Singled out

I just want to make clear that, in these last two posts, I was not trying to single out Sen. Feingold. I see in comment threads around the blog-o-sphere that some have soured on him for this vote. While I am disappointed that no senators could either see the Lieberman Amendment as a dangerous attempt to move the United States towards war with Iran, or simply didn't care to stand against it at this time, I think it's unfair to focus anger at Feingold.

After all, he had enough respect for American citizens to visit Daily Kos in order to engage the electorate and discuss his rationale -- much more than can be said for nearly all the other 96 senators who voted for this amendment. Similarly, Sen. Feingold is often the only one with the courage to confront this lawless administration, and for that DB applauds him. I wouldn't have kicked off my posts with a similar explanation by many other politicians because it wouldn't have surprised me much hearing such a position articulated by most of them. It did surprise me to read that statement from Feingold specifically because he has such a reputation for honesty, and it is hard for me to understand how anybody could honestly be comforted by the language in the bill.

In any event, please do not misconstrue my post as a shot at Sen. Feingold. I was aiming at the entire Senate.

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."

Bad faith

At the March 31, 2006, Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, examining Sen. Russ Feingold's motion to censure the president for his illegal wiretapping program, Chairman Arlen Specter made the question of "bad faith" on the part of the president the central issue in his opposition to censure.

Chairman Specter. I was looking for the comments on bad faith or good faith, and finally we heard it from you, Mr. Schmidt, that there is no evidence of bad faith. It seems to me that before a censure resolution can get anywhere, can rise to the level above being frivolous, there has to be an issue of bad faith. Senator Feingold's resolution doesn't say a word about bad faith.

Don't you think, Mr. Dean, that that is an indispensable prerequisite, a sine qua non, to censure the President? I note that your 2004 book, Worse than Watergate, called for the impeachment of President Bush. So you were pretty tough on him long before this surveillance program was noted.

But to come back to good faith and bad faith, don't you think there has to be some issue of bad faith?

Mr. Dean. In Worse than Watergate, I didn't call for impeachment. I laid out a case that could be made for impeachment. I do make a distinction.

As far as Senator Feingold's resolution, when I read those ``whereas'' clauses, it seems to me that there is evidence of bad faith. First of all, there is certainly a prime facie case that--

Chairman Specter. Mr. Dean, do you think that Senator Feingold would shy away from those two magic words, ``bad faith,'' when they are so much easier to define than the ``whereas'' clause? I recollect his 25-minute speech on the floor. I wanted to ask him about bad faith and didn't get a chance to.

Mr. Dean. I don't recall bad faith as being a prerequisite to censure.

Chairman Specter. Well, it is not a matter of recollection.

Mr. Dean. It is conduct.

Chairman Specter. Don't you think that it takes bad faith to censure a President?

Mr. Dean. I think in gathering my thoughts to come back here, I thought, you know, had a censure resolution been issued about some of Nixon's conduct long before it erupted to the degree and the problem that came, it would have been a godsend.

Chairman Specter. Well, then the Congress was at fault in not giving him a warning signal.

Mr. Dean. It would have helped.

In light of James Comey's testimony yesterday, is there any way on earth that Specter can still claim the president acted in "good faith?"

Consider this response from Bruce Fein (emphasis mine):

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.

We sure know now. The entire leadership of the DOJ was prepared to resign over it. Can there be any doubt at this point that the president acted in bad faith?

Finally, Sen. Feingold responded to the "bad faith" argument:

Sen. Feingold: Now, Mr. Chairman, before I ask my first question, I want to get to this question of--you didn't help me draft this thing, but if you want the words ``bad faith'' in there, let's put them right in, because that is exactly what we have here.

The whole record here makes me believe, with regret, that the President has acted in bad faith both with regard to not revealing this program to the appropriate Members of Congress, the full committees that were entitled to it, but more importantly by making misleading statements throughout America suggesting that this program did not exist--I understand if he didn't talk about--and then after the fact dismissing the possibility that he may have done something wrong here, that he may have broken the law. So call it bad faith, call it aggravating factors.

Well, Sen. Specter?

Analysis paralysis

According to Raw Story, the New York Times will report soon that the Democrats in the Senate are irritated by Kerry's strong stance on Iraq.

"When John Kerry was their presidential nominee in 2004, Democrats fervently wished he would express himself firmly about the Iraq war," writes Kate Zernike.

"Mr. Kerry has found his resolve," Zernike continues. "But it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier. They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry's views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006."

Russ Feingold called for censure of the president last March and stood up for the rule of law... and his colleagues ran to the AP to give unattributed quotes about how we need more investigations and how Feingold screwed up their big plans to talk about the Dubai ports deal and then pivot off that topic to something else. Today, Dubai still controls those ports and nobody has been held accountable for any of the violations of our Constitutional rights. Way to go Democrats.

John Murtha stood up with a plan and called for a redeployment of our troops. Practically nobody in the Democratic establishment stood with him. Months later, the majority of Americans are in favor of a timetable for withdrawal and the Democrats still can't convince the country that they have a plan. Way to go.

Now Kerry takes a strong stand and they go whining to the press again. Unbelievable.

Cowards

There is just about nothing that pisses DB off more than this article on Raw Story.

Will somebody with both principles and balls join Russ Feingold in Washington? For the love of God?

Though all say they believe the program warrants "more investigation," several Senate aides rebuked Feingold for proposing censure. They say that his move had the potential to derail Democratic efforts to strengthen the party's image on homeland security issues, noting that a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue. Bush has defended the program, calling it a "terrorist surveillance" program, and has used aides to defend its legality.

More investigation? How about any investigation? How much more do you need to know about it to determine whether or not it was illegal? Hint: It was.

While you wimps are "noting a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue," please also note that a large portion of those voters believe it should continue with oversight. And censuring the president for violating the law would not stop you from being able to refine the laws and review the program. Idiots.

Standing up for principles, civil liberties and the rule of law is not a position of weakness. You don't look soft for standing up for justice. You look weak by tossing your principles out the window because some freaks who sleep in dirt have threatened us. If you want to look strong on national security, propose and defend ideas on protecting America and hammer away at the administration and GOP leaders when they drop the ball. Don't stop. Every damn day, deliver that message.

But caving on other issues isn't signaling strength to anybody. It's shameful and it tells the people who try to support you that you don't reciprocate.

"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."

Maybe after watching the party cave to Frist and Roberts, Feingold decided that waiting for the rest of the caucus to get on board would be on par with waiting for a disconnected phone to ring.

Feingold, defending his censure plan today on Fox News, said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide... too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they'll say we'd better just focus on domestic issues...[Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you're helping the terrorists."

You're goddamned right. Thank God there's at least one member of the party who gets it. Oh, and John Murtha, also the recipient of a lackluster effort by his party... despite the fact that he was right and the majority of the country agrees. [UPDATE: DB didn't give Congressman John Conyers his due.]

"I don't think people are unwilling" to support it, one Democratic Senate aide said. "I don't think people are 100 percent yes. If you look at the comments of Senator Reid and other senators' comments, you can see that other people want further investigations. Nobody's said no on censure except Joe Lieberman as far as I know."

Joe Lieberman has as much integrity as an Uzbek duplex in a magnitude-10 earthquake, but the rest of the caucus already blew their chance for a real investigation. How high are they? Are bloggers the only ones paying attention?

"The majority of the American people agree with what the president's doing. A lot of people outside the beltway see this as a tool that's keeping Americans safe."

Translation: We already totally fucked up delivering our message and we can't understand how to read a poll. Or a series of polls.

The rest of the article is just painful:

"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."

Several aides said their offices were stressing "more investigations" as an alternative to censure. One aide said public hearings would be better in bringing Americans around to the idea that Bush had done something wrong.

"Democrats had decided that public hearings were needed on the wiretapping to educate the public before considering a censure," one staffer quipped. "Hearings would've forced Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration. Everyone knew that was the gameplan. Feingold just wanted to hog the spotlight. If he were interested in holding George Bush accountable he would've made his pitch in the Democratic caucus behind closed doors."

These lazy, worthless tools. The Democrats weren't "getting the upper hand." The Republicans are just being exposed as frauds.

"Forcing Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration" just makes them look more independent and principled. Running away shitless makes Democrats look pathetic. Besides, how many Americans or television pundits are giving the Democrats even half the credit for standing up for port security?

In 2004, the Republicans scored points by saying Kerry couldn't stand up to Howard Dean, let alone terrorists. How do these morons expect to look if they can't stand up to Bill Frist or a president with a 34% approval rating?

Why does everything have to be a calculated political strategy for these "leaders" anyway? When, in the last six years, have any of their political calculations yielded anything positive for them?

Can't they agree that a president who breaks the law needs to be challenged? Can't they stand up for civil liberties? Is Bill Frist correct -- do they have no principles or convictions?