Those who voted no

Just say no.

Ron Paul was one of only two Republicans in the House to vote against the war. Yes, officially this was a vote to provide the 'war funding' without deadlines or consequences attached.

Senator Hillary was smart enough to know she should vote against the funding bill, and from what I have heard, Obama voted against it at the very last moment (once he knew it would pass? That is what I have heard, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.)

Congressman Dennis Kucinich - of course - voted against the blank check, and a few other Democratic Senators voted against: Leahy, Feingold (of course,) Kerry and Kennedy. Representatives Barbara Boxer and Jerry McNerney also voted nay - I know without looking, because they sent out emails expressing their dismay at the outcome.

Tough (GOP) guys don't cry

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John Boehner wept openly on the House floor, asking when America was going to 'make the killers of the 3000 9/11 victims accountable for their crimes.'

Well, sir that is a good question. Because you see, the actual terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq - and are all dead. The man who took credit for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Osama Bin Laden, is apparently in Pakistan - not Iraq.

So you have a valid point... sort of. Whither Bin Laden? Are we even looking for him? Of course, he is much more useful to Bush alive than dead; he makes a terrific and very convenient boogyman with which to scare the American populace.

Mr. Boehner, sir: everyone knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The only people who don't understand this after years of bungled warfare, are the people who persist in watching Fox News. Perhaps you are one of them, and you really don't have any idea what you are talking (or crying) about. This honestly wouldn't surprise me.

If your tears are in earnest, and you really do want justice... try looking for Bin Laden. Try talking to the Pakistani government. Of course, you can't take their oil, so why would you bother? If you aren't seriously looking for Bin Laden - don't talk to us about 9/11 victims. That is Giuliani's shameless territory.

Don't need no more lies.

Read it and weep

Full tally of yesterday's vote:

House vote

Senate vote

Representative Julia Carson was the lone hero from Indiana - in either the House or the Senate. We're not terribly surprised. I called her office and thanked her.

The problem with the email scandal

Something is really bothering me. Its the whole 'Karl's emails were deleted' issue.

First of all, in this day and age, emails can't just 'be deleted'; they can be restored from just about any failed hard drive, and exist in many forms and in many places throughout the internet and on recipients' computers.

So... if every one of Karl's emails are truly gone, there must have been a concerted effort to destroy those emails - a very comprehensive operation which would undoubtedly have involved the NSA, because they apparently keep everything. The sheer volume of missing emails implies that they have done just that.

"You can't erase e-mails, not today," Leahy said in an angry speech on the Senate floor. "They've gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there -- they just don't want to produce them. It's like the infamous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes."

Jawohl. So many crimes to hide... no doubt.

But that isn't even the part of the story that is eating at me right now.

Its the 'secret room' at AT&T; the fact that the rest of us great unwashed have to put up with the government nosing into every single detail of our personal lives - illegally - and storing every email (seemingly forever) on some government, or worse, subcontractors' database.

We took no public oath of disclosure, but everything we write is being read and saved somewhere by people we have never even met. Our crime? We are Americans, and apparently there are those within our government who are afraid of us. The mastermind? Well that's exactly the point I now speculate. Who could possibly slip this net, if not the very guy holding the net? Unless of course he is simply lying -- a very real possibility, because like most people in the George W. Bush White House, he wouldn't know the truth if it bit him. Truth is something to be invented for partisan gain.

Think about it. According to the White House, Karl Rove can actually still lose email. The rest of us can't. Who is he - Joseph Goebbels? Is he the mastermind behind this 'spy on all Americans' scheme? Does the NSA work for him? Else... wouldn't the NSA simply supply Karl's emails from their massive electronic archive?

And what of AT&T? Don't Karl's emails go through that same 'secret room' that siphons off the rest of our emails? Did Karl get a pass from AT&T as well? Or was this entire (illegal) plan his idea in the first place?

And what does that really indicate about our Executive Branch and their partisan plan for outright dictatorship? What is in Karl's emails that would warrant this much concerted effort to destroy them?

If they can't find Karl's emails when they undoubtedly have all of mine - and believe me, I'm an absolute nobody in Indiana - we have a real Constitutional crisis on our hands. But then again, we already knew that.

Subpoena them all, then hold Karl Goebbels in contempt for obstruction of justice if he can't produce. If he can produce them when faced with jail time - he's lying to us again. Business as usual.

The answer to this question - whether he can or can't produce them - will tell us more than the contents of the emails themselves. If he can't produce emails in this day and age, a very real and pervasive cover-up is in effect... obstruction of justice.

Surely that at least is impeachable. Surely you can throw a 'public servant' in jail for that.

Doesn't that Monica Lewinsky thing look more and more ludicrous by the day?

Bring out the Subpoenas

Speaking justice to power

Dear Mr President:

I have to ask, although I'm sure you won't tell... why the continued secrecy if you haven't broken any laws? You say - and warn that this is the best deal you will make - that you will allow your minions to speak only in a secret, un-taped meeting, and only before the Judiciary Committee, and only if they don't have to take an oath. The American people be damned... right sir?

“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants,” the president told reporters in a brief and hastily convened appearance in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House.

We have no reason to love Alberto Gonzales - he has systematically attacked our rule of law and has been dismantling our Bill of Rights ever since you took office. I'm sure you know this, sir.

You accuse the Senate Judiciary Committee of conducting a partisan witch hunt as they attempt to investigate the obviously partisan firings of well reviewed prosecutors in the middle of their terms - on the basis of their loyalty to you, and only you. At least one prosecutor was in the middle of a high profile case of Republican corruption. I can see why this was distasteful to you.

This is an issue of law sir - not of partisanship. I know that this may be an alien concept to you. Law... not partisanship. As an Independent - not a Democrat - I must protest your obsession with all things partisan. I, for one, would like to know what is going on. What about country, sir? What about America? What about truth, law and justice? This is not the United States of Republican... not yet.

Scott Lilly, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote:

It is clear that of the four administrations that controlled the executive branch of government during the past quarter-century, only the current administration has held the view that U.S. Attorney can or should be removed absent serious cause. In no instance is there any indication of a removal because a U.S. attorney failed to meet certain political criteria, such as prosecuting cases that were considered too sensitive to partisan issues or failing to prosecute cases that would be helpful from a partisan perspective.

The innovative philosophy of the current Bush administration with respect to the service of U.S. Attorneys is worthy of the attention it is now receiving. Those eight forced resignations threaten the very basis of our justice system-to quote the words written above the pillars on the west front of the Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law."

Really sir - do you expect anyone to believe any testimony not given under oath? Do you expect us to believe, that this time - out of the blue - no one will lie to us, and justice will be served?

When was the last time anyone in your administration actually told the truth? You lied about the war, you lied about domestic spying... you lied about the levees, about torture, and the Patriot act. And you lied about these prosecutor firings when you said they were not 'politically motivated' (the emails have already shown that they indeed were.) No wonder you don't want Rove and Miers to be sworn in. As long as they are never under oath, they can lie their way right out of everything. Business as usual - right Mr President?

But what am I saying... if you have your way, we'll never hear a word of this 'oath-free' testimony anyway. You'd like to cut the American people completely out of this process, keep the entire thing a secret from us. 'For the Senate Judiciary ears only'. Mr President... where's the love?

As I recall, you loved us once... but that was when you courted our votes. As soon as you assumed the throne, you systematically undermined our Constitutional protections, hacked away at our Federal programs by cutting education (all children left behind) and Medicare, slashed all manner of other Federal programs for the poor and middle class while giving tax breaks to the richest of the rich, and putting corporate cronies in charge of all our watchdog agencies. You kicked us in the teeth.

It really is all about loyalty with you, isn't it sir? By the time you were sworn in, in 2001, we had already broken your holiest of cardinal rules. The majority of the American people did not vote for you. As we had already proven our disloyalty, you saw no need to serve and protect our rights as citizens or obey our rule of law. And thus, your vendetta against the American people began in earnest.

You are right, of course - we were disloyal. To you. But never to our Constitution. Never to our country. So why are you spying on us without any court orders? Is it any wonder we now believe that 'we' have been your real enemy all along? The proof is in the pudding, sir.

Absolutely - by your standards - we should be sacked, not your loyal sidekick Alberto Gonzales. And yet... it is not so easy to sack the citizens of the United States of America. In reality sir, you report to us. As Mr Lincoln so eloquently put it, "The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Did no one mention that to you when you were sworn in?

Congress represents the people, as stated in the Constitution (no wonder you've been trying to dismantle it.) The Senate Judiciary is working on our behalf when they investigate these partisan firings - they aren't doing this for their own, Democratic revenge or entertainment. And as their employers, we demand our own oversight in this process. We demand a public record. We have the right to know that no one in your administration is lying this time. This means they must testify under oath, and on the record. I'm sorry sir - I am afraid we must insist on this. Because you see, fool us once... shame on you...

Democracies are a real drag, aren't they sir? Its a wonder you keep trying to install one in Iraq - what you really want (both here and there) is a dictatorship. You have told us, time and time again, that you don't care what we think about your war, your decisions, your ethics or your choices of minions. You also don't care what we think about our rule of law. You forget one very important point, Mr. President: our democracy is built upon this rule of law. We will fight to keep it, sir.

By the way - this strange new activity you are seeing in the Senate? This sir is called oversight. I know it has been so long since any of us have seen it, that we're all shocked and awed. In your formerly, Republican-controlled Senate, everything you wanted was handed to you on a platter - when you bothered to consult with them at all. I'm sure that is how you think the Senate should operate - at the (what is that phrase? At the 'pleasure of the President?')

We respectfully insist that this time, sir, everyone will be serving at our pleasure. Oversight belongs to the people, sir. Yes - the great unwashed... the 95% to whom you didn't give tax breaks, the 95% you have been watching with distrust, spying on and lying to.

This gig is up. We're fed up with the lies, the corruption and your administration's blatant distain for the law. We want the truth. No president is above the law. Just ask Richard Nixon.

Respectfully yours,

Citizen Maire

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.