Unsilent Witness

I wasn't gonna do anything today but eat popcorn and watch the Abu G show on C-Span3. Really. But the extended break and scattered nature of the hearings were taking a lot of air out of my interest, so I went wandering around the internets looking for different takes on the morning's festivities.

I found something unrelated (well, specifically unrelated) to the mess at the DoJ, but the similarites are glaring in general terms, namely extralegal edicts issued by a recently appointed, politically-oriented administrator designed to obscure truth and stymie oversight.

The Pentagon is going to "unprecedented" lengths (free registration) to keep the truth from Congress:
As of April 19, 2007, no members of the military who are not:

Bush appointees

At least at the rank of colonel

can provide information to members of Congress, either in hearings or in personal briefings.
I came across this at TPM Muckraker, via the Boston Globe. Here's the lede:

The Pentagon has placed unprecedented restrictions on who can testify before Congress, reserving the right to bar lower-ranking officers, enlisted soldiers, and career bureaucrats from appearing before oversight committees or having their remarks transcribed, according to Defense Department documents.

Oh, yeah - no transcripts. Wouldn't want anybody in Congress to check out the lies that will be told by the ~~preapproved administration spokesbots~~ military brass who have been cleared to talk to them.

Is anyone else seeing the same kind of crap going on at DoJ here?
Because there's more. Lots more:

"(the new guidelines)add(s) that all field-level officers and enlisted personnel must be "deemed appropriate" by the Department of Defense before they can participate in personal briefings for members of Congress or their staffs; in addition, according to the memo, the proceedings must not be recorded.
Wilkie's memo also stipulated that any officers who are allowed to testify must be accompanied by an official from the administration, such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his top-level aides."

"Deemed appropriate"? So either Congress has been doing things like quizzing the Pentagon janitorial staff on national security, or Bushco has an interest in keeping the truth from congress. Pick one.
And anyone who does go before congress, or even talks to a representative, has to have a minder there to prevent unauthorized facts from being divulged. Cue the Faux outrage that congress keeps hampering the war effort by making SecDef Gates go to the Hill for every appearance by every soldier before every committee. Pretty damn good obstruction tactic, eh?
This cannot have any motivation other than obstruction of proper congressional oversight. Even a few ~~troglodytes~~ Republicans smell a ~~Rove~~ rat here;

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress see the move as a blatant attempt to bog down investigations of the war. But veterans of the legislative process -- who say they have never heard of such guidelines before -- maintain that the Pentagon has no authority to set such ground rules.

The article goes on to say that, according to NYU law professor David Golove, there is "no legal basis" for these guidelines whatsoever. It also says that the subpoena power of Congress supercedes any guidelines a Bush stoolie might write up.

Another one of Bushco's Hail Mary passes. They have no legal standing to do this AT ALL, but they do it anyway, with the aim of running out the clock in court. The avenue of forcing congresscritters into issuing subpoenas for everything gives the RWNM its propaganda point of Dems going subpoena-crazy, too.

Oh, yeah, about that Bush stoolie, aka Robert Wilkie:
Let's see, he was an Army brat...used to be Counsel to Jesse Helms (no word on any involvement in the late Senator's interracial paternity troubles), as well as Counsel to Senator Trent Lott. His neocon credentials looked impeccable enough for him to rise to the level of Senior Director of the National Security Council in 2003. We know how objective and sober that group was in 2003. One of his big responsibilities between 2003 and 2005 - Iraq Reconstruction.

Heckuva job, Wilkie.
They'll be getting the lights on any day now.

So of course he got another promotion, this time to Assistant Secretary of Defense for legislative affairs. Except, in Bushworld, "legislative affairs" doesn't mean what it means. It means keeping (a Democratic) Congress out of the loop. Ham-handed tactics preferred, as always.

"Wilkie was also the "principal staffer and editor of the national security section of the 2000 Republican Party Presidential Platform," according to his official biography. Wilkie is currently responsible for providing "guidance for centralized direction, integration, and control of DoD legislative affairs and liaison activities with the US Congress," according to a September 2006 Pentagon job description. "

"Centralized...control...congress". Sounds, at a glance, like the idea is to facilitate communication with Congress, who, after all, must supply the money for all our grand and glorious Pentagon field trips around the world. Except that Bobby's only been on the job since Sept. 30, 2006, and this is the first time we hear from him - writing guidelines that are specifically designed to gag anyone in the military who might say something unapproved by the Commander Guy.
That is a purely political act, a purely political policy, put in by a purely politically-driven water boy who was approved by the Republicans just last fall.
Can anybody find one dram of support for the troops or furthering of the Great War Effort in this policy?
Anyone?
Goldberg?

"Several congressional officials accused him (Wilkie) of attempting to muzzle the military's lower ranks, which are more likely to give Congress an unvarnished opinion compared with the top-level Pentagon brass, who typically seek to further the Bush administration's policies."

DUH. You won't be surprised to learn that Wilkie declined to be interviewed for the Globe article.

There has already been fallout from this unprecedented, legally bogus, obstructionist policy. Mere days after Wilkie wrote up his memo, DoD lawyers interrupted a congressional hearing on the status of training Iraqi troops to forbid three Army officers from giving their testimony. Objecting to the standard practice of recording committee meetings, the DoD lawyers and the testifying officers "stormed out of the room".
Result - information needed by lawmakers to assess the readiness level of Iraqi troops (remember Standup Standdown?) was thwarted, as was any ability to assess the administration's claims of wild success and billions of Iraqi troops anxious to kill Al Qaeda for us.

Mission Accomplished.

As the "pet food recall" blossoms into yet another mushroom cloud of "incompetence" and "nobody coulda known", I think it's important to point out a few things that came up on "The Google" when my rusty memory was tweaked regarding the recent history of the FDA.

Sure enough- it's another tale of cronyism and politics undermining the true work of government to keep it's citizens safe. I have no idea if this is being investigated by anyone in an official capacity, but it sure needs it.This time it's the drug companies. And of course the Bush White House.
Almost makes you wonder if one of them has an antidote to melamine poisoning in the pipeline.

I found this letter to president Bush from a group of 118 drug company CEO's called the Biotechnology Industry Organization dated May 21, 2002

"We, the undersigned biotechnology company CEOs, are writing to ask that you nominate, as soon as possible, an individual to become the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We commend your appointment of Lester M. Crawford Jr., D.V.M., Ph.D., to the position of deputy commissioner. The time has come to take the next step and name an FDA commissioner. We cannot stress enough the importance of filling this position. [snip]
A new commissioner must reverse the trend of increased review times, demonstrate to Congress the need for additional appropriations, lead on bioterrorism issues, and insist on quick action to extend the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
The ideal candidate would possess the qualifications listed above, and perhaps current or past industry experiences as well. "

OK, let's just call these BushCo's marching orders for the sake of argument. After all, why else would the heads of 118 different drug companies get together to describe the ideal candidate to head up the federal agency that oversees their products? (my favorite is the "current industry experience" - wink, wink) The points in the above letter bear some examination unless you're a neocon, so here we go;

We need a new commissioner. It's an important agency.

Lester Crawford (the veterinarian) is just the guy.

Review times for new drugs are increasing.

FDA needs a bigger budget.

Terra terra terra.

Save the PDUFA.

I'm inclined to agree with #1. It's a job somebody qualified should fill, otherwise you might end up with a drug like Vioxx getting out there ...
But #2, not so much. After his time as "acting" director, Crawford was passed over for the job while Mark McClellan ran the agency from November 2002 until March 2004. McClellan, now where have I heard that name before... Yup, he's Scotty's brother!! And according to Newsweek, he has politics in his blood. It also appears he can't hold a job. Since his temping as head of the FDA, Marky has temped as Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Now he temps at the Brookings institute and (drumroll, please) The American Enterprise Institute. Another heckuva fall upward, eh?

Sounding AT ALL familiar yet? Because it continues.
We'll come back to the reign of Lester Crawford shortly.
But let's take a look at that assertion about the "trend of increased review times" shall we?

This is from an excellent report from a group called the George Washington University Medical Center Rapid Public Health Policy Response Project (Read the whole report, if you want to really understand what's gone wrong with the FDA as an institution.):

"Evidence suggests that FDA has met its primary PDUFA goal of speeding the review of new products, primarily by increasing the size of the review staff. Median review time for standard new drugs was 27 months in 1993, 14 months in 2001 and 10.5 months in 2004.
Similarly, the median review time for priority drugs—those for serious and life-threatening diseases that lack satisfactory treatments—was 21 months in 1993 and six months in 2004."

OK, so that line asserting increasing review times is just a big fat lie. Under Clinton, drug review times were almost cut in half. Priority drugs cut the review time by more than two thirds. That wasn't good enough, apparently. Pfizer execs were seen starving in the streets all last year. {sigh}
On the bright side, the drug companies felt they had to lie to Bush at least a little bit. Worth noting, too, is that the report says the main goal of PDUFA was speeding up approval of new drugs so the profits could flow faster. Money well spent, I'm sure. Just like the campaign donations.
So if the PDUFA funds 42.5% of the human drug program at the FDA, and over half of the drug review budget, why is it so critical to increase the Congressionally appropriated FDA budget, as the BIO group insists??
From GWU's Rapid Response Project:

"In order to collect and spend user fees, PDUFA requires the FDA to dedicate a certain level of appropriated federal dollars to the drug review process. Most of that pays for salaries, since more than 80 percent of the FDA’s total budget supports the agency’s workforce. To meet its commitment to timely drug reviews, the FDA has shifted staff away from other activities, especially research, training and field inspections, and kept staff positions, including those of medical officers and statisticians, vacant when they become open. The result has been a rather dramatic redistribution of personnel within the agency."

Oh, I see. Still not fast enough. I mean, if you can't get Botox approved the same day you think it up, then the terrorists win. Of course, shifting personnel away from their normal duties like FOOD INSPECTIONS just might have a consequence down the road somewhere, but hey, have you seen the stock price??

From the same report:
"Four former FDA Commissioners, [who] spoke at a February 2007 policy workshop at The George Washington University. Frank Young, MD, PhD, commissioner from 1984 to 1989, said early proposals for user fee legislation reflected "a moment of desperation. No one really wanted to go this route." At the workshop, Young asked his colleagues, "Given a choice of having PDUFA or an appropriation of equal amount, which would you take?" The other commissioners spoke with a single voice. "Appropriations," said David A. Kessler, MD, JD, whose tenure from 1990 to 1997 coincided with the enactment of the first PDUFA law. "No question."
Institute of Medicine report, which stated, "Congressional appropriations from general tax revenue are a mechanism by which the public can directly, fairly and effectively invest in the FDA’s postmarket drug safety activities."
Consumer groups, which issued statements as part of a public meeting held Feb. 16, 2007 to gather stakeholder views on PDUFA IV recommendations. The Consumers Union, the National Research Center for Women and Families and the Center for Medical Consumers all expressed a preference for full FDA funding through federal appropriations.
Twenty-two experts in drug safety and regulatory issues, who signed an open letter to Congress calling for full FDA funding through appropriations and a reauthorization of PDUFA only long enough to reform the current system. Signatories included three former editors-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, four members of the IOM drug safety committee, and six former senior HHS and FDA officials. "

OK, so the drug company CEO's just love the PDUFA, all the former FDA heads, the Institute of Medicine, all the consumer groups (aka "the people") and the career professionals hate it.
Hmmm. Sounding a little more familiar?
We've got a situation where a federal agency is in turmoil and has to deal with emerging crises with diminished personnel, poor leadership, and agency focus on business interests, not the public good.
Does that remind anyone else of FEMA?

Well, another common thread with the Bush Crime Family is, well, criminal behavior, so how about that Les Crawford guy the CEO's like so much?

From Vitabeat:

"Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner, Dr. Lester Crawford, has resigned, after repeated claims that he allowed his agency to "play politics" with drug approvals, and oversaw some very high profile drug safety recalls. The White House quickly named Andrew von Eschenbach, the director of the National Cancer Institute, as acting FDA commissioner."

Oh, well, playing politics with the public health, and even though Vioxx et al slipped through, where's the crime in that?
From Wikipedia:

"On October 17, 2006, [Crawford] pleaded guilty "to conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating." "

Well, whattaya know.
Another Bush mole put in to serve the patrons and he can't keep his fuckin' mitts out of the till.
Jesus jumped up Christ. And this guy was given two shots at running the FDA. Does Bush know anyone who isn't a crook?
I'm sure after that embarassment the new guy will reflect lessons learned, right?

From Public Citizen:

"If confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach will become yet another Bush appointee whose main reason for being selected is that he is a family friend, someone who has been warmly embraced by the regulated industries – especially the pharmaceutical industry – and someone who has been and will continue to be loyal to the White House agenda. Von Eschenbach continues to exhibit extraordinarily bad judgment, a lack of being in touch with reality and insensitivity to the hopes and fears of other cancer patients and their friends and families, as evidenced by his oft-stated "plan" to eliminate the suffering and death from cancer by 2015. Eradicating cancer within 10 years is not realisitic, and by making this statement, von Eschenbach is cruelly raising people’s hopes.
He is a very poor choice to head this critical agency, and his nomination must be defeated. Otherwise, the FDA will be further weakened and the public health further damaged by someone who is so unqualified."

Well, turns out Andy is a crony. What a shock. And according to this piece, delusional.
Now, I haven't turned over any rocks regarding von Eschenbach, but it's likely because I haven't tried. Let's just review here and see if we can't find a pattern.

Congress enacts PDUFA. Drug companies are financing safety reviews of their products, and review times go down dramatically. "Nobody could have imagined" that that might mean a reduction in the quality of these reviews, and that public health, the central function of this agency, would be seriously compromised.

Enter Bush, owing big favors to Big Pharma.

Big pharma whines about nonexistent bottleneck. Vioxx recall hasn't happened yet, so in spite of the reduction in review times over the preceding 8 years, they want their place at the neocon trough, and push for faster testing.

Bush, in an effort to do his masters' bidding, puts corrupt toad in the driver's seat, replaces him with a crony toad, then reinstates toad #1 when toad #2 gets an even bigger federal dept to screw up.

Both toads oversee escalating shift of manpower and resources from oversight of food safety to drug approval, and show zero committment to the agency by treating it as an ATM (in Crawford's case) and a resume item (McClellan).

Vioxx and other recalls, and the idiotic Plan B pill morality play, both direct results of Republican and Bush policies, use up remaining resources of slavedriven FDA, which has now become Rubber Stamp Drug Approval Central.

Weird stuff starts getting into the US human food supply, foodstuffs from spinach to peanut butter are "tainted" more often than I can ever remember, and the first response of the FDA is "Don't worry".

Just Like FEMA
Just Like the Department of Justice
Just like the GSA, and the Forest Service, and NASA, and the FCC, and the Department of Education, and the National Weather service...
Just like Iraq.
Nothing is untouchable. Nothing is nonpolitical. Nothing is sacred, and nothing is safe.
Every organ of government has been simultaneously treated as a trough for the connected and a tool of the vaunted permanent Republican Majority. The damage to each of them won't even be full known until they each break down, one by one.
As did FEMA, as did the DoJ, so did the FDA.
This is NOT "incompetence". It is negligence.
It is the direct result of misusing another government agency charged with protecting the public good for narrow political ends.
And "nobody could have known" (which I've heard here) is bullshit, too. If the FDA were headed and run as an organization dedicated to public health, and not a political payback machine, the chances are far higher that:
a) somebody might have been assigned to check up on China's food additives more often than their DVD piracy, and
b) somebody might have noticed the sick animals sooner, and
c) A full statement and action plan would have happened much sooner.

This is Republican governance.
This is what they mean when they promise to cut your taxes.
Can we please, please, PLEASE impeach this cancer?
Now it is on the verge of literally killing us in our homes.

OK, all you undecideds, listen up.
The World Series is over, and maybe you can pay a little attention to another national pastime, the upcoming midterm national elections.
What? Oh. The NBA is in preseason, hockey is back, and of course, it's football season.
Right.
So let me put this in terms you can understand.
America's team is in real trouble, and you can help them out.
Are you ready for some (political) football?
With LOTS of yummy links?

Like I said, all is not well with America's team. After the hotly contested and still mystifying 2000 draft, the whole league was predicting great success, but things began to go awry almost immediately. For starters, though there were no other teams with anything like the home team's sheer power, several, notably the Jihadis, were working on crafty plays to take advantage of our overconfidence. While the early games of the season were focused on drastically lowering the price of skyboxes and adding chemicals to the snacks, our opponents were probing weaknesses in our vaunted defensive line.
In retrospect, several other early season changes have proven costly as well. Making the second stringers practice out in the parking lot sure felt good, but the resulting injuries have hurt us in the long run. Renaming the team from the Raiders to the Patriots was confusing enough, but then changing it again to the Angels really alienated many of our fans. Perhaps the Separation of Sports principle is a sound one, after all. Replacing the marching band with a choir wasn't as inspirational to the fans as we originally thought, either. Making the cheerleaders wear business suits and blanketing the TV with them was supposed to add respectability to a playing style that has, in the past, been a bit too physical for general audiences. As it turns out, the fans want what they've always wanted from the cheerleaders - meat.
Coach Rove's play calling, so effective in past seasons, seems to be stuck in a serious rut. First there was that disastrous 8-6-01 PDB play that led to a very costly fumble, and before you know it, America's team had suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of a pathetic, rag-tag Pop Warner team that didn't even have uniforms. Instead of rethinking strategies, Coach Rove kept up his same aggressive style: run right on first, second, and third downs, then throw a Hail Mary pass on fourth down. Aside from being utterly predictable, this one-dimensional game plan resulted in an astonishing lack of yardage. The almost universal lack of experience in the first string, notably the offensive line, has proven to be another liability. Throughout the 2000 draft, and the even brighter 2002 draft, all of our acquisitions talked forcefully about knocking the other teams off the ball, off the field, and into early retirement. But as it turns out, it's helpful to have actually played before. It gives players a better sense of the discipline and training required to win games in this league. Our fortunes seemed to be looking up earlier in the season, when the league looked the other way regarding some significant changes in the rules that were designed to help the team win the games it always felt it should win. Widening the right side of the field by another 100 yards certainly aided the play-calling style of Coach Rove, and the new rule about stopping play every time quarterback Bush fumbled the snap was a big help, indeed. Because Bush's experience on the field was limited to being a cheerleader, allowing him to pick his own referees, always play offense, and spot the ball anywhere on the field were also beneficial changes.
But lady luck just doesn't seem to be on our side. There was that play where Bill Frist, a highly-touted receiver, ran out of bounds and collided with that hapless family in the Florida emergency game. Nose tackle Dick Cheney took aggression to a whole new level when he played the Texas game with a gun, (and used it on a teammate), guard Tom DeLay, safety Duke Cunningham, cornerback Bob Ney, and publicist Jack Abramoff have all been caught up in a betting scandal, to say nothing of the recent wide receiver problems, or that disastrous game at the Superdome. Now it turns out those prayer circles on the fifty yard line, such a fan favorite after games, are actually circle jerks. At this point, even the water boy is in trouble!
These events, and so many others, have finally led to a change among the fans. Where they used to come in droves and cheer wildly, even before the game, now there is a sense they come to see a ghastly spectacle, like staring at a train wreck.So what is America's team to do? Well, remember those second stringers? The ones practicing without pads out on the asphalt? They're ready to play. They're tough, they're battle hardened, and they have a game plan that is realistic and plays by the old rules, which always made for a better game.
Let's put them in!

OK, so there I am, driving through one the most godawful thunderstorms I've seen in years on my way back from a blissful two days in the mountains; dirty, tired, and (did I say blissfully?) ignorant of the news of the last few days. The pounding rain and frequent thunder make it difficult to hear the nuances in the latest Dream Theater album on the stereo, so I switch over to NPR with a little trepidation.

Seconds later I'M the one drowning out the news and the storm. Welcome back to Bushworld, I guess, where the right wing sucker punches ALWAYS go unchallenged.

Lemme explain:

As you all heard (before I did, likely), the bodies of the two soldiers kidnapped Friday were found, tortured to death. Predictably. Preventably. Pointlessly.

Like you, I choke on my outrage and revulsion for this latest inhumanity, letting only a few tears through as I negotiate a barely visible road in the downpour.
The next story is on the Senate "debate" on Iraq, and I'm treated to the repetition of Bullshit Talking Point Slogan #umpteen gazillion by Frist and at least one other wingnut, their new favorite, Cut and Run(tm).

Oooh, how that movie title slogan just eases me past my anger and outrage (and any attempt at rational thought) and makes me grab a flag. Quick, send more soldiers into the meat grinder!! America will NEVER Cut And Run!! We are winners, not losers!! These colors don't run!! Go GOP!!

Presto----Change-o. It's all about those weakling Democrats. Again. Republicans once again on their favorite home turf, bashing anybody who doesn't like the idea of the PERMANENT OCCUPATION of Iraq as a chicken.

In America, being a chicken is the ultimate sin. We have voted for criminals over "chickens" in every election where this bullshit frame came up; Nixon vs McGovern, 1972, BushI vs Dukakis, 1988, and Bush the Little vs Kerry, 2004. And here comes another election where the DLC will wonder what happened.

What happened is we got bludgeoned with a slogan and responded with "well, that might not be the most accurate portrayal of our ...(yawn)...and many of us believe that...(yawn again)..."

Democrats in Congress, a little clarity:
There IS no war in Iraq.
No, there isn't.
Wars are declared by Congress.
You never did that.
Authorization of the use of force is NOT the same thing. Look it up. (It's in the Constitution, BTW).
So stop calling it a war, you idiots.

It is an occupation.

How do you win an occupation?
You end it. You go home.
Really. Anything else is EMPIRE.

Cut and Run? After three years and three months? And no end in sight, by Dear Looter's own admission?

Uh-uh. Here's another movie title for you.

Stay Forever.

Republicans want to Stay Forever in Iraq.
Dear Looter has told us he will do whatever it takes.
Since he is lying when he says that (reinstituting the draft is a nonstarter, as is any form of economic sacrifice by the elite - another term I would like to see used by Democrats), there is only one remaining option.

Stay Forever.

That is the Republican plan for Iraq.
NOT "stay the course". That frame says we are going somewhere. It also is associated with the late great, and soon-to-be-canonized Ronnie Raygun.
REALLY bad frame choice.

Stay Forever. In the Permanent Occupation of Iraq. Coming for an endless run at a theater near you. Someday starring your first grader, or your (gasp) unborn child.

With "Cut and Run"(tm), the frame is victory vs surrender. Bravery vs chickenhood. Us vs Them.

UN.WIN.ABLE.

Stay Forever.
Democracy vs Empire.
Blood for Oil.
Quagmire.

Can the Repugs refute this frame? Only with the same lies they've always used:
Stand up/Stand down-How much has the US troop commitment shrunk since we first heard THAT slogan? NONE.
Purple Fingers - How much has the level of violence subsided since we first heard THAT slogan? NONE.
Last Throes - The fact the Darth trotted this one out again is proof positive thay have NOTHING to show for the blood, treasure, and American credibility lost in this criminal enterprise.

And to quote a repugnant, but effective political hit man, when they're explaining, you're winning.

A vote for any Republican at the national level is a vote to Stay Forever in Iraq.

Now, was that so frickin' hard?

http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov

Send 'em a note.
That's not frickin' hard, either.

For the second day in a row, the corporate media is running with the new revelations around the Bush administration's data mining adventures.

Arlen Specter, so aptly named for his tendency to vanish when the lights go on, is puffing harder than ever over this issue, and Pat Leahy, ranking Democrat, is nearly apoplectic with rage.

Bush just limboed below the magic 30% approval number.
BEFORE this story hit.

The strong feeling I got from my surfing yesterday, here and elsewhere, is that this transgression crossed a line with the American people, and for once I am inclined to believe it.

So doesn't this transform Senator Russ Feingold's censure resolution from 'fringe politics' to a no-brainer?

And why is nobody talking about it?

Like many progressives, I dutifully wrote and called my senators urging support for the Feingold censure resolution. One (the democrat!) ignored my letter, the other responded with a personal letter saying he was concerned and would wait for the "investigation" into the matter to be completed.
No doubt he knows this, but the investigation was just decapitated yesterday.
So now what?

If your senator used this excuse to avoid holding Bush accountable, he or she just lost the escape hatch.

There is no reason left for any Democratic Senator NOT to cosponsor Feingold's resolution. Likewise, Republican Senators can be forced to state their support for unchecked executive power by opposing this resolution. I wrote my senators again this morning, highlighting this specific point.

Maybe this is the subject for another rant, but here's some thoughts about the ramifications of this odious program;

What happens if somebody outside the father/protector/decider/bigbrother government gets ahold of this information? Do you think the NSA is keeping these records in a hack-proof vault somehere? (I would remind you that the other hallmark of BushCo is its systemic incompetence).
Read this story and sleep comfortably (not!!) This guy was looking for UFOs. The next guy might be looking for your identity, or when you're not at home, or when you're home alone.

Or, how about this one? Saying "hi, babe" over the phone is a coded terror message. See you in Guantanamo. That is, if they take my hood off.

Finally, some cozy thoughts. I will preface this last by saying that I do not believe for one second that this program is "limited" to analyzing calling patterns. BushCo has unfailingly lied about every aspect of this program, and is illegally blocking investigation of its own illegality. Fool me three times, I'm a fool.

The venomous wingnuts who still run to Bush's defense like to claim that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Think about what you have to hide, for a moment.

Have you ever dialed a phone sex number? Bought a little pot over the phone? Confided to a drinking buddy about how you don't remember driving home last night? Discussed a loved one's illegal activity over the phone? Cheated on your spouse and confessed to your best friend on the phone? Called in sick to work, then didn't go to the doctor? Called in a prescription you'd rather everybody didn't know about? How about those calls to your doctor discussing your medical situation? Then have you ever discussed that awful family secret (you know the one) with your trusted confidant? Come to think of it, can you vouch that no one you have spoken to via telephone since 2001 has anything to hide?

Because that makes you a target.

Everything you have said over the telephone for the last five years is known to the government. When some bored adolescent hacks into the database and publishes it on the web, you gonna have some 'splainin' to do. Or maybe sooner.

http://www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov

You know what to do. Censure is a moderate first step. Let's at least get that far with this.

crossposted from dailyKos.

I've been reading, both with bemusement and a little frustration, several of the recent diaries surrounding the proposed censure and potential impeachment of GWB. And to this Vermonter, it looks like a microcosm of the troubles of the Democratic party. Simply, if you oppose bringing impeachment or censure into the national discussion, no matter the reason, then don't complain about the Appeasement Democrats. You are one.

Because making this an election issue is the right thing to do.

Before I go any further, a little background; I'm no politico, I never had a job where even finding Washington DC on a map was necessary, never ran for office, and until 2004, had never donated money to a political campaign. But I gave my time going door to door for Robert Drinan in the seventies, was present (at the tender age of 5) when the National Guard rolled through the streets of Chicago, and have never missed a voting day since my eighteenth birthday. I was also scared shitless of Bush before he stole the Oval Office. So I'm what you might call aware, but certainly no expert.
More to the point, I have been a New Englander all my life, and a Vermonter for the last sixteen years. That helps me keep it simple. Lets me see the forest through the trees, as we say up here, while so many better heads than mine are lost in the multitude of details. Details that obscure the larger truth. Armando says it's a matter of political calculus. I never passed calculus, but I got a chainsaw. So let me get it started...
The rationales I've seen for opposing impeachment/censure discussions are as follows:
1) It will never happen with the Republican Congress.
2) It will put Cheney/Condi/Freddy Kreuger in the #1 spot.
3) It will be compared to the Clinton impeachment
4) It will mobilize the Troglodyte base
5) Bush is a lame duck, so it's moot.
6) It will backfire on the Democrats in `08
7) It's a distraction. Win the `06 election first.

These are excellent Republican talking points, folks. And like all Republican talking points, they are easily cut down, even with my little chainsaw. I'm sure you all will tell me if I've missed any.

To all of these, I offer one simple response: It's the right thing to do for America.

I knew this for sure when my Repub nemesis from college came up for a ski trip. I tried to avoid politics, but he must've seen my "Impeach" car window signs. He amazed me by agreeing, "`cuz it's the right thing for America." If the Democratic Party still cannot embrace the idea of stopping this administration's assault on its people, and force the issue with all the ferocity of the anti-Clinton Republicans, because it is the right thing for America, it truly has no courage, no message, no hope of victory in this or future "elections".
Reason #1 above would be far more accurate if it said "it will never happen with a Republican Congress that is not held accountable for their dereliction of duty over the last five years." Then I would agree. There is a solid repub majority in both houses of Congress, and the media has spun all accountability away from their total lack of oversight of a blatantly criminal administration. And this line of argument essentially says "don't rock the boat." How's that approach working for us so far? An opposition party is supposed to oppose. Does that mean offering amendments to appropriations bills that get whitewashed in Republican committees? Making bold statements in their fundraising emails to me, then running from Feingold and Conyers? No. Never did. Really doesn't in the GOP golden age of homicidal politics.
Opposing this conspiracy means spitting in the face of the traitors. It means calling them out. It's the right thing to do. Playing by the rules of public decorum and observing parliamentary good manners went out the window when the sitting vice president told my senior Senator to go fuck himself. And was lauded on Faux News for his forthrightness. I can't recall any (D) national officeholder even calling Bush a liar, much less a criminal.
But. He. Is. Make impeachment/censure an election issue.
ALL democratic candidates should issue a joint statement declaring their support for robust and timely investigations of the myriad mischief of the last five years. Focus on the discussion, not horseracing it with polls and pundits. It's a strong stand, and it's the right thing to do.
#2 is the most obvious straw man of all. Cheney is way more guilty on all counts than Bushie. And the conspiracies behind covering up the NSA business and Iraq weapons intel hits just about everybody else. Hastert would sit impotent in office until removed with the rest of the cabal at the newly scrutinized ballot box.
#3 is put forth as a negative, but is clearly a positive. Dig this: The impeachment of two presidents in a row would be a wake up call to Americans that something has gone terribly wrong in our government, in a way that affects them. Which can only serve to increase citizen awareness in politics. That has never been a bad thing for the Left. Never. Witness GOP voter suppression, swift boat, and myriad other ways the peddlers of the failed ideology of the Right have tried to pare down public involvement and awareness.
Furthermore, Clinton was never a media darling. From Hillarycare to Filegate, every manufactured "scandal" was given weight by the manure-spreaders on TV and in Congress, whereas every violation of law under this beast has been tempered with "supposed" or "some say". The media hasn't given any of this fair play, but swearing witnesses has a way of cutting through spin. I welcome the comparison. Hell, I DEMAND the comparison, and so should every American who thinks a) Clinton got shafted by the GOP's abuse of impeachment power, and/or b) Bushco deserves to be tried for these crimes.
In short, BRING IT ON, because it's the right thing to do.
#4 is another positive. By all means, trot that troglodyte base right out for everyone to see. They now represent less than one third of America, and are growing more shrill with every self-inflicted embarrassment of the GOP. This, in my view, is the best way to tie the GOP to Bushco. Put Dobson, Robertson, and Mehlman on TV 24/7 defending King George in their usual way, by smearing an ever-growing number of Americans. Hell, throw McCain and Frist on, too. Pandering to their base is NOT going to result in a groundswell of support for their criminality. That bandwagon swerved to avoid Terry Shiavo, broke down during Katrina, and got totaled by Dubai Ports World.
#5; King George is a lame duck. Yeah, a lame duck with mutated bird flu. Somebody show me how he's been stopped. They're fixin to go after Iran, fer cryin' out loud. Those fuckers are nothing if not tireless. Political hacks are STILL driving career experts out of federal agencies from the CIA to the Forest Service. Haliburton is STILL getting no-bid contracts and is immune from investigation. New Orleans is STILL waiting for help. Bushco is STILL raising the debt limit (think this was the last time? puh-leeze). Oh, and we're STILL in Iraq with no exit plan. Basically, he's STILL running amok in our country and the world, and must be stopped. It's the right thing for America.
#6; "It will backfire". Yeah. Like the BS impeachment of Clinton backfired. Or the pending impeachment of Nixon backfired. Poor GOP. After that `98 fishing expedition (after petulantly shutting down the government), how they paid for it at the polls. Sure taught them restraint, huh?...It was an early abuse of power that, unchecked, has since become SOP in the GOP. Or how about the Democrats back in `74. Too bad they stood up to Nixon. Voters punished them by electing one of only two Democratic presidents in the last thirty years. Mainly `cuz he kept it simple. Yup. It's surely political suicide to take a strong stand. Never works. Except every time it's done.
And finally, my favorite. "it's a distraction".
Without a discussion of censure and/or impeachment, none of the crimes of the GOP will enter the national discussion surrounding the `06 elections.
We will once again allow the GOP to frame the issues and maximize their smear potential. The Republican Party is the default choice of millions of Americans because it successfully lies to them. And the entire GOP power structure is involved in a conspiracy to hide vital truth from the American people. Pretending that it is not is to be complicit.
If Americans never hear the charges and the evidence, will they have any reason to doubt their electronic paperless votes have been counted correctly? Will they believe that torture is policy if they never see the evidence of its ongoing and widespread use? Will they believe 9/11 could have been prevented if there is no investigation into why the warning signs were ignored? Will they be skeptical of claims about Iran and Syria without investigation into intelligence manipulation, past and present? Will they have reason to wonder if it's their phone or email being watched, if nobody checks on the watchers? Will the further amassing and abuse of power stop at some point all on its own? Will we ever be anything but a cowed minority if we play the same strategy that has lost us three very important elections in a row?
Distraction? No. It's the focusing lens of the comeback of law and sanity.
Unrealistic? Not if you shift stategies from DLC-inspired Repub-lite to true opposition.
None of the naysayers I've read here or elsewhere can base their positions on anything other than political tea leaf reading, and recent history shows that Democrats suck at tea leaf reading. Leave the supernatural crap to the other side. We all know impeachment is the Constitutional option, the right thing to do. Hell, most of us feel it's necessary to save our country from dictatorship, but we dither. And fret. About even bringing it up. It's not exactly inspiring opposition.
Triangulation and politesse are DEAD. It didn't work with King George III or the Confederacy and it will not work against the neofascists. They made great strides powerwise by shouting and screaming about every little thing, even many made-up things. They have been so successful at it they've managed to sweep all three branches and dominate national discourse with an agenda that actually hurts the vast majority of those who tacitly support it.
We can take back power by taking it to the opposition. Adopt their tactics, not their philosophy. We have the truth and the law (what's left of it) on our side. Imagine what we can do.

We can do what's right.