LA Times endorses Obama

From their editorial:

It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.

Whither Bin Laden?

New York Times Editorial:

According to members of Congress, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is preparing to give the F.B.I. broad new authority to investigate Americans — without any clear basis for suspicion that they are committing a crime.

Well here we go again. Enemy us.

I'm sorry, but Mr. President... if you are going to persist in attacking the American people - who have done you no harm (some of them even voted for you) - at every turn, I'm afraid it is time to pose that creepy question again: the one you keep hoping no one will ask.

Where is Bin Laden? Why aren't you chasing him down?

If Bin Laden was the guy who masterminded the September 11th attacks... then why aren't you chasing him to the furthest corners of the earth? You did a nice job of laying waste to Iraq. Bin Laden wasn't there - has apparently never been there.

Iraq didn't attack us. Bin Laden did.

What about Bin Laden?

If Bin Laden was the man who planned 9/11, why did you fly his family out of the country the very next day? (Yes, we heard about that one plane that was allowed into the air.)

If Bin Laden is the man behind the worst day in American history - and sure, I know the Bin Ladens are Bush family friends, so its a little uncomfortable for you - shouldn't he figure somewhere into your 'keeping America safe' master plan?

Why won't you hunt him down? Why do you hunt the American people instead?

Because the Bin Ladens are family friends... and we aren't? Because you are afraid we may eventually start to notice that you're never chasing Bin Laden, and start to wonder why?

Is that why you're eavesdropping on our every word?

I'm sorry, but like many people, I'm starting to really wonder about you. You're even more paranoid than Nixon. And Nixon was one wildly paranoid guy.

And like most Americans, I keep waiting.

I remember it like it was yesterday: you promised - with a bullhorn - that you would "catch the man who knocked down those walls."

I guess we'll be waiting forever.

Under surveillance.

NY Times Editorial: "Just what the Founders Feared"

In an excellent editorial in the New York Times, Adam Cohen lays out my favorite argument for impeachment: the unitary, 'monarchical' presidency and the dangers it poses to our democracy:

"Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

And as James Madison himself once warned, war is the obvious tool for any president intent on gaining excessive powers that would never be allowed in peacetime:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. - James Madison

We have certainly noticed how Mr Bush uses 'the war', 'national security' and 'executive privilege' as excuses for obstructing any congressional oversight. If there were no war, he would have no basis at all for any of these claims... and even with the war, his basis is extremely weak.

Cohen goes on to remind us that:

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

The biggest power invested in Congress, is the power to cut off funding for a war that is not in the best interests of the nation. This is one of the gravest, most critical roles of Congress in wartime. And one that Congress absolutely must uphold:

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting “in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”

The Tillman case is but one example: how on earth can Bush claim 'executive privilege' for failing to disclose information about the death of former Cardinals football player Pat Tillman by friendly fire? Will this information somehow 'embolden' an already emboldened enemy?

Please.

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Attacks on the Constitution are not to be allowed, if we are to remain a free people living in a free democracy.

If we cannot end this war, then we must reign in this executive branch that continues to promote this war for it's own self interest. If the war continues unabated... if Congress refuses to use the 'power of the purse,' we stand to lose not just our army, our 'treasure,' and our status in the world -- but likely our democracy as well.

Our founders predicted this. The knew all of this from firsthand experience with a tyrannical monarch, and they wrote everything down as a warning for future generations, and built our Constitution around it. Alas, if only we would look back to our very own history for guidance. It's all there: in their words, and in our laws.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. - James Madison

NY Times (finally) calls for US to leave Iraq

Better late than never (welcome to the rest of the country; anti-war sentiments already in progress - but we saved you a seat.)

Great editorial, so I suppose its worth the wait.

Not that it will do any good, seeing as contractors outnumber our troops (and of course, it IS about that $$ gravy train, along with the oil bill, right?) Bush has no intention of getting our troops out of Iraq; he will need legions to defend that gigantic palace he is building (I've heard it referred to as the 'Colossus of Baghdad.' Yes, 4 billion dollars of our money into this disaster, and he's building the world's largest embassy - but somehow can't rebuild New Orleans.)

At any rate: Bush doesn't plan to get our army out of Iraq, no siree. The money is great, and that oil bill for ExxonMobile and Chevron isn't yet signed on the dotted line.

(That, and Dick didn't give him permission. Dick still plans to use Iraq as the launching pad for his attack on Iran.)

But lest I seem like I'm complaining - hey, NY Times - nice to have you along. We've been hoping the media would show up eventually.

It was kind of useful to have you guys around during Vietnam and Watergate (which is why I went to journalism school in the first place; I wanted to be one of those 'heroes with a typewriter' that helped change the world and kept democracy safe... once upon a time. Who knew journalism would be dead by the time I graduated?)

So without further ado... I give you... the New York Times Editorial! The Road Home:

Like many Americans, (the 28%?) we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. (Suckers!) When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. (So you noticed that too?) It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

Senator Reid! Apparently, you were right after all - the war is lost!

Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda. (Right next to impeachment; and over 50% of us want that, and it's hardly partisan... but I suppose it will be another 6 months or so before you catch up with us on that one too.)

more...

Mr President: Tear down that wall

The New York Times wrote an excellent editorial today (showing that at least a few people in the 'news' department remember how this democracy thing was supposed to have worked out.)

I was torn in naming this blog post. My inclination was to call it 'bullshit democracy;' but democracy is never 'bullshit...' not when it's really working. No; it only seems that way under this horrific, lawless administration.

How to rescue democracy from a hostile takeover? Well, good question, and one we seem to be asking ourselves endlessly these days. New York Times - have at it:

Presidential Stone Walls
The New York Times | Editorial

Sunday 17 June 2007

The template for the Bush administration's mania for secrecy was signed by the president six years ago - Executive Order 13233, reversing the presumption of right of public access to presidential papers. This basic right of taxpayers and historians alike was embedded in the 1978 laws enacted after the Nixon administration. The reforms established a reasonable 12-year waiting period for access. But Mr. Bush's reversal lets presidents or vice presidents (guess who?) keep their records sealed in perpetuity unless they or their heirs approve access.

Translation: their crimes are so epic and unconscionable, that if we as a nation ever find out what they've really been doing, behind closed doors the past 7 (soon 8) years, we will run their heirs out of town, tarred and feathered on a rail.

Fortunately, Congress is in the process of demonstrating that such hermetic devotion to secrecy has no place in a democracy. Mr. Bush's order would be rescinded by a proposal approved overwhelmingly in the House in March and now making its way to passage in the Senate. The White House, of course, is vowing to veto any final bill. So it is important that the Senate re-establish the public's obvious right to historical transparency with the same veto-proof support achieved in the House.

Which begs the question: will anyone on the GOP aisle of the Senate have the, um... 'courage' to vote on the behalf of the nation? Or are too many of them now complicit (and thus doomed to 'loyal Bushiehood' for life) to over-rule this illegal and undemocratic 'executive order?'

Otherwise, Mr. Bush's dictum will stand, with no explanation required for denying requests, nor any appeal allowed. The executive order leaves a costly, lengthy lawsuit as Americans' only avenue of possible redress.

You must be joking? We the American people would have to then sue our own government to find out what this president has been doing behind our backs the past 7 years? Really?

Surely we can overturn this in the next administration... oh I get it. Why would any future president overturn this freebie 'get out of history' free card if they weren't forced to be accountable to it? That would require... some sort of actual moral character and devotion to democracy.

So we are already assuming that we can't elect anyone - from either party - with enough of an ethical center that they would overturn this for the better interests of democracy. You're implying there aren't any Eisenhowers left in the bottle. Certainly no Lincolns, Jeffersons or Roosevelts.

Well that's certainly depressing.

Hiding secrets and embarrassments may be a predictable part of a politician's instinct for survival. But attempting to enshrine this instinct timelessly is a stain on the Constitution and an insult to history. The administration insists that only 64 of more than two million pages have been sealed thus far. They would be a good place to start reading once Congress re-establishes the public's right to know.

You're talking to the Senate... right? Because the House can undoubtedly pass this. The Senate seems to be our greatest stumbling block in our attempt to restore democracy.

Oh, I can imagine the same brave 'magic 7' stepping forward once again to shame the other members of their Bush-enabling party. But I have yet to see enough GOP Senators vote with any demonstration of non-partisan conscience to actually over-ride a veto on behalf of our constitutional rights as American citizens. They say they don't approve of Bush, but in the end, they give him whatever he wants and an order of fries on the side.

Mr Lugar. I'm watching you. One of these days you're really going to have to vote your conscience, if you expect me to believe that you actually have one. I know you know the difference between right and wrong: you used to be a minister. This isn't rocket science. If you have the moral character... vote it. Please.