Since Democratic Senators are afraid to talk about Sen. Feingold's censure resolution, Kevin Drum provides a public service by trying to explain and defend the "rationale" for Democrats not to support the resolution. Since many people have been having a hard time fathoming what possible rationale could motivate Democrats not to support Feingold's resolution, Kevin's post is worth examining in order to gain some insight into that thought-process.
Kevin -- just like the Democratic Senators whose evasiveness and indecision he appears to admire -- never actually says whether he favors the censure resolution or not. Instead, he begins by dismissively assuring us that he has no substantive problem with censuring Bush ("Sure, censure away. God knows Bush deserves it"), only to then give one reason after the next why Democrats shouldn't censure Bush. Kevin begins his argument with a moving declaration of defeat, followed by an inquiry into the "theatrics" of Feingold's opposition to George Bush's law-breaking:
Second, politically: I'm not so sure on this score. Anytime a congressman introduces a measure that's certain to fail, it's done for reasons of political theater: to make a point, to get some attention for an issue that's being ignored, or to reach out to some constituency or other. So the relevant question is: is this good political theater?
Kevin's assurance that Democrats will lose is nice conventional wisdom (and the standard beginning premise for many Democrats), but it's actually completely baseless. If the public became convinced as part of the debate that is finally happening that the President broke the law and that such law-breaking is intolerable, does Kevin actually think that it's impossible to find 6 Republican Senators to vote for the Resolution? Congressional Republicans defied Bush on the port deal for only one reason: because public opinion demanded it.
If public opinion begins to move even more than it already has to the view that Bush broke the law, it is far from certain that the Censure Resolution will fail. As I've noted many times, polls showed for two consecutive years that the public thought Watergate was a meaningless scandal and Nixon's popularity remained sky high throughout those years. The arc of that scandal ended up changing only because tenacious politicians and journalists continued to pursue the story and the public finally became educated and angry about it. If Democrats had followed Kevin's advice in 1972, Richard Nixon would have retired as a popular two-term President.
But even if the Censure Resolution ultimately fails, the rationale for pursuing it is self-evident. Kevin frequently frets about (among other things) the fact that Democrats are perceived as being weak. The reason for that is because Democrats often are weak, precisely when they do things like abandon their own Senators and refuse to take a principled stand against a President who got caught breaking the law.
People like Kevin -- who believe that Democrats must "prove" to the country that they can be strong -- should most understand the value in having Democrats take a stand regardless of whether they ultimately prevail. Strong and resolute people fight. Weak and spineless people run away from fights -- or fight only when their victory is guaranteed in advance. The Democrats have been running away from fights for five years now based on the Kevin Drum theory that fights are only worth fighting if you know in advance that you will win. It is beyond irrational to think that the Democrats are going to look strong by simply crawling away meekly and allowing George Bush to break the law.
Anyone with doubts can just ask themselves: Who appears stronger and more resolute right about now -- Russ Feingold or the Democrats described by the Washington Post and New York Times as literally hiding behind each other to avoid reporters and beating a full "retreat"?
Kevin, after arguing that Harry Reid's shutdown of the Senate last year was "good theater," continues:
Conversely, it's not clear what Feingold hopes to accomplish with his censure motion. Bush's shortcomings are already getting plenty of attention, so he's not galvanizing any new media attention. He obviously didn't bother telling his fellow Democrats about his plan, which has had the result of making the party look muddled and stupid. And Republicans, far from being nonplussed by his censure motion, are having a field day with it.
There are so many sad and destructive myths all packed into this one little paragraph. First, Kevin seems to be suggesting that because some of Bush's "shortcomings are already getting plenty of attention," there is no reason to bother spending energy on the fact that he broke the law when engaging in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. That's like saying that everyone already knows that the guy down the street is a cheapskate, so why bother calling the police and reporting his burglaries and muggings?
What is a more serious political crisis than having a President who believes he has the power to break the law and who exercises that power repeatedly and enthusiastically - and who, by the way, is still defiantly breaking the law as we speak? What possible rationale could exist for passing up the opportunity to educate Americans that George Bush is breaking the law and claims he has the power to do so?
Second, whether Feingold told other Senators about his resolution in advance is not confirmed one way or the other, but even if he didn't - so what? Kevin seems to be arguing: the President broke the law and it would be OK if we condemnend him for it, but Russ Feingold breached some Senatorial courtesy so we should just forget about the whole thing. To describe that argument is to illustrate its absurdity.
Third, Kevin claims that Republicans are "having a field day" with the Censure Resolution. That's true. They are. And why is that? Because other Democrats, like Kevin, are transparently afraid to support it. The mockery from the Republicans is not about the Censure Resolution but about the fact that most prominent Democrats seem petrified to death of confronting George Bush even when he gets caught breaking the law. That conduct mocks itself.
As usual, Kevin internalizes false Republican propaganda by believing that Republicans love this scandal and think they can benefit from it. But the Republicans' conduct since this scandal began proves that the opposite is true. They tried to kill every investigation. They have tried to sweep it all under the rug. And just this week, Sen. Frist tried to force an immediate vote before anyone had a chance to even read, let alone debate, the Resolution, precisely because the last thing Republicans want is the spotlight on the fact that the President broke the law and the GOP-controlled Congress is doing nothing about it.
Republicans began having a "field day" with this issue only once it became clear that Democrats would be guided -- yet again -- by the instincts Kevin loves and would equivocate and say nothing because polls didn't guarantee them a sweeping victory in advance. If Democrats had stood with Feingold and forcefully articulated to the country why this behavior on the part of the Administration presents such a severe crisis -- or if they do that now -- the only ones having a "field day" will be those Americans who believe in the rule of law.
Kevin concludes his stirring defense of inaction and indecision with this "postscript":
It's this: all the people complaining about Democratic senators who are waffling on Feingold's motion even though they voted to censure Bill Clinton need to lighten up. As I hope everyone knows, the censure motion against Clinton was an attempt to derail the impeachment proceedings, not a genuine expression of censure. And Feingold, as I hope we also remember, was the only Democratic senator to side with Republicans and refuse to vote for dismissal of the impeachment charges. So let's keep the holier-than-thou stuff down to a dull rumble, shall we?
Kevin says that he "hope(s) everyone knows" that "the censure motion against Clinton was an attempt to derail the impeachment proceedings, not a genuine expression of censure. " I hope nobody "knows" that, because it's just false. As Elton at BusyBusyBusy points out:
Commenter markbernstein suggests that Sen. Feinstein's proposed censure resolution against President Clinton should not be held against her because it was offered as an alternative to impeachment. Alas, this was not the case. A completely different censure resolution proposed by House Judiciary Committee Democrats in early December 1998 was, in fact, intended to substitute for impeachment (it was voted down in committee). But the quotes above are from a resolution of impeachment censure Sen. Feinstein attempted to introduce on January February12, 1999, after President Clinton's impeachment had already ended in acquittal.
I'll look for Kevin's correction on that. Beyond that error, Kevin's attempt to smear Feingold by pointing out that he was the only Democrat to vote against dismissal of the impeachment proceedings against Clinton - as though that makes Feingold some sort of a hypocrite - is truly incoherent. Feingold voted against dismissal (and then voted in favor of acquittal) because he wanted to hear the evidence before deciding what he thought about the charges. That vote reflects the same exact values as underlies his Censure Resolution -- namely, a respect for the rule of a law and a steadfast belief in his principles regardless of political pressure.
Feingold's actions in each case couldn't be more consistent. The hypocrites are those who favored censure for Clinton's "inappropriate relationship" but can't get themselves to even talk about censure for George Bush's deliberate and ongoing illegal eavesdropping on Americans. Although Kevin can't think of any reason for Democrats to support the censure resolution, the reason is really quite obvious and compelling -- the core principles of our constitutional republic are threatened by the seizure of the President of the power to break the law, and anyone committed to their country and willing to fight for it would do whatever they can to publicize that crisis and to take a stand against it.
UPDATE: In response to a few e-mails, I will make this clear: at the end of his post, Kevin said this: "So while I'd vote for Feingold's motion, I don't think I'd hire him as a political theater consultant." So while Kevin did not say if he supported the introduction of Feingold's censure resolution or Feingold's efforts to bring the resolution to a vote -- and, in fact, wrote a post with multiple arguments against the political wisdom of that resolution -- he did say (in passing) that he'd vote yes on the resolution if he were to vote on it.
Additionally, Kevin has now added an Update to his post which acknowledges that Feinstein's anti-Clinton censure motion was introduced after Clinton was acquitted on impeachment charges. Thus, the Senators who supported Feinstein's censure resolution (which includes 19 Democrats who are still in the Senate) were urging that Clinton be censured on the merits of that issue, not as a tactical alternative to impeachment. It is simply indefensible for Senators who favored censuring Clinton not to support censure of Bush, whose law-breaking is repeated, ongoing, and relating to much more serious matters than what Feinstein's resolution called Clinton's "inappropriate relationship."
UPDATE II: Digby thoroughly analyzes, and thoroughly decimates, the rationale being peddled by inside Beltway consultant types as to why they think that Feingold's censure resolution might be politically harmful. Many of them seem particularly miffed that Feingold announced it without first telling them about it. I don't know why Feingold announced the resolution without consulting other Democratic Senators, but I can guess what the reasons might be.
Feingold is likely unhappy about the fact that even in the middle of all that is going on (with Bush's plummeting popularity and lawless surveillance on Americans), he could get only 9 other Democrats to join him in opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act. More specifically, it hasn't exactly been a secret that Beltway Democrats have been petrified of the NSA scandal from the start, worried that they'd be depicted as best friends of The Terrorists if they opposed the notion that the President has the power to break the law. I have no doubt that had Feingold consulted with them about his intent to introduce the resolution, they would have urged him not to do it. In any event, Digby's post is highly worth reading on the complete tone-deafness of these fear-embracing Democrats and the utter lack of merit of their concerns (they are always so "concerned") over Feingold's resolution.
What an elegant take-down of Brother Kevin and the rest of the pussified Dems! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteJust as an update, Raw Story is posting that Harkin (D-IA) has supported the motion to Censure. Also, Chaffee (R-RI) has given some support to the idea as well.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see a listing of what other Senators have come down off the fence to confirm their support for this measure.
To the topic onhand... As a democrat I had just about given up on my party when Feingold introduced this measure because of the reasoning given by Dems such as those waffling in the Senate now and Kevin. Until they get it through their heads to stop snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we will remain at this impasse.
A correction had better be forthcoming within the hour.
ReplyDeleteKevin can be counted on to mewl; it was his first reaction to the NSA revelations. Not fury that the Times sat on the story to prevent it coming out before the 2004 elections, not concern for the Constitution because of Bush's claim that he was above the law, but a deep sigh of resignation that this would be another defeat for the Dems.
The resulting firestorm in comments, and the national outrage that surfaced in the following weeks, got him to change tune for a while. But anyone who reacts the way he did immediately to the NSA revelations has clearly not internalized the real issues. He is and has always been a perfect reflection of the timid, unprincipled, partisan-only-in-the-worst-sense impulses of the Democratic Party.
I know that as of 12:30 today, Sen. Nelson (D-NE) has not stated a position. But I guess that's not as bad as it could be, considering that Sen. Hagel's (R-NE) aide actually laughed at me...
ReplyDeleteAs long as Dems keep displaying a spine with the consistency of jello, they will NEVER take back Congress or the White House.
ReplyDeleteNice job on the article.
It seems this Kevin fellow may actually be batting for the other side by seeking to undermine Dems.
If I needed convincing that Senate Dems care far more about their own seats then anything else, this issue is it. 36%. Have some balls, gents.
ReplyDeleteWell, Glenn, since you've now discovered the King of the Handwringing Moderate Capitulators and bitchslapped him but good, I guess we can say you're officially a blogging veteran.
ReplyDeleteCongrats!
kc:
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but Feingold DID give his dem colleagues notice. They had a day or two to think about it before he introduced the censure resolution.
How much reflection does it take to determine whether the President should be censured after clearly breaking the law?
Mr. Drum must be perpetually amazed that the world changes at all. His positions have been relentlessly pragmatic over the years I've been reading him (and still do; he is always interesting). He usually assumes that X or Y can't be done if it involves more than about 1% of the participants changing their minds or behavior. Apart from being empirically false (or at least short-sighted, since a large change can proceed by small increments if the pressure is sustained), this has a terrible affect on his analytic ability, since it causes him to frequently dismiss or disregard substantive and normative issues in favor of strategy and realpolitik. It's not just that he doesn't often talk about justice and moral issues, but he doesn't give himself enough time to think them through either. That said, he has become--like most honest thinkers these days--remarkably more liberal over the last few years. Again--large change through small increments.
ReplyDeleteAccording to RollCall and TPM, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has agreed to co-sponsor the resolution.
ReplyDeleteSo that's 2.
(bangs forehead on desk)
I thought one of our complaints about our party was they did not speak with a coherent voice. Tough to be coherent if you find out about the censure proposal from a Sunday talk show.
ReplyDeleteFlame away.
"The reason for that is because Democrats often are weak, precisely when they do things like abandon their own Senators and refuse to take a principled stand against a President who got caught breaking the law."
ReplyDeleteAt least they're making Milbank's week. His quote on NPR a few minutes ago: "...scurrying like cockroaches."
Lovely.
I agree with kc that Feingold has hurt his (and our) cause by the way he has played this. All appearances are that the rest of the Dem senators were caught totally off guard when Feingold announced the censure resolution. It should have been carefully discussed amongst the caucus first. Even if the rest of the Dems were against pursuing censure for strategic reasons (atrocious thinking in my view), but Feingold wanted to do it anyway, they could at least have come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with it. Instead, they have no strategy for dealing with it and are scurrying around trying to figure out what to do, which is obviously something they should have been given the chance to do before Feingold launched the resolution.
ReplyDeleteWhile the party is making one classic Dem mistake (acting weak and refusing to do what's right for political reasons), Feingold has made another (failing to coordinate with his colleagues, resulting in conflicting messages and the lack of a coherent strategy).
I also agree with kc that Feingold should not have called his fellow Dems cowardly on TV.
I did my duty this morning and called Ben Nelson (D-NE)and E-mailed Chuck Hagel (R-NE)to vote for Feingold's Censure Resolution.
ReplyDeleteI also wrote the W-H earlier this week to try to publicly embarrass Chuck Hagel for pledging to investigate Bush's lawbreaking and then voting with the Senate Intelligence Committee NOT to investigate Bush.
I also used his words against him, "It is not unpatriotic to question your government." Of course, I wouldn't hold my breath for this to ever be published in the Republican World-Herald. If it does get published the W-H will run 10 entries condeming by opinion of Chuck Hagel's tough talk when the cameras are rolling and then doing the opposite when he votes.
I've written these two many times in the past, but I've decided it's time to publicly embarrass them since they pay no attention when we write or call them.
Ben Nelson is a DINO and for some reason no one has chosen to run against him in the NE primaries. I can't believe it.
Kevin Drum looks at himself in the mirror every morning and thinks to himself "Richard Cohen can't live forever, and some day Friedman's going to drive that Lexus into an olive tree."
ReplyDeleteIf I were Cohen, or Juan Williams, or Friedman, or EJ Dionne, or any other of the professional voices of moderation I'd look every morning to see if my brake lines had been cut in the night.
I also agree with kc that Feingold should not have called his fellow Dems cowardly on TV.
ReplyDeleteLet's here it for Feingold continuing to call them cowardly until they are no longer cowards.
The Washington Monthly (the magazine and the blog) has been slightly left and mostly irrelevant since its founding. It has continued on for decades now with no visible means of support. I think it is a holdover from when the CIA sponsored left wing groups in order to manipulate them.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused between the references to Feingold and Feinstein in this post.
ReplyDeleteRight on! This is a no brainer.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, since you're a litigator, you've probably heard the maxim "When you're winning, shut up."
ReplyDeleteThe Senate Dems see things going in their direction and they don't want to make a move that might screw things up.
That's not cowardice, that's maturity and smart strategic thinking.
In Washington state, senators Patty Murray (co-sponsor of the '99 Feinstein censure proposal) and Maria Cantwell have not taken a position yet. Asked why, their staffers have no answer and don't want to spend a lot of time talking about it. Frustrating.
ReplyDeleteAs things stand right now, with Dems pissed off for having the rug pulled out underneath them (or just shocked, frankly), and with a definite possibility of this thing losing, the party could come out looking pretty weak.
ReplyDeleteThey wouldn't look weak if they voted for it. Simple solution.
Everything you need to know about Kevin Drum, he said on November 3rd, 2004 (the day after the election of course):
ReplyDelete"I hate to say this, but I hope liberals quit whining about George Bush's "mandate." It may be a narrow one, but of course he won a mandate [em, mine]. We've all been saying for months now that this election was a referendum on the incumbent, and the incumbent won the electoral college, won the popular vote by nearly 4 million votes, picked up four Senate seats, tossed out the Democratic leader in the Senate, and picked up a few more House seats for good measure. If the results had gone the other way, we'd be talking about them as a clear repudiation of Bush and everything he stood for.
Needless to say, this doesn't mean we should just mope around and let the Republican party run the country unopposed. At the same time, though, it doesn't help to be in denial: the fact is that Bush did win a convincing victory, and he did it because more Americans agreed with his vision for the country than agreed with ours. Our job now is to try to change that, not to pretend that it never happened."
51% ='s "convincing victory...
Glenn,
ReplyDeletethis is an excellent post. I had just read the Kevin Drum piece when I clicked on your site (you are both on my quick check page) and I was just seething with rage at the stupidity and spinelessness of kevin's approach. I'm deleting washington monthly from my list. I can't stand to read any more commentary from that wishy/washy/vichy dem.
I've called Harkin and Feingold to thank them and I've called my two senators to beg them to sign on. I shouldn't even have to ask--as bill maher said about flying the flag on car antennae "its literally the least you can do" to show you patriotism.
aimai
I also agree with kc that Feingold should not have called his fellow Dems cowardly on TV.
ReplyDeleteAnyone cheering Feingold's "cowardly" remarks should think carefully of how much damage they believe Lieberman has done by criticizing his fellow Democrats.
You don't win allies by calling your colleagues cowards.
You can think it, you just don't say it.
I do think Feingold has screwed this up tactically.
It would be nice though if the Democrats were a little more nimble in reacting. And the ineptitude of the Dem consultant remarks reported in the media is quite depressing.....
Goddamned Drum is sorely lacking in guts, just like our "leaders".
ReplyDeleteI read him less and less, and usually with a more critical eye.
Unclaimed Territory is the place to be. And it's the place where our professional class of politicians could come to get their thoughts together.
Keep stating the bald-faced obvious plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth, guys. The Dem establishment will see it some day.
Just got off the phone with my Senator's Washington office...
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Senator Feinstein believes it's too early to support the censure resolution because she's on the sub-committee investigating the FISA/wiretaps issue.
This is incredible really if you think about it:
Senator Feinstein CANNOT vote to call the President to account because she's been called to busy active duty in the republican scheme to bury the lawbreaking as an issue.
If this excuse of Feinstein's isn't evidence of Glen's argument in his last couple posts, I don't know what is.
Dem bedwetters - pathetic. The Repubs would have been all over this if the tables were turned - bc they genuinely want to win, unlike these DLC-beaten protoplasmic turds.
ReplyDeleteI received 2 emails today from the DCCC - one with a letter from pelosi, one with a letter from Hilary, both asking for support. I replied firmly that I would not support the DCCC or give a penny until they support the Censure resolution. I urge all to do the same.
Drum wrote, "For example, when Harry Reid shut down the Senate last year to protest the slow progress of the investigation into prewar intelligence, that was good theater."
ReplyDeleteExcept that it achieved nothing. Pat Roberts said "Phase II" was moving along. Since then, has anybody heard a word about it? How does Drum assign "good" to ploys that have led nowhere, while advising against moves that have the potential to lead nowhere, but possibly to victory?
And so what if the move does fail? Then the history books will be marked with a chapter in which the Democrats lost a good fight in a principled stand for civil liberties and the rule of law. This is worse than being obsequious footnotes in a dark period of abuse by an unpopular president?
This comment is less about KD--who has many virtues--than the establishment Democrats who have been playing into Republican hands for years now.
ReplyDeletePresumbly--though one sometimes wonders--they want to regain majority status in the senate and house of representatives. To do so, they must attract the votes of some people wha aren't voting or voting Democratic now. What thoughts do they picture moving people to vote for Democrats? What are the ideas they want to foster and encourage among voters?
It's time to give those nice democrats a chance in office?
I'm so touched by the loyalty the democrats have shown toward President Bush, that I might vote for one?
I tend to prefer the Democrats' domestic policies and that's enough for me though I haven't a clue where they stand on issues of foreign policy and national defense?
Like a majority of my fellow citizens, I see, or have come to see, that war in Iraq was an avoidable disaster; it's my hope--though it's hard to say why--that the Democrats will break with the failed policies of the Bush administration and begin to undo the damage the Bush administration and Republican majorities have done?
I am concerned about the erosion of civil liberties under the Bush administration, and I vaguely expect--though I am hard put to cite any evidence in the form of words or deeds--that the Democrats would be more respectful of our constitutional liberties?
I really wonder.
J
God bless Russ Feingold.
ReplyDeleteGod DAMN Kevin Drum, and the pussies he sticks up for.
Drum used ot be so much better when he was doing Cal-pundit.
The cohen comparison on. Al he needs is a poncey little scarf to wear to the cocktail parties.
>The core principles of our constitutional republic are threatened by the seizure of the President of the power to break the law!<
ReplyDeletePeople need to be reminded repeatedly. This fight isn't about GW Bush. It's about the Presidency. Its more important than the question of who gets to hold the office next. Its a question of whether holding the office places you above the law. Considering the stakes I'm surprised that more conservatives aren't getting on board.
Drum is consistently disappointing until you give up on him entirely. Then he's surprisingly good at times.
ReplyDeleteHe will never improve much, though. Don't hope for that.
Asptrader -
ReplyDeleteWhere's the reference to Feingold introducing his plan to Dems prior to his annc. on Stephano ? This is the one thing I didn't understand about his approach. If you can source your 'day or two', it alleviates all doubt.
Agree with you on publicly calling Dems cowardly. As if no one else notices. Let's get this thing moving. It should be obvious even to the few still fingering the rims of their saucers and reminiscing about the good old days (Sen. Dodd) that this tea party broke up long ago. And that the staff left. With the piano. And furniture.
There's more here than meets the eye. The Republican reaction to this censure resolution is reexposing the lies to the light of day. So long as this NSA thing is on the news, that's good news. The public is not buying BushCo's lies. And this is so very, very important to keep reinterating because the lies he's now repeating on his perpetual campaign are lies that will lead us to war (or should I say, a criminal invasion) of Iran.
ReplyDeleteYou don't win allies by calling your colleagues cowards.
ReplyDeleteI would not call Feingold's Democratic colleages cowards.
I would merely point out that they are uncharacteristically running and hiding when a reporter comes to ask them about censure. Their behavior damns them far more thoroughly than anything I can say.
A Democratic friend of mine just forwarded this email to me. She got it from The Democratic Party and the subject line is "Russ Feingold is a traitor."
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be a shameless attempt to capitlize on Feingold's motion to censure without coming out in support of it, but trying to direct the dollars of Democrats to the Party by appealing to their
hatred of Republican tactics. My friend was going to send them money (I wrote her not to) thinking she was supporting Feingold's motion.
Glenn, what do you think of this?
Dear julie,
That's what Republicans want you to think.
They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability.
On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism.
But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists".
Send a message to Senator Allard: shame on him for questioning the patriotism of another Senator. Sign this petition and it will be delivered to Allard:
http://www.democrats.org/stopattackingruss
Agree or disagree with Russ Feingold's censure resolution, it is completely out of bounds to suggest that anyone demanding accountability is siding with terrorists. It is simply un-American to question the patriotism and loyalty of a Senator who wants the Congress to live up to its responsibility.
We've heard this cowardly nonsense from Republican leaders before. They attacked decorated Veteran and Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha for getting real on Iraq. They attacked Democratic Leader Harry Reid for shutting down the Senate to demand answers about manipulated pre-war intelligence.
They have ended the careers of generals who questioned Bush Administration talking points, and they even attack their own when respectable Republicans speak out on the disaster this administration has created in Iraq and its failure to close the gaps in our security here at home.
And time and again, the Republican controlled congress has consistently failed to conduct real oversight of the Administration, choosing instead to protect the Administration.
But polls show that nearly 70% of Americans reject this president and the Republican Congress that has failed to hold him accountable. And together we will hold Republicans accountable at the ballot box this year.
That's why the Democratic Party is putting the infrastructure on the ground now to fight in all 50 states. People everywhere are saying "enough is enough" -- and we will be ready to organize and fight everywhere with your help.
Please contribute whatever you can to make it happen:
http://www.democrats.org/accountability
The sick behavior of desperate Republicans will only stop when we fight back, and 2006 is the time to do it.
Thank you,
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, http://www.democrats.org/. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.
DNC, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003
"Bush's shortcomings are already getting plenty of attention, so he's not galvanizing any new media attention."
ReplyDeleteNot much different from the "why make such a big deal about Bush lying the country into war, everyone kinda knows that anyway" argument for just "moving on".
While I applaud Senator Feingold for his stand I wonder whether the timing could have been better - like a few weeks before the November elections. By then (one would hope!) he could have rallied more support from his colleagues to present a unified, decisive front. It certainly would have put this issue right back in front of the American people at a very critical moment in time.
ReplyDeleteWhile I shudder to think what new scandals will appear between now and the elections, polls show that this clear violation of presidential authority has struck a deep, disturbing nerve with a lot of Americans.
this thread is inane. kevin drum may be wrong on this issue. that said, he provides commentary every day that people not as self-righteous as the commenters on this thread can turn to for a reasonable, pragmatic, often evidence-laden take on a lot of issues. he's surely actually changed more minds amongst centrists (the horror) who read him on a lot of important issues than all the dogmatic commenters on this thread combined. the cohen comparison is worse than wrong - it's boring. this thread reminds me of the all-hail-glenn cult of personality vitriolic bs you see on many right-wing blogs. in short: go russ. but lay off kd.
ReplyDeleteWhat thoughts do they picture moving people to vote for Democrats? What are the ideas they want to foster and encourage among voters?
ReplyDeleteIt's time to give those nice democrats a chance in office?
I'm so touched by the loyalty the democrats have shown toward President Bush, that I might vote for one?
Word.
Look, there is one reason, ONE reason, why conservatism in this country has been ascendant for the past decade (actually the past four): Be it Gingrich or Limbaugh, Reagan or GWB, they don't back down from confrontation, their attitude across the board is "bring it on."
Democrats' attitude is, "Please don't hurt us."
Pathetic. Americans admire courage and they admire strength, and Democrats have consistently proven themselves to be timid and weak. And they've just done so once again.
"Glenn, since you're a litigator, you've probably heard the maxim "When you're winning, shut up."
ReplyDeleteThe Senate Dems see things going in their direction and they don't want to make a move that might screw things up."
Damn that was funny. Yes, they have so much power--Alito, the Intelligence Committee vote--it's been a string of successes. You gotta be kidding.
Fluff up your feather pillows and keep that tar on the back burner!
ReplyDeleteThe US Govenrment, Democrats AND Republicans, US Forces, and the US Corporate State Controlled Media should be brought to swift justice
We've lost the hearts, minds, arms, and legs!
DLC=Determined to Lose Conference (found this at another blog) thinking starkly illustrated by Mr. Drum. Feingold announced that he was going to do this last week. Don't these people talk to each other over the weekend?
ReplyDeleteIt's simple, little Democratic mice, the president broke the law, admitted it, and said that he wasn't planning to stop doing it. Contrary to Sen. Spector's assertion that "the constitution trumps statute" to justify Bush's right to warrantless searches, FISA was enacted to insure compliance with the constitution when conducting electronic surveillance. The president has no rights under the constitution to violate any other part of the constitution. He's committed a criminal offense and needs to be held to account for his crime, just as any other citizen of this country.
There, that was easy, wasn't it? Now get off your asses, support Sen. Feingold, and fulfill your constitutional responsibilites to support and defend said document. And I'm especially speaking to you, Senators Stabenow and Levin (D-MI), my own senators, in case you or your staffers read this. Do it.
"I think it is a holdover from when the CIA sponsored left wing groups in order to manipulate them."
ReplyDeleteUsed? What do you mean used?
There is more of that going on today than ever, but it's not just the CIA now. It's the FBI and a number of other government agencies. That is why it is so important to limit one's support exclusively for those who clearly espouse one's own ideas, and not be blinded by labels anymore.
Yay, Harkin! What could be nicer than welcoming another "good guy" to the club? Welcome!
In defense of Kevin (who I don't agree with) and as mentioned by other commenters, I don't think Kevin's point about Feingold not notifying other Democrats (and I have no idea if this is true) wasn't that it violated some Senatorial courtesy, but that Feingold went forward with this before marshalling some support around it. And I agree, if that's what he did, then it's a bad tactic. Had the Democrats, or even a portion of them, come out on a united front on this, it would have been taken more seriously. I think that goes back to what Kevin was talking about in regards to political theater. That said, it doesn't excuse Democrats for not jumping on the issue as soon as they had the chance.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I'm not sure that current public pressure could get six Republicans to jump ship. Bush is unpopular, and it would pay for them to distance themselves from him, but I think the Republican leaders would use every trick in the book to quash this and reign in their members, much as they did with the Senate Intelligence Committee vote.
Still, you're right, it was definitely worth a try. And the only way narratives about the Republicans are going to change is if Democrats make some noise and take principled stands. If they repeat the fact that Bush broke the law long enough, people might start thinking that way and the media might start reporting it that way. Wussing out just entrenches the CW that the president was protecting us from terrorists.
"But the quotes above are from a resolution of impeachment censure Sen. Feinstein attempted to introduce on February 12, 1999, after President Clinton's impeachment had already ended in acquittal."
ReplyDeleteYes, but of course You're ignoring that Feinstein did this (and the Republicans voted it down) because they wanted to be on the record as deploring what Clinton had done, without actually voting in favor of impeachment.
I agree with you and Feingold (and disagree with Drum) that Dems should not be afraid to push harder on censure, but I agree with a couple of other commenters that you are being a little unfair to Drum. He clearly states at the end that he would vote for the resolution in spite of his qualms, so I don't know what leads you to suggest that he "never actually says whether he favors the censure resolution or not." And he's not questioning Feingold's etiquette in not bringing this before the other Dems, just his political sense. As I said, I disagree with his point, but I think you've mistaken his waffling on the political question for waffling on the substantive question.
ReplyDeleteThat said, you are absolutely right about Feingold's vote to continue impeachment. Does Drum think he was a Clinton witch-hunter? The logical conclusion is that, despite some well-founded doubts about the validity of the charges, he was in favor of hearing the evidence. As with the original Patriot Act vote, it seems he was the only one of the hundred able to view the issue outside of a certain lens (partisanship in one case, fear of being seen as weak in the other).
One other quibble: I think 7 Republicans would be needed since at least that many will follow the polls before Senator "nobody apologized to us" turns on his best buddy Bushie.
Is there a unified email list somewhere of senators who are not supporting the Censure? I'd like to start sending some emails.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
FRT
If I were Cohen, or Juan Williams, or Friedman, or EJ Dionne, or any other of the professional voices of moderation I'd look every morning to see if my brake lines had been cut in the night.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Who would cut their brake lines?
Btw, I agree with everything the other kc said above.
Grytpype:The Senate Dems see things going in their direction and they don't want to make a move that might screw things up.
ReplyDeleteThat's not cowardice, that's maturity and smart strategic thinking"
I remember similar sentiments before 9/11; the president's numbers were dropping, and House and Senate Dems were salivating at the prospect of a mid-term turn-over - until circumstances put them on the defensive, and they scrambled to look and talk as tough as the President. This "wait til the mid-terms" strategy failed then, and if Iraq descends into civil war, it will fail again.
Excellent post Glenn.
ReplyDeleteSome moderate bloggers are saying this censure resolution is bad because some of the conservatives who have recently "critisized" bush may go back to him. So what? they may critisize him on specific issues but who says they rejected him completely? Maybe some have, but even if this were true, It hardly means that there would be a sudden groundswell of support for bush's policies or his popularity.
Who cares if a few conservatives had a relapse of insanity and bush's numbers went up 2 points?
This notion is ridiculous on it's face!
So, if dems overwhemingly supported Feingold's censure resolution, The entire nation would suddenly change it's mind and decide all of bush's policies are good for the nation and bush is now, in an instant popular again! Yeah right!
"...the only causes worth fighting for were the lost causes."
ReplyDelete- Jefferson Smith, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington
"Oh, you only fight the fights you can win? You fight the fights that need fighting!"
- A.J. MacInerney, The American President
What's going on at Huffington Post? Why are they writing about Brad Pitt? Don't they know what is going on in the blogosphere about this Feingold motion? Glenn, can't you immediately get them to post one of your impassioned articles over there? I bet it would get 100 times the comments that any other story is getting. They are not acting as part of the solution at this point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there's a new headline that the Bush Administration has passed new legislation that limits the security clearance for gays.
Really? Well how about then outing all the White House staff, top Republican officials, Cabinet Post appointees, and every Senator and Congressman who voted for that measure?
That would sure limit the number of very, very, very top people who presently have security clearance.
You know, Kevin Drum is quite pathetic. He's Lieberman writ small. That website he spews nonsensical cowardice on is removed from my bookmarks.
ReplyDeleteI can't tolerate the Kevin Drum Liebermanning all over the place or Alice whats-her-nuts constantly trying to stir whole lots of JAYSUS! into the Democratic party.
Going on television and calling people cowards is only going to make things worse at this point.
ReplyDeleteBut it is the truth. I ALWAYS prefer truth to pretty lies. All the Dems have been about for at least a decade is pretty lies. The GOP is all about ugly lies but they are both about lies, all told.
Feingold is adding refreshing air to the stagnant pit at the heart of the so-called Democratic party. Hopefully, the core hasn't been too long starved of oxygen that it can't shake off the leeches and cockroaches and actually stand tall...hell, stand FOR anything.
Truth is always better than lies. Always. The Dems ARE cowards. They have been cowards. It is past time that one of their own finally called them on it to force them to do the right thing and grow a spine. Who knows, once they have a spine again maybe they'll actually fight for, you know, core convictions.
Why is Dean the only one to back Feingold up after they called him a traitor? If I was on the fence, that would push me over for Feingold. This makes me even madder than the waffling.
ReplyDeleteAgree, Kevin is a wuss who should get off the bus. Why anyone with a brain would still give the Bush Admin. the benefit of the doubt, is absolutely bizarre.
On the previous post, David said: In a democracy people get the government they deserve.
ReplyDeleteDavid this bit of conventional wisdom is part of our problem. It's a great example of blaming the American people for the incompetence and corruption in our government and media. This is an extremely popular way for the press and our government to sweep their responsibilities under the rug. If the media is not accurately reporting the facts, if Americans are precluded from free extensive news coverage of our country's actions abroad, and if Americans are continuously exposed to what are no more than advertisements for corporate America masquerading as political news coverage , they cannot be expected to make good decisions about their votes.
Remember the headline the day after the election of 2004: "How Can 56 million People Be So Dumb?" That was Europe's take and they were right to ask the question. And of course the answer is: Because the MSM actively promoted the Bush/Republican lies about everything from Kerry to the Iraq War and well, the list goes on and on.
As others have said, you are being unfair to Kevin Drum. For example:
ReplyDeleteKevin Drum provides a public service by trying to explain and defend the "rationale" for Democrats not to support the resolution....Kevin -- just like the Democratic Senators whose evasiveness and indecision he appears to admire -- never actually says whether he favors the censure resolution or not.
Not true, and not true. Kevin's post isn't about the other Democrats being right--it's about what Feingold did wrong, which is an entirely separate issue. Nowhere does Kevin say Feingold's missteps justify the Democrats' cowardice.
What Kevin does say, though, is that he would have voted for it.
(By the way, he has issued a correction on the Clinton error.)
On the substance of the thing, Royko is exactly right:
I don't think Kevin's point about Feingold not notifying other Democrats (and I have no idea if this is true) wasn't that it violated some Senatorial courtesy, but that Feingold went forward with this before marshalling some support around it. And I agree, if that's what he did, then it's a bad tactic. Had the Democrats, or even a portion of them, come out on a united front on this, it would have been taken more seriously. I think that goes back to what Kevin was talking about in regards to political theater.
Presumbly--though one sometimes wonders--they want to regain majority status in the senate and house of representatives.
ReplyDeleteI think that by this point, they've reached the happy state predicted a while back by Grover Norquist:
"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they're fixed then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."
Most of them are in no danger of losing their comfy spots in the Senate and House, and being in the majority would mean a lot more work for them, so why rock the boat, now that the majority of them have been fixed so that they no longer go around peeing on the furniture?
Any Democratic Senator who doesn't vote with Feingold should be wearing a sign saying "I've quit peeing on the carpet. Be kind to me, Grover."
I nominated him in the thread on his own blog, I nominate him here again:
ReplyDeleteKevin Drum: Wonker of the Day
A great analysis as ever, Glenn. I think you identify the problem with today's Democrats as succintly as anyone has: they refuse to engage an issue unless they are absolutely certain to win. That isn't courage and it isn't strength; are the leaders of this party so blinded by cowardice that they can't see that, no matter how many times it's made clear to them?
ReplyDeleteWow. You and Kevin Drum are my two favorite poli-bloggers (Roy Edroso is a close second/third) so it's cool to me to see you step up and punch Kevin right in the mouth. It's like Captain America fighting Daredevil or something.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I really am that juvenile sometimes.
"So the relevant question is: is this good political theater?"
ReplyDeleteYES. If only to underscore and EDUCATE those who vote that it isn't the intelligence efforts that are objectionable, but rather the flaunting of the FISA law and court, and the absence of a warrant contrary to the US Constitution. Of course, by even asking this question, Drum gives his vote in favor of the legitimacy of questioning Congressional censure of executive wrongdoing: as though it is Ok sometime for Congress to do nothing when presidents break the law to an UNKNOWN extent. The democratic senators and the pundits who enable their cowardice are all traitors to the Constitution. I will activel campaign against any of them when I can. Bastards. They have no clue how badly they are alienating people like me.
It's interesting where people draw the line, where they stand and fight. For me, it was the war. For you, it's presidential lawbreaking. For Kevin... probably when something actually infringes on his personal material comfort.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of people who will think everything is ok as long as they're personally comfortable. It's a natural (if ignorant) position to take.
What party is Kevin Drum registered as, a Democrat or Republican?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the best way to bring his political career to an end? How do we keep him from influencing anyone in the Democratic party? We need some kind of way to exile him from the party.
Kevin Drum should be horsewhipped.
ReplyDeleteGreat, great post! I just received email from MoveOn.org saying they had received over 100,000 votes of support for the Censure resolution overnight! Why aren't our guys (Dems) paying attention to this stuff!!!! What do we have to do to get them to listen???
ReplyDeleteWhat do we have to do to get them to listen???
ReplyDeleteVote them out of office?
:-)
What is George Bush hiding?
ReplyDeleteSince truth is optional these days, no evidence of wrong doing is required.
What is George Bust hiding?
Note to Kevin: I too, hate to argue with someone who knows what their talking about. This qualifies as a cyber bitchslap!
ReplyDeleteLot's of navel gazing going on these days. Powerless to stop these big bad people from warring and profiteering and neglecting and...
ReplyDeleteA door opens toward assertion and the first thought is triangulation.
"So the relevant question is: is this good political theater?"
ReplyDeleteI think that depends upon your perspective. If you’re one of those Democrats who are frightened to challenge Bush because you’ll be accused of treason, you’re going to think it’s “bad” political theatre.
If, however, you’re one of the many Democrats who’ve been completely frustrated by the timidity of so many prominent Democrats to forcefully challenge Bush, then having Feingold call their behavior “cowering” is really “good” political theatre -- it’s a much-needed kick in the ass, which just might do some good.
One question I don’t know the answer to is just what Feingold thought before going about this the way he did.
Did he suspect that if he went to the caucus they would reject it out of hand and this issue would never be heard -- and that’s why he didn’t do so?
And if so, wasn’t this the “best” political theatre to bring the issue out in front of the public, while simultaneously showing his disdain for the cowardice of his colleagues to confront a highly unpopular president?
At this point, I haven’t heard anything that would make this implausible.
Theatre critics don’t always agree, you know.
. . . more anecdotes of failure . . .
ReplyDeleteSome in Congress feel they can "do what they want." Small problem: The reason they are there is to protect our rights and prevent the abuse of power.
Tell your friends about Patrick Meighan
Here's an anecdote showing what a staff member failed to do, and why there is more evidence that Congress needs to have better rules mandating action to prevent this abuse of power.
Here's what a Senate Staffer did which raises reasonable questions and prompts this call to modify how Congress is doing what it is doing: Patrick Meighan's challenge: An unresponsive Congress: [Here]
It is clear: The Congress is not interested. The way forward is to discuss what must be done to force Congress to do what it promised to do. We can lawfully revoke the power of Congress to make and enforce rules -- and delegate that power to the States.
Spread the word -- this going to be like the 603 effort. Let your friends in Kos know, and the other sites. Tell your friends the Constitutional Convention planning continues: We shall lawfully revoke the powers of the Federal Government that they are abusing, and fail to assert.
This Constitution is ours. It is ours to Protect. This Federal Government has failed.
We're moving again on this.
Tell your friends about Patrick Meighan. He deserves our support.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI hope you have not missed the fact that you have now ABC on your side. As noted by Croks and Liars, one wishes speeches of this quality could be heard more often on Capitol Hill...
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Boston-Legal-Stick-It-1.wmv
(sorry if the link does not link)
Keep up the good fight.
News from Pew's (pardon the pun): He's down to 33%.
ReplyDeleteOuch.
ReplyDeleteARTHUR:
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT:
'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT:
No, it isn't.
ARTHUR:
Well, what's that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I've had worse.
ARTHUR:
You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Come on, you pansy!
[clang]
Huyah!
[clang]
Hiyaah!
[clang]
Aaaaaaaah!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR:
Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer--
BLACK KNIGHT:
Hah!
[kick]
Come on, then.
ARTHUR:
What?
BLACK KNIGHT:
Have at you!
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR:
Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Yes, I have.
ARTHUR:
Look!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Just a flesh wound.
dsh -
ReplyDeleteI know a few Republicans who use something like your rationale here to ease their own consciences on the abuses (or crimes) of those they've endorsed into power. Tough to respect that also, I've got to say. I wish most Dems weren't so proud as to say what Gen. Clark was willing to say on the trail 'independents and moderate Republicans, you're coming with me'. Wouldn't take much to ask for help - reach out to the moderates as well as libertarians. Say essentially 'we need your help, we're in a bad spot right now and it is endangering all of us'. Everyone and their brown dog criticizes Bush for not admitting mistakes... well... The thing that is so absolutely frustrating with the Dems is that it really doesn't seem like it would take much more than the labor required to apply a new coat of paint. Dems do need help, but they are not the prime movers nor the planners and do not deserve the harsher sentence. What can you do within your party?
Kos of Daily Kos writes today:
ReplyDelete"Who do you want for 2008?" I answered that my fantasy ticket was Schweitzer/Obama.
Is Kos literate? Can he read? He supports Obama rather than Feingold, Obama who hasn't even come out in favor of this Feingold censure motion?
Is Kos becoming irrelevant, or what? How quickly they get sucked up in the power machine......
Thank God that will never happen to Glenn.
Although I never heard of Schweitzer, I know one thing for sure. I'd stay home before I voted for Obama.
BTW, General Franks was asked about "casualties" in the war. He said he was not going to let military officers overly concerned about casualties get in his way, and he put his hand over his mouth and yawned.
Is Franks related to Yoo? I wish every soldier fighting in Iraq could see that quote by Franks. It's shocking.
You are a light in the tunnel of darkness, Glenn. Thank you for taking the time to speak up - because you speak the truth.
ReplyDeleteFeingold calling Dems cowardly is actually sound politics. After all, it's worked brilliantly for Republicans for years.
ReplyDeletePOLICE CALL ON CITIZENS TO WATCH SPY CAMS; REPORT WRONGDOING
ReplyDeleteWed Mar 15 2006 08:47:21 ET
The East Orange, NJ Police Department is getting ready to greatly enlarge its ranks, with what's being called the "Virtual Community Patrol."
Soon-to-be-chosen residents will get access to a a Web site that provides panoramic views of their block, allows them to type in general complaints, pinpoint a problem location, immediately send that information to police headquarters, and simultaneously activate hidden police surveillance cameras, Police Director Jose Cordero said.
The "Virtual Community Patrol" will be the first such project of its kind in the nation, reports the STAR-LEDGER.
For example, an individual might see suspicious drug activity around a parked car, get on the Internet, type in a brief description of what's happening, use a cursor to pinpoint the trouble spot on one of six neighborhood still pictures that pop up, then transmit that information to the police command communications center, he said.
Welcome to the United States of Nazi Germany. Every time you leave your house, the government will be spying on you. If a neighbor of yours who doesn't like you sees you going out late at night for a secret assignmation of some sort, the police will be notifed. There will be a blackmail file on every person in this country within a few years.
The War on Drugs + The War on Terror = George Orwell's America of the 21st century.
Quit the Democrats. Join the Greens or Libertarian Social Democrats. If you oppose Bush, join a real opposition political party.
ReplyDeleteEyes Wide Open -
ReplyDeleteSo what desk at a Republican operative company do you sit at? Do you get to see a window?
Checked out Kos, and he NEVER mentioned support for Obama. Not today, not ever.
I'd ask you to provide a link, but you've probably gone home now.
Great post Glenn. Kevin sometimes has interesting insights, but he periodically pulls this wanker shit.
ReplyDeleteAll the "grow a spine" comments really are on target. Things might get worse for the Dems before they get better. But the pendulum will eventually swing in the other direction. The sooner they stand up and do what's right, and ignore the Republican progaganda (about Dems), the sooner they begin to resemble the type of opposition party that, down the line, will be part of that swing.
Paul Craig Roberts Archive Email a Friend...
ReplyDeletePrinter Friendly Version...
March 12, 2006
Was Serbia a Practice Run for Iraq
By Paul Craig Roberts
On March 11, the former Serbian leader and president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, died in his prison cell at the Hague, where he had been on trial for four years and one month for war crimes and genocide. The Serbian Socialist Party leader Zoran Andjelkovic responded to the news of Milosevic’s death with the following statement:
"Slobodan Milosevic, the president of the Socialist Party of Serbia and a former president of Serbia and Yugoslavia was murdered today at the Tribunal in Hague. The decision of the Tribunal to disallow Milosevic’s medical treatment at the Bakunin Institute in Moscow represents a prescribed death sentence against Milosevic. Truth and justice were on his side and this is why they have used a strategy of gradual killing of Slobodan Milosevic. The responsibility for his death is clearly with the Hague Tribunal."
A partisan accusation or the truth? Milosevic was known to be seriously ill. The Russian government promised to return Milosevic to the Tribunal after treatment. The Tribunal refused. It is easy to conclude that the case against Milosevic had collapsed and that an embarrassed US government, NATO authorities, and Hague Tribunal decided to let him die in his cell rather than admit that his guilt could not be proven even after a trial lasting four years and one month......
(You should go read this middle part that I will omit here)
Milosevic, already damaged by the wars of secession that destroyed Yugoslavia, lost the media campaign waged by public relations firms hired by contending factions that spun the news that Americans received. Milosevic was demonized, and the Clinton administration had Serbia bombed by NATO forces for 78 days in the spring of 1999. Many Serbian civilians were killed by the air strikes which hit passenger trains and destroyed the Chinese embassy. In effect, the US interfered in Serbian affairs in behalf of the secession, with the result that Kosovo has been essentially ethnically cleansed of Serbs. Kosovo is apparently still considered to be a part of Serbia, but it is administered by the United Nations. Somehow, this has been presented as a great moral victory for humanity.
If the massive propaganda campaign against Milosevic had many facts behind it, he long ago would have been convicted at the Hague. What was the episode all about?
In my opinion, it was to establish the precedent, later to be employed in the Middle East, that the US government could demonize a head of state geographically distant from any legitimate "sphere of influence" and use military force to remove him. This is precisely the fate of Saddam Hussein, and the Bush regime still hopes to repeat the strategy in Iran and Syria.
The unanswered question is why does the "international community" go along with it? The numerous civilians killed by US interventions are just as dead as the ones killed by heads of state attempting to hold on to their countries. Why are the latter deaths war crimes but not the former?
As a presidential candidate, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton’s intervention in Serbia and disavowed the international policeman role for the US. But as soon as Bush got in office, he plotted to invade Iraq. Why?
Americans should be very concerned that Bush still has not come clean about why he invaded Iraq. Americans should be disturbed that despite the disastrous results in Iraq, Bush still intends "regime change" in Iran and Syria.
I don't really have anything to add. I just want to say that after seeing you cited by Digby and Atrios, it's nice to read another voice that isn't afraid to put some steel (and guts) behind it. Kudos!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Glenn, you're performing a real service here, even if you never intended to be a blog star. I'm afraid that political commentators more often than not get dazzled by the art of the spin. They forget that, at certain points in time, a principled stand is the highest and ultimately most effective form of political expression.
ReplyDeleteI am old enough to remember reading about the Watergate breakin during the summer prior to Nixon's reelection. Knowing his history of sleaze, I kept hoping that someone would look into that little felony fast enough to derail a second term. You are correct that the magnitude of the disaster that awaited his second administration was completely invisible to most voters until the piecemeal efforts of media and political actors started to accumulate and coalesce into a real case.
As such, the censure motion is a seed around which that sort of effective opposition can crystalize. I personally would wish to see this presidential criminal impeached, but I also see the elegant sense of the censure position. It is the right place to start.
Was Kevin "smearing" Feingold? I didn't read that at all and doubt most sensible people (outside the blogosphere) would either. It's far from clear that Kevin is spewing GOP propoganda. Disagreement doesn't mean one is "brainwashed" or "cowardly" (didn't you chastise "Mean Jean" for that?). Why do liberals like to beat up on potential allies?
ReplyDeleteThe more I read liberal blogs, the more I think David Brooks was right. And I hate ever having to agree with Brooks.
John deVille: Thank you for your support -- the pressure is on. You can also read about Patrick Meighan and how his ordeal helped spark a movement to fix this mess. [ Click ]
ReplyDeleteWater Tiger: Maybe this will give you hope: How Patrick Meighan sparked a new approach: Waking Congress up the smart way. [ Click ]
ReplyDeleteLou Dobbs on new WSJ poll of 35% support for Bush and the other poll of 33%.
ReplyDelete"These are troubling numbers, not only for this President, but for this country."
But Lou still isn't talking about the NSA scandal, or the Feingold censure motion. Why? What can we do to get him to focus on the real issues?
Also, if I worked in the Empire State Building, I'd be very afraid now. These poll numbers are very low. It's going to take a lot to sell the upcoming military action against Iran and other nations to an increasingly wary American public.
grytpype "The Senate Dems see things going in their direction and they don't want to make a move that might screw things up."
ReplyDelete"Things going their direction" -- isn't the same as getting the Senate and House to agree, this Man needs to be lawfully removed from office.
The point: by getting Congress to show it's hand -- refusing to censure -- it shows the voters which side of the Constitution the Congress is on: Not the Constitution.
That's important information -- and the time to press with other options is at hand: "OK, now that we know that the leadership isn't willing to assert their power, let's keep the pressure on them." Here's how this is working: [ Click ]
It's important to accelerate the timeline, force the Congress to show its hand -- and give the voters plenty of time in advance of the November elections to digest what is going on: Congress "isn't sure" whether it wants to support or not support the Constitution and rule of law.
If they refuse to assert their power -- as should be required -- then we need to fix things to make their "role of protecting this Constitution" a requirement, not something depending on the shifting winds.
The point Congress needs to hear is that this is a doable alternative -- it is up to Congress to get with the program, or be lawfully stripped of the power it fails to assert. They can't have it both ways.
KC, 4:44 PM As things stand right now, with Dems pissed off for having the rug pulled out underneath them (or just shocked, frankly), and with a definite possibility of this thing losing, the party could come out looking pretty weak.
ReplyDelete. . .response:
Righteous Bubba, 5:05 PMThey wouldn't look weak if they voted for it. Simple solution.
. . .
Excellent point, Righteous Bubba!
And if they "don't get with the program, we can let them know [a] there are other options to make them do their jobs; or [b] we may lawfully revoke the power they're not asserting. Here's what can be done: [ Link ]
Hey, Eyes Wide Open,
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be a busy boy! So provide the line from Kos where he supports Obama, or slither away to the snakehole from whence you came.
Mo 5:27 PM "So long as this NSA thing is on the news, that's good news. The public is not buying BushCo's lies."
ReplyDeleteYou got that right. If they want to bury this censure or the NSA issue -- showing they are not serious about the Constitution or using their power to check this President -- we can assert our lawfur right to revoke the powers that are abused, or not being lawfully asserted.
Congress needs to do it's job, or they will lose the power to do what they want to do: "Nothing." They can be compelled to do what must be done: Assert the rule of law. Thanks to Patrick Meighan, here's what is underway to make this happen, [ Click ]
Stay determined, and pass the word: We can make the Congress do it's job, or they'll lose the power to do their job!
PhD9: "People need to be reminded repeatedly. This fight isn't about GW Bush. It's about the Presidency. Its more important than the question of who gets to hold the office next. Its a question of whether holding the office places you above the law. Considering the stakes I'm surprised that more conservatives aren't getting on board."
ReplyDeleteYou got that right: It's not about elections -- we don't have to wait for that. It's about whether the power of Congress -- to check this president -- will or will not be asserted.
Congress has to assert its power to check what is not lawful and an abuse of power.
Congress does not have a choice. But if Congress needs to have an "incentive" -- if they fail to act, we may lawfully revoke both the Powers that are abused, and the powers that are not asserted.
Congress needs to know there is a way to make this happen. Here's how: [ Click ]
As to your last point -- yes, there are conservatives: They see the issue -- the problem is at odds with what is conservative: The protection of American values, rights, and limitation on power. Keep your options open to ensure they see you're on the right side of the law: This isn't about politics, its about preventing abusive power and protecting our rights.
I know! You must have confused Maureen Dowd of the New York Times with Kos! They're so alike it's easy to understand how you confused them.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, I'll check back here after dinner. I have full trust in your research abilities, Eyes.
Wow.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy Kevin's writing. But this was an ass-whoopin'. Well done.
"Boston Legal to the rescue
ReplyDeleteAlan Shore (James Spader) from Boston Legal gives one of those great monologues that we all wished would be said by somebody other than a great actor.
emailer CS: "James Spader's character gives such a fiery and passionate speech about the lies, mistruths and unethical behavior of this Administration that it made me jump from the couch and yell triumphantly at my TV. Covered everything from lies on WMD, to torture, Abu Ghirab, Guantanamo, and, most importantly, illegal wiretapping"
audio and video on Huffington Post
Well done Glenn - brilliant take down of a Democrat. No one else even tries to slander democrats and mistate their positions the way you do! An intelligent,honest, heartfelt debate about censure would be great. Unfortunately you chose not to participate.
ReplyDeleteHarkin is a moron. He told the press that he supports the censure resolution because he doesn't know the details of the NSA Program...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Feinstein has been fully briefed about the NSA surveillance and calls it a "very impressive program."
ReplyDeleteAll of the Senators who have been briefed noted that NSA has safeguards to keep innocent American citizens from falling under surveillance.
sprinkles: If I made a mistake, I apologize profusely. But how am I misreading this? It's under a post called "2008: Warner Stock Rising" and this is the quote from Kos:
ReplyDeleteThe second story starts with me in Austin, speaking to a crowd who showed up to meet me and get their books signed.
One of the attendees asked me, "Who do you want for 2008?" I answered that my fantasy ticket was Schweitzer/Obama, and that I wasn't even close to deciding who I'd personally vote for out of the real candidates in 2008. Way too early for that.
But, I said, "If I had to guess, and I'm not very good at this, but if I had to predict who our nominee would be in 2008, I'd say it would be Mark Warner."
And the room burst out in cheers and applause.
Now, rereading this, it occurs to me that maybe he was describing an event that took place before Obama
failed to come out in support of the Feingold censure motion. If that's true, then that could explain it. I will try to research that and report back. But Feingold has been so consistently honorable on so many issues for so long, that I am surprised to see someone I otherwise consider a person who is doing enormous good, Kos, not have as his fantasy ticket one that would be headed by Feingold, and especially if that book signing was after Feingold gave his thrilling, heroic speech on the Senate floor condemning Bush's having broken the law."
Don't worry, sprinkles, I am no troll. We're on the same side in terms of the big picture. It's just that I am so passionate about these issues that when people I rely on like Kos and Lou Dobbs don't come out leading the charge, I get disappointed. That's all.
I agree with Kevin. You are being quite disingenuous yourself actually. You say that Kevin never says whether he would support censure. Actually he does, very explicitly, late in his piece. You never address what is I think the central insight that informs those who are skeptical about censure: That many, if not most, Americans don't actually believe the fact that the President broke the law is all that big a deal. The fact that this may shock you is not an argument that it is false, nor that it shouldn't inform the opposition party's priorities. In a country brought up on Dirty Harry, Rambo, and other assorted rule-breaking heroes, a President who can be described as flouting a few pansy laws in order to protect us is not doing himself any harm. Again, I don't agree with this, and surely you don't, either. But that's not the point. For the eight kajillionth time, it's not about you or your personal sense of offense.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the theme of the President as incompetent, bungling liar is taking hold (see latest Pew poll today). It is hard enough to promote one message to the sleeping American public. Two is one too many, and there is every possibility that Bush and his defenders can USE the censure movement to argue against the far more effective incompetence theme: "He's so competent (and manly) he won't even let a few rules stand in his way." When Bush is gone and his presidency merfifully dissected, it's going to be Katrina and Iraq that did him in. Not FISA.
And by the way, Feingold is doing this ONLY because he's running for President. I know motivation doesn't really matter here, but often it is a giveaway that it wasn't thought through with the whole party in mind. The comparisons to the Clinton impeachment saga are also bogus and hypocritical: Feingold was right up there with Lieberman as the worst of the Democratic harpies.
colodem: And by the way, Feingold is doing this ONLY because he's running for President. I know motivation doesn't really matter here, but often it is a giveaway that it wasn't thought through with the whole party in mind. The comparisons to the Clinton impeachment saga are also bogus and hypocritical: Feingold was right up there with Lieberman as the worst of the Democratic harpies.
ReplyDeleteThose who put narrow partisanship above principle are the problem. Clinton deserved censure. Bush deserves impeachment. What's the difficulty holding both these concepts at the same time?
The second story starts with me in Austin, speaking to a crowd who showed up to meet me and get their books signed.
ReplyDeleteOne of the attendees asked me, "Who do you want for 2008?" I answered that my fantasy ticket was Schweitzer/Obama, and that I wasn't even close to deciding who I'd personally vote for out of the real candidates in 2008. Way too early for that.
But, I said, "If I had to guess, and I'm not very good at this, but if I had to predict who our nominee would be in 2008, I'd say it would be Mark Warner."
And the room burst out in cheers and applause.
Dead on, Eyes.
Glenn--as usual, you're thinking on this is unimpeachable.....
ReplyDeleteAs for Kevin---there are no words to describe my total disappointment in him and the weak-kneed opinion he's chosen to espouse. It just confirms my belief that most of today's Dems in Congress are spineless and hopeless.
Feingold's censure resolution should be a slam dunk. We (the Dems) just need to get our sh*t together and repeat over and over again, until it's our mantra, "Bush is breaking the law, Bush is breaking the law." It certainly worked for the Republicans when Bush and Cheney continually chanted "Saddam aided the 9/11 terrorists, Saddam aided the 9/11 terrorists."
Hey, I was there for ALL of Watergate and old enough to vote, and I was so proud of the Dems then that I changed my registration from Independent to Democrat. Now, frankly, it's very tempting to change back to being an Independent. But I keep reminding myself that the furor over Watergate was slow to build....I hope I'm not deluding myself, but then I've been deluded time and time again since Bush was "elected" in 2000!
If you are so excited, start your own blog. But to have the gall to put down Kos here is inexplicable.
ReplyDeleteIf you have your own 1,000,000 a day hit blog of like minded individuals I would appreciate you as a person of equal standing with Kos.
You cut and past news articles from sources we've already read.
I'm glad to see you finally (and grudgingly, and fairly gracelessly) corrected your error about Kevin never saying whether he favored the resolution.
ReplyDeleteHow long will it be until you correct your erroneous claim that Kevin was rationalizing the Democratic failure to support it?
How about the elephant in the room here: the Democratic Leadership Council. Obviously the entity that is calling the shots.
ReplyDeleteSo the threshold decision is: Marginalization or decapitation? or both, realistically. First the one, then the other.
And what's the deal with Emmanuel? Is the DCCC a front group? Kind of acting like it right now - This thing blows up and they are silent, and then send me fundraisers from Hilary and Pelosi without word ONE about Russ.
We need a spotlight on the folks calling the shots behind the scenes.
But in the last analysis it has to be DLC: BU-BYE.
From the National Review:
ReplyDeleteit could be arranged, surely Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman would hug Wisconsin Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold right now. As the White House struggles to find its political footing, Sen. Feingold has offered it a handy crutch with his proposal to censure President Bush for the National Security Agency surveillance program. The Democrats had just concluded a successful two-week bout of eroding the president's national-security credentials with baseless attacks on the Dubai ports deal. Now, the party's Left apparently believes it's time to switch back to type and bolster Bush's national-security credentials by demonstrating the Democrats' own lack of seriousness in the War on Terror.
The Feingold proposal is a disaster on all levels for the Democrats, but it is a boon to the Wisconsin senator, thus capturing the current Democratic political dilemma in microcosm. The left-wing netroots are rallying to Feingold's proposal, and posting the phone numbers of Democratic senators, so Bush haters everywhere can call to urge them to vote for the Feingold's censure resolution. These bloggers and their readers are a key part of Feingold's constituency for a run for the 2008 presidential nomination from the left. Anything Feingold does to please them helps himself, even if it is irrational and harmful to his party's interests. It often will be, since the netroots can't distinguish between political strategy and pointless, self-gratifying stunts. This is why they pushed Democrats to compound the disaster of the Alito hearings with a doomed filibuster of the nomination, championed — not coincidentally — by another '08 hopeful, John Kerry.
The censure resolution is so obviously overreaching that other Senate Democrats are keeping their distance, although Sen. Barbara Boxer says she could vote for it and Minority Leader Harry Reid thinks it is worthy of serious debate. The resolution will surely strike most Americans as mindless partisanship. It also shifts the political debate back to ground favorable to the White House. The NSA program is relatively popular, indeed is one of the administration's most popular initiatives at the moment. The White House has a good case to make on its legality, and Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee last week seemed to signal their willingness to acquiesce to a deal giving congressional blessing to the program in exchange for enhanced oversight.
Feingold hopes to blow this all up. Republicans should gladly rise to his challenge. Increasing Feingold's prominence as a spokesman for the Democrats on the War on Terror only benefits the GOP. He epitomizes the Left's do-nothing, or at least do-the-absolute-minimum, approach to the war. He voted against the Patriot Act, and its reauthorization. He opposes the NSA program. He was against the Iraq war, and opposes using coercive interrogation against terrorists abroad. He is against almost any measure in the War on Terror that doesn't fit neatly within the confines of the American law-enforcement system (and against even ones that do — the Patriot Act). It was telling that on the Senate floor Feingold highlighted past statements by President Bush saying that law enforcement needs a court order to get a wiretap, by way of supposedly proving the president's deceit. But the NSA surveillance is not a law-enforcement program; it is not being used to produce evidence of crimes, but to tip off American intelligence about potential plots and the whereabouts of terrorist agents.
Feingold has done himself a favor, but not his party. Where does Mehlman go for his hug?
I'm glad to see you finally (and grudgingly, and fairly gracelessly) corrected your error about Kevin never saying whether he favored the resolution.
ReplyDelete"Finally"? My post had been up for a grand total of four hours when I posted the update (less time than it took Kevin to correct his error about Feinstein's censure resolution, but both corrections with more than enough promptness). I posted the update the minute someone e-mailed me (Kevin, as it turns out) claiming that my post inaccurately stated that he failed to say if he supports the resolution.
I do NOT think that my post inaccurately characterized his position. Kevin said he'd vote "yes" on the resolution if he were forced to vote on it - that is NOT the same thing as saying whether he supports Feingold's having introduced the Resolution (we do NOT know Kevin's opinion about that, which is what I said). One can be opposed to what Feingold did with the Resolution but still vote "yes" on it if forced to vote on it - which is exactly what many of these Democratic Senators will do who currently do not support Feingold's resolution.
How long will it be until you correct your erroneous claim that Kevin was rationalizing the Democratic failure to support it?
No reasonable person can deny that Kevin was "rationalizing the Democratic failure to support" the resolution. That was the whole point of his post.
I've called Jack Reed's (D-RI) office a few times now asking what position my Senator has taken on the censure resolution. So far, none. It would more honest of him to just say he doesn't support it. What's wrong with him and his fellow Democrats? And the fact that he voted to censure Clinton in 1998 just kills me. What a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteCareful Jack, there might be a big bad Republican in the room with you. Hope you don't wet your pants.
"Congressional Republicans defied Bush on the port deal for only one reason: because public opinion demanded it."
ReplyDeletethis is the key ingredient: politicians posing as leaders don't lead at all - they follow.
And with today's instant polling its more prevalent than ever. Its parallized democrats - always a step behind waiting for the public to make its mind for them. Its also why the media has become an outsized player able to maintain republicans in power in spite of all the damage they've done, with the media's GOP flavored news, propagating anti-demcrat imagery, and presenting republican speakers while pretty much shutting out any true democrats.
.
Glenn, you have written many, many words that seem to really just say that dems don't support it "because they are turds."
ReplyDeletePlease, do us a favor, save the verbage, and just say it!
Go take this poll on whether or not to support Feinfold resolution here
ReplyDeleteConsult the Dem "leadership"? Certainly seemed to work out well for Paul Hackett. Different scenario, sure, but likely to be met with the same lack of spine and originality. Feingold has the nerve to lead and to respond to his constituents, as well as to brave the rank capitulations of his (not quite) peers. Bravo, and the same to Harkin and the small - hopefully growing - number of supporters.
ReplyDeleteChris Matthews today had Pat Buchanan and Dana Milbank as guests.
ReplyDeleteHe asked them this question. If we woke up tomorrow morning at 9AM and found that bush had attacked Iran, what would be the nations response?
the parroting answer? The country would rally behind GWB. Now the question was if we attacked Iran, not if we were attacked by IRAN. I disagree with this answer completely.
Considering the issues of trust and competence with this admin that the people now have, I found it highly unlikely that the same would not question such an unwise action by this pres. I would imagine that many people (including me) would be very pissed-off about it.
If the majority wants the Iraq war to end, why would they go along with a war on Iran?
Neither of his guests even speculated on what the consequences might be if such a thing happened.
Perhaps the Islamic world would erupt against us. That does not sound like we would be safer. And how would China and Russia react? An attack perhaps? Economic sanctions?
A fool's choice.
RE an attack on Iran, I'm afraid we're going to find out what the world's reaction will be --- and it won't be pretty.
ReplyDeleteBrian Boru
alex, why not just tell the truth.
ReplyDeleteyou would not attack any country for any reason unless we were attacked first.
at least be honest with your answer.
Maybe Kevin is hoping to land a cushy job as an advisor.
ReplyDeleteThose guys have it better than weathermen.
The easier party to take over
ReplyDeleteI have always been a Democrat because their policy agenda has always been much closer to mine than the Republicans. But right now the reform agenda is both much more important, and much more amenable to rapid progress, and both for the same reason -- the Republican party's success at forming the first true national political machine.
This totally inadequate response of the Dem establishment to the Feingold censure resolution is, like the Rep's machine, both a danger and a revelation of great opportunity. Just as the excesses of the Rep political machine at the national level make possible a national consensus on true reform, so the weakness, the pathological risk-aversion and supineness of the Dem establishment, make possible the take-over of a national party by folks bent on true radical reform. True reformers should gravitate to the Democratic party if only because it should be the easier to take over and turn to the cause of reform.
Should the Dems take back both chambers in 2006, it will be because Dem candidates largely new to national politics took back a lot of seats lost since 1994, thereby seizing the balance of power in the control of these chambers. A freshman caucus that stood together and used that power would be able to demand the leadership in both chambers, as the price of voting with the Dems on leadership, seizing it from the establishment figures who now lead the Dems. It would not take much spine on the part of the freshmen to get this crew we see at work in the Feingold censure motion to cede leadership.
With both chambers under reform leadership, the actual Congressional oversight of the administration that would ensue would quickly uncover proof of administration wrong-doing so grave as to compel enough Republican votes that impeachment of the President and Vice-President would succeed. The reform Speaker would become President in 2007, and run for re-election in 2008. This election would be the first run under laws passed in 2007 that clarify that political fund-raising is bribery, thus ending the role of TV spots in national politics, and the role of lobbyists in national politics. The party that gives the people just these two accomplishments will win the trust of the people for a generation, plenty of time to accomplish the policy agenda.
But the biggest help that this sequence of events, and the complete victory of a reform agenda, would bring to the policy agenda, would be the removal of a lot of deadwood from our party, people who don't belong in a political system that does public policy, not fund-raising. A facility at fund-raising is the only ability that our current system demands of its politicos. Make that irrelevant by making fund-raising illegal, and these people will drift back where their talents naturally incline, to selling used cars or term life or Amway products, leaving membership of the House and Senate to people who understand and care about public policy. By 2013, maybe 10 Senators and 30 Members of Congress would remain out of those currently incumbent.
There are many flaws in our Constitution. It's greatest strength is the ability it gives us to accomplish such large-scale revolutions in our government as described, without firing squad or guillotine. But the interval of time since we have had governance not dominated by fund-raising is increasing daily to the point that soon we will pass the the point at which failing memory that things can and must change from our present system, will make it impossible to carry out this peaceful revolution. Then our system would lose its ability to achieve non-violent self-renewal.
We've reached 93% of our NEW goal of 350,000 signers! (328,276)
ReplyDeleteThat is from moveon.com. I do not support this group or not support it, as I know nothing about it. However I do very much support this petition they are circulating to support Feingold's censure motion. It would seem to me that collecting 350,000 signatures in two days is reflective of a great amount of grassroots support for Feingold. I wonder how many signatures they got, over what period of time, on their Alito petition. And this present support would appear to be coming from individuals, as opposed to groups.
I urge everyone to go there are sign the petition. It's likely that this outpouring of support as evidenced in this MoveOn petition will have to be covered by the MSM, which will be the first time stories appear that show this issue has touched a very raw nerve in the general public, even if it has not in the Democratic leadership.
There is also a link where you can send the petition to your email lists.
Kevin Drum is a republican. What is truly sad is that some one so clearly right of center is now considered a liberal.
ReplyDeleteI guess senator Specter has been in the senate since 1980. The FISA law has been the law of the land since well before then. Glenn , does it not strike you as odd that a senator on the judiciary comittee would have spent so many years in govt. and never voiced his opinion that FISA was overruled by the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI wish some reporter had the balls to ask him why if this is his opinion he is just now stating it when it comes out that Bush has been breaking the FISA law.
I wish I could ask him myself. Anyone in Pennsylvania like to call and ask his reps. ?
Glenn, I was listening to AirAmerica and Thom Hartman was interviewing Peter DeFazio (an Oregon representative). He was unimpressed with the censure for, as I recall and I can not find a transcript, it is "just not gonna happen because the Repubs (in the House) would not let it". He was commenting on efforts in the House. He believes energies should be focused on 2008 where if gains could be made then it might be possible to make such a thing a reality. He simply believes that it is just not possible. DeFazio, as you might know, is a pretty good Dem so I am not sure if he is afraid or unaware of polls and such. Any comments?
ReplyDeleteIt may make no difference, but it's possible the more this type article is posted around, the more it may act as a deterrent against this actually happening. So here it is:
ReplyDeleteIranophobia
by Paul Craig Roberts
If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?
Yes, you would.
Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.
First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.
Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.
Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shia majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.
Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.
Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?
That’s what Bush is doing.
Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.
The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.
In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.
In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.
Those claims, btw, have since been refuted by a top military official.
It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.
Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.
Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some "black opts" group will orchestrate the attack.
One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.
Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?
Fantasy? Let’s hope so.
March 16, 2006
I only have one clarification of something in your excellent post:
ReplyDeleteIt's not as if Bush did it (warrantless wiretaps) and has stopped. The NSA continues listening in, gathering our communications, without oversight, without warrants. Bush is still breaking the law. That program is still ongoing (they're listening in to 500 at any given time), along with several other super-secret NSA affronts to all of our 4th amendment rights.
Republicans appear poised to blanket legislation that would give Bush the authority to do whatever he is doing and whatever he wants to do.
In case anybody is counting, this program has been in place since early 2002 and not one terrorist suspect has been apprehended, tried or convicted due to any evidence uncovered through this program. We do know that the NSA has been passing information gleaned from this program to other government agencies, so it's entirely possible that people have been prosecuted for other crimes unrelated to terrorism, such as white collar corporate or drugs.
I thought to post here my messages to Illinois' Democratic Senators (sent yesterday). My experience to date with Obama's office is that messages seem to be classified into categories and then receive form responses.
ReplyDeleteFor Durbin:
Just hoping that the Senator will support his colleague's motion to censure in the very near future. I am distinctly unimpressed by the absence of Democratic support for Senator Feingold's reasonable and justifiable initiative. I am also distinctly unimpressed by all justifications for not supporting Senator Feingold that I have read to date. When I was young and growing up, I was taught that (a) my Senators and Representatives represented their constituency (the President's current support nationwide is at about 34%, and is probably lower in a state like Illinois); (b) my Senators and Representatives supported the Constitution and the rule of law which their own legislative bodies had enacted (FISA has been/is being violated by the President's own admission), and (c) exercised a check on either of the other two bodies of government which were becoming overweening in their exercise of power (wasn't that system called "checks and balances")? Or was there some subtext I missed in my 12th grade government class?
The Senator's extremely concerned constituent
For Obama:
It was nice to see Senator Obama "flanking" Senator Feingold in the current photo featured on the Obama website. I am hoping to see in the very near future Senator Obama "flanking" his esteemed colleague from the State of Wisconsin on another issue: that of Senator Feingold's motion to censure, introduced on Monday. I'm going to take it for granted that Senator Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School, knows that FISA has been violated (and I presume, continues to be violated) - in any case, the President himself admitted this on Dec. 17, 2005. I'd be interested in hearing the Harvard version of the legal arguments in support of permitting the President to continue violating the law he was sworn in to protect.
Really, at such moments one has to wonder whether our 12th grade government courses were intended to teach us how government works, or to make us believe in principles (such as the rule of law - "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all") that those in power do not genuinely subscribe to.
At least we know there's one Senator who believes in these principles, knows they've been violated, and has the courage to do something about it. I'm sorry to see that that Senator is not from Illinois.
Your very concerned constituent
dbk said...
ReplyDeleteI thought to post here my messages to Illinois' Democratic Senators (sent yesterday). My experience to date with Obama's office is that messages seem to be classified into categories and then receive form responses.
------------------
They all have that system. I hate it. No sooner do I send off a highly critical letter to my representatives, than I get the canned response that presumes my letter was complimentary.
Snail mail gets a little more consideration, but the only way that you ever know that your representative heard you is when it's face to face. Town Hall meetings, showing up at fundraisers, and my congresswoman does meet&greets regularly (she comes to each town in her district, 15 minutes per constituent who shows up).
All are guaranteed to put you on the list for donations.
We have to change the system to public financing.
bobbyk said...
ReplyDeleteKevin Drum is a republican. What is truly sad is that some one so clearly right of center is now considered a liberal.
--------------------
I think that Kevin Drum is only considered a liberal by Kevin Drum.
The crime(s) are ongoing. The wiretapping continues.
ReplyDeleteThose Senators who refuse to sign on to the censure and refuse to act to prevent Bush from continuing to wiretap Americans are accomplices to the crime(s).
There is no more fundamental example of rule of law than this situation.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to hide any truth for myself.
Whether or not I would or would not attack another country unless they attacked us is irrelevent, since it is not my descision.
bush will attack Iran with or without the American public approval. He disdains us as he distains congress.
Speak for yourself Alex. I don't feel disdained at all. Try not to mistake your pals for the American people as a whole. It is usually a fatal error.
ReplyDeleteSprinkles: I intend to remember your name. You can state as strongly as possible "Kos NEVER mentioned support for Obama" (caps in the original), but offer only a "dead on" as an "apology". That's a VERY weak apology. You then come back to issue a new putdown. What a pest.
ReplyDeleteMichael Birk and Jack: Thanks so much for that terrific (and sobering) text from Boston Legal!
Glen Tomkins: I love your thoughts and your optimism! More people should see that entry. If you're a Kos member, you should submit it as a "diary".
Jay C said:
ReplyDelete"...as long as George Bush or his surrogates can claim to be doing something "to protect you/us from terrorism", public outrage at the illegality of those actions will be blunted."
Why shouldn't the public buy this crap regarding the NSA/wiretap program? It's the only side they've heard. I'm sure people interpret the near-total democratic silence on the issue as vindication of the administration's position.
The republicans aggressively frame each issue and democrats respond by accepting this interpretation and engaging in a meaningless debate over the small details of their shared vision. Great f-ing plan.
Clay J
kc said "As things stand right now, with Dems pissed off for having the rug pulled out underneath them (or just shocked, frankly), and with a definite possibility of this thing losing, the party could come out looking pretty weak."
ReplyDeleteCould come out looking pretty weak? Ya think?
When Kevin Drum speaks of political theater, maybe he's talking about the kind Lincoln went to?
ReplyDeleteThis censure resolution is a good lithmus test for the current democratic senators. As Joe Lieberman is now, finally, beginning to see, no Democratic sentaor is safe from the anger of a pissed-off base.
What we got in John Kerry was a candidate who would equivocate on his way to losing. We got neither the satisfaction of a proper taking to task of this president, nor the satisfaction of winning. What I want, and what many in this country want, is AT LEAST the former -- which just might lead to the latter.
Kevin Drum and the like can equivocate himself in circles. Give me Feingold who actually does something.
If I'm not mistaken, by the way, Feingold was one of the few Democratic senators who voted AGAINST the Iraq War resolution. He was right then, and Drum, like so, so many, was wrong. So why the hell should we listen to Kevin Drum anyway?
Wow, amazing. People still read Kevin Drum?
ReplyDeleteA perfect response to utter blather one again. Kudos.
ReplyDeletedrum and his ilk are the reason that I will no longer support the democratic party either through financial donatios or offerings of physical service. When the party can show that it is willing to stand up and be counted in this fight to return the constitution to the people, then and only then will I consider returning to the party. They have left us (in my opinion) and it will be me who returns!
ReplyDelete