Senator Chuck Hagel's wife endorses Obama

Will Chuck Hagel be far behind?

Apparently Hagel has been supporting Obama without actually endorsing him for some time now. This story in Huffington Post described a Hagel speaking engagement last May:

The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level.

I can only imagine what Hagel thinks of this recent barrage of McCain attack ads.

Chuck Hagel is an honorable and reasonable man. He would have made a good president. Very few people seem to remember that it was actually Hagel who first brought up the subject of impeachment. Of course there wasn't much he could do without even lukewarm Democrat support (and poor Nancy, having lost her table.)

Hagel also supported Obama's pledge to use diplomacy when dealing with Iran, saying that engagement is very different than capitulation:

Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.

"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...."

Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential."

Hagel, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went on to belittle the tendency for some within his own party to disparage those who tout diplomacy. "You take some risks in talking about this," he said, "especially in the Congress, because you can immediately be branded as an appeaser."

And when asked to respond to rumors circulating within political circles that the Bush administration was ginning up the possibility of war with Iran, the Senator even raised the specter of impeachment.

"You've got the power of impeachment, now that is a very defined measure if you are willing to bring charges against the president at all. You can't just say I disagree with him, let's impeach him," said Hagel. An attack on Iran without Congress' consent, he added, "would bring with it... outstanding political consequences, including for the Republican Party."

Finally, he charged that if the preeminent foreign policy objective is to achieve security in Israel and stability within the broader Middle East, then the Bush track -- which McCain has endorsed -- is ill-advised.

"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."

Hagel to retire

The word on the street is that Senator Hagel plans to retire, and does not intend to run for President.

Hagel is a statesman, and along with Lugar and Biden, went to the White House and demanded that Congress be kept in the loop about the Iraq invasion:

In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East — not just in Iraq — in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region:

HAGEL: [F]inally, begrudgingly, [the White House] sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.

That he is retiring - along with Warner - makes me wonder if Lugar will stay, or if they have all had enough of this train wreck.

It also makes me wonder if they already know its not going to end.

This guy was on our side. Maybe he just got tired of fighting literally everyone. God knows we never gave him any support, and the Republicans crucified him.



He has also spoken out against the Patriot Act, against Bush, was the first guy to mention impeachment (of either party.)

"When government continues to erode individual rights, that's the most dangerous, dangerous threat to freedom there is," he said, calling it "far more dangerous than terrorism." His reaction was similarly sharp when he first heard of the report in this newspaper that the president had claimed authority to order domestic wiretapping without court approval. "If, in fact, this is true," he said, "then it needs to stop." When the White House acknowledged it was true, Hagel pressed for Congressional hearings and a national debate. "I think Congress has failed the country in many ways," he said at a forum in California last month. One way was to allow the administration "to completely overpower the debate based on, 'I'm the commander in chief, and I know what's best.' "

Well, whoever replaces him has some big shoes to fill. For example... the ability to tell the truth. And some idea of what it means to serve as a Senator in a 'representative government.' One that doesn't just represent corporations.

Hell no: they won't go

Yesterday, two more GOP Senators called for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) both called for Gonzales to step down, after hearing testimony from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey - testimony that showed Gonzales attempted to undermine the Department of Justice during Ashcroft's reign, by trying to force through the White House illegal wiretapping agenda against Ashcroft's will.

Hagel and Roberts join four other Republicans who have already called for Gonzales to resign: Senator John Sununu (R-NH), Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), Senator John McCain (R-AZ,) and House GOP Conference Chairman Representative Adam Putnam (R-FL). I'm not sure why Senator Arlen Specter isn't on this list... his razor-sharp contempt for Gonzales is now legendary.

"The American people deserve an attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question," (Senator Chuck) Hagel said in a statement. "Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead."

Well, good luck with that. The entire world can't seem to get Wolfowitz to step down - he just refuses to leave.

Bushies are above the law. Ask any one of them and they'll tell you. They profess to serve only at the pleasure of Bush, Cheney, and of course GOD (an acronym that some believe means 'GOP Over Democracy;' although many believe the exact translation is really 'GOP Overthrowing Democracy'.)

Gonzo is apparently adhering to the same tactic used by Wolfowitz. He is flat out refusing to resign, and of course, Bush is backing him all the way. Gonzales knows you won't actually do anything about his lies and transgressions - you won't make him leave, and you can't make him tell the truth. You can call for his resignation until you are all blue in the face, but until you bring legal charges against him - and or impeachment proceedings - he doesn't plan to go anywhere.

Realize - this is a guy who doesn't believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, in Congress or the rights of American citizens. Your 'calls for resignation' mean nothing to a guy who believes he has the right to make up the rules as he goes along. He won't step down until you pull him down; not without direct, legal action... and perhaps handcuffs.

'Presidential Courage,' and where to find it

It's so freeing to be an Independent now... I can finally toss all partisanship to the wind and just look at personal character.

I don't agree completely with either party's platform - nor do I trust the current batch of candidates, on either side, to be 'as advertised.' The only candidate who seems authentic (true to himself) is Dennis Kucinich. That said, the media ignores him and his own party doesn't give him much support.

Mike Gravel also seems to be the real deal. By the way, this is the same Mike Gravel who released the Pentagon Papers during the Nixon Administration! Seems he's been here before. Courage demonstrated; and during a similar, war-torn era. Gravel has already proven that he is willing to take risks for his convictions - and on behalf of the nation - so I consider him a good risk when it comes to potentially demonstrating 'Presidential Courage' if the need should arise.

Our biggest problem is the media; and of course, behind them in the shadows, corporate America. I have no idea how a Kucinich or a Mike Gravel can get elected in this age where candidates are picked on the basis of how much money they can raise (from 'big money' sources with big money agendas.) Its not about us anymore... its about money. Its not even about issues. Candidates tap dance around the issues whenever possible, so as to never offend anyone or any corporation that might be ready to pony up and donate that 'big money.'

Based on our current system of picking candidates, I don't know how Abraham Lincoln could have been elected - so Kucinich and Gravel are in good company. What would possess any serious candidate to take risks (or tell the truth) if they are continually pandering to big money interests? Gravel spoke out in the first Democratic debate, and brought some life to the drone of predictably canned answers by speaking out against the use of nukes.

Imagine that we are now to an age where speaking out against nukes is seen as 'taking a risk.' My God - President Reagan was against nukes.

Ironically, in a time when GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to compare favorably with the Gipper, they seem to have forgotten that the Gipper actually reduced our nuclear arsenal. Yes, the Gipper didn't want all of those nukes lying around - and he certainly didn't plan to actually USE them. He also didn't condone or utilize torture, and he was willing to engage in diplomacy to make peace with the Soviets and end the Cold War. Amazing, in hindsight. Actually guys, I'm not sure he'd really approve of you. Maybe McCain, but the rest of you? Doubt it. Of course he's dead, and so unavailable to defend his name, or your cheap abduction of his image.

Speaking of cheap... words are damn cheap, in a GOP debate. Romney drew huge applause from an apparently sadistic audience when he bragged that he would actually increase the size of Gitmo. And I loved his creation of a new word - "enhanced interrogation techniques" (meaning torture) - while saying he would 'never condone torture,' just make 'greater use of enhanced interrogation techniques.' It all sounded so strangely corporate, didn't it? So slick. Enhanced interrogation techniques. Is Rove helping you with your campaign spin, Mitt?

As I start scanning potential candidates for 2008, I'm looking for someone with presidential character - never mind that a guy like that could probably never get elected. Its my job to look for he or she and to desire this. I'm looking for a potential president who will tell the truth, even if it isn't politically advantageous. I want a president that can write his or her own speeches the way Abraham Lincoln labored over his; and who will mean the words he or she has penned.

I want a leader who will inspire me to be a better citizen, as in 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.' I want a president that will make sound, rational decisions - decisions that will take into account the best interests of all citizens of this nation, not just cater to the interests of the highest bidders.

I want someone who isn't blinded by - or worse - completely ruled by partisan politics. We desperately need a leader that will put the interests of the nation as a whole over the interests of his or her own party. I'd prefer a candidate that surrounds him or herself with intelligent and progressive thinkers from both parties... a candidate who can draw the best out of everyone, and create bridges between opposing viewpoints. I want a president that will represent all Americans, of every economic status, race, religion and region. I want a president that will restore dignity and honor to our nation.

Is that asking too much? A better question might be, do we really dare ask for any less?

I just finished reading the Newsweek article with an excerpt from the new book "Presidential Courage," by Michael R. Beschloss, and it made me think once again about the truly great presidents I have admired over the years. Some have risked and lost, others have risked and saved the nation. Those who risked nothing, slipped into obscurity. So far, no president has lost our democracy or our freedom - yet, although this one is certainly trying. There has always been that risk. Its time we took it a little more seriously.

In this day, when money dictates who receives each party's nod, it is questionable whether we the citizen voters can even choose an ethical president from between the two candidates finally offered to us by these corporate-subsidized parties. As Beschloss writes:

The way we choose presidents now can penalize the courageous. As early as 1955, Sen. John F. Kennedy complained that politics had become "so expensive, so mechanized and so dominated by professional politicians and public-relations men" that "any unpopular or unorthodox course arouses a storm of protests." This was long before presidential candidates were compelled to show their seriousness by raising $50 million or $100 million each. It is hard to imagine Andrew Jackson going after Biddle's bank if Jackson had to raise that kind of money to become president.

Somehow, some way, we must find a leader who can meet the standards set by the courageous presidents of our past.

Thus the third party option.

Right now, I believe our best bet for a real choice is Unity08. Delegates to the Unity08 online convention will actually choose the candidates that will run on the party ticket. Imagine that. The people choosing the candidate rather than corporations and bankers. Yes, I'm liking this 'Unity08' party more every day.

But there is still the question of Hagel.

Republicans scream that he hasn't been loyal to his party, because he has taken such a strong stand against the war. Democrats scream about his conservative voting record. I look at him and see a man who speaks from conviction first, partisan 'political correctness' a distant second.

That is exactly the kind of guy I want in the White House.

There is your demonstration of 'presidential courage' - as if his days as a foot soldier in Vietnam weren't indication enough.

When I look at Hagel, I see a man who thinks for himself and carries the weight of a real conscience; a man who fought in and survived Vietnam (those with real combat experience are much less likely to start a war unless every other option has failed. They've seen enough bloodshed.) I see a man marked by the controversy of that war, and one who has learned the searing lessons of that conflict, as well as the politics that led to its escalation. I see a man who believes in democracy, and appears to have actually read the Constitution.

Hagel appears to be the embodiment of everything McCain has claimed to be: an honest politician - a 'people's' representative in a world crawling with lobbyist lapdogs. McCain has changed, in ways I still can't quite grasp. He seems to be flipping and flopping all over the place - he's not at all the man he was in 2000. McCain 'version 2000' would be leading every poll today. Today's voters crave authenticity. I guess he was ahead of his time.

And that leaves Hagel.

Hagel is the man who could pick up the 'McCain v 2000' mantle and wear it straight into the White House. He has demonstrated that he has courage and patriotism - the real kind, not empty words on flag-draped stages. He is more than willing to use diplomacy (he has been advocating for discussions with Iran and Syria since the beginning of the Iraq war.)

Most encouraging to me, Hagel is a student of history.

If you read enough history, it is impossible to escape the realization that there is truly nothing new under the sun. If it happened once, it will happen again. If you learn what came before you, you will have a much better chance of heading off the bad outcomes and facilitating the good ones. This is simple logic. Forewarned is fore-armed.

Those who don't know history are 'doomed to repeat it.' Everyone has heard the saying, but nobody really thinks about it - the dire implications of putting your faith in a leader who doesn't read, and doesn't really care about history. A president who doesn't grasp history, will doom the entire nation to repeating it right along with him.

Thanks to our current president and vice president - who obviously learned nothing from Vietnam - we are entangled in the same kind of mess in Iraq. Not only are we there: we're even escalating.

Nothing new under the sun. You'd think a lesson this harsh could have been learned, at least within one generation. I imagine this has been excruciating for our Congressional Vietnam vets to watch, after everything they have been through in their own lives.

Hagel has something else... something I can't quite put my finger on (actually I can, but I can't explain to you how I sense it.) Hagel still believes in honor. Hagel didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth, he went through the kinds of life challenges that build real character. His character is etched on his face, and his eyes are sad in a way you often see in people who think a lot, and think deeply. They remind me a bit of the eyes staring out of Lincoln photos from around the end of the war. With battle, time and struggle comes wisdom... to some anyway.

I don't know that he won't change, the way McCain has changed, or that he will even run. But there is something different about this guy.

For example, while Democrats shuddered at the very thought of 'putting impeachment on the table,' Hagel - conservative Republican - brought it up himself during an interview with Esquire magazine:

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

The conversation beaches itself for a moment on that word -- impeachment -- spoken by a conservative Republican from a safe Senate seat in a reddish state. It's barely even whispered among the serious set in Washington, and it rings like a gong in the middle of the sentence, even though it flowed quite naturally out of the conversation he was having about how everybody had abandoned their responsibility to the country, and now there was a war going bad because of it.

"Congress abdicated its oversight responsibility," he says. "The press abdicated its responsibility, and the American people abdicated their responsibilities. Terror was on the minds of everyone, and nobody questioned anything, quite frankly."

Refreshing, hearing 'truth' from the mouth of a politician.

And so the wait goes on. Will Hagel run? If he does, he has my vote. There are times in life when you have to go on gut instinct alone, because talk is cheap (and talk is everywhere these days.) My gut instinct says 'Hagel' every time.

Protesters, counter-protesters: all support the troops

We all care deeply

Yes, there was coverage on yesterdays March to the Pentagon.

Quite a bit of coverage - and photos. (More coverage, from CNN, and more photos.)

Apparently, we've reached critical mass, although I can already see that the coverage is slanted. But that was to be expected.

I suspect one reason this march received more coverage than the last march, was due to the influx of 'anti-protest' counter protesters. They seem to draw the mainstream media - no big surprise - and it appears there are more interviews with counter protesters than those who came for the march. I've noticed time and again, that the mainstream media doesn't reflect the feelings of the majority of Americans (which is probably why so many of us come out to the Internet to find our news.)

I also suspect that marches with 'counter protesters' are much more exciting to cover for the mainstream media. There is always that chance that there will be something they can sensationalize - violence, or perhaps 'a clash.'

You'll notice if you read the articles, that when talking to the counter protesters, they describe 'proud marines' and 'Vietnam vets' (although there are just as many - or more - taking part in the march itself. You'd never know this from the coverage. This is intentional.) When describing the marchers, the media may give a short, passing comment about the many, many participants from the military and their families... but they go ga-ga over 'anarchists' and other exotic-looking revolutionaries.

In truth... most people who march these days are professionals with jobs and families - or people from military families, many who are parents of soldiers that have died in the war. There are some young people, college age participants, but not nearly enough. Yet. (Just wait until there is a draft, and they'll come out of the woodwork.)

I also doubt the 'head counts' reported in the newspapers. This is a lesson I learned in January. The LA Times still claims that only 100,000 showed up in January for the march around the Capitol. I was there - there really were 500,000 people, maybe more. If you look at the photos taken by participants (and not just the handful of carefully picked photos posted by the media) you will see a massive crowd filling the National Mall, and overflowing onto side streets. Perhaps not the largest in history, but very, very big. Half a million, easily. Why does the media continually undercount the crowd size? To discourage future marches, and to keep the general populace from 'getting ideas.' This is also why there is so little coverage. Remember, our media has gone corporate...

Yesterday, there were military veterans, families and active duty warriors on both sides of the tape. Yet as always, everybody disagrees about who has the right to claim that loaded phrase 'support our troops.'

Counter protest protesters occupied the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, supposedly to keep 'disrespectful anti-war protesters away.' Ironically, many of the protesters - who bused and flew in from all over the country for the march to the Pentagon - are actually military families, Iraq war veterans, parents of solders who died in Iraq... and yes, Vietnam veterans. So imagine now, that you are a veteran, and you see an angry mob has occupied the Vietnam memorial, and is holding it against you. How would this make you feel?

Would any of these people - ever - dream of desecrating a war memorial? Does anyone - I don't care what your ideology - have the right to keep a Vietnam veteran, or any other veteran, out of the Vietnam Memorial?

This angers me.

I confess that I can understand why some people feel 'you must support the war to support the warriors'. This has been ingrained in our thinking for generations. But as someone who disagrees with that philosophy, I cannot understand the nastiness - the judgmental vitriol from those who oppose all protest.

The assumption that those who protest the war - including many who fought in the war - are 'unpatriotic,' confounds me. I wish I understood how anyone could hold such animosity towards those who disagree with the basis for the war, but care deeply for the well being of the troops.

Are they all simply brainwashed by the media (most likely Fox,) or some other propaganda arm? Are they somehow locked into mental images of wild-eyed, drugged out hippies throwing stones at returning Vietnam veterans (I don't remember any such images from the 60s, but I was very young.)

Where does this hatred come from?

The marchers appeared, for the most part, to hold no such hostility in return... although when confronted with a sign that says 'go to hell traitors,' or 'peace sucks,' I know I would experience mixed emotions... and perhaps the desire to set the record straight. I've learned that this is impossible. These ideas are fixed in stone, and the hatred runs deep. I'm sure Fox continually fans the flames of the hatred, every day. This is, of course, what Fox does best.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R, Nebraska) and a Vietnam veteran, once believed that opposing the Vietnam war was wrong. His brother Tom (also a veteran, and who actually fought along side his brother Chuck) came home from the war convinced that he had been used, and was an outspoken critic. Chuck and his brother actually came to blows over their differences of opinion, shortly after they returned. Now, years later, Chuck Hagel has come full circle. Hagel is now considered to be the fiercest, most out-spoken Republican critic of the Iraq war in the Senate.

Hagel said he came to his own moment of truth, after listening to tape recordings of former President Lyndon Johnson admitting that he felt the war was pointless. Apparently Johnson made this statement in 1964 - before the Hagel brothers were deployed to Vietnam. Johnson went on to say that he feared he would be impeached if he tried to withdraw.

“The dishonesty of it was astounding — criminal, really,” Mr. Hagel said. “I came to the conclusion that they used those people, used our young people."

I was on a march in Washington D.C. two months ago, and I stayed well away from the anti-protesters. I have no beef with them. I feel they are welcome to their opinion, because we are all Americans and that is what 'freedom' is all about: the freedom to disagree. I have no interest in fighting with fellow Americans. My beef is with my government.

But come on... stupid comments like 'If you don't love America, leave it?' Imagine yelling something that stupid, right in the face of an Iraq combat veteran. These men and women fought for the right to protest. They watched friends die, many are injured for life. How dare anyone judge them?

If counter protesters also fought in this war and other wars, and disagree... fine. I respect that. But they need to learn a little respect as well. America's greatness rests in our right to disagree. All are patriots. All 'support the troops.' There are no 'traitors' here - the traitors are embedded in our government.

That said... I'm sure there were more than a few idiotic comments from among the ranks of the marchers as well. Some people can't see a sign calling them 'traitors' and walk quietly by without responding in kind. I see no point in engaging. Freedom of speech cuts both ways.

And as for the rest of us, those who are not in the military but who oppose this war on principle: why would anyone get on a bus and ride for 16+ hours to protest this war, our government's abuse of our troops, and this administration's attacks on our Bill of Rights -- if we didn't love America? If we didn't love America... wouldn't we all just stay the hell home on our couches, in comfort, pop a beer and watch American Idol?

The opposite of love and support, is indifference. Can't we all get along?

Members of a coalition of Christians opposed to the war actually demonstrated at the White House the night before the march- and many were arrested. It would appear that people from all ideologies, all walks of life, are uniting in the belief that this war - and the accompanying torture and abuse of Geneva conventions - is wrong.

These 'anti-protest' protesters seem to have missed the entire point of the march, and the reason for its starting location at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The Memorial is a symbol of the last controversial war - one that divided Americans just as profoundly as this war. Increasingly (even among the troops,) a majority of Americans are now opposed to the continued occupation of Iraq. There are many similarities between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war.

So the Vietnam Memorial was an obvious place to begin - a place of great reverence to everyone. Hallowed ground. That one side felt entitled to 'occupy it' against the other, is beyond reason. But I suppose 'reason' has no place in this discussion.

Most of us believed that our country learned a powerful lesson in the wake of Vietnam. Apparently, there are still many in our government who learned absolutely nothing.

The draft-dodging, deferment stacking politicians who started this war never learned about Vietnam, because they never fought. They were protected by money and influence during the Vietnam era, and never had to face months of fear, mud, insects and surprise ambushes in the jungles of Vietnam. They had to reason to learn the true cost of war. They are somehow above getting their own hands dirty - or those of their children - on the actual field of battle, but they are very comfortable committing other people's children to the fight that they began.

It is on their heads that I hang this tragedy, this ongoing bloodshed.

I suppose this debate will continue forever. The story of the Hagel brothers - both Vietnam veterans - bloodying each other on their front lawn over this very issue, just underlines how very raw the subject matter has become in our national psyche.

Much ado about absolutely nothing

One day I am hopeful, the next day... I actually wake up and drink the coffee.

Nothing is going to happen to end the Iraq war. I imagine we'll be attacking Iran by summer (this should make Hillary happy - she obviously wants to be a 'war president' too; not that she will ever, ever - please God - ever get elected.)

I don't imagine anything will be done about Gonzales either. We want him gone - even the media is demanding he be fired. He is a traitor to democracy - has been all along - and still... nothing will be done.

The rule of lawlessness

Gonzales has turned our rule of law into something resembling a banana republic. He was a chief architect of the Patriot act, the Military Commissions Act, advocated torture, shrugged of Geneva Conventions, was the legal adviser to Bush before the Iraq invasion - and actually advised Bush that he didn't even need to consult with Congress before attacking Iraq. The list goes on and on and on. Gonzales is almost single-handedly undermining our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. And friends - thats treason.

From a GQ interview with Senator Chuck Hagel, concerning the President's 'assumption' that he didn't need to ask Congress permission before invading Iraq:

Hagel: Mr. [Alberto] Gonzales was the president’s counsel at that time, and he wrote a memo to the president saying, “You have all the powers that you need.” So I called Andy Card, who was then the chief of staff, and said, “Andy, I don’t think you have a shred of ground to stand on, but more to the point, why would a president seriously consider taking a nation to war without Congress being with him?” So a few of us—Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I—were invited into discussions with the White House.

Gonzales even shut down an investigation that would have led to an investigation of himself.

So much for the 'Department of Justice.' There is no justice to be found here without an outside prosecutor - and one who can't be fired by the investigatee.

And the investigation into the Plame Scandal?

Waxman has asked Fitzgerald to appear before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. But now the Justice Department - the very Justice Department that is being investigated by the Senate, for firing prosecutors based on their purported 'lack of loyalty' to W - has imposed a kind of gag order on him. Why don't they simply... fire him? Too many people watching?

In a written response, Fitzgerald made clear that the Department of Justice will not permit him to discuss any non-public information with Congress.

Fitzgerald cited the fact that Libby's case is still "pending" as an explanation of his inability to provide non-public details to the committee. Fitzgerald also pointed out in his letter to Waxman that he arrived at his conclusions after being advised by the Department of Justice.

As for subpoenaing anyone else to testify about the Scooter-Rove-Cheney 'Plamegate' - what if you threw a subpoena... and nobody came?

How deep the investigation will go is unclear; Democratic willingness to force testimony from members of the executive branch or their staff through use of subpoenas remains unproven. Given the record of the Bush administration, it is unlikely that they would cooperate with requests for information from Congress.

Justice... right. If any of you out there want a shot at justice, demand a special outside ethics commission, and a special prosecutor.

There is a pack of rats devouring our White House, and they know the cat is dead. Even if every crumb of their corruption comes to light - and I'm sure it will be mind boggling if it ever does (no wonder Bush is trying to hide his papers - forever;) nothing will be done. And they know it.

I wish Bush and Cheney were Democrats, because surely the GOP would have impeached them by now. Surely. Surely this is far graver than lying about sex.

Alas, Bush/Cheney & Co. are Republicans, and the Democrats cower before Cheney.

Between Iraq and a hard place

Dear Senators: I'm really glad y'all are now talking about the war, finally, but we out here have been talking for years. Time is short. Democracy is calling, and no one will answer the bell. Our forefathers are turning in their graves.

It's this 'partisan thing' again - isn't it? No doubt the Senate bill was written in such a way that many of you just couldn't sign it - too many lobbyists looking over your shoulders with red felt pens. What will it take? What language is required? Can you write one yourselves? Or will the Democrats then reject it, simply because it came from the GOP?

Or is the real, honest truth... the fact that any language advocating withdrawal from Iraq will be rejected, period. Because how can you have a bill without a plan - without a timetable? This is just a game, isn't it?

Republican leaders said they counted the day as a victory. “It is clear now that the majority of the Senate opposes a deadline for the withdrawal of troops,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

A victory? The majority of Americans want our troops out of Iraq, and you are claiming this as a 'victory?' A partisan victory - of course. Never mind the good of the nation. 'Republican before country' that's what you've always said.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, countered, “The Republicans are rubber-stamping the president’s failed policy. That’s the message here.”

Shocker, Harry. Of course they are! So... go after them! I don't know what the problem is up there, but we're sick to death of it out here.

This one is the best of all, oh how easily the lies flow from his lips:

President Bush, speaking at a Republican fund-raising dinner, applauded the senators who voted against a timetable. “Many of those members know what I know: that if American forces were to step back from Baghdad now, before the capital city is more secure, the scale and scope of attacks would increase and intensify,” he said.

Right. In four years, and with 'mission accomplished,' Baghdad grows less secure by the hour. But sure, kill a few more thousand people George. Your contractors are still making piles of cash. Baghdad is like an ATM machine: we put the cash in, the contractors take it out.

So, back to you exalted Senators: find new language, find something that everyone can agree on. Find a way out.

How to really 'Support Our Troops' - and 'Keep America Safe'

The army is sending injured and traumatized troops into Iraq, reservists are now trapped into an endless cycle of tour after tour after tour; the war is costing billions of dollars and miring our nation in debt. Obviously we don't have enough troops to sustain this front, and meanwhile the real enemy - the real Al Qaeda - is growing in power somewhere in Pakistan, and perhaps Afghanistan.

Are you waiting for them to 'fight us over here' again? Because they will, if you leave them alone too long... if you keep wasting time and refusing to actually DO anything.

Bin Laden could have been captured in Afghanistan when the troops first went in! Not enough troops were sent, and now we're so obsessed with occupying Iraq (oil) that we've turned our backs on him once again.

Seriously folks... is this safe? Is this prudent? Shouldn't our army be where the real enemy is? Like say, Afghanistan? These insurgents in Iraq -- this is a religious, civil war. Everybody knows that now. Like Climate Change - you can deny all you want, but the jury is now in.

How exactly does destroying our army by keeping them injected in the middle of a civil war 'support our troops?' This is such hypocrisy, it is below any civilized, intelligent being. Isn't it possible that 'destroying the American army' is exactly what 'the real enemy' wants? Doesn't this play perfectly into Bin Laden's hands?

Bin Laden isn't in Iraq, you fools. This 'support the troops' argument is total bunk. Lies and hypocrisy. It has also put our nation in real danger, here at home. Terrorism, world-wide, has increased dramatically and measurably since Bush invaded Iraq. Nice going W - I feel so much safer, as do our allies and the rest of the world.

It's no wonder people in South America greeted Bush with signs depicting Hitler. How does all of this look to an outside viewer? I'll bet it looks more than a little bit like military tyranny. Like a simpleton, Bush poked a stick into a wasp's nest - simply because it was there - and stirred up swarms of angry, vengeful terrorists. Our presence in Iraq is probably creating a new terrorist every minute. So now we have not only Al Qaeda after us, but we are making life-long enemies in Iraq. This one may well blow back on the next generation of Americans, like our covert operations in Afghanistan (during Russia's invasion) most likely created 9/11.

Marching in GOP lock step

Not all Republicans are willing to do the Cheney, GOP lockstep - some of them are finally speaking out on matters of conscience. I contend our best hope for the survival of our democracy rests in the hands of progressive democrats - and a handful of Goldwater conservatives. Country before party.

If you look closely, you'll see that Hagel and Obama work well together. At first glance it would appear that these two caucuses (if you can call Hagel and Specter a 'caucus') wouldn't have much common ground. But they are the staunchest defenders of our Constitution in Washington - they are speaking out on behalf of our ethics as a nation, and in Hagel's case, our troops. They will step away from the 'party line' in a heartbeat if they believe it is against the best interests of the nation as a whole. And they don't support our troops with mere lip service... they support our troops by speaking out against the hypocrisy of claiming to 'support the troops', while sending them into the middle of a sectarian, civil war.

As for the rest of you lock-stepping, 'troop-supporting' GOP senators: I'm calling you out. If you really cared about the troops, why did you send them into battle without body armor, gear and armored vehicles? Surely we've given you enough money. We've coughed up billions of our tax dollars - enough to keep our nation in debt for generations. Surely you could have tossed our troops a bone and adequately equipped them for battle. Or was that the money that mysteriously vanished - poof - into the thin, hot, desert air?

If you cared about the troops - and you insist that you do - why are you sending them back into battle with PTSD and other injuries that make them unable to wear protective armor? If you really cared about our troops - and you insist that you do - why don't you funnel some of these billions of dollars into ongoing medical care for the thousands of wounded veterans created by your war?

Hogwash.

You don't care about the troops. You care about the millions of dollars your lobbyist, military and oil contractor buddies are making in Iraq - even the ones like KBR, who took the money and ran, without providing much if any 'services' in return. You care about saving face - even if it means throwing our troops into the meat grinder, day after day. You care about the Republican party. The troops - and the welfare of the nation, for that matter - just aren't your problem.

Since we're so low on troops that we're sending injured and traumatized soldiers back into battle, and because you profess to 'support the troops' so very much (and we believe you;) I assume you are now ready to commit your own children to this ongoing battle, this global 'War on Terror' that seems best fought to protect 'our' oil interests in Iraq. Have they enlisted yet? Have your kids enlisted?

I didn't think so.

Everything the GOP says is exactly the opposite of the truth. Doesn't truth matter anymore? Does Washington even remember what 'truth' once looked like?

Of course not - its all about money and lobbyists. And don't think I'm supporting the mainstream, waffling Democrats - if they dilute that Iraq funding bill any further, a glass of water will have more substance. That bill has 'I'm afraid of alienating any of my lobbyist friends' stamped all over it. And then there is that gaping hole where 'you must confer with Congress before attacking Iran' used to be. Shameful, Ms. Pelosi. So much for the Democrats.

Vietnam redux. Here we go again... time to escalate!

The draft will be next, mark my word. How can we avoid it? We don't have the troops to sustain this attrition. Period. You can't ignore logic, guys... reality always wins.

Hot air

I don't believe in either party now. The whole thing has been compromised. No one plans to do a damned thing... unless perhaps they can talk this war and rampant corruption to death. Or perhaps they can hasten global warming with all of their bombast and hot air... and the ocean will rise another 10 or 20 feet... right over Washington D.C. That might do it. Every time they hold a debate, another glacier melts.

My Declaration of Independence

We are not all cut from either 'right' or 'left' cloth

I now consider myself an Independent, after a lifetime of believing myself a Democrat (based on ideology, which I now realize doesn't jive with actuality.) I wasn't asked, the last time I registered to vote, which party affiliation I now hold... so I never had the opportunity to formally announce my declaration of independence.

One of the main things that drove me away from politics, was partisan lock-step. So often politicians and their supporters appear to be strong on emotion and short on logic. Thus the partisan extremism, mudslinging and personal attacks that have become so common during election years. I am so turned off from that kind of behavior, that I generally boycotted all politics until Katrina. Partisan politics is tearing this country apart, and both sides lose in the end because we all need each other if we are going to survive.

As a result of rediscovering myself as an Independent, I am noticing partisan talk much more than I ever have in the past. Every article I read is slanted one way or another - I didn't notice to what extent until I divorced myself from this broken Democratic party. From my experience, people just don't fit comfortably into categories. These two parties have become much too strong, and much too polarizing. And neither one has remained true to its base. There is a lot of talk, a lot of ideology tossed about, but behind the scenes both parties are sticking it to us in favor of money - money in their own pockets. Lincoln would call this 'capitalists acting harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.'

Both extremes - the far right and the far left - are so determined to have things their way, that they appear to run almost entirely on emotional intensity. 'Winning' becomes more important than finding common ground, negotiating, and finding solutions that benefit everyone. And this is just within our American society - never mind when we go out into the rest of the world and start trying to inflict our demands on everyone out there.

No one party's interests should trump the interests of the nation as a whole. Everyone from the individuals, to large businesses should be represented - and could be represented - if we were simply willing to compromise and be reasonable.

I have undoubtedly been something of an Independent in my thinking all along. I may lean more towards Democratic ideology, but the Democratic platform isn't what it used to be. I have no idea what they represent now... but I know what they once represented, or said they represented.

The Democratic platform used to profess to represent me, and those less fortunate than myself. I believe, for example, that unions exist for a very important reason: to serve as oversight on those businesses that care more about money than their workers. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need unions. But ask any coal miner and he will tell you in a heartbeat - this is no perfect world. Coal miners work hard, and they deserve to be able to feed their families and have good health care. God knows they need it. That said, unions can go overboard as well, and make unreasonable demands that would bankrupt many companies. When I think of union extremism, I think of professional sports. A livable wage - even a good wage - for an athlete is reasonable. Mega millions of dollars - just for hitting a ball with a bat - is frankly crazy (ARod... sorry buddy, you're wildly overpaid.) Balance. Reason. Both sides having a say, and compromises hashed out.

The Democratic platform promoted themselves as the party of corporate oversight, especially where food, drugs and the environment are concerned. Oversight is logical. We have to live on this planet. We have to drink the water, breathe the air and eat the food. It is totally illogical to sacrifice any of these life-giving necessities so that some corporations can become lazy, 'bad neighbors,' just to save money.

Balance... corporations aren't 'bad' unless they - like anyone or anything - become so powerful that they become a tyranny in our midst. With good oversight to counter their total focus on money, corporations play a huge role in our strength as a nation. But now they have run amok, and are even abandoning our country and moving their headquarters out of the U.S. so they can make even more money, basically enslave the populace in countries that have even less regulation than we do, avoid paying US taxes (what little they paid anyway...) its shameful. That should tell you all you need to know about corporate 'ethics.' It doesn't exist.

There must be oversight to protect the people (and that includes those who work in that corporation.) The corporations will never police themselves, not when their entire existence is based on making a profit at all costs. A corporation will generally only behave in a moral fashion if there is profit in being moral. That is just a fact of business.

I am a firm believer in oversight, because (having worked in business - I was an IS professional for 18 years,) I understand the beast pretty well. I saw and worked in some excellent working environments that were ruined when - in the interest of 'making more money' - an outside reformer would be brought in, rounds of layoffs would take place, and the resulting company would be so broken in spirit that in the end, the entire company went under. Everybody lost.

I learned from experience that people are the business - just as the middle class is the driving force behind our country's productivity.

I believe this 'attack on the middle class' that Lou Dobbs espouses started early in my IS career, with all of the 'reorganizations' that forced many of us to change jobs constantly, just ahead of the lay-off ax. I did enjoy a few great workplaces and I recall that I did my best work - my most productive work - in those nurturing environments. It seems completely illogical to me that someone would actually believe it possible to improve profits by destroying these great working environments. Every single time I went through it, the business suffered. Turns out, the productivity was the profit, and the workers were the productivity. Treat the workforce with respect and productivity will soar. People want to do a good job, but angry people lash out any way they can. I've seen this scenario over and over again.

People will give you 100% if they believe they are seen and appreciated. If they feel attacked, marginalized and used, they will rebel and productivity will plummet. Small businesses learn this quickly: if you want to provide good support to customers, ensure repeat business, and provide a consistent product -- you must keep your employees happy.

What I see in this new, 'Enron Republicanism' (not to be confused with old school Republicans and conservatives - there are many flavors;) is that same 'hack and burn to make more profit' philosophy. Anything for a buck, and not much thought going into the part played by the workers in assuring that profit. In other words -- profit over people.

Our middle class is very important to this nation - the middle class has been the pool, the fountain of our creativity, industriousness and new ideas for generations. You could say it was the middle class that made this country what it is today. The very wealthy may have funded it, but the middle class was the melting pot out of which came the ideas, scientific research, engineering, and entrepreneurial spirit that gave us the Internet, personal computers, the pharmaceuticals we use today, and modern medicine.

It is absolutely insane to wipe out our middle class - and especially crazy to deprive their children of the education that will ensure our future competitiveness as a nation. We can't possibly hope to keep our status as a world power without an educated and productive middle class. And yet it is true: the middle class is under attack from every direction now and education expenses are so high that soon we may lose this vast pool of intellect and creativity that has been a driving force in our national success for generations.

We need to find our balance again. We need a strong economy, a strong business world, a strong middle class. We also need to solve the problem of poverty in this country, as it diminishes all of us. That was very apparent in the aftermath of Katrina. We must salvage our reputation in this world - close down these illegal and immoral secret camps and ban torture again, restore habeas corpus and once again become a country that adheres to the rule of law.

I honestly believe that we have to move past partisan politics and find common ground. There must be a way for us all to work together and thrive together as a nation.

Compromise. Balance. An environment where both the corporate world and the average worker can thrive, where pollution is checked, where our food is protected, and health care is available to everyone who needs it. Our country will be stronger for it. Perhaps we need a bipartisan ticket after all... or maybe a third party. Its obvious something has to change.

I believe we also need to look deeply at the roots of crime in this country... why are our prisons so over-crowded? What can be done to address the underlying reasons for this problem? I watched a fascinating documentary on Nixon, and was stunned to see that he was doing just that... he actually sent someone into the prisons to find out why they were so crowded, found out it was due in great part to heroine addiction, and so he implemented a rehab program utilizing methadone. No one ever accused Richard Nixon of being stupid. Paranoid maybe, and vindictive... but not stupid. It is this sort of thinking - logic - that will help us overcome our problems. More logic, less knee-jerk emotion.

We all need each other. Its that simple. We can continue to tear each other (and thus our country) apart with partisan politics, or we can pull together and work out solutions that benefit everyone. I'd prefer the latter.

The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq

An open letter to the Honorable Senator Lugar of Indiana, from a constituent:

Dear Senator Lugar:

This is unbelievable. I cannot stand this anymore.

How did our government become this sociopathic? Please... do something. This isn't a partisan issue!

I'm so sick of partisan issues I could tear my hair out - that's one of the chief reasons I became an independent, and am a fervent supporter of Senator Hagel. He continually promotes bipartisan cooperation and tolerance. He is speaking out against this madness. I can't imagine how the rest of you can keep quiet!

While the House and the Senate argue 'partisan politics,' these men and women are being abused - literally abused - for their country. I thought things were bad during the Vietnam war (I grew up during that war, and it has affected me - through the vets I have known - ever since I was four years old and my best friend lost his father over there.) This is just... unfathomable. Please make this stop.

If we don't have the troops to occupy Iraq, we have to get out. This is obvious. This is logic. This is called 'the writing on the wall.' I really don't care how embarrassing it is to this administration. Or how much money the independent contractors are making over there, and how much lobbying influence they have in the White House, the House and the Senate (yes, I'm cynical -- but shouldn't I be? Really, shouldn't I be?)

This is flat out wrong, and as an American citizen I am now well beyond outraged. I'm ready to get into my car and drive to Washington, and stand on the steps of the Capitol building with an American flag... to remind you that this isn't a banana republic, this is the United States of America, formerly the greatest democracy in history.

Unfortunately, I don't think even millions of people on the Capitol steps with flags would break this Congress out of its partisan deadlock. Apparently Chuck Hagel telling you all to consider 'selling shoes' didn't get your attention. I can't decide who I am angrier with - the president for his abuse of power... or all of you for allowing it to continue. The elephant in the middle of the room is starting to knock down the walls... can you see it now?

How on earth... are we going to catch Bin Laden if we have no army? We continually hurl them on the rocks of Iraq, in a losing war. Yes, we are wasting them!! This is no 'war on terror.' This is suicide. This is madness. (We are still looking for Bin Laden... aren't we?)

And what about just plain old ethics? What about honor? Do these concepts even exist in Washington anymore?

Ethics. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about who we are as a people, as a country, as a democracy. Sending injured troops back into Iraq is wrong! The abandonment of New Orleans was wrong. Secret camps and torturing prisoners - and denying them Geneva rights - wrong wrong wrong. Spying on American citizens is wrong.

When will you representatives of the people join together - yes, across party lines and in the face of the lobbyists - and end this national nightmare?

I am baffled as to why you are allowing this to continue on your watch. Impeachment charges were brought against Clinton for lying about sex, and against Nixon for being paranoid (basically, and yes he broke laws too, like Bush and Cheney.) And yet... this president is getting a free ride to blast away at our rules of law, our ethical standards, our reputation as a nation and a democracy - even our Constitution. This trumps anything Nixon could have dreamed up. And it is far from over. Bush and Cheney won't even take nukes 'off the table.' They reserve the right to attack Iran without warning, and without permission from Congress. This administration scares me to death.

As I've said before, I believe you are an honorable man. There comes a time when honorable men speak out. Lincoln, who I greatly admire, said "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." I would follow Senator Hagel anywhere, because he is doing his job. Please stand with him. We need you. These troops need you. Take back your powers of oversight, sir. Your country needs you.