power |
What was the hottest thing at this year's White House correspondents dinner? No, not the two George Dubyas -- it was Stephen Colbert:
Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,” he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.”
Colbert told Bush he could end the problem of protests by retired generals by refusing to let them retire. He compared Bush to Rocky Balboa in the “Rocky” movies, always getting punched in the face—“and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world.”
Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, just three tables away from Karl Rove, and that he had brought " Valerie Plame." Then, worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, "Uh, I mean... he brought Joseph Wilson's wife." He might have "dodged the bullet," he said, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't there.
Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops” on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, melting glaciers and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face. He advised the crowd, "if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail. "
Observing that Bush sticks to his principles, he said, "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."
Also lampooning the press, Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides of the story — the president’s side and the vice president’s side." He also reflected on the alleged good old days, when the media was still swallowing the WMD story.
Addressing the reporters, he said, "Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know--fiction."
He claimed that the Secret Service name for Bush's new press secretary is "Snow Job."
Colbert closed his routine with a video fantasy where he gets to be White House Press Secretary, complete with a special “Gannon” button on his podium. By the end, he had to run from Helen Thomas and her questions about why the U.S. really invaded Iraq and killed all those people.
As Colbert walked from the podium, when it was over, the president and First Lady gave him quick nods, unsmiling. The president shook his hand and tapped his elbow, and left immediately.
Those seated near Bush told E&P's Joe Strupp, who was elsewhere in the room, that Bush had quickly turned from an amused guest to an obviously offended target as Colbert’s comments brought up his low approval ratings and problems in Iraq.
Several veterans of past dinners, who requested anonymity, said the presentation was more directed at attacking the president than in the past. Several said previous hosts, like Jay Leno, equally slammed both the White House and the press corps.
“This was anti-Bush,” said one attendee. “Usually they go back and forth between us and him.” Another noted that Bush quickly turned unhappy, and left the dais shortly after while most seated near him, including Colbert and Snow, glad-handed the crowd. “You could see he stopped smiling about halfway through Colbert,” he reported. ... Definitely gotta catch the whole thing on C-SPAN. For now, here's a clip from C&L. Meanwhile, USAT reports that Colbert's jokes left some in the audience tearng up with laughter, and others "bewildered." They've also got more on the celebrrities' reactions to the dinner, and of course, they focus on the two Dubyas gag.
Oh, and Ludacris enjoyed the show. Go figure.
More highlights here, from Mash, who adds:
By the end of Colbert’s routine, Bush was visibly uncomfortable. Colbert ended with a video featuring Helen Thomas repeatedly asking why we invaded Iraq. That is a question President Bush has yet to answer to the American public. I'm sure the Freepers will be talking. At least, the ones whose cable sets haven't been permanently programmed to only get Fox News...
Tags: Bush, truthiness, Politics,Stephen Colbert, Humor |
posted by JReid @ 3:54 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Hosni Mubarak does his best George W. |
From today's NYT:
CAIRO, Egypt, April 30 — The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, pushed through a two-year extension of an emergency law through Parliament today, a law that for 24 years has effectively allowed the government to detain prisoners indefinitely and without charge. Of course, there is one key difference between Mubarak's gambit and the typical war power grabs of the Bush administration, and it's contained in the first seven words of the story's next paragraph:
In asking parliament to approve the extension, Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif said that the emergency law would eventually be replaced with a provision that focused exclusively on terrorism, as the president repeatedly promised during his re-election campaign last year. But, Mr. Nazif said, devising a new law will take time and Egypt cannot afford to wait with the emergency law set to expire at the end of May. Then again, I suppose Mr. Bush doesn't need to ask our Congress, at least not with guys like sycophnt/enabler in chief (and blocker of all things investigative) Pat Roberts hanging around...
More post-9/11-like ironies:
"We will never use the emergency law against the Egyptian people," Mr. Nazif said to the crowded parliamentary chamber. "We will use it only to protect the citizens and face the terror cells that did not quell until now." Sound familiar? So will this:
But the extension was widely criticized by political opposition groups, human rights groups and ordinary citizens on the streets here, who said it demonstrated that the government was intent on protecting itself, not the people. Officials had hinted days ago that they would push for renewal, and so could not credibly claim the decision was in response to the three terrorist attacks in Sinai last week that left more than two dozen people dead and many more seriously injured.
And now, here's Mr. Mubarak taking a page from the Bush dislexicon:
"There is a need for a firm and decisive law that eliminates terrorism and uproots its threats," Mr. Mubarak said in a speech last July. "A law that protects national security and ensures stability. A law that provides a legislative substitute to combat terrorism and replaces the current emergency law." Boy, are our countries similar, with one small exception:
Since his lopsided victory, with more than 88 percent of the votes cast, his government has used its security forces to beat and shoot voters trying to cast ballots in parliamentary elections for opposition candidates; sentenced an opposition political leader, Ayman Nour, to five years in prison; delayed by two years local elections; and sought to punish judges who charged fraud during past elections; and denied requests to create new political parties. At least we haven't come to that ... at least not yet ... although Mr. Bush and Mr. Mubarak increasingly, as Bobby and Whitney would say, "have something in common":
On Saturday the authorities arrested several dozen young men from political opposition groups who had been hanging up signs that read "No for emergency law," and "Together against extension of the emergency law." In our democracy, you don't get arrested for hanging up signs. You get arrested for wearing opposition T-shirts.
Those Egyptians sure have a lot to learn.
Tags: freedom, government, civil liberties, Politics, Egypt, democracy, Patriot Act, Bush administration |
posted by JReid @ 3:08 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Now that's what I call ironic... |
The Bush administration says it is reluctant to repatriate Guantanamo Bay detainees who shouldn't be there, because ... wait for it ... they could be treated inhumanely back home...
Administration officials have said they hope eventually to transfer or release many of the roughly 490 suspects now held at Guantánamo. As of February, military officials said, the Pentagon was ready to repatriate more than 150 of the detainees once arrangements could be made with their home countries.
But those arrangements have been more difficult to broker than officials in Washington anticipated or have previously acknowledged, raising questions about how quickly the administration can meet its goal of scaling back detention operations at Guantánamo.
"The Pentagon has no plans to release any detainees in the immediate future," said a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon of the Navy. He said the negotiations with foreign governments "have proven to be a complex, time-consuming and difficult process."
The military has so far sent home 267 detainees from Guantánamo after finding that they had no further intelligence value and either posed no long-term security threat or would reliably be imprisoned or monitored by their own governments. Most of those who remain are considered more dangerous militants; many also come from nations with poor human rights records and ineffective justice systems.
But Washington's insistence on humane treatment for the detainees in their native countries comes after years in which Guantánamo has been assailed as a symbol of American abuse and hypocrisy — a fact not lost on the governments with which the United States is now negotiating.
"It is kind of ironic that the U.S. government is placing conditions on other countries that it would not follow itself in Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib," said a Middle Eastern diplomat from one of the countries involved in the talks. He asked not to be named to avoid criticizing the United States in the name of his government.
The push for human rights assurances now, some officials said, also reflects a renewed effort by the State Department to influence the administration's detention policy, even as the United States continues to face wide criticism for sending terror suspects to be interrogated in countries known to practice torture. That would be ... the same Bush administration whose Pentagon civilians cooked up detainee "intelligence gathering" methods like these:
 




How's that for irony?
Tags: torture, Guantanamo, Detainees, Politics, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Bush administration |
posted by JReid @ 2:01 PM   |
|
|
|
|
| Friday, April 28, 2006 |
| Thank you, Rush Limbaugh |
 Thank you for making my day, you drugged out man-whore, you!
By the way, loved the sweet deal worked out by your lawyer, Roy Black:
"I am pleased to announce that the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years. This is the same doctor under whose care Mr. Limbaugh has remained free of his addiction without relapse.
"Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position. Accordingly, we filed today with the Court a plea of 'Not Guilty' to the charge filed by the State.
"As part of this agreement, Mr. Limbaugh also has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation. The agreement also provides that he must refrain from violating the law during this 18 months, must pay $30 per month for the cost of "supervision" and comply with other similar provisions of the agreement.
"Mr. Limbaugh had intended to remain in treatment. Thus, we believe the outcome for him personally will be much as if he had fought the charge and won." And good going for Roy, spinning the "no doctor shopping" yet "taking lots and lots of drugs" thing in your favor, after essentially getting you the same deal as that crack snorting little big-haired strumpet Noelle... here's hoping you don't screw it up by getting all cracked up like she did after the deal went down... then again, those Bushes have no self control... not like you...
Anyway, good luck staying off the "cabbage" for 90 days. And remember, martinis with speedball chasers count! Peace!
Update: Shhhh!!!! Auntie Kim thinks that if you turn yourself in to the cops, you're not really arrested... man, those dittoheads sure are some loyal Kool-Aid customers. El Rushbo could do crack right on their lawns and they'd swear it was the liberal establishment getting him high. Gotta love 'em!
Tags: Rush Limbaugh, drug addicts |
posted by JReid @ 10:20 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Star Splanglish Banner |
A British producer brings together Latin artists ... and Wyclef ... to sing the National Anthem in Spanish ... to make Americans ... more ... sympathetic ... to illegal migrants? As opposed to pissing Americans off beyond all measure ... right before a planned national boycott on the communist-coopted holiday of May Day? Hmmm ... sounds like someone has been sleeping through public relations class.
We're actually going to be playing the song and dealing with this issue on the WTPS morning show on Monday (with Lou Dobbs, no less!!!) ... and it will be interesting to see how our audience -- mostly African-American and West Indian, but with some white and Latino listeners -- react. As for me, I think bad PR makes bad policy, and this general strike/Spanish anthem idea strikes me as a kind of emotional blackmail: "give illegal migrants amnesty or else! We're Mexican/Latino first, and America had better recognize! And by the way, we're taking that National Anthem with us!"
I'm sure amnesty supporters will make the comparison between "Nuestro Himno" and the Jimi Hendrix or Marvin Gaye takes on the anthem in the 1960s and '70s. But there's a key difference: Hendrix's "Banner" was, by his own estimation, not meant as a protest. He simply found the sounds he created in playing his rendition of the song to be "beautiful." And I'm quite sure Gaye was going for the same thing -- artistic beauty. This version is meant to deliver a message to the American people: this isn't a version of our country's collective anthem, it's "our" very exclusive rallying cry.
I wouldn't have gone this route. Then again, I wouldn't be out there arguing that essentially, the U.S. has no right to regulate its own borders, and that any national of any foreign country has a right, not just an opportunity, but a God-given right -- to cross our borders at will and remain in the U.S. without regard to our laws, and then to be given the benefits of citizenship "after paying a small fine" and treated like every other (legal) immigrant. I sincerely doubt I could get away with that kind of thing in Mexico. In fact, I'm certain I couldn't:
When you enter the country as a "tourist", you are allowed to remain for a maximum of 180 days for the purposes of recreation, health, artistic or sports activities. You may not work in Mexico.
If you arrive by air: You must have your immigration form and present it to the immigration authorities upon arrival at the airport of your destination within Mexico. If you arrive by road: You must request your immigration form after having paid the tourist fees at a local bank. Your vehicle must leave the country when your tourist card expires. You cannot sell your car within Mexico nor use it for any other unauthorized purpose. If you arrive by sea: You must obtain your immigration permit after having paid the fees at the port of entrance. Once your authorized 180 days are up, you must leave the country. If you wish to re-enter the country: You can do so with a new immigration form granted by the immigration authorities at the place of entry after having paid the corresponding fee. You may extend your stay in Mexico as a: Person of independent means: Defined as one who lives off of income generated outside of Mexico. But of course, that's Mexico... Tags: immigration, Politics, border, MEXICO, McCain, illegal aliens, Illegal-Aliens, Illegal immigration, Mexico, Mexican flag |
posted by JReid @ 10:03 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Politics on the cheap |
Nothing says more about the utter inanity of our present politics than the notion, courtesy of the GOP (otherwise known as the handmaidens of multinational corporations and the ultra-rich) of easing Americans' gasoline suffering with $100 bucks. (And you call these people conservatives???)
The two fill-ups (assuming we don't blow it on, oh, food or the light bill,) ought to be worth a mercy vote at the polls in November, right? Give me a break.
Tags: Gas Prices, GOP |
posted by JReid @ 11:08 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Snow job |
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Tony Snow blah blah blah. Everbody's all excited, (except this guy,) waiting to see which member of the press pool "believe it or not I want to work with you," he says -- get's cussed out first. But what I'm really interested in, is the cussing out already going on among the right wing faithful.
Round one: Andrew Sullivan:
I've always had perfectly pleasant dealings with Tony Snow, and respect his commitment to genuine conservatism and to fighting the war on Islamist terror. I also agree with him that this president has "lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc." I agree that "George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion." I agree with him that "when it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no." I agree with Tony that "on the policy side, Bush has become a classical dime-store Democrat." I agree with him that No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives. Nearly 57 months into his administration, President Bush has yet to veto a single bill of any type. The only other presidents never to issue a veto - William Henry Harrison and James Garfield - died within months of taking office. The budget has grown nearly 50 percent on his watch, and he is vying to become the most free-spending president ever. To date, he has not asked Congress to rescind even a penny in profligate spending (even Bill Clinton requested more than $8 billion in rescissions, and Ronald Reagan sought upward of $80 billion). But I'm not going to stand in front of the press and defend this record now, am I? Ouch! So how do you respond, guy with a hard to pronounce name, from RedState.org?
It's called being a professional, Andrew. It's called calling them as you see them when you are a member of the press while at the same time bearing in mind that you had better have an overwhelmingly fantastically good reason--beyond the "our critics are our friends" line Tony Snow has taken towards the President--to refuse a call to service from the highest ranking elected official in the land. It's called taking a position of great and solemn responsibility without compromising your principles, but rather taking those principles into the public sphere and showing that you are more than a mere critic, that on the contrary, you are someone willing to personally place into effect the change that you are calling for.
I have critiqued George W. Bush and his policies a fair amount recently. But critiquing a President is not an automatic bar to serving in that President's Administration; especially not if that President has promised to listen and to respect the opinions a critic would be willing to give voice to in private counsel. I assume that is the promise he gave to Tony Snow and I would expect no less of an arrangement between any President and any Press Secretary (it's fairly easy to assume that if Tony Snow didn't get this kind of promise and didn't feel comfortable with it, he would have been more than content to work banker's hours while taking much more to the bank as a major media personality than he will as the White House Press Secretary). And here is the puzzlement: Up until now, one of the chief criticisms of the Bush White House was that it lived "in a bubble" and didn't pay attention to its critics. Now it's hiring one of them and what is the response?
Snark?
And that's it? Yaaawn....! Sorry, but I've got to give this round to Sullivan. Whingeing about how honored Snow must be to work for a prez who really, really is gona listen to him, gosh darnit is weak, weak WEAK! Hell, I'm just surprised to learn that anybody who worked for Fox News has ever criticized the president. Can't they throw you out of the cult for that?
Oh, and you've got to love AOL's take on Snow's slick move, courtesy of ThinkP:
And he was right. (Though as our little SnowBunny said today, "you should have seen what I said about the other guy...) Oh, yeah, I can't wait for that first press conference...
BTW, is TownHall pulling a "snow job" (so to speak) with a TS column? Tags: tony snow, Bush, News, News and politics, Media |
posted by JReid @ 1:32 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Righting the country, one state at a time |
The Bush impeachment wagon has officially rolled out of the station. Three states: Illinois, California and Vermont, have or are considering joint resolutions of the respective state houses that would trigger a little known rule of the House of Representatives in Washington, calling for hearings on the impeachment of the president of the United States. From Alternet:
Forget bird flu, impeachment is spreading across the nation, state by state.
On Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Dave Zuckerman (Prog.-VT) dropped the third of three nearly unreported bombshells on the Bush administration. Zuckerman, along with 12 fellow lawmakers, introduced a formal resolution for the Vermont state legislature to call on the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach President George W. Bush. With this resolution, Vermont joined the California and Illinois state legislatures, already embroiled in impeachment debates of their own.
For those who still believe impeachment's just a pipe dream, there are several key developments to consider beyond this burgeoning state movement. In addition to the hawkish Zbigniew Brzezinski's op-ed in Tuesday's International Herald Tribune warning that an attack on Iran could merit impeachment, Salon's Michelle Goldberg and my colleague Onnesha Roychoudhuri both noted last month that the "i-word" had gone public.
In an interview with impeachment expert Michael Ratner, Roychoudhuri observed that: "[T]he distant rumbling is growing louder by the day, creating a resonant echo that is rapidly taking root in public discourse. 'Impeach Him,' reads the cover of this month's Harper's Magazine. And in a public forum in New York City last week, journalists, lawyers and political figures came together to discuss the case against our president." While the main impediment continues to be a sycophantic Republican majority, polls show that more Americans favor impeachment hearings than currently approve of the job Bush is doing (33 to 32 percent). In addition, as Bob Geiger notes, Bush's state-by-state popularity is lower than even his anemic nationwide figures suggest, with a paltry four states remaining red two years into his second term. In other words, the population has the stomach for it even if the representatives don't.
The legal basis for these unprecedented state-level actions was discovered when, according to Steven Leser, Illinois Rep. Karen A. Yarbrough "stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the U.S. House of Representatives." The rule was written in a book formerly known as Jefferson's Manual, which, according to C-SPAN, "is a book of rules of procedure and parliamentary philosophy … written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 … [used by the House] as a supplement to its standing rules." Section LIII, sec. 603 states, "There are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion … [one of them is] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State …"
Each of the three resolutions mentions Iraq lies, torture and illegal spying, with slight variations in tone and specifics. Assemblyman Paul Koretz's California resolution (which includes Dick Cheney) and the Illinois resolution both include the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, while Vermont's focuses almost exclusively on Bush's most salient transgression, his illegal spying on Americans. The spying charge leads the other two resolutions' list of charges as well. The question for Democrats, who control the legislature in California, for instance, is whether pushing for impeachment is worth the potential loss of "bi-partisan cooperation" on other matters, as the representative floating that state's joint resolution pointed out on Randi Rhodes' show yesterday. The answer, as Randi said, is of course it's worth it. And by the way, Republicans wouldn't even ask whether it was, they would have moved for impeachment long ago if Bush were a Dmeocrat... The point is that since the Republican leadership in Congress, which is not only supine and solicitous of the president, but also complicit in much of what he has done, including the illegal wiretapping of Americans, will clearly never act to constrain this White House, the states of our union must do it for them.
That's Jefferson's genius, and if there was ever a time to implement it, that time is now, before Bush launches an illegal, unprovoked war against Iran.
Tags: Bush, Impeachment, Politics, Iran, Iraq, George W. Bush, NSA, News, War, Government, spying |
posted by JReid @ 1:18 PM   |
|
|
|
|
| Tuesday, April 25, 2006 |
| Oops... |
From Drudge:
... A spinning instructor at Washington, DC's Sports Club/LA mocked President Bush without realizing (believe it or not) that a first daughter was in his class!
ROLL CALL reports: The instructor, Glenn Makl, is said to be horrified to learn after class that the president's daughter Jenna was there to hear his making fun of President Bush and handing out of a video clip compilation of some of the president's more memorable gaffes and malapropisms.
Jenna Bush was working out at the club with her boyfriend, who later complained about the politcal ranting of the trainer, a source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. ... Roll Call is calling this one "TwinGate SpinGate."
Tags: Bush, Current Affairs, News, News and politics, TwinGate |
posted by JReid @ 2:58 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bush noxious gas fix |
Is it surprising that George W. Bush's answer to easing gas prices is to suspend environmental rules for gas formulations that are intended to produce cleaner air? Not a bit. Will it help? Signs point to "no." From Bloomberg today:
The plan to waive rules governing fuel blends could do more harm than good, according to Bob Slaughter, head of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the refining industry's trade group, based in Washington.
Refiners are replacing MTBE, a gasoline additive that fouled drinking water supplies, with ethanol because of changes in fuel rules in the energy legislation Bush signed in August.
Over the past week, shortages have occurred in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland, according to the AAA, the nation's largest motoring club. About 60 service stations in the Dallas area experienced spot shortages earlier this month.
``The President offered a piecemeal approach to alternative energy based on programs authorized in years past,'' Representative Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, said in a statement released after Bush's speech. Part of the reason, is that high fuel costs are in part because of refinery capacity (and in the Northeast, that does include slow processing of summertime fuels by refiners short on ethanol), but are even more impacted by international events, like the U.S.' continued saber rattling at Iran. That has prompted headlines like this:
-- Iran will halt cooperation with the UN's nuclear agency should the country be subjected to sanctions, negotiator Ali Larijani said. He said that such penalties would have ``important consequences for oil,'' Agence France-Presse reported. ... and that keeps the price of a barrel going in only one direction: up.
If Bush wants to actually do something about gas prices, he could take a cue from a guy who said the following during the presidential campaign of 2000:
“I think the president ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, ‘We expect you to open your spigots.’ … The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.”
Here's who said it. Instead, our oil man (and his oil friends) in the White House are leaving the phone on the hook. They could also stop threatening to nuke Iran, but then, what fun would that be. A windfall profits tax could go a long way toward funding that alternative fuel stuff Bush keeps prattling on uselessly about. And not waging simultaneous conflicts with the entire oil producing world? That would be freaking fantastic.
Instead, going forward, we'll get to choke on the air and on the price at the gas pump.
Tags: Bush, Current Affairs, News, News and politics, gas prices, Oil, Iran, the environment |
posted by JReid @ 2:18 PM   |
|
|
|
|
| Monday, April 24, 2006 |
| Our Mujahedeen |
The Asia Times adds further confirmation to the stories that the U.S. is using a known terrorist group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, to conduct intelligence inside Iran. (More on the MEK, and their good friend Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida here, here and here) ... Says the story:
TEHRAN - A former Iranian ambassador and Islamic Republic insider has provided intriguing details to Asia Times Online about US covert operations inside Iran aimed at destabilizing the country and toppling the regime - or preparing for an American attack.
"The Iranian government knows and is aware of such infiltration. It means that the Iranian government has identified them [the covert operatives] but for some reason does not want to show [this]," said the former diplomat on condition of anonymity.
Speaking in Tehran, the ex-Foreign Ministry official said the agents being used by the US "were originally Iranians and not Americans" possibly recruited in the United States or through US embassies in Dubai and Ankara. He also warned that such actions will engender "some reactions".
"Both sides will certainly do something," he said in a reference to Iran's capability to stir trouble up in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan for the occupying US troops there.
Veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in a much-discussed recent article in The New Yorker magazine that the administration of President George W Bush has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack as the crisis with Iran over its nuclear program escalates.
Hersh wrote that "teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups". The template seems identical to the period that preceded US air strikes against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan during which a covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) campaign distributed millions of dollars to tribal allies.
"The Iranian accusations are true," said Richard Sale, intelligence correspondent for United Press International, referring to charges that the US is using the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) organization and other groups to carry out cross-border operations. "But it is being done on such a small scale - a series of pinpricks - it would seem to have no strategic value at all."
There has been a marked spike in unrest in Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Balochistan, three of Iran's provinces with a high concentration of ethnic Kurdish, Arab and Balochi minorities respectively. With the exception of the immediate post-revolutionary period, when the Kurds rebelled against the central government and were suppressed violently, ethnic minorities have received better treatment, more autonomy and less ethnic discrimination than under the shah.
"The president hasn't notified the Congress that American troops are operating inside Iran," said Sam Gardiner, a retired US Army colonel who specializes in war-game scenarios. "So it's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran." ... The question is, would Bush seek Congressional approval before widening the scope of these alleged military operations, including into full-scale war.
There are those who have grave doubts that the administration would scarcely pause before launching its third war.
Tags: Iran, News,War, Bush administration, |
posted by JReid @ 9:21 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mary McCarthy fights back |
She categorically denies leaking the CIA gulags story, and moreover, denies she ever had access to the information she is supposed to have leaked.
And there is support for her at TPM Cafe here, and here, from a former underling of McCarthy's who is no friend of hers, but who says that as an analyst, not an operative, she wouldn't have worked at the desk that had access to the prisons info.
So now the CIA says that Ms. McCarthy was fired for a "pattern of behavior" that involved unauthorized contact with reporters.
Porter's Purge
What's at work here is a purge of information leaks by Porter Goss. He's wiretapping, including the CIA's watchdog, threatening prosecution, and conducting what is openly being described as a witch hunt. As Andrea Mitchell reports tonight on NBC, the message Goss is sending isn't "don't leak classified information" -- it's getting murkier whether Ms. McCarthy did that. It's "don't even have lunch with a reporter. Don't answer the phone when a reporter is calling." "Don't even think about it." And apparently, CIA and other government officials are getting the message.
Previous: Tags: Mary McCarthy,Leaks, CIA, Politics, Bush administration, Iraq, NSA, News, War on Terror |
posted by JReid @ 7:22 PM   |
|
|
|
|
| Sunday, April 23, 2006 |
| Radio daze |
| Well, tomorrow morning bright and early I start a new gig, and a new chapter in my life. I'll be producing for the WTPS morning talk radio show, hosted by James T and Tamara G. James is a longtime veteran of urban radio in South Florida, and he and Tamara had a top rated show on an FM, urban station for years. I'm excited about this opportunity and challenge, and will keep you (and of course the blog) updated. With that, I need to get some sleep. Gotta be at work at 4:30 a.m.! |
posted by JReid @ 10:56 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Saving Private Dubya |
Matt Cooper delivers more from the super-double-secret background files: in short - Josh Bolten has laid out five steps to saving Junior's legacy over the next 1,000 days. First, Cooper spells out Bolten's sense of urgency:
"We have a thousand days to get the job done," he said, according to attendees. The rearranging of staff in the Administration, which has included moving out some loyalists from Texas and is likely to continue, reflects the President's insistence that Bolten rethink an enterprise that had a series of horrible quarters. The real deadline is not 1,000 days from now, when Bush leaves office. The marker that is uppermost in the minds of Bush's inner circle is Nov. 7, when Republicans could lose control of the House and even the Senate. "If we don't keep Congress, there won't be a legacy," said a presidential adviser. "The legacy will be investigations and fights over Executive privilege" with newly empowered Democrats.
So the White House is now on a survival footing, and Bolten is essentially planning a six-month campaign that will not only prevent a Republican hemorrhage in the fall but might even produce accomplishments for Bush in his lame-duck years. The new chief recognizes that he needs to show results quickly, since aides have claimed to be rebooting the second term so many times (at least three, by TIME's count) that even their allies have lost track. And now, Bolten's five-point plan:
1 DEPLOY GUNS AND BADGES. This is an unabashed play to members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration. Under the banner of homeland security, the White House plans to seek more funding for an extremely visible enforcement crackdown at the Mexican border, including a beefed-up force of agents patrolling on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). "It'll be more guys with guns and badges," said a proponent of the plan. "Think of the visuals. The President can go down and meet with the new recruits. He can go down to the border and meet with a bunch of guys and go ride around on an ATV." Bush has long insisted he wants a guest-worker program paired with stricter border enforcement, but House Republicans have balked at temporary legalization for immigrants, so the President's ambition of using the issue to make the party more welcoming to Hispanics may have to wait.
2 MAKE WALL STREET HAPPY. In an effort to curry favor with dispirited Bush backers in the investment world, the Administration will focus on two tax measures already in the legislative pipeline--extensions of the rate cuts for stock dividends and capital gains. "We need all these financial TV shows to be talking about how great the economy is, and that only happens when their guests from Wall Street talk about it," said a presidential adviser. "This is very popular with investors, and a lot of Republicans are investors."
3 BRAG MORE. White House officials who track coverage of Bush in media markets around the country said he garnered his best publicity in months from a tour to promote enrollment in Medicare's new prescription-drug plan. So they are planning a more focused and consistent effort to talk about the program's successes after months of press reports on start-up difficulties. Bolten's plan also calls for more happy talk about the economy. With gas prices a heavy drain on Bush's popularity, his aides want to trumpet the lofty stock market and stable inflation and interest rates. They also plan to highlight any glimmer of success in Iraq, especially the formation of a new government, in an effort to balance the negative impression voters get from continued signs of an incubating civil war.
4 RECLAIM SECURITY CREDIBILITY. This is the riskiest, and potentially most consequential, element of the plan, keyed to the vow by Iran to continue its nuclear program despite the opposition of several major world powers. Presidential advisers believe that by putting pressure on Iran, Bush may be able to rehabilitate himself on national security, a core strength that has been compromised by a discouraging outlook in Iraq. "In the face of the Iranian menace, the Democrats will lose," said a Republican frequently consulted by the White House. However, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this April 8-11, found that 54% of respondents did not trust Bush to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran."
5 COURT THE PRESS. Bolten is extremely guarded around reporters, but he knows them and, unlike some of his colleagues, is not scared of them. Administration officials said he believes the White House can work more astutely with journalists to make its case to the public, and he recognizes that the President has paid a price for the inclination of some on his staff to treat them dismissively or high-handedly. His first move, working with counselor Dan Bartlett, was to offer the press secretary job to Tony Snow of Fox News radio and television, a former newspaper editorial writer and onetime host of Fox News Sunday who served George H.W. Bush as speechwriting director. Snow, a father of three and a sax player, is the bona fide outsider that Republican allies have long prescribed for Bushworld and would bring irreverence to a place that hasn't seen a lot of fun lately. "White Houses are weird places," he told a 2004 panel on White House speechwriting. Snow had his colon removed after he was found to have cancer last year, but his doctors have approved the possibility of his taking the grueling post. So in other words, the Bushies are admitting that their vaunted border crackdown is for show, that the security threats and Iran bluster are for political gain, and that currying favor with Wall Street via tax cuts is seen as good poll business. I think I've gotten it all.
By the way, here's a sixth point that Bolten might want to add:
STOP SCREWING UP.
That oughta do it.
Tags: Politics, Bush administration, News, Josh Bolten, White House Shakeup |
posted by JReid @ 10:44 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sources and methods |
File this one under eerie. I know Mary McCarthy. To be more precise, I don't mean "know" in the sense of Christmas card exchanges, weekly phonecalls or other such familiarity, but in the sense that we've met, and we've talked on a couple of occasions. Ms. McCarthy was one of the federal officials and quasi-officials provided to a group of fellows, of whom I was one, at the University of Maryland in December of 2003. We were all writers -- mostly editorial writers and columnists, but also a few freelance journalists (including, Jon Stephenson, a colorful New Zealander with whom I and a few others formed what, for journalists at least, constituted the bad kids on the bus). And during our fellowship with the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism, we were paraded before a slew of Pentagon officials, including Doug Feith and Stephen Cambone, plus a key military official responsible for crafting the Jessica Lynch fable, and other folks from the Brookings Institute, etc. Most spoke to us on the record, but a few, including Ms. McCarthy, gave us briefings on background. (At the time, she was not working for the CIA).
I had occasion to speak with Ms. McCarthy a couple of times after the fellowship. She was always polite about taking my calls and always informative, off the record. She struck me as no anti-administration crusader. Indeed, she has friends -- high placed friends -- at high levels of Team Bush. And while I believe she was a holdover from the Clinton administration, she struck me as careful, thoughtful, and in no mad rush to criticize the current administration's policies -- even on background. In fact, in one conversation I had with her, I pressed her about a certain Bush official, whom I viewed negatively, and about whom I was writing a column. She pushed back quite firmly, defending this person, whom I won't name, and vouching for the sincerity of certain aspects of the Bush policy framework. From my brief encounters with her, I wouldn't for a moment characterize her as the kind of person who would compromise national security for politics or any other reason, or as the kind of woman who would talk to a reporter about something that is classified, unless she really believed it was either illegal, or (my word) un-American.
Perhaps that close encounter with Ms. McCarthy is why I'm reluctant, to say the least, to pass judgment on her for her alleged leaks to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, which exposed the secret prisons being run by the CIA around the world, with the secret collusion of friendly governments. For America to be in the gulags business strikes me as anathema to everything this country is supposed to stand for. Worse, for us to be tolerating torture at those prisons, seems to me to be both morally indefensible and un-American. If Ms. McCarthy agreed with that assessment, and so leaked the information she did in order to protect the good name of this country, then I solute her. Bob Bennett be damned (well, Bob Bennett be damned anyway, since I care about as much about his opinion as I do about that of the average Klansman).
And another thing, the present government "leaker purge," including the use of lie detector tests on employees of the federal government, is a scandal in and of itself, particularly because for all the right wing bluster, the point isn't to ferret out traitors or spies -- those have been fairly well tolerated, if not encouraged, if you look at the Larry Franklyn and AIPAC cases, not to mention our friendly Iranian spy, Ahmad Chalabi, all three of whom operated quite literally from within the United States Pentagon. The point is to stop the kinds of leaks that could embarrass president Bush. Stalin would be proud.
Tags: Leaks, CIA, Politics, Bush administration, Iraq, NSA, News, War on Terror |
posted by JReid @ 9:49 PM   | | | |