Monthly Archives: August 2007

Why We’re Running Against Welch

When people hear that we are running a candidate to oppose Vermont Democratic Congressman Peter Welch in next year’s election, they are often quick to mention that next term will be too late to impeach Bush or Cheney. This is an indication that they either miss the point, or that they are dedicated Democrats who can’t bear to see erstwhile allies bearing down on their compatriots.

Allow me to explain our reasons for running. During the last election cycle, the American people made it abundantly clear that we wanted serious change. The Democratic victory, which was larger that anything that even the Democrats had dared to hoped for, was a mandate to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end, and to stop Bush from further damaging the country, if not to hold him accountable.

Instead, we see the Democratic Congressional leadership shying away from meaningful confrontation with the President or Vice-President, and being unable and unwilling to take a single significant step in ending or even slowing the occupation. John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the man who, while serving in the Republican controlled House during the last Congress, wrote the book on the impeachment of Bush, now not only doesn’t believe in it, but is fighting tooth and nail to keep it from being considered in his committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared impeachment “off the table”. She prefers to watch Bush and Cheney twist in the wind for the next 18 months in the hopes that the Democrats will thus inherit the White House. What she and Conyers fail to include in their political calculations are the numbers of lives to be lost while those 18 months creep by and Bush continues to act out on his policy whims. What she and Conyers, and Peter Welch and the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers who are going along with this masquerade are conveniently forgetting to put into their calculus is that they have taken a professional and moral oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

We will run a candidate who knows that their first loyalty is to the Constitution and their second is to their constituents. We don’t care who the next President is. We do not want to give her or him anything near the amount of power that George Bush has amassed for the current executive branch. The Democrats say “trust us, we’re on your side, it will all come out in the wash with the next election.” We say what have you done to deserve our trust? Where is your defense of the Constitution?

Where is your moral outrage? Where is an investigation that is really focusing on the crimes of the President or the Vice-President and not just concentrating on their underlings? Where are the results of all this important work that you claim to be doing which is precluding you from taking any action on impeachment? Since when is some future judgment of history an adequate substitute for justice served in response to constitutional breaches and criminality?

If you want to know what a determined opposition can do to a President from the other side of the aisle, take a glance at Newt Gingrich’s Congress and how they went after Bill Clinton, yielding no ground and effectively bottling him up and neutralizing him. The best that these current Democrats can do is to waste money rolling out the cots so they can stay up all night with a pajama party talkfest about how bad they think the war is. There is a reason that the only body in this nation with a lower approval rating than the President is the Congress. It is because they have betrayed the American people. If we wanted discredited Republican policies to continue, we would have voted the Republicans back in.

The hubris and condescension that emanates from lawmakers who tell us that in spite of the majority of their constituents demanding impeachment and accountability, they know better and are ignoring our demands for our own good are infuriating and nauseating. They, like the President, are putting themselves above the constrictions of the Constitution and think that they are wise Pooh-Bahs, when they are nothing more than puppets for the corporate oligarchy for whom most of our government functions.

We are running to take back our country from the political parties who have squandered and misdirected our resources, destroyed any veneer of respectability that might have survived the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years and have cast us into the darkness of endless war against an ethereal enemy.

We have reached the end of our rope. 

Obama bangs the drums of war

From an email I got today from the Obama campaign:

The next president must end the war in Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan and the Taliban resurgence, and pressure Pakistan to root out al Qaeda once and for all.

Most importantly, the next president must make sure that Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda’s core leadership are captured or killed. If Pakistan or any other nation won’t act against bin Ladin and his cohorts, we will.

Sign on to my plan and spread the word:

http://action.barack…

The time has come to turn the page on a failed approach.

The next President of the United States must commit to getting our troops out of Iraq and taking the fight to the terrorists.

We must reinforce our mission in Afghanistan with additional troops. We must press Pakistan and President Musharraf to close down terrorist training camps and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a safe-haven.

If Musharraf acts, we will stand with him. But if Pakistan will not act against Osama bin Ladin and the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans, we will.

These are achievable goals, and when I am president we will wage the war we need to win with a comprehensive strategy.

Read the plan, declare your support, and spread the word that it’s time to change direction.

His link to donate if you are inspired by this militaristic message is cynically entitled:

http :// action. barackobama. com / newleadership

New leadership?

more..

This is the candidate who is running solely on the premise of being different, and for change. This is a total cave-in to the usual and customary powers that be in politics who demand the same old tired saber-rattling to get elected. And if you vote for him, or support him, you are now supporting the status quo.

Yes, I’m talking to YOU!

We already know that no matter who gets elected, except maybe if it were possible for Kucinich to get in somehow, there will not be much in the way of real change. Candidates who are caving already, in the damn primary, fer crissakes, will NOT bring substantial change to this country.

With this email, I am now official putting Obama in the same litter box as Hillary on my personal scorecard. I’m moving him from “neutral” to “against” in the primary, but would support if nominated.

How does your card look?

Congrats to Philip (and Bill)

I'm traveling at the moment, so I don't have much time to blog, but I wanted to make sure and give a shout-out to Philip Baruth, whose Vermont Daily Briefing has, for the second year in a row, won the Seven Days reader poll for most popular (political) blog. Hip! Hip! (Yee-ha!)

Congrats also in order for Bill Simmon's Candleblog, which took the now-(appropriately)-delineated non-political blog title, returning the crown to him after a year he had to spend slumming with the rest of us losers.
Don't forget us little people from that lofty shared perch, Phil-n-Bill!

A Left critique of Obama

Cross posted from Rational Resistance: 

 

A friend of mine was asking me yesterday if I'm against Obama, and I'm really not. Still, I've come across a couple of things that really show him in a bad light, and since he is the leading candidate among liberals (for instance, he just won the Vermont Democratic Party's straw poll), I think it's important to look closely at him before he's our candidate, not after.

Therefore, I want to link to this diavlog that in it Matt Stoller makes some important points:

1. He was right on Iraq, but he hasn't done anything effective against the war or torture since he's been in the Senate.
2. He doesn't like activists, partly because of his whole “let's just get along” approach to things.
3. He wants to be part of the establishment, and consequently he hasn't really taken on the powerful institutions and politicians, like the press, that got us into the war.
4. There are no spots where you could show that his positions differ from those of Hillary Clinton.

Stoller is also saying that there are things he can do that would get away from these errors, like identifying the people who caused the war (“if he would Sister Souljah a liberal hawk . . .”) and saying that they were wrong and will have no role in his administration.

I know that most of the readers around here probably support him, so I'd be interested to hear what you think after you watch this.

Oh, and by the way it really IS about ‘TSP’ … but more importantly …

First I want to point out it was the TMPmuckraker blog that pointed to the information I'm using below. And it should be noted a poster on that blog also made the same comment I'm going to.

The question is how long the Cheney/Bush administration can claim that Gonzales was/wasn't talking about the 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' (TSP) … or was … or wasn't … errr … separate things … uh … whatever.

Titular president Cheney's recent interview with Larry King contains this fun tidbit:

Q In that regard, The New York Times — which, as you said, is not your favorite — reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President's intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall — first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.

Q That would be something you would recall.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

Q So you didn't send them to get permission.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital.

(Interview of the Vice President by Larry King, CNN, White House press release, 07/31/07)

TPM noted the silliness of this “I don't remember” excuse, but as one of the follow up posters noted: “Wait…I thought the visit WASN'T about the TSP!!!”

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

(Documents Contradict Gonzales Testimony, CBS News, 07/25/07)

Hmmm, Gonzales doesn't remember except to assure us he wasn't at the hospital about the TSP. Cheney doesn't remember except to assure us it was about the TSP.

And today the Washington Post is reporting:

The Bush administration's chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described.

The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the administration has publicly acknowledged that Bush's order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrant-less surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.

(NSA Spying Part of Broader Effort, Washington Post, 08/01/07)

So now we can really muddy the waters. Beyond “I don't remember” there is the “Well, we've really been doing a whole lot of secret crap to you that we're not gonna discuss”.

There's a bigger problem than the dishonesty regarding this subject. The Cheney/Bush administration considers their “war against terror” to be without borders … and that includes the United States of America. That means every one of us is a potential threat in the eyes of our current federal administration. We are being treated as the enemy!

Impeachment of Gonzales a possibility… time to see where Welch stands.

Things aren't looking so hot for Bush consigliere and attorney general Alberto Gonzales lately, even worse after last week's perjury and evasion testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even many Republicans can't seem to ignore the stench of Gonzales, and aren't jumping in to support him.

The good news is that there was a resolution sumitted today by Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington's 1st congressional district, that is calling for an investigation into the possibility of impeaching the Attorney General:

Specifically, the resolution would require the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution would need to win approval by a majority of the House for the panel to start investigating. If after an investigation the Judiciary Committee, by majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment exist, a resolution impeaching the attorney general and setting forth specific allegations of misconduct, in one or more articles of impeachment, would be reported to the full House.

I couldn't find the number of the resolution, but you can read its full text here. More below the jump.

Now, as you all well know, many of us are frustrated with the lack of action on impeaching Bush and Cheney. However, as high-profile as it has been lately, and with Gonzales stepping further and further in the poop everytime he opens his mouth, I think this one, should it come to fruition, won't be as much of an uphill climb as getting the guys at the top. Of courese, some will make a stink about it, as the Seattle Times reports:

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, denounced the resolution Monday night.

“The call by Democrats to impeach Attorney General Gonzales is a misuse of congressional power for purely political reasons and a waste of the American public's money and time,” Smith said in a statement.

He said Democrats have chosen “to engage in a politically motivated campaign to slander the Justice Department and undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement.”

 

 J'ever notice how, even still, after all of these years. the typical GOP repsonse to criticism is “the Democrats are just playing politics“? How original. What the hell is that supposed to mean? They're politicians fer Crissake, playing politics is part of their job, isn't it? Inlsee, interestingly enough, took some criticism earlier in the year, when he asked state senators in Olympia to drop a resolution asking Congress to impeach President Bush, saying at the time that promoting impeachment was “grandstanding.” Maybe this is different to him somehow, it doesn't really matter, it's a step in the right direction.

Now,  Texan GOP Blowhard notwithstanding, this is something that, with a groundswell of support, is within reach. It's time to call Peter Welch, and ask him to sign on as a co-sponsor to Inslee's resolution calling for an impeachment investigation into Alberto Gonzales.  You can reach his VT office at (888) 605-7270 (toll free in Vermont), or the DC office at (202) 225-4115. The “I” word elicits some pretty strong emotional responses in some people; it's important to keep it focused on this impeachment, as to not mix the two issues up. I'll have more on this when I get some more information. Please feel free to share some of your responses from Welch's office in the comments section.