S.1634 Hearing recap

[UPDATE: Selise recorded the audio and made a podcast available here.]

No big surprises in today's hearing. The most interesting part was learning that a similar bill was introduced in the House.

Here's my quick recap:

Chairman Bingaman opened the hearing, handed off the mic to Sen. Akaka, and left to take care of some other business. Akaka was the only Senator to say anything, probably the only one there (hard to see on the crappy webcast).

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs David Cohen said things are much better in CNMI than they were five years ago, but there is still a long way to go, CNMI doesn’t have the money/resources to do it alone, and with military development and spending in Guam, this is a post-9/11 issue of national security. (Imagine that, 9/11 rhetoric actually helping the little guy)

CNMI Governor Benigno Fitial and Saipan Chamber of Commerce President Juan T. Guerrero complained that the bill wasn’t necessary, that they’ve got everything under control, that the bill will destroy their fragile economy, that foreign investment will dry up if it passes and that more studies are needed before any action is taken. Essentially, they are trying to stall, which has been their strategy for decades, even articulated with hidden cameras recording conversations by people in control of sweatshops.

Resident Representative Pedro A. Tenorio was urging passage with amendments to protect CNMI from losing skilled workers too quickly, since they could potentially leave freely (imagine that) if they were granted federal status.

Finally, Department of Interior Labor Ombudsman James Benedetto had a few comments about the progress that has been made and the work still left to be done.

There was no testimony from any of the “guest workers.” That was submitted in writing by Dengre, collected in CNMI by human rights advocate Wendy Doromal.

Please continue to contact senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and urge them to support S.1634 and real reform in CNMI.

Thanks to everybody who has been supportive. Thanks, Digby, for allowing me to cross-post.

Closer

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Revisiting Digby's post on the Lieberman Amendment, some Senators are explaining themselves and it looks like they've lost the thread, too. Here's Sen. Russ Feingold explaining why he voted for the amendment:

While I don't agree with Senator Lieberman when it comes to Iraq, his amendment having to do with Iran offered yesterday was not controversial because it basically just required a report on Iran's role in Iraq and any responses by the US government.

I'm stunned by this response, and not just because it's from Feingold. Apparently, the addition of this clause has convinced senators like Harry Reid that the bill is benign:

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.

I just don't see how anybody who's been paying attention can come to that conclusion. First of all, consider the source:

"I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. Host Bob Schieffer followed-up: "Let's just stop right there. Because I think you probably made some news here, Senator Lieberman. You're saying that if the Iranians don't let up, that the United States should take military action?" "I am," Lieberman responded.

Lieberman added that "if there's any hope" of stopping Iran's nuclear program, "we can't just talk to them. ... We've got to use our force and to me that would include taking military action."

That was a month ago. While the extent of Lieberman's dementia on this issue is something altogether different than the text of this amendment and its legal implications, it would behoove anybody considering an amendment on this topic from this particular senator to be as skeptical as possible. A 97-0 vote doesn't indicate much skepticism.

Lieberman's motives don't exist in a vacuum, either. It's been clear for a long time that this administration is itching for a war with Iran. Josh Marshall wrote about the neocon fantasy of "spreading the chaos" way back in 2003. We know that the administration tried to get authorization to fight in Iran and Syria when the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was approved.

We have been told by The Guardian that Bush essentially gave Tony Blair a chance to pull the United States into a war with Iran when 15 British sailors were captured last March.

We also heard from Sy Hersh that the administration has been manipulating language in order to avoid Congressional oversight into their actions involving Iran:

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

" 'Force protection' is the new buzzword," the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon's position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. "The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran," he said. "We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want."

In normal times, you might wonder if this assertion were true because it might be hard to accept, at least automatically, that the White House would stoop to such a level. In this case, you actually have to wonder if this administration would even waste time coming up with any justification whatsoever for evading any perceived-to-be-legitimate restrictions on its authority.

Back to the Lieberman Amendment... If "force protection" is the name of the game, Congress has just, despite their attempts to de-fang the bill, handed the administration a list of Congressional "findings" that support whatever Bush and Cheney decide to do in Iran (and in secret). The findings themselves attribute the allegations of Iranian involvment to military representatives, but there shouldn't be any doubt that the White House would argue that the Congress has accepted them through their acknowledgement.

Consider how the water-carriers for this administration have used the libelous "Additional Views" of three Republican senators to claim that the entire Senate concluded that Joe Wilson is a liar in the Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessment on Iraq. Now, the White House has a 20-point list of reasons to justify anything Bush has already been doing without Congressional approval.

If that isn't enough of a reason to have voted this amendment to oblivion, consider what Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Continues to be bogged down... Check. Iraqi failure to meet benchmarks... Check. Accusations of Iranian responsibility... Check, thanks to this amendment.

Where does that leave us? Waiting for George Bush to report back to Congress about whether there are any Iranian "provocations" in Iraq. What do you expect to hear in the next report? What do you think will happen next?

Sen. Webb introduced a bill back in March that would have required Bush to come back to Congress for approval before using force in Iran. That bill never got out of committee. It was determined that it wasn't "germane" to the toothless Iraq Supplemental Bill that passed in May. Congress has done nothing to assert its authority in lieu of that bill's rejection.

Is it possible that 97 voting senators all want a war with Iran? Seems hard to believe, but in the absence of any serious opposition to expanding this war, what else could they be thinking?

Let me count the ways

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's home run record in 1961, but that remarkable accomplishment wasn't enough to get him into the Hall of Fame. To get a plaque in Cooperstown, a player needs to be consistently spectacular for a long time.

Conversely, George W. Bush has been spectacularly bad at his job for most of the time he's been in office, and yet Congress is apparently waiting for a single, remarkable, odious act before seriously considering impeachment.

After posting on the president's outrageous comments about health care Tuesday, I joked that Bush has necessitated a version of the Ninth Amendment for bloggers:

The enumeration in the blog, of certain transgressions by the president, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others noted by the readers.

I simply could not list ways the president was wrong and possibly include all of them. Similarly, I couldn't possibly list, at this point, all the things Bush and Cheney have done that would, by themselves, make me vote for impeachment were I representing my district or state. The day the news broke about domestic wiretapping was the day Bush jumped from the "lousy president" to the "felon" category for this blogger.

Others could point to Katrina, Abu Ghraib, secret prisons... Again, what's the point of trying to list them all?

But for whatever reason, no singular event has been enough to convince Congress to put impeachment on the table, so to speak. More striking, though, is the failure of Bush's cumulative record to create any traction for impeachment. Not even with a majority of Americans supporting Cheney's impeachment and practically as many in favor of Bush getting the heave-ho as opposed the idea.

We're supposed to believe that Scooter Libby's probation is a serious consequence of his behavior because he can't lie to any more FBI agents for a while. It is tragic, however, that Bush was never placed on a form of probation when the opportunities presented themselves, repeatedly. For example, when Russ Feingold introduced his measure to censure Bush over the wiretapping, the Democrats responded with anonymous quotes by Senate aides:

"Feingold's grandstanding screwed the pooch and played into Bill Frist's hands," the aide said. "Thank God Dems punted this down the field. Frist was going to force Democrats to vote on a resolution Feingold had kept a big secret and he would've split the caucus on an issue that needed time to get the whole caucus to support. Russ Feingold had only one persons' interests in mind with his Sunday bombshell, and those were his own. He practically handed a victory to a Bush White House that desperately needs a win."

[...]

"There were concerns that this would backfire on the Democrats just as they were beginning to get the upper hand or at least beefing up the playing field on homeland security credentials," the aide added. "The Dubai deal, the war in Iraq, the president's numbers heading south. Democrats have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot when the good things work and we've been known to do some things that end up hurting us rather than helping us."

That measure was unlikely to pass, anyway. But think how much easier it would be to hold Bush accountable if the Democrats had been nearly unanimous (thanks, Lieberman) in objecting to his dubious acts. Instead of a series of abstract and already internalized events, there would be a record of established abuses of power and failures of leadership. The same way the administration sold America on the 17 U.N. resolutions Saddam Hussein violated, the Democrats could point to the number of times Bush needed to be reprimanded for violating the trust of the people and his oath of office.

By failing to hold Bush accountable to even a minimal standard along the way, Congress not only encouraged more bad behavior from this administration, they made it incredibly difficult to ever reach a point where they could say "enough already."

Presidential Power

Thinking about how radical the Bush administration has been led me to pick up my dusty copy of Richard E. Neustadt's Presidential Power, one of the best books ever written about the executive branch. I just wanted to see how (my outdated copy of) the book holds up in light of the absurd nature of politics and the media in the early 21st Century. In some respects quite well, in others, not so much.

Interestingly, I found two opposite pages (164-165) that stuck out in my mind for different reasons, and both are bouncing around in my head today.

The first is this:

In 1898, two years before Wilson's apologia, a scholarly observer who may well have influenced him wrote a deeper book than Congressional Government. This was Henry Jones Ford, his book The Rise and Growth of American Politics. Correctly, in my view, he even then put the Presidency at the system's center:

The agency of the presidential office has been such a master force in shaping public policy that to give a detailed account of it would be equivalent to writing the political history of the United States.

The evidence... history affords seems conclusive of the tact that the only power which... define[s] issues in such a way that public opinion can pass upon them is that which emanates from presidential authority. ...

The rise of presidential authority cannot be accounted for by the intention of presidents; it is the product of political conditions which dominate all the departments of government, so that Congress itself shows an unconscious disposition to aggrandize the presidential office. ...

Eighty years later the trend seems the same.

Today, the talking heads are having a field day with the news that Congress has abysmal approval ratings. Lou Dobbs is reporting that fact as I type this.

In the comments to my posts this week at Hullabaloo, it was plenty clear to me that people have lost faith in Congress' ability to rein in this president. The failed Iraq Supplemental opportunity to end the war and the fact that Nancy Pelosi said impeachment is off the table seem to have crushed a great deal of whatever optimism voters had after last November's elections.

No doubt, it is true that the power this president has was ceded to him by the GOP-controlled Congress of the recent past, and has yet to be reclaimed by the thin majority the Democrats "enjoy" presently. Personally, I don't think they have the votes to change that much. The only real weapon they have is to continue investigating this reprehensible administration and hope that something comes out that is so egregious, even John Boehner and Mitch McConnell won't be able to save Bush.

What is incredibly gut-wrenching to so many of us is the previously unimaginable extent to which the GOP Congressional leadership and noise machine has been willing to defend the indefensible. Which brings me to the opposite page (165) of my copy of Presidential Power:

In the aftermath of Watergate, however, we have seen occasions where distinctions between reputation and prestige seemed to dissolve, where Washingtonians seemed quite like members of the general public, reacting to a President in almost the same terms, conducting themselves accordingly.' One such occasion was the "Saturday night massacre" of 1973 when Nixon fired the Watergate Prosecutor, forcing resignations from the Attorney General and his Deputy, all of whom responded on TV. This dramatic sequence-televised and thus "firsthand" in all parts of the country seemed so to contradict the President's contentions as to drain them of credibility, enlarging what we now label a credibility "gap," indeed extending it so wide as to cast doubt on his legitimacy and with it his authority as President. Nixon seemed to be engaging in a cover-up of criminal activity. He seemingly was fighting law enforcement. But he had sworn an oath of office encompassing the "take-care" clause. Hence the cloud on his legitimacy. The "massacre" tripped off impeachment proceedings. It is easy to see why.

What was striking then is that inside the government or near it, in the watchful circle of the Washington community, reactions against Nixon seemed to have so much in common with the popular impressions outside government. Citizens at large were swept into a "firestorm" of protest and suspicion. But so were commentators, congressmen, and civil servants. Apparently the President's behavior planted the same question in all minds. Some Washingtonians, waiting upon evidence, were slower than others to draw ultimate conclusions, and slower by far than some citizens, but he was treated henceforth with reserve throughout the Washington community. Diplomacy aside-there was a crisis in the Middle East-he turned away from governing and focused on the prospect of impeachment. Had Nixon tried to be assertive in domestic spheres, I take it that he would have been ignored or resisted. All over town officials shook themselves free of the White House, released by suspicion from deference, distancing their programs from his person. This occurred within one year of his triumphant re-election, three years before expiration of his term. For Washingtonians it was a most uncharacteristic reaction, especially so early in the term. Calculations about possible impeachment played a part, no doubt. But so did outraged feelings about Nixon's performance. There was precious little rallying around him. Instead, so far as I can judge, there was a widespread sense, even in some quarters of the White House, that he had compromised his right to be there and should go, impeached or not.

It is hard to imagine Washingtonians having less "in common with the popular impressions outside government" today (or during the Clinton impeachment proceedings.) As Digby correctly noted in her magnificent speech, the mainstream media -- the High Broderism and Meal Ticket Journalists -- have failed us completely.

Glenn Greenwald wrote today:

Only in the true fringe -- what Digby calls "the modern conservative movement of Newt and Grover and Karl and Rush," as well as their establishment media enablers -- does opposition to the Iraq War, or Guantanamo and torture, or the abolition of habeas corpus, or the grotesque deceit of the Limbaugh Right make one a "leftist" or fringe liberal, as those terms are used in their pejorative sense. The reality is that the views Digby identifies as the crux of the "progressive blogosphere" are entirely mainstream American views. "Extremism" is marked by those who reject those beliefs, not by those who embrace them.

Radicals and extremists are those who believe that we ought to invade and occupy foreign countries which have not attacked and cannot attack us, or that we ought to lock people away indefinitely with no process and/or torture them, or that the president has the power to ignore our duly enacted laws. As is true for any collection of large numbers of people, there surely are liberal bloggers who hold views that are shared only by a small minority. But objectively speaking, the defining views, the ones that its members hold almost unanimously in common, are anything but radical or "fringe."

It is not only our national character that has changed fundamentally over the last six years. So, too, has our political spectrum. As I've argued many times before, the term "liberal" or "the Left," as used most commonly, now denotes "opposition to Bush radicalism." Anyone who meaningfully deviates from the worldview of the Bush movement, who devotes themselves to opposing it, finds themselves -- for that reason alone -- described as "on the Left." Even the CIA, and Bush appointees such as Richard Armitage and James Comey, are so described that way. That is how profoundly these terms have been transformed.

Ideas that were always previously so radical as to be unthinkable are now routinely identified as "mainstream conservatism." Conversely, political principles that have been such an integral part of America's political identity as to be unquestionable are now the hallmarks of "fringe liberalism" (a "fringe" which, as our last election demonstrated, now includes an ever-growing majority of the population). Those whose views of "bloggers" are based upon the caricatures of Time Magazine and The Washington Post would undoubtedly be shocked to learn of just how unremarkable is the Platform of Beliefs of the "Progressive Blogosphere" as articulated by one of its leading and most admired commentators.

The litany of abuses of the public trust, to the point at which one of the highest ranking officials in the administration was convicted by a jury of obstructing the only significant criminal investigation of wrongdoing in the White House, has been so well-documented there's no reason to go through it here. When John Ashcroft was willing to resign to stop Bush and Cheney from hatching one of their schemes, we wondered what could have been so bad to make him say no.

What it will take to make the rest of today's Washingtonians to say no? What it will take -- beyond a veto-proof majority -- to hold Bush accountable for his misdeeds and get this country back? The simple answer to my simple question is probably "nothing."

Still, this member of the "fringe" will not relent.

No excuses

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Yesterday was Juneteenth, a time to reflect on Civil Rights and progress in America. As I was admonished in comments here for not making clearer, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in America. But sub-human conditions for workers still exist, to the everlasting shame of the Congress that has allowed it to continue on American soil.

It's easy sometimes to feel helpless when confronted by crimes against humanity in distant locations, where seemingly little can be done. It is inexcusable for nothing to be done when the outrages occur within the legal jurisdiction of our own representative government.

I'm writing about the exploitation that is hidden away in the Marianas Islands. I'm referring to the women who are tricked into thinking they are buying a chance to work in America, only to learn that they are essentially imprisoned in a filthy den, forced to work for nothing, forced into prostitution, forced to have abortions, and finally shipped back to their homelands, broken and penniless. I'm writing about a man who couldn't "spotlight" a blog post; he lit himself on fire to call attention to the desperation that has been largely ignored.

I know of nobody on the blog-o-sphere who has devoted more energy to this horrible situation than dengre at Daily Kos. I urge you to read dengre's diary detailing how Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff made sure Congress would do nothing but turn a blind eye to these atrocities. You can read dengre's transcripts of the Senate testimony of abused women, some of which fell on deaf ears a decade ago.

You can also see a (somewhat old) video here that shows the working conditions out there.

Again, this is on U.S. soil. Now that the Democrats control Congress, there is no reason this ugliness should remain in the shadows. There is no excuse for allowing this exploitation to continue.

Last week, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) introduced "a bill to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes." It remains to be seen what the bill hopes to accomplish, or what it will look like in its final form. Hearings may begin next month.

There is no doubt what the bill ought to do. Slavery is wrong. Rape is wrong. That may be hard for Tom DeLay to comprehend while he smiles to allow people to see Jesus through his mugshot. But it should be obvious to just about everybody else. Please put pressure on Congress to do the right thing.

What did I miss?

Quite a bit it looks like. It's amazing how much happens in one week these days. DB was without Neternit access or TV (more or less) while travelling. Every time that happens, I come home mildly optimistic... maybe things straightened themselves out while I was gone!

Nope. Going to be a while before I catch up, but I did see that Joe Lieberman is still insane. Thanks again, Connecticut.

Here's a post at Daily Kos, picking up on DB's ongoing frustration with Congress' absolute lack of political will when it comes to preventing Bush from unilaterally deciding to expand this terrible war to Iran.

Webb's Iran proposal also a victim

While we all shake our heads at the abysmal manner in which the Democratic Congress has abdicated its obligations and clear mandate from the American people with regards to Iraq and the supplemental spending bill, let's not take our eyes of yet another significant capitulation.

Sen. Jim Webb introduced an amendment to the Iraq supplemental bill in March that would have required the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. DB wrote about this yesterday, if you want more details.

Today, DB has learned that Webb's amendment, which according to the Senate's web site, has a status of "read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations" is essentially a dead letter. It was determined to be "not germane" to the bill to which it was intended to be attached, namely the Iraq supplemental.

So Congress isn't simply giving Bush a blank check for Iraq. They've completely punted on Iran as well.

Joe Biden had this to say to Condoleezza Rice back in January:

Secondly, I also want to make it clear, as chairman of the committee, that I feel very strongly that the authorization of the use of force in the provision that the Senator [Webb] read from it explicitly denies you the authority to go into Iran. Let me say that again: explicitly denies you the authority to go into Iran. We will fight that out if the President moves but I just want the record to show, and I would like to have a legal response from the State Department that if they think they have authority to pursue networks or anything else across the boarder into Iran and Iraq [Syria] that will generate a Constitutional confrontation here in the Senate, I predict to you. At least I will attempt to make it a confrontation.

But we already know Bush thinks he has the authority. He offered our military to Tony Blair when the British sailors were captured by Iran in March. He's authorized covert operations in Iran right now. There are indications that he is developing a plan for a full-scale military conflict.

What is Biden waiting for? A letter from Rice spelling it out?

UPDATE: Yikes! Just read this post by Steve Clemons. Seriously, read it.

UPDATE II: So much for "germane."

The measure also adds $17 billion Bush did not request, including funds for military and veterans health and hurricane recovery, and increases the federal minimum wage.

[...]

It includes $6 billion for hurricane recovery plus funds for drought relief for farms, health insurance for poor children, the war in Afghanistan, mine-resistant military vehicles, readiness of U.S. military forces still in the United States, homeland defense and military and veterans' health care.

The bill also increases the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25 over two years.

Insane Texas persecution watch

During the Monica Goodling testimony today, the Democratic Senator from Tennessee, Stephen I. Cohen, spent part of his time asking Goodling about the large number of people working in the Bush administration who graduated from her Alma Matter, Regent University.

REP. STEPHEN I. COHEN, D-TENN.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, I've read your vitae and it says that you grew up and you mostly went -- you went to public schools. Is that K through 12?

GOODLING: Yes.

COHEN: And it says you went to Christian universities in part because of the value they placed on service.

What was the other part, that you chose Christian universities?

GOODLING: I chose them because I had a faith system, and in some cases -- I went to American University for my first year of law school. And then I transferred.

GOODLING: And I enjoyed studying with people that shares a similar belief system that I did. It didn't mean that there wasn't a lot of diversity of discussion, because in some cases I actually found the debate at Regent was much more vigorous than it was at American University my first year of law school. But I enjoyed being surrounded by people that had the same belief system.

COHEN: The mission of the law school you attended, Regent, is to bring to bear upon legal education and the legal profession the will of almighty God, our creator. What is the will of almighty God, our creator, on the legal profession?

GOODLING: I'm not sure that I could define that question for you.

COHEN: Did you ask people who applied for jobs as AUSAs anything about their religion?

GOODLING: No, I certainly did not.

COHEN: Ever had religion discussions come up?

GOODLING: Not to the best of my recollection.

COHEN: Is there a type of student, a type of person that you thought embodied that philosophy of Regent University that you sought out as AUSAs?

GOODLING: In most cases the people at Regent are good people trying to do the right thing who wanted to make a difference in the world. If the question is if I was looking for people like that, the answer is yes. I wasn't necessarily looking for people who shared a particular faith system. I don't have any recollection that that entered into my mind at any point. But certainly there are a lot of people who applied to work for this president because they share his same faith system and they did apply for jobs.

COHEN: Are there a lot of -- an inordinate number of people from Regent University Law School that were hired by the Department of Justice while you were there?

GOODLING: I think we have a lot more people from Harvard and Yale.

COHEN: That's refreshing.

Is it a fact -- are you are of the fact that in your graduating class 50 to 60 percent of the students failed the bar the first time?

GOODLING: I'm not -- I don't remember the statistics, but I know it wasn't good. I was happy I passed the first time.

COHEN: Thank you. That was good.

Of course you can see what a serious attack that was on Christianity, can't you? Isn't it obvious that Cohen was practically begging somebody to commit an act of violence against Christians?

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TEXAS: And I would also point out, when we bring up God and Christianity and question somebody's belief for attending a religious college, that Harvard itself -- if we want to refer to them -- Psalm 8 is on Emerson Hall that houses the Philosophy Department.

GOHMERT: What is man that thou art mindful of him? -- talking to God, from Psalm 8.

The Latin phrase meant truth for Christ and the church, and that was the official motto of Harvard in 1692.

And the rules and precepts of Harvard in 1646 said, Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, and therefore to lay Christ at the bottom as the only foundation.

It is part of the foundation.

And I would also submit to my colleagues that the hate crime bill passed out of this committee and taken to the floor and passed recently leaves an opening. If someone here seems to indicate there's something wrong about being a Christian and someone is induced to commit violence against that Christian, then the person on this committee could possibly be charged under the hate crime bill as the principle for having committed the act of violence.

And I would just encourage my colleagues to consider well your comments and your votes in this committee. I yield back.

You've been warned, Cohen.

Bush: The enemy lurks

In ducking the question about James Comey's testimony, the president not only used the blanket of fear to shield himself, he also said things that appear to be outright falsehoods.

Q: There’s been some very dramatic testimony before the Senate this week from one of your former top Justice Department officials who describes a scene that some Senators called stunning, about a time when the warrantless wiretap program was being reviewed. Sir, did you send your then chief of staff and White House counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft while he was ill to get him to approve that program, and do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?

BUSH: Kelly, there’s a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn’t happen. I’m not going to talk about it. It’s a very sensitive program. I will tell you that one, the program was necessary to protect the American people and it’s still necessary, because there’s still an enemy that wants to do us harm, and therefore I have an obligation to put in place programs that honor the civil liberties of the American people — a program that was, in this case, constantly reviewed, and briefed to the United States Congress. And the program, as I say, is an essential part of protecting this country, and so there will be all kinds of talk about it. As i say, I’m not going to move the issue forward by talking about something as highly classified subject. I will tell you, however, that the program was necessary.

Q: Was it on your order, sir?

BUSH: As I said, the program is a necessary program that was constantly reviewed and constantly briefed to the Congress. It’s an important part of protecting the United States, and it’s still an important part of our protection, because there’s still an enemy that would like to attack us, no matter how calm it may seem in America, an enemy lurks and they would like to strike. They would like to do harm to the American people, because they have an agenda. They want to impose an ideology. They want us to retreat from the world. They want to find safe haven, and these just aren’t empty words. These are the words of al Qaeda themselves, and so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people and programs that we constantly brief to Congress.

One thing we learned from the Comey testimony, was that John Ashcroft was signing off on this program regularly without having seriously reviewed it. Here's how a "TPM Reader" puts it:

What to make of this long narrative?

Simply this. The warantless wiretap surveillance program stank. For two and a half years, Ashcroft signed off on the program every forty-five days without any real knowledge of what it entailed. In his defense, the advisors who were supposed to review such things on his behalf were denied access; to his everlasting shame, he did not press hard enough to have that corrected.

When Comey came on board, he insisted on being granted access, and had Goldsmith review the program. What they found was so repugnant to any notion of constitutional liberties that even Ashcroft, once briefed, was willing to resign rather than sign off again.

As far as informing Congress, that's a joke. Sen. Rockefeller even wrote a letter to Vice President Cheney (PDF) complaining that he didn't have enough information to evaluate the program.

Yesterday, I posted some excerpts from the hearings on Sen. Feingold's censure motion. I posted a response by Bruce Fein, but I ended it after he talked about "bad faith." Here is his full response to Sen. Specter:

Mr. Fein. Let me make a couple of observations about bad faith or secrecy. One, we don't have the information, if it exists, indicating what advice President Bush received just before he commenced the warrantless surveillance program. You don't know, I don't know, and he is resisting giving that information to you that could dispel any uncertainty on such a critical matter. That still is secret.

Second, with regard to informing a handful of Members of Congress, that is not all Members of Congress. And, of course, as you pointed out, we don't want the President to do things that would risk the national security of the United States and to inform in such detail that intelligence sources and methods could be disclosed.

But if you are going to have accountability, you have to have accountability to the Congress of the United States, not just one or two Members, and accountability that at least indicates the nature of the program in sufficient detail to enable an assessment of its legality and wisdom. If you don't know how many people are being spied on in the United States, you don't know what the results of that are. How can you make an assessment as to its reasonableness?

The purpose of informing is not just to have informing for its own sake. It is to have the operation of checks and balances at work, and it has to be done in a framework then that enables a collective judgment of Congress to be brought on the legality, the success of the program. It is still so secret, in my judgment, that it is still impossible for Congress to make that assessment at present.

I think that Fein sums it up perfectly. President Bush (and Vice President Cheney) acted on bad faith and the president is still deceiving the American people. That he is doing it while simultaneously trying to scare us into succumbing to his will is spectacularly rotten.

Surrender Watch: Poet Alert

In DB's search for GOP attempts to label the Democrats as the "party of surrender," this Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) soliloquy came up:

Mr. Speaker, the Iraq defeat bill that this House has passed sets the day certain that American troops will leave Iraq. By doing so, Congress is trying to legislate ``defeat day'' no matter the consequences.

In other words, retreat, retreat, at any price, retreat. Quit, quit, at any price, quit. Withdraw, withdraw, at any price, withdraw. Flee, flee, at any price, flee. Surrender , surrender , at any price surrender .

Congress has changed the phrase, ``when the going gets tough, send in the U.S. Cavalry, send in the U.S. Marines,'' to, ``when the going gets tough, leave,'' leave in the darkness of the night and let the Iraqis go it alone.

I am sure there is joy in ``Desertville'' in the fanatical minds of the enemies of freedom. Mr. Speaker, war is hard. This war is hard. But we cannot neglect our duty because it is hard.

The stability of the region and our national security depend on our U.S. success in defeating the enemy. We need to make it hard on them. Give them a day to remember.

And that's just the way it is.

A poet! That's even his name! "Poe, T."

As my readers know, DB can certainly appreciate poetry, especially on the House floor.

For that spectacular effort, here's a poem for you, Congressman Poe, by the wonderful A.R. Ammons:

Shit List; Or, Omnium-gatherum Of Diversity Into Unity

You'll rejoice at how many kinds of shit there are:
gosling shit (which J. Williams said something
was as green as), fish shit (the generality), trout

shit, rainbow trout shit (for the nice), mullet shit,
sand dab shit, casual sloth shit, elephant shit
(awesome as process or payload), wildebeest shit,

horse shit (a favorite), caterpillar shit (so many dark
kinds, neatly pelleted as mint seed), baby rhinoceros
shit, splashy jaybird shit, mockingbird shit

(dive-bombed with the aim of song), robin shit that
oozes white down lawnchairs or down roots under roosts,
chicken shit and chicken mite shit, pelican shit, gannet

shit (wholesome guano), fly shit (periodic), cockatoo
shit, dog shit (past catalog or assimilation),
cricket shit, elk (high plains) shit, and

tiny scribbled little shrew shit, whale shit (what
a sight, deep assumption), mandril shit (blazing
blast off), weasel shit (wiles' waste), gazelle shit,

magpie shit (total protein), tiger shit (too acid
to contemplate), moral eel and manta ray shit, eerie
shark shit, earthworm shit (a soilure), crab shit,

wolf shit upon the germicidal ice, snake shit, giraffe
shit that accelerates, secretary bird shit, turtle
shit suspension invites, remora shit slightly in

advance of the shark shit, hornet shit (difficult to
assess), camel shit that slaps the ghastly dry
siliceous, frog shit, beetle shit, bat shit (the

marmoreal), contemptible cat shit, penguin shit,
hermit crab shit, prairie hen shit, cougar shit, eagle
shit (high totem stuff), buffalo shit (hardly less

lofty), otter shit, beaver shit (from the animal of
alluvial dreams)-a vast ordure is a broken down
cloaca-macaw shit, alligator shit (that floats the Nile

along), louse shit, macaque, koala, and coati shit,
antelope shit, chuck-will's-widow shit, alpaca shit
(very high stuff), gooney bird shit, chigger shit, bull

shit (the classic), caribou shit, rasbora, python, and
razorbill shit, scorpion shit, man shit, laswing
fly larva shit, chipmunk shit, other-worldly wallaby

shit, gopher shit (or broke), platypus shit, aardvark
shit, spider shit, kangaroo and peccary shit, guanaco
shit, dolphin shit, aphid shit, baboon shit (that leopards

induce), albatross shit, red-headed woodpecker (nine
inches long) shit, tern shit, hedgehog shit, panda shit,
seahorse shit, and the shit of the wasteful gallinule.

Rudy's no hero

Atrios caught this sentence in today's speech by John McCain:

McCain Takes it to Rudy

His speech today:

They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency.

Heckuva job, Rudy.

Free lifetime subscription to Eschaton for the first mainstream media person who picks up on that.

I just saw McCain deliver that line on MSNBC, for what that's worth.

But I link to this because this subject is one that is personal to DB. Longtime readers of this blog will remember that DB wrote furiously on the topic (here, here, here, here, here and here) when there was time for Congress to rectify the problem back in 2005, which still would have been close to two decades too late.

I won't be real happy if John McCain is president (and I was delighted to see Jon Stewart shoot down all his talking points last night), but I would be dishonest if I didn't give him high marks on this particular issue.

You see, 18 days ago, April 7, 2007, would have been the deadline for all the frequencies our first responders need to become available to them. At least it would have if Sen. Ted Stevens' Commerce Committee hadn't defeated McCain's amendment (5-17) back on Oct. 20, 2005. He also introduced an amendment to the entire Senate two weeks later and that, too, was defeated, 60-39.

McCain isn't just taking pot shots at Rudy. He's got the credentials on this issue. He kept fighting for it in the wake of Katrina:

"Let’s remember that Congress provided additional spectrum for first responders in the Telecommunications Act of 1996," said McCain. "So, after spending millions of dollars in funding and additional spectrum for our nation’s first responders why aren't we better off than we were on 9/11 when it comes to interoperable communications? Because the spectrum Congress provided to first responders in 1996 is being held hostage by television broadcasters even though broadcasters have been given new spectrum."

But nothing prevented the City of New York from working on its own to solve the problems they encountered at the first World Trade Center bombing. When I first started to write about this travesty, I began it with this quote:

No responsibility is more fundamental and reflective of the nation's values than that of its Public Safety agencies. The citizens' legitimate expectation is that when their life or property is endangered, their government will respond. Vast federal, state, and local resources are committed to ensure this obligation is met. The effectiveness of police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, and other Public Safety officials is inextricably tied to communications capability. Today's communications environment, however, impedes meeting this responsibility. Rescuing victims of the World Trade Center bombing, who were caught between floors, was hindered when police officers could not communicate with fire fighters on the very next floor. Similarly, the inability to communicate among the agencies that had rushed to the Oklahoma City bombing site required resorting to runners to relay messages. The lack of sufficient, quality radio spectrum suitable for Public Safety use deters technological innovation, diminishes the responsiveness and effectiveness of Public Safety, and ultimately compromises the safety of the responding officers and of the very individuals seeking their help.

That is from Sept. 11 -- 1996. It is the introduction to the Final Report Of The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PDF). Five years later, our first responders were in the exact same predicament. Rudy was Mayor from Jan. 1, 1994 - Dec. 31, 2001.

So when Rudy walks around boasting about his heroism on 9/11, remember this:

A NYPD helicopter pilot reported early, before the fall of the South Tower, that the North Tower was going to fall, but the fire chiefs did not hear of this. When the pilot saw that the South Tower was falling his announcement to police command was instant, and police command issued a forceful and robust order to evacuate the remaining building and to move all department vehicles to safety. Notwithstanding that this was a successful communication that resulted in the saving of many lives, the fire chiefs did not hear this order.

The command of the North Tower was covered with debris when the South Tower fell, and Chief Joseph Pfeifer, in complete darkness, gave the order, "All units in Tower One evacuate the building."

Just how many firefighters escaped in the twenty-nine minutes from Chief Pfeiffer's order is not certain, but we do know that one police officer, at least five Port Authority police officers, and 121 firefighters were killed when the second tower collapsed. Others were killed on the street, including four ESU 5 officers and a number of other firefighters who had successfully evacuated the building. -- 9/11 testimony of Dennis Smith, June 19, 2004

Gonzales Haiku

Here's DB's FDL Alberto Gonzales Haiku:

I don’t remember
I’m not prepared to answer
I cannot recall

Looks like he might as well send it to the Hill.

(corrected spelling in post title)

We did not elect Tony Blair

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Back in January, Senator Biden (D-DE) told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in no uncertain terms, that he felt the president did not have the Constitutional authority to go to war with Iran.

Secondly, I also want to make it clear, as chairman of the committee, that I feel very strongly that the authorization of the use of force in the provision that the Senator [Webb] read from it explicitly denies you the authority to go into Iran. Let me say that again: explicitly denies you the authority to go into Iran. We will fight that out if the President moves but I just want the record to show, and I would like to have a legal response from the State Department that if they think they have authority to pursue networks or anything else across the boarder into Iran and Iraq [Syria] that will generate a Constitutional confrontation here in the Senate, I predict to you. At least I will attempt to make it a confrontation.

On several occasions, Rice has been asked whether the president would come back to Congress for authorization, and each time she has refused to answer the question, other than to declare that she will not "circumscribe" or "constrain" the President's authority as Commander in Chief. Glenn Greenwald has documented some of those interactions here (on his old blog).

DB's contribution to this discussion was to remind people that the President already asked for the authority to attack Iran and Syria and was absolutely denied. Senator Hagel (R-NE) recently confirmed this to be true.

So that left us with a scary hypothetical. What if the Bush administration decides, for whatever reason, that they want to initiate a war with Iran? Will they go to Congress to ask for the authority? Will the president brazenly declare that he doesn't need the authorization? Or will there be some incident involving American troops or civilians, requiring an immediate military response, pulling us into a war, but saving the administration from having to deal with pesky old Congress?

While DB was on vacation in London, Iran captured 15 British sailors. Happily, the British have cooler heads than the people responsible for American foreign policy, and the situation was resolved without an unnecessary armed conflict escalating into God only knows what kind of war. I thought, as did many I'm sure, that it was a very good thing that those weren't American sailors. I had little doubt that our hypothetical would have been answered -- we would have had the incident the administration required to expand the war to yet another country, possibly with nuclear ramifications. Instead, it seemed, we will still have to wait for an answer and hope that nothing horrible happens.

As it turns out, we may already have an answer. If this story in last Saturday's Guardian is to be believed, the Bush administration was already prepared to go to war with Iran without asking Congress and without even using a threat to American troops or citizens to justify expanding the war.

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

The Pentagon was offering military options. Was Congress notified? Did Senators Biden or Hagel know this? Was anybody outside of the Cheney cabal told that it was up to Tony Blair to decide whether or not America would be involved in a new war?

If you live in Delaware or Nebraska, you should call Biden or Hagel and find out if they knew this was happening and, if not, if they plan on asking President Bush to explain why the Prime Minister of England has more say in the lives of their constituents and U.S. troops than they do. If there was ever a reason for Congress to ask questions, this is it.

UPDATE: Greenwald reminds us, via TPM, that Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) had been unsuccessful at getting "a clear response" from Condi. Does he have his answer now?

Why even ask Congress to take an oath?

Dahlia Lithwick writes with Richard Schragger today and simply hits one out of the park.

Specter's justification for then voting for a bill he deemed unconstitutional? "Congress could have done it right and didn't, but the next line of defense is the court, and I think the court will clean it up."

There is some irony in this congressional willingness to see the courts as some kind of constitutional chambermaid—as an entity that exists to clean up after Congress smashes up the room. It is especially ironic when it's articulated by members of Congress who like to invoke judicial restraint as a constitutional value. But it is beyond ironic, and approaching parody, when Congress asks the court to clean up a bill it knows to be unconstitutional, when the bill itself includes a court-stripping provision.

Criticizing the court for overturning the laws passed by Congress—as Specter did repeatedly during the John Roberts and Samuel Alito hearings—is fair, so long as one is willing to defend one's own interpretation of the Constitution when one gets a chance to assert it. But simultaneously crying "judicial activism" as you rely on the courts for political cover when you're too timid to defy the electorate—or your president—is hypocritical.

Lithwick and Fred Kaplan are pretty much the only reason to ever visit Slate anymore.

Never a boast or a brag

Though many of our awesome representatives in D.C. are willing to let Net Neutrality die because it's "a solution in search of a problem," they have no problem debating a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Go figure.

Even though this entire debate is a waste of time and taxpayer money (love those self-voted pay increases) because there is clearly no danger of losing all our flags -- or even, say, three of them -- to crazy flag burners, it strikes DB that the opposite would be equally true.

Imagine that American flags were being burned so often that Congress would be debating something that actually happens all over the country. Think how bad things would have to be in this country for that to be the reality. If these same Senators ever live in an America like that, it's their own fault.

Of course, nothing says you believe in your country, Constitution and freedom of expression more than the confidence that it will survive any tiny gesture, including the burning of its very symbol. In short, you don't have to like the pieces of crap who burn flags. But it doesn't say much for your belief in freedom (or understanding of irony) to fight against expression in order to save it.

What happens if they succeed in passing this law? Will nobody burn a flag again? Doesn't it seem likely that someone angry enough to burn one today might still do it? OK, so now you can throw them in jail, but the flag is still toast and the gesture is no longer empty. That person's not just some jerk, but someone willing to make a real personal sacrifice in order to make whatever point.

Or maybe they'll just burn maps of the United States. Or the presidential seal. Or a photo of the president. Or maybe an "American flag" with the wrong number of stars or stripes. Will we be so uptight to amend the Constitution for all that?

Your 109th Congress...

This Republican Congress is now officially a failure.

They have substituted a real debate about our methods and strategies in the war with a solitary afternoon's debate over a single-sentence sham resolution. They have completely abdicated their constitutional obligation of oversight.

They have failed to represent the American people, who are having an authentic debate every day on the Internet, on the radio and at the water cooler.

They have failed the troops, who do not have the luxury to question the direction of the war effort.

Tom Lantos is correct. This whole charade was "beneath the dignity of this body."

GO HARRY REID!!

Will blog later... but FINALLY somebody in Congress called for oversight. The extinction of the separation of powers is a disaster for America.

Congratulations, Harry Reid, for having the fortitude to stand up.

UPDATE 1: Gee, why didn't Reid want to consult this guy?

FRIST: Democrats have no principles. They have no convictions. They have no ideas.

UPDATE 2: Don't think Pat Roberts has been stonewalling?

UPDATE 3: Frist complains that "Democrats use scare tactics." Calling a closed session is scarier than Bush's headline for the day -- BIRD FLU? How does it compare to "proof could be in the form of a mushroom cloud?" What a joke Frist is.

UPDATE 4: It was bound to happen eventually. Andrea Mitchell said something absolutely correct. The Senate looked at the intelligence community, but never looked at the White House, the WHIG, or Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. The Executive Branch has not been held accountable at all for anything involving the Iraq war. It's about time that changed.