Ed Kelley's snotty editorial published on the Friday Obama made his trip to the Middle East, made the same old tired tropes we have been hearing for years:
TRY to imagine the conversation between Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. ground commander in Iraq, and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama when they meet in Baghdad this summer.
Obama plans some fact finding when he visits the combat zone. Why bother? This week Obama said he'll withdraw U.S. troops within 16 months, apparently with little regard for conditions on the ground or Petraeus' best military judgment. The puzzling sequence has a "Ready, fire, aim” quality to it.
Ed Kelley seems to be of the opinion that military commanders set policy in America, and Presidents or candidates are merely allowed to squabble over tactics. Even if the duly elected leader of Iraq agrees with the Obama"time horizon", a condition where John McCain said "we would have to leave," Ed Kelley Insists on calling this a "retreat from Iraq." Even the Pentagon is looking hard at the changing priorities between Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the Ed Kelley's of the world are stuck with cheer leading a colossal mistake. Admitting this error would show their complicity in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Like most Americans, I deeply disapprove of the direction America is going. Seems like the threads of old glory are slowly coming apart, and in the hyper partisan atmosphere today, everyone seems to be shouting past each other, and the only things that get done further deepens the hole we find ourselves in.
No, this is not a kubaya post asking that we all gather at the river.
It is, however, a call to establish some fundamental principles on what it is to be American. The first and foremost being that the law be applied equally to everybody. One cannot state that race or status is irrelevant before the court when we have Scooter Libby justice, torture described as a "policy difference" as being somehow a shield from justice, and telecommunication giants able to provide "bail money" in advance to purchase retroactive immunity.
It doesn't even matter which party is in control, as Glenn Greenwald explains:
Since that overwhelming Democratic victory[of 2006], this is what the Democratic-led Congress has done:
Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- Jim Webb's bill to increase the intervals between deployments for U.S. troops;
Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- a bill to restore habeas corpus, which had been abolished by the Military Commissions Act, enacted before the 2006 election with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support;
Overwhelmingly approved the Senate's Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, to declare parts of the Iranian Government a "terrorist organization," an extremely belligerent resolution modeled after those which made "regime change" the official U.S. Government position towards Iraq;
Deleted from a pending bill -- at the direction of the House Democratic leadership and at the insistence of the White House -- a provision merely to require Congressional approval before the Bush administration can attack Iran;
Overwhelmingly enacted -- at the White House's insistence, and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support -- the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008," to vest the President with broad new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, all but putting an end to any chance for a real investigation and judicial adjudication of the Bush administration's illegal NSA spying program;
Stood by passively and impotently while Bush officials flagrantly ignored their Subpoenas and refused to comply with their investigations.
He goes on to point out that our elected officials, in particular the leaders of our elected parties no longer listen to the people who elect them. Lobbyists now firmly dictate the policies of America, and this short circuits the electoral process. Lobbyists do not have the best interest of America at heart, yet many powerful politicians only concern is who gets to sit in the big chair to hoover up massive political contributions. The system is utterly corrupt, and able to corrupt many well meaning public servants.
Which leaves many Americans angry and even disillusioned as they throw up their hands and give up. They do not vote out of protest or vote for a third party candidate to "send a message." Unfortunately, this type of approach only insures victory for the power-hungry politicians and their corporate benefactors.
The only process that has ever worked to substantially change the system is grass-roots activism. We cannot depend on "the press" to deliver cynical analysis of government actions, because they are corrupt as well. A premium is placed on access, and a reporter who gets too critical has no access. Media ownership has dwindled down to a handful of Corporations, many of whom have subsidiaries with business before congress. And so it goes.
This will be a long hard fight, to wrest control of our Government away from Corporations whose only loyalty is to maximize shareholder profit, many times which means at the cost of clean air or water, affordable health care, or now it seems, a roof over our heads. We are, by fiat, asked to bear the burdens of shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when we didn't benefit from the profits, not to whine about it or go mental due to a mess created by a $200 million lobbying effort named after Phil Gramm.
Corporate welfare must stop. Torture must stop. Spying on Americans without a warrant must stop.
Bloggers alone cannot do this. We have all called our representatives, flooded them with email and FAXes, and yet they continue an agenda of, as Glenn writes, "radicalism, extremism and lawlessness of the last seven years, presiding over an endlessly expanding Surveillance State and accompanying war-making machine, and the dismantling of numerous core Constitutional principles."
This will not be said in the press unless we say it, and since we rarely get invited, our message exposing these individuals, in there own districts, must be purchased. Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel, and Nancy, "off the table" Pelosi must pay a price for allowing these practices to occur. They were voted in to make these changes and have failed miserably, choosing merely to maintain the status quo, hoping to simply switch the name plates around on the K-Street lobbying enterprise.
Just electing more Democrats will not solve the problem, it only further tightens the grip of the feckless leadership we currently have. Without a doubt, more Democrats will get elected to both the House and Senate, so it is absolutely critical to hold the current leadership accountable for being such miserable failures. Without some sort of penalty we are assured of more of the same type of behavior in the future.
The FISA specific fund, hastily cobbled together in the wake of Steny Hoyer's stealth campaign, meeting every demand from the Bush administration (quaintly called "negotiations" by the press) managed to gin up nearly $350,000 in just a few weeks. Ads have been running in several Blue-Dog Bush enabling districts on the radio and in newspapers, including robo-calls read by local well-respected clergy.
As the above-chronicled events demonstrate, all of these assaults on our core civil liberties and the rule of law are not Republican attacks with Democrats fighting against them. They are attacks launched by the political establishment against the citizenry, and they ought to be responded to as such. That's the core premise of the Accountability Now/Strange Bedfellows campaign we've launched -- that these battles have to be waged by an ideologically diverse group of citizens devoted to a defense of the Constitution and the rule of law against a political establishment which has proven it is hostile to those values.
Let's do our Representatives a favor by introducing them to the most important lobby that exists--the American people.
Alarmed by the sharply eroding confidence in the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration on Sunday asked Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would give officials the power to inject billions of federal dollars into the beleaguered companies through investments and loans.
Actually, Fannie and Freddie can be allowed to fail. Their shareholders can eat shit, and they can be reconstituted as a wholesale federal entities. There are zero reasons that I can think of that we should have shareholder owned entities which "probably but not necessarily" are going to get a government bailout every time they need it.
Both short and long term we might think that having such creatures exist to be mortgage backstops is a good idea. I probably agree with that. But there is no reason for them to be publicly traded companies.
Anytime the idea comes up to raise the taxes on capital gains, the protectors of the investment class, Republicans, run around shrieking about taking money from risk takers and giving it to lay-abouts.
Clearly, our economic system is also part of our infrastructure and just as important as our highways and military to provide the well-being of this country. If the investor class is unwilling to provide adequate funding for the upkeep and regulation of this economic infrastructure, why should the rest of us have to bail them out, while the crooked big-wigs walk right out the front door with millions of dollars in bonuses?
Well, John McCain seems to be angry, which is usually spun to define him as even tempered. His surrogates are in hyper-drive trying to fog the fact that John McCain has endorsed every single Bush plan for the last seven years. His latest fact-free surrogate claims that:
John McCain stood up against George Bush and Don Rumsfeld in the prosecution of the Iraq war for many years. … To say that John McCain was aligned with President Bush on the prosecution of the war in Iraq is to change history.
Fortunately, here in the 21st century, we have recording devices that we can return to and check the record for facts. To wit:
“I think that Blix’s report will be fairly definitive. But Mr. Blix has made a lot of reports over the years, and I think the judgment made by the United States of America will — and the president of the United States — will prevail here.” [NBC, 2/12/03]
“I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission [in Iraq] was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.” [GOP Convention, 8/30/04]
“The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” [Meet the Press, 6/19/05]
MR. GREGORY: Do you, do you have confidence in the president and his national security team to lead the war at this stage? SEN. McCAIN: I do. I do. I have confidence in the president and I believe that he is well aware of the severity of the situation. [Meet the Press, 8/20/06]
“I’m sticking with the president in this respect [on Iraq]. This is our last chance. The consequences of failure are catastrophic.” [CNN, 2/13/07]
“I am proud of this president’s strategy in Iraq.” [Receiving Bush’s endorsement, 2/13/08]
Senator McCain' explosive temper is an issue in his quest for the Presidency. I came across this video over at Castle Driftglass. In an interview with Staphocaucolis, one cannot help but be reminded of Herbert Lom, of Pink Panther fame.
At about the 1.40 mark, watch what happens to his left eye.
He recovers nicely by jumping to his success at being shot down and captured by the enemy during Vietnam. Of course, I would probably be twitchy myself, but it would not be a qualification for running for President.
His uncontrollable temper, however, should rule him out as President of the most powerful country on earth. One should listen to those who know him best:
[...] A July 5 NewsMax.com article quoted former Sen. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee, as saying, "I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues . . . He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that." ...
"People who disagree with him get the ‘f*** you,'" said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House.
"He had very few friends in the Senate," said former Sen. Smith, who dealt with McCain almost daily. "He has a lot of support around the country, but I don't think he has a lot of support from people who know him well."
...
[I]n his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain said, "I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public's."
[...]
Senator McCain has serious anger management issues that his colleagues refer to as "irrational behavior" in the extreme. Those who work closest with him, other Senators, tend not to support him, or even like him very much.
Indeed, in McCain's own words, his inability to control his explosive temper "does not always serve my interest or the public's."
This is indeed one area that should be of grave concern to Americans, if it were only possible for the corporate media to get over its fanboy crush over the POW double-talk express bandwagon long enough to expose this very serious character flaw.
As it stands now, McCain was a POW, he was tortured, and that is damn well all we need to know.
I sent a letter to the Obama campaign voicing my opposition to his capitulation to Bush over the FISA bill and asked if he would pledge now to investigate and criminally prosecute those found to have broken the law. In short, I asked for a fig leaf, giving him an opportunity to repair the damage his vote has done to America. He failed to answer my call, but instead sent this tepid response instead:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.
We appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Obama for America,
--- Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
---------------------- Paid for by Obama for America
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
This statement, coupled with your relentless assaults on Senator Clinton for voting in favor of the Iraq war, was in part, the reason you secured the Democratic nomination. With this accomplished, you completely reversed yourself and voted to kill a filibuster of the FISA legislation that contained retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies and then voted for such immunity.
How can this be interpreted as anything other than rank political triangulation driven from fear?
Fear you would lose the primary and fear the Republicans will say mean things about you in the general election.
One needn't worry about the latter, the Republicans shall say mean things about you in the general, that is a given, but this vote is a serious error, doubly so as you are a constitutional scholar and think you have the ability to redact the Fourth Amendment.
Let's unpack your email to me, piece by piece.
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike,...
Please, do not sully my email in box with canards of National Security. According to the report for the 9/11 commission, our Government received 52 separate warnings of impending attack prior to 9/11, so to claim our abilities prior to your capitulation to George Bush were lacking lays blame of lack of intelligence at the wrong feet.
[...] while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders. [...]
The FISA bill you just voted on does not respect "the privacy and civil liberties of the American people", it does the opposite of that. All phone calls and emails into and out of America, whether an American is on the phone or not, is now subject to warrantless wiretapping. This FISA bill that you approve of not only legalizes past abuses but expands the authority of the President in warrantless eavesdropping.
[...] That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past. [...]
The FISA bill that you just voted on, and Bush so admires, expands the surveillance powers of the government and reduces the role of the FISA court. Since its inception over thirty years ago, the FISA court has approved over 19,000 warrants and denied only five. This law only allows the FISA court to approve of methods and does not require individual warrants for international calls, whether an American is on the line or not, or even a suspect. All calls into or out of America is now subject to a government dragnet.
I know you were opposed to granting retroactive amnesty in the past, not so much anymore though.
[...] After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. [...]
When every Republican in the House, except for one, and every Republican in the Senate (including Lieberman) votes for this issue, and enough Democrats (such as yourself) are peeled off to join them, how can this be a compromise? Joining with George Bush and the widely dejected Republican party to give them everything they want by making the "President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance " legal, is not a compromise, but a most corrupt capitulation and complete disregard for constitutional protections.
[...] It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. [...]
The Bush administration seized the power to break the law under the Unitary Executive theory, during War (on terror which shall never end) and used every dodge in the book to keep the judicial branch from ruling on this position. They failed. Three judges out of three judges all agree, the FISA law, as it stood before the FISA amendment, is the "exclusive means to conduct surveillance". FISA did not need to be "restored" as you claim. Going outside the FISA law is a felony, punishable by 5 years in Federal prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense.
[...] It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act. [...]
You also voted against a filibuster, Senator, after you explicity vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Pointing meekly to a provision that "guarantees" a part of the Executive branch to investigate another part of the Executive branch for "accountability going forward" while simultaneously granting immunity for past illegal acts and making such illegal acts legal going forward does not seem to meet my criteria for good legislation. As part of the "grass roots of Americans" I am not proud of this law and do not think it will pass constitutional muster.
In the final analysis Senator Obama, on this bill, the legislative branch has joined with the executive branch and gleefully took a saw to the third branch of government, the judicial branch. Our last hope of finding out what the Bush administration did, how heinous was his program, that caused the leadership of the Department of Justice threaten to resign as a result of his illegal spying activities, is now closed. For those who do not remember that episode, just watch this video:
That happened before Senator Obama's vote. This is what the result is of his current vote:
In the virtual shadow of Co-dependence Day, (the day after independence day) the Democrats of the Senate, having picked up sufficient pre-emptive bail money from the telecoms, are prepared to permanently establish a two-tiered justice system in America by granting the telecom companies retro-active amnesty for their flagrant criminal acts.
The money the Senators received is only a portion of the huge Government contracts the telecoms received for breaking the law. The Democrats, at the direction of Steny Hoyer, are doing this because in August the final provisions of the Orwellian named Protect America Act will lapse. August is when the Republican Convention occurs, and they are afraid that it will be used as a bludgeon to beat the Democratic nominee senseless with. To prevent that, the Democrats have capitulated on FISA and gave Mr. 29% everything he wanted.
Happy Co-Dependence Day!
Senator Obama folded on this issue like a cheap suit, and issued a statement on his website that has a group of eleventy skillion progressives opposed to his cave. The Senator offers his reasons for his waffle, which are wrong. Not in opinion or ideology, but factually wrong.
The Senator begins by addressing the immunity clause for the bill and claims he will "work" in an "effort" to strip the amendment from the legislation. He does not say he will oppose the bill unless the immunity clause is removed, so when that does not happen, which it will not, he will vote for a bill that grants immunity for criminals.
His second point is the "exclusivity" clause of the FISA legislation. Alberto Gonzales (aka Bertie Walnuts) and the Office Of Legal Counsel claimed that congress awarded unlimited power to the Executive branch when it authorized the war in Iraq. But three judges, out of, well, three judges, have already ruled that FISA, as it stand now, is the exclusive legal means for wiretaps for the Executive branch. One cannot receive what one already has, so this point is virtually meaningless.
His third point just flat out cracked me up:
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted.
The IG is part of the Executive branch. Loyal Bushies investigating loyal Bushies? Are you serious? They will probably all get medals.
FISA is a bad bill. It allows dragnets and if warrants are denied they can continue to wiretap through the appeals process, and if the warrant is ultimately denied they can still use all the collected recordings in court, no poisonous tree here.
I have been annoyed at several good progressive bloggers and leftwing radio hosts that wring their hands and head for the fainting sofa when anyone says anything negative about the Democratic nominee. We should all just STFU and support our candidate, after all, the only other option is four more years of Dubya McSame.
There is a group of blind loyalists who cling with total fealty to Dear Leader. Anyone who gainsays a single utterance of Commander Guy suffers from "derangement syndrome" or must be unpatriotic and yearns to give aide and comfort to the enemy.
That group is called Republicans.
I am not a Republican.
I am a citizen, not a subject. When an official of my party steps out of bounds, they are going to damn well hear about it. Unquestioning loyalty to a public official is not a good thing for a Democracy.
All my ire, and indeed the collective ire on the left, is not reserved for Senator Obama, in fact I doff my hat to him for posting his response. He will get my vote, but no money, or phone banking or any other activism whatsoever from me. The money I was going to give to Senator Obama will now go to the Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity.
We are targeting Bush-dog democrats and power-hungry bail money whores like Steny Hoyer. I would rather give my money to well deserving progressive candidates and it is unfortunate that this has to be, but it is the only language the politicians understand.
I invite everyone who are tired of the fatcats in Washington gaming the system to help us push back as hard as we can.
UPDATE:
Read Our Blue America FISA ad here. Call your Senator.
