The PeopleHave The Power

Over at No More Mister Nice Blog, Steve M has the news about the latest book from Laura Ingraham - "Power to the People" - noting that it's "Not exactly the title I would have chosen right now if I were a right winger".

I fell victim to an uncontrollable urge to suggest, in his comments, that a little Patti Smith would be appropriate right now -

I was dreaming in my dreaming
of an aspect bright and fair
and my sleeping it was broken
but my dream it lingered near
in the form of shining valleys
where the pure air recognized
and my senses newly opened
I awakened to the cry
that the people / have the power
to redeem / the work of fools
upon the meek / the graces shower
it's decreed / the people rule

The people have the power
The people have the power
The people have the power
The people have the power

Vengeful aspects became suspect
and bending low as if to hear
and the armies ceased advancing
because the people had their ear
and the shepherds and the soldiers
lay beneath the stars
exchanging visions
and laying arms
to waste / in the dust
in the form of / shining valleys
where the pure air / recognized
and my senses / newly opened
I awakened / to the cry

Refrain

Where there were deserts
I saw fountains
like cream the waters rise
and we strolled there together
with none to laugh or criticize
and the leopard
and the lamb
lay together truly bound
I was hoping in my hoping
to recall what I had found
I was dreaming in my dreaming
god knows / a purer view
as I surrender to my sleeping
I commit my dream to you

Refrain

The power to dream / to rule
to wrestle the world from fools
it's decreed the people rule
it's decreed the people rule
LISTEN
I believe everything we dream
can come to pass through our union
we can turn the world around
we can turn the earth's revolution
we have the power
People have the power ...

And in honor of that, we have some Monday Night Springsteen - from the "Vote for Change" concert in 2004, in Washington. This is "People Have The Power", with the E Street Band backing up not only Mr. Springsteen, but also Michael Stipe with R.E.M., Eddie Vedder with Pearl Jam, the Dixie Chicks, John Fogerty, Bonnie Raitt, Dave Matthews, Jackson Browne, James Taylor, John Mellencamp, Jurassic 5, Keb' Mo', and Kenny "Babyface" Edmonds. It's a line-up that looks like some kind of pepperoni pizza nightmare for Laura "Shut Up and Sing" Ingraham.



And, yes, I know that one didn't turn out the way we wanted. But, that's no reason to give up, as 2006 demonstrated.

And A King Ain’t SatisfiedTill He Rules Everything

As you know (since you are reading a blog), the President has admitted that, despite what Federal law requires, he has issued orders for electronic surveillance of Americans in their communications with people outside of the country, with no warrant or other compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These are some of the ways he tried to explain himself at his Monday press conference -

As President and Commander-in-Chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it. And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda.

After September the 11th, one question my administration had to answer was how, using the authorities I have, how do we effectively detect enemies hiding in our midst and prevent them from striking us again? We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks.

So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. This program is carefully reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being used properly. Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this program. And it has been effective in disrupting the enemy, while safeguarding our civil liberties.
...

THE PRESIDENT: I think I've got the authority to move forward, Kelly. I mean, this is what -- and the Attorney General was out briefing this morning about why it's legal to make the decisions I'm making. I can fully understand why members of Congress are expressing concerns about civil liberties. I know that. And it's -- I share the same concerns. I want to make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we're doing that and, at the same time, protecting your civil liberties.

Secondly, an open debate about law would say to the enemy, here is what we're going to do. And this is an enemy which adjusts. We monitor this program carefully. We have consulted with members of the Congress over a dozen times. We are constantly reviewing the program. Those of us who review the program have a duty to uphold the laws of the United States, and we take that duty very seriously.
...

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment. According to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern, and it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

THE PRESIDENT: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different -- a different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we're -- people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a -- it requires quick action.

And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and, three, we're guarding your civil liberties. And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NSA, the legal team, as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress. This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. The American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.
...

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of "unchecked power."

Q Well --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.

This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States. To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.

Q What limits do you --

THE PRESIDENT: I just described limits on this particular program, Peter. And that's what's important for the American people to understand. I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.

At no point is a judge mentioned, in this process. There's a reason for that - the Administration apparently decided that they did not need judges, or warrants, or any other procedures specifically called for in the law. FISA allows warrantless interceptions of communications, but only if they involve foreigners or foreign governments, and only if it is clear that people in America will not be the subject of the communication.

As Steven Hart has pointed out, this incident may be separating the "real" conservatives from those he calls the "royalists" (who apparently support everything and anything the current President decides to do). One of the "non-royalist" or "real" conservatives noted by Mr. Hart is Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official, who wrote the following -

According to President George W. Bush, being president in wartime means never having to concede co-equal branches of government have a role when it comes to hidden encroachments on civil liberties.
...

Authorized after the September 11, 2001 abominations, the eavesdropping clashes with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), excludes judicial or legislative oversight, and circumvented public accountability for four years until disclosed by the New York Times last Friday. Mr. Bush's defense generally echoed previous outlandish assertions that the commander in chief enjoys inherent constitutional power to ignore customary congressional, judicial or public checks on executive tyranny under the banner of defeating international terrorism, for example, defying treaty or statutory prohibitions on torture or indefinitely detaining United States citizens as illegal combatants on the president's say-so.

President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms.
...

The NSA eavesdropping is further troublesome because it easily evades judicial review. Targeted citizens are never informed their international communications have been intercepted. Unless a criminal prosecution is forthcoming (which seems unlikely), the citizen has no forum to test the government's claim the interceptions were triggered by known links to a terrorist organization.

Mr. Bush acclaimed the secret surveillance as "crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies." But if that were justified, why was Congress not asked for legislative authorization in light of the legal cloud created by FISA and the legislative branch's sympathies shown in the Patriot Act and joint resolution for war? FISA requires court approval for national security wiretaps, and makes it a crime for a person to intentionally engage "in electronic surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute."

Mr. Bush cited the disruptions of "terrorist" cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio as evidence of a pronounced domestic threat that compelled unilateral and secret action. But he failed to demonstrate those cells could not have been equally penetrated with customary legislative and judicial checks on executive overreaching.

The president maintained that, "As a result [of the NSA disclosure], our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." But if secrecy were pivotal to the NSA's surveillance, why is the president continuing the eavesdropping? And why is he so carefree about risking the liberties of both the living and those yet to be born by flouting the Constitution's separation of powers and conflating constructive criticism with treason?

And by the way, Mr. Fein is a man of strong opinions with respect to Presidential misconduct. This is what he had to say in 1997, regarding then-President Clinton's fundraising activities -

President Clinton's conceded shameless and calculated exploitation of the White House to extract, entice or reward partisan political contributions is an impeachable offense under Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois should commence an impeachment inquiry aimed toward indicting the president for the "high misdemeanor" of gross betrayal of the public trust by systematically employing the perquisites of office (and perhaps prerogatives over foreign policy toward China) for private financial advantage.

The architects of the Constitution were masters of human nature and history. They understood the propensity of the powerful, especially a chief executive, to circumvent the law or to wield official discretion in ways that dangerously subvert public confidence in the integrity and legitimacy of government.
...

In other words, impeachable offenses were envisioned as political crimes against the nation, which might or might not be indictable under the criminal code. The House Judiciary Committee voted articles of impeachment against President Nixon, but his unprecedented resignation ended any further proceedings. The vast scholarly and political debate that emerged from the Nixon impeachment proceedings yielded an overwhelming consensus that removal of a president from office would be proper for grave political misconduct (not mere foibles) that tears at the social tapestry of trust, honor and fairness.

So, to sum up. If one is of the view that circumventing a clear law, in order to engage in secret surveillance and searches of Americans, is a "grave ... misconduct ... that tears at the social tapestry of trust, honor and fairness", what's the next step?

Armchair Warriors Often Fail

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska (decorated Viet Nam veteran) once again is showing that not all Republicans are completely in the tank for the Administration and its war policy. He gave quite the speech yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations. While most people may focus on his direct rebuttal, of the President’s attempt to insulate himself from criticism about Iraq, Senator Hagel also had some interesting things to say about the issue of a President’s war powers, and about who should decide to send troops into a war.

But first, the pointed reply to the theme of the “It’s Not My Fault Tour” -

The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.

Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.

Today, the Senate engaged in a legitimate debate over exit strategy in Iraq as the Senate considered and voted on two Senate resolutions. This is a significant step toward the Congress exercising its Constitutional responsibilities over matters of war.

Senator Hagel continues, later in the speech, to address the issue of Congress’ “Constitutional responsibilities over matters of war” -

The Constitution also establishes Congress’ authority and responsibility regarding decisions to go to war. The course of events in Iraq has laid bare the failure to prepare for, plan for, and understand the broad consequences and implications of the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. Where is the accountability? In the November 8 Washington Post, Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, wrote,

"Our Founding Fathers wanted the declaration of war to concentrate the minds. Returning to the Constitution’s text and making it work through legislation requiring joint deliberate action may be the only way to give the decision to make war the care it deserves."

The American people should demand that the President request a Declaration of War and the Congress formally declare war, if and when the President believes that committing American troops is in the vital national security interests of this country. This would make the President and Congress, together, accountable for their actions – just as the Founders of our country intended.

I think that’s powerful stuff. One of the issues the Iraq conflict has raised is, once again, that of the power to make war, and to decide to go to war. If a President were to have the same point of view as Senator Hagel, there could be a serious, and overdue, examination of a President’s assertion to unilaterally initiate a war.

One more thing, just to flash back, Senator Hagel also seemed to be one of the few Republicans who was talking sense on the eve of the Iraq invasion, back in February of 2003 -

Today, America stands nearly alone in proclaiming the urgency of the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein. In Europe and in many corners of the globe, America is perceived as determined to use force in Iraq to the exclusion of world opinion or the interests of our allies, even those allies who share our concerns about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. America must balance its determination with patience and not be seen as in a rush to war. As David Ignatius wrote in a recent Washington Post column, "A nation heading into war needs prudence and good judgment. America's best generals, people such as Grant and Marshall and Eisenhower, were at once cautious and decisive. Their greatness lay in the fact that they never lost sight of the long-term interests of the United States."

America must steer away from actions that could produce the unintended results of fracturing those very institutions that have helped keep peace since World War II. Allowing a rush to war in Iraq to create divisions in those institutions and alliances that will help sustain American security and world stability is a short-sighted and dangerous course of action.
…

We should put aside the mistaken delusion that democracy is just around the corner. Or that by force of arms we can remove Saddam and simultaneously place Iraq on the path to democracy by overlaying a blueprint for democracy on the region ... a so-called "Democratic Domino Effect." The spade work of building a free Iraq will take time. General Anthony Zinni, special adviser to the Secretary of State and former Commanding General, U.S. Central Command, reminded the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that, with regard to Iraq, "there will not be a spontaneous democracy so the reconstruction of the country will be a long, hard course regardless of whether a modest vision of the end state is sought or a more ambitious one is chosen." The end of Saddam Hussein's regime will be all to the good, but building nations and democracy in the Middle East or anywhere is complicated and difficult, and success is never assured. We can try to help create the conditions for democratic change. But we must assume that it will not come quickly or easily.

I think we’ve forgotten that there was bipartisan unease with the President’s eagerness to initiate an invasion. “Everybody” may have been worried about Saddam Hussein, but not “everybody” felt that an immediate invasion was necessarily the right cure.

And that’s the point of the criticism, of how America got into this war.

And the Wizards Play

Earlier this morning, the latest Harry Potter book went on sale. The media frenzy began long before that. Now, I am writing about this because of something I saw yesterday. While having lunch with some colleagues, my eye was caught by a caption on a nearby television screen. The television was tuned to Fox News, which apparently was doing some sort of Potter coverage with a studio audience. The caption which caught my eye was something along the lines of "Pope Says 'Harry Potter' Distorts Christianity".

Fortunately, The Opinion Mill has come through for me, pointing the way to a debunking of all this silliness:

With "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" coming out at the stroke of midnight, the wires have been humming with the story that the new Pope thinks the Potter series is bad for kids. This meme was apparently put out by a German crank named Gabriele Kuby, who has written a book accusing J.K. Rowling of impairing the moral development of children with her occult tales. Said crank has letters written in 2003, when the pontiff was still Cardinal Ratzinger, agreeing with her that the Potter tales are full of "subtle seductions" that put youngsters on the slippery slope to hell, damnation and Ozzy Osbourne songs.

Leave it to The Leaky Cauldron, a Harry Potter fan site, to post a link to Catholic Insider, which has the transcript of a radio broadcast making it clear that the Vatican doesn't have a problem with Harry Potter. In fact, Monsignor Peter Fleetwood, a former official at the Pontifical Council for Culture, suggests that Kuby "may not have understood a very British sense of humor" when she took up the cudgels against Rowling's books.

The Catholic Insider link has more of Monsignor Fleetwood's interview on Vatican Radio, to clear things up -

I was sent a letter from a lady in Germany who claimed to have written to the then cardinal Ratzinger, saying that she thought Harry Potter was a bad thing. And the letter back, which I suspect was written by an assistent of the then cardinal Ratzinger in his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, suggested that there was a subtle seduction in the books. What that subtle seduction was, was not specified, which makes me think it was a generic answer. And she had written a book on these subjects and so the Cardinal's signature was at the bottom of the letter, suggesting she should send me the book.

She sent me the book, and I found it a very unsatisfactory book. I don't think she understands English humour. For example, she said: one sign that these books are making fun of Judaism and Christianity is that Voldemort, the wicked magician, who is the great evil power against whom Harry Potter has to fight, is referred to often as 'he who must not be named', and she takes this as an insult to the name of God in a similar way that Adonai, which is often written as Jawhe, is the name that should not be said in Jewish religion. Well I replied to her: don't you know that even within English families, men who make fun of their relationship with women in a nice, lighthearted way say: oh, she who should not be named, meaning the power in the house, their wife. You know, I think it was meant on that kind of level.

...

And people have obviously worked of a strange translation of what I said in Italian. It is notable that the only complaints I got were from people using a translation. I don't know who made that translation. They never asked me any questions about whether they got it right. They certainly didn't understand what I'd said in the press conference. So I only whish there had been more time to talk then, but the press conference was about something quite different, and it was only one question that was blown out of proportion.

But I remain firmly convinced that the Harry Potter novels are very well written. They are written on the classical plot of good versus evil in the standard way that the old myths were written. The characters are built up around that: the goodies and the baddies so to speak, and I can't see that that's a bad thing for children, when goodness, and the people on the side of goodness are portrayed as the ones who will eventually win. Harry's enemies resort to all sorts of evil things, and they are the ones who loose in the end. I don't see what's wrong with that, and I can't see that does any harm to children.

There's more sensible thoughts at that link.

Hail, Freedonia!

I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept. Why, the cheap ball-pushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll never get away with it!

President Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx), in Duck Soup

And so the war began …

Recently, we heard something very similar from Richard Perle, concerning the reported peace overtures from Iraq:

Perle told ABC television's ''This Week With George Stephanopoulos'' that the offer by former chief of intelligence, Gen. Tahir Habbush made through Imad Hage, a prominent Lebanese-American businessman, was one of many approaches for a last-minute peace deal.

''There were a number of governments that were trying to broker something with the Iraqis,'' Perle said. ''So this was not credible, this offline approach, indirect as it was.''

The Bush administration has been accused by Democrats of being overeager to go to war with Iraq, ignoring possible diplomatic avenues to peace including that conveyed through Perle and exaggerating the threat from Iraq.

...

Perle said it also included oil concessions and he thought it was part of an effort to use that offer to discredit U.S. intentions. ''This was a trap,'' Perle said. ''I think it was clearly a trap. It was intended to discredit the administration's policy, it was intended to discredit our effort to liberate Iraq.''

"A fine thing that would have been", to paraphrase President Firefly.

These meetings and other communications all took place just days before the start of military operations on March 19, 2003. According to the news stories confirmed by Mr. Perle, a Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage, met with Richard Perle. The meetings had been set up through Michael Maloof, who was working in the Pentagon as an analyst in an intelligence unit set up to look for ties between terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Iraq. Hage, in turn, had met in Beirut with Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and later in Baghdad with Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (and No. 16 on the United States list of most wanted Iraqi leaders). The key part of the story, and of the chronology, is this:

Working through Mr. Maloof, Mr. Hage finally arranged to meet with Mr. Perle in London in early March. The two met in an office in Knightsbridge for about two hours to discuss the Iraqi proposals, the men said. Mr. Hage told Mr. Perle that the Iraqis wanted to meet with him or someone from the administration.

Mr. Perle said he subsequently contacted a C.I.A. official to ask if he should meet with the Iraqis. "The answer came back that they weren't interested in pursuing it," Mr. Perle said in an interview, "and I was given the impression that there had already been contacts."

Mr. Perle now plays down the importance of his contact with Mr. Hage. He said he found it difficult to believe that Saddam Hussein would make serious proposals through that kind of channel. "There were so many other ways to communicate," he said. "There were any number of governments involved in the end game, the Russians, French, Saudis."

Nonetheless, Mr. Hage continued to deliver messages from the Iraqis to Mr. Maloof.

In one note to Mr. Perle in mid-March, Mr. Maloof relayed a message from Mr. Hage that Mr. Obeidi and Mr. Habbush "were prepared to meet with you in Beirut, and as soon as possible, concerning `unconditional terms.' " The message from Mr. Hage said, "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance."

No meetings took place, and the invasion began on March 20. Mr. Hage, speaking in Beirut, wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad.

What's especially bizarre about this story is the fact that, at exactly the same time, the Administration was making a great show of giving the Iraq regime a "last chance", a "get out of Dodge City now" type of warning. The President spoke on March 17, 2003, saying:

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

So, the President told Iraq they had one last chance. A Presidential advisor, Mr. Perle, has indicated that he had communications from Iraq with an offer to avoid the war. But, that was "a trap". As President Firefly would say: "Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people?"

Sunday Night Springsteen Olbermann

I was catching up on my reading this weekend, and found this from "Countdown" last Thursday. Some of the best parts -

And lastly tonight, a special comment about lying.

While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool...

While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover...

The president of the United States—unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality—has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: The Democrats.

Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, “177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don‘t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.‘”

The hell they did.

A hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the president‘s seizure of yet another part of the Constitution.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn‘t be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

President Bush hears what he wants.

Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said that, “Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we‘re attacked again before we respond.”

Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.

And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind reader.

“If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party,” the president said at yet another fundraiser, Monday in Nevada, “it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we‘re attacked again.”

The president does not just hear what he wants, he hears things that only he can hear.

It defies belief that this president and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow. Yet they do.

It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any president in this nation‘s history.

Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders, Democrats, the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies of treason. But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.

Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, “We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.”

Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.

If your commitment to “put aside differences and work together” is replaced in the span of merely three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they‘ve said, then the questions your critics need to be asking are no longer about your policies.

They are, instead, solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.

No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to “wait until we‘re attacked again.”

No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday—nor whatever is next.

You have dishonored your party, sir; you have dishonored your supporters; you have dishonored yourself.

But tonight the stark question we must face is—why?

Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?

Why have you chosen to go down in history as the president who made things up?

In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.

If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetorical of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.

We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size and party. We will have to suffer it for as long as the Republic stands. But the premise of a president who comes across as a compulsive liar is nothing less than terrifying.

A president who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening—and thanks to Bob Woodward‘s most recent account—evidently has never listened.

A president who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy.

A president who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack - attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both? It‘s now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy truly is.

But if we know one thing for certain about President Bush, it is this:

This president—in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month—has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies actually are, they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak called the Constitution of the United States of America.

~snip~

And the vice president is a chilling figure, still unable, it seems, to accept the conclusions of his own party‘s leaders in the Senate, that the foundations of his public position, are made out of sand.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he still says so.

There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, but he still says so.

And thus, gripping firmly these figments of his own imagination, Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance, and spreads around him and before him, darkness, like some contagion of fear.

They are never wrong, and they never regret—admirable in a French torch singer, cataclysmic in an American leader.

Thus, the sickening attempt to blame the Foley scandal on the negligence of others or “the Clinton era,” even though the Foley scandal began before the Lewinsky scandal.

Thus, last month‘s enraged attacks on this administration‘s predecessors, about Osama bin Laden, a projection of their own negligence in the immediate months before 9/11.

Thus, the terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom, the Constitution, a triumph for al Qaeda, one the terrorists could not hope to achieve on their own with a hundred 9/11‘s.

And thus, worst of all perhaps, these newest lies by President Bush about Democrats choosing to await another attack and not listen to the conversations of terrorists.

It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you redirect at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel.

It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, Sir. It is your own — before 9/11, and — and you alone know this - perhaps afterwards.

Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.

It is not our freedom, nor our country — your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.

You want to preserve a political party‘s power. And obviously you will sell this country out, to do it.

These are lies about the Democrats—piled atop lies about Iraq—piled atop lies about your preparations for al Qaeda.

To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries—as crushing, as immovable. But they are not.

If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.

But if you stop—if you stop fabricating quotes, and stop building straw-men, and stop inspiring those around you to do the same—you may yet liberate yourself and this nation.

Please, sir, do not throw this country‘s principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics.

Goodnight and good luck.

It needed to be said - especially that part that's emphasized above.

Modern Day Know-Nothings

First, a little history:

Know-Nothing Movement, a nativist political movement in the United States in the 1850s. It was organized to oppose the great wave of immigrants who entered the United States after 1846. Know-Nothings claimed that the immigrants—who were principally Irish and Roman Catholic—threatened to destroy the American experiment. The Roman Catholic church, they charged, was subservient to a foreign prince (the pope), it was growing in power, and it potentially could exert political control over a large group of people. Such nativist sentiments had long existed among many Americans, but they had never before been expressed in such powerful form.

The McCain campaign seems to be based on resentment and fear-mongering. There is an unhealthy dose of the same kind of racial/religious hatred that was a staple of the original Know-Nothings. When Sarah Palin launches into her routine about "yet another radical professor from [Obama's] neighborhood", Professor Rashid Khalidi, she does so with an emphasis on, gosh darn it, the foreignness of his name -



She manages to mangle his name, and spread discredited talking points, but what struck me was how this chorus of "boos" starts just as she stumbles through his name. Were these folks really all up-to-date on who she was trying (albeit incorrectly) to name? Or did the mere mention of someone named "Rashid" trigger a Two Minutes Hate type of reaction from a fully-primed Palin/McCain crowd? I think it's the latter.

A piece in today's New York Times notes that the religious hatred being stirred up by Obama's opponents is similar to that used by the twentieth century's heirs to the Know-Nothings - those who attacked Al Smith, the first Catholic to run as a majjor party nominee for President. In an essay entitled "In Untruths About Obama, Echoes of a Distant Time", Samuel Freedman gives reasons why that we cannot dismiss that type of fear-mongering as simply an "artifact of a benighted past":

The first is that the climate of anti-Catholic bigotry, which ran from the refined arena of The Atlantic magazine to the cross burnings of the Ku Klux Klan, not only contributed to Smith’s crushing defeat by Herbert Hoover but also helped keep any other Catholic from mounting a serious run for the presidency until John F. Kennedy in 1960. The hate campaign, in other words, worked.

As for the second point, scholars of Smith’s career and of American Catholicism say nothing in presidential history since 1928 more closely resembles the smearing of Al Smith than the aura of anti-Muslim agitation that has swirled around Barack Obama these past two years.

The insinuations of disloyalty to America, the caricature of the candidate as less than genuinely American — these tactics could have come from the playbook of Smith’s basest opponents, the scholars say.

As Colin Powell wisely condemned in endorsing Senator Obama a few weeks ago, the modern "Know Nothings" start with stoking fear of Muslims, before moving on to then label Senator Obama as one:

The biggest single difference may be the postmodern aspect of the attacks against Mr. Obama. He is vilified not for the religion he follows but for the one he doesn’t, and much of his campaign’s energy has gone into reiterating that he is a Christian. Either way, the underlying premise of the rumors remains that a Muslim is unfit to be president.

“What is similar in Smith’s time is that there was a widespread belief there was something dangerous about electing a Catholic as president,” said Allan J. Lichtman, an American University historian who is the author of “Prejudice and the Old Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928.” “You couldn’t be a good American and serve American interests if you were a Catholic, because you were beholden to a foreign potentate called the pope and Catholicism held autocratic tenets.

“Likewise today, there is a widespread belief that somehow you cannot be a good American and be a Muslim at the same time, that being a Muslim means you have loyalties outside the United States — and, like Catholics in the 1920s, they are dangerous loyalties to militant groups seeking to do harm. There’s no truth to the allegations, then or now, but they are tenaciously held.”
. . .

Smith’s opponents conflated his Catholic faith with his Irish heritage, urban roots and even New York accent to cast him outside the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, small-town norms of America. Mr. Obama, of course, is of mixed race and has a Muslim middle name, Hussein, which has been flourished by some Republicans as proof of his foreignness.

“The most remarkable parallel to 1928 has to do with the idea that Smith was one of ‘those people,’ that the people he represented weren’t real Americans,” said Mr. Slayton, a professor of American history at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. “And when Sarah Palin talks about the ‘real America’ now, I hear an echo of that.”

At the end, there is advice from Al Smith himself, on how to deal with this. It's advice that I wish more news organizations would follow, because I get the sense that it's impolite to point out the nastiness of the attacks on the "otherness" of people who don't meet the demographic that the Palin/McCain campaign is targeting.

If there is a lesson from Al Smith about all this, then it came during a speech he delivered on Sept. 20, 1928, in Oklahoma City.

“This country, to my way of thinking, cannot be successful if it ever divides on sectarian lines,” he declared. “If there are any considerable number of our people that are going to listen to appeals to their passion and to their prejudice, if bigotry and intolerance and their sister vices are going to succeed, it is dangerous for the future life of the Republic. And the best way to kill anything un-American is to drag it out into the open, because anything un-American cannot live in the sunlight.”

Looking For Something To Blame

Everybody has their own take on the State of the Union address from last night. This is mine.

The President is still trying to blame everyone else for his unwise invasion of Iraq. After pressing the claim that failure to follow his plan will result in terrorists attacking the U.S. again, he made this statement –

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you've made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way.

That’s still the line he’s taking - “It’s everybody’s fault.” The facts show that we were not united in believing that a precipitous invasion of Iraq was the best way to protect the United States, or even the best way to deal with Iraq. Here are two extended excerpts from speeches by two senators, one a Democrat and one a Republican, from 2002 (when the vote to authorize the use of force was taken) and from 2003, just before the invasion.

This is what Senator Kerry said, on the floor of the Senate, at the time of that vote:

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.
...

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.
...

And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
...

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent" -- threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
...

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

Clearly, the Senator was mistaken about the President using the authority to invade as a last resort. Remember, in the months after the vote, Saddam Hussein allowed the weapons inspectors to return to Iraq. They only left on the eve of the invasion, when the President (that’s Bush, not Hussein) told them to leave the country.

And this is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing, either. This is what Senator Hagel had to say, on the eve of the invasion:

Today, America stands nearly alone in proclaiming the urgency of the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein. In Europe and in many corners of the globe, America is perceived as determined to use force in Iraq to the exclusion of world opinion or the interests of our allies, even those allies who share our concerns about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. America must balance its determination with patience and not be seen as in a rush to war. As David Ignatius wrote in a recent Washington Post column, "A nation heading into war needs prudence and good judgment. America's best generals, people such as Grant and Marshall and Eisenhower, were at once cautious and decisive. Their greatness lay in the fact that they never lost sight of the long-term interests of the United States."

America must steer away from actions that could produce the unintended results of fracturing those very institutions that have helped keep peace since World War II. Allowing a rush to war in Iraq to create divisions in those institutions and alliances that will help sustain American security and world stability is a short-sighted and dangerous course of action.
...

We should put aside the mistaken delusion that democracy is just around the corner. Or that by force of arms we can remove Saddam and simultaneously place Iraq on the path to democracy by overlaying a blueprint for democracy on the region ... a so-called "Democratic Domino Effect." The spade work of building a free Iraq will take time. General Anthony Zinni, special adviser to the Secretary of State and former Commanding General, U.S. Central Command, reminded the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that, with regard to Iraq, "there will not be a spontaneous democracy so the reconstruction of the country will be a long, hard course regardless of whether a modest vision of the end state is sought or a more ambitious one is chosen." The end of Saddam Hussein's regime will be all to the good, but building nations and democracy in the Middle East or anywhere is complicated and difficult, and success is never assured. We can try to help create the conditions for democratic change. But we must assume that it will not come quickly or easily.

Clearly, there was there was a bipartisan unease with the President’s eagerness to initiate an invasion. “Everybody” may have been worried about Saddam Hussein, but not “everybody” felt that an immediate invasion was necessarily the right cure.

The President’s continued attempts to claim that "it’s everybody’s fault”, and refusal to be honest about how the war began, is reason enough to not rely on his judgment regarding how to end the war.

Babbling Brooks

I don't know why I get so annoyed reading David Brooks' columns in the New York Times. Once again, in today's column, he just seems particularly shallow. His starting point is sound - noting the varied religious journeys of the President and some major Democratic contenders, he observes: "What other country on earth would have three national political figures with such peripatetic religious backgrounds?" But, he then makes other observations (clearly designed to push his own political views) which are just nonsense. Taking just a few which bugged me (in sort-of increasing order of serious concern), Mr. Brooks says that Americans are "reasonable tolerant", noting: "In London recently, President Bush said that Christians and Muslims both pray to the same God. That was theologically controversial, but it was faithful to the national creed." Excuse me, Mr. Brooks, but it was only "theologically controversial" for some American evangelical leaders (the same people you claim do not have as much influence now). It's theologically orthodox for the rest of the world, such as among us Catholics. In another passage, Mr. Brooks cites deTocqueville's comment that Americans "don't seem to care that their neighbors hold to false versions of the faith", and he adds: "That's because many Americans have tended to assume that all these differences are temporary." Again, there are clearly a lot of Americans who very much do care about their neighbor's "false versions". Americans may be happy to go off by themselves, and leave others to their own faiths. When all together, though, there are many people who want to have their version of what faith is dominate - others can believe what they want, just as long as it remains unseen. If you don't believe me, observe how many commentators still seemed torqued off by the simple greeting, "Happy Holidays."

I have a big disagreement with Mr. Brooks' assertion that an "effect of our dominant religious style is that we have trouble sustaining culture wars." As evidence, he points to what he considers to be the waning of the influence of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Mr. Brooks is missing the point, that the culture wars are no longer being directed from the churches, but from political types who consider themselves on a mission to save America. Look at the conservative books which sell well, touting the left-wing plot to destroy America's soul. Take as an example the "marriage debate". Cal Thomas recently wrote about "a strategy session at the White House", to make gay marriage a hot button political issue in the upcoming year. As Mr. Thomas wrote:

Most people would probably be happy to launch a counter strike in the culture war. Many could be counted on to support an amendment that tries to do something about the social, moral and cultural erosion over which they have felt powerless. Surrounded by bad television, worse movies, anti-religious attitudes of judges and certain liberal activist groups, a pervasive sense that "anything goes," most of those responding to the New York Times/CBS News Poll apparently find a constitutional amendment in support of marriage a much-needed line in the sand. They think we have already gone too far, too fast on too many things.

There will continue to be a "culture war", not necessarily because of religious institutions, but because of the efforts of the "culture war profiteers". Whether for political power, personal aggrandizement , or plain-old money, these all-American entrepreneurs will continue to use the culture wars for their own ends. Personally, I have faith in the tolerance of the individual American, I'm concerned that there are people out there hoping to capitalize on intolerance.

Finally, Mr. Brooks paints a little word picture, of how Mr. Bush and Dr. Dean may be political opposites, but able to unite if they met in a Bible study. I think that would depend on what the topic was. Given that these two gentlemen wound up following very different life choices, from very similar, privileged starting points (as Mr. Brooks likes to remind us), they may have very different views about how to live their faith. I think that's a big point which Mr. Brooks just misses.

Havin' A Party

Professor Balkin at Balkinization discusses today's "anti-tax" tea parties. I put "anti-tax" in quotes because, well, I'm not quite sure what the tea parties are really against. I know what some organizers claim they are about, but it's clear that a lot of the encouragement and organization has been done by people who want to redirect some outrage over stimulus costs and bailouts for their own ends. I do agree generally with his points, although I think the movement is less "organic", and more encouraged by special interests, than he does. But this point especially is important:

Fifth, although the participants in the tea parties may state that they are not interested in what professional politicians have to say, and are not affiliated with the Republican Party in any way, one cannot take these assertions too seriously. The movement for balanced budgets and term limits during the 1990s was also anti-Washington and anti-professional politician. It was quickly absorbed into the Gingrich revolution, which was supported by and produced any number of professional politicians. Part of the point of the tea party protests is remaking the Republican Party, and as the coverage on Fox News indicates, there are plenty of ambitious people in conservative politics that are only too happy to help the protesters along. The likely trajectory of the tea parties will be as part of a reform and/or purification of the Republican Party along right wing populist lines. No doubt some Republican operatives and politicians will try to ride the anger of this movement to electoral success, while others will wait to see if the movement generates sufficient power and if it does, go along.

He also notes the comments of the "Instant Pundit", Professor Reynolds, in a column in today's Wall Street Journal, who claims that this is entirely a "from the ground up" movement. Now, since Professor Reynolds has been relentless marketing the "tea party" concept on his site, it is a little disingenuous for him to claim, in the WSJ:

The tea-party protest movement is organizing itself, on its own behalf. Some existing organizations, like Newt Gingrich's American Solutions and FreedomWorks, have gotten involved. But they're involved as followers and facilitators, not leaders. The leaders are appearing on their own, and reaching out to others through blogs, Facebook, chat boards and alternative media.

What I think has happened is that the usual list of right-wing media operatives have been encouraging the creation of this "spontaneous" movement. Fox News has a dedicated "Tea Party coverage" page on their "Fox Nation" website. There's a GOP.com Tea Party website, from which you can send a teabag postcard to Democratic officials. The "Tax Day Tea Party" site and the "Tea Party Day" website (from the American Family Association) are rife with right-wing rhetoric left over from the Presidential campaign.

In general, with regard to the Fox claim that they're just "covering" the protests - if, for example, Fox News has morning hosts with "teabag protest" t-shirts, talking about what a big event it's going to be today - they're promoting it.



I think there are a lot of people who have been angered by the amount of money going towards bailouts, and who are concerned about government spending in connection with the stimulus bill. The "tea party" movement seems to be a tool to pull them into the orbit of the right wing's other issues, including anti-immigration, conservative social issues, anti-environmentalism, and general anti-Obama-ism.

One more thing - there will be two stories today. One is what actually happened at these "tea parties", and how many people actually showed up. The other is the "spin" we'll be getting from Fox.

"I get up in the evening,and I ain't got nothing to say ..."

So if your candidate is Senator John Kerry, do you have this fear that he'll get up at the first Presidential debate (the one on foreign policy), and just stand there while being accused of "flip-flopping" on Iraq? Me, too.

Now, if I were giving him advice (not that I have the opportunity to do so), I would suggest that he cut that attack off before it begins. His opening statement should be:

"Good evening. Nearly two years ago, on October 9, 2002, I addressed the Senate before we voted to give President Bush the authority to use force, if necessary, in Iraq. And what I said that day, is what I have continued to say ever since -

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.
...

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.
…

"And when I voted to give the President that authority, I did so with the understanding that he would not use it unless the threat was imminent, unless there was no other option, and unless he built a real coalition, including the Arab states, so that we would be able to win the peace -

And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
…

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent" -- threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
…

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

"We know now that, after that vote, and action by the United Nations, the inspectors did return to Iraq, and were undertaking the difficult job of hunting for weapons of mass destruction, until the day President Bush told them to leave."

And, more stuff like that.

Sunday Night Afternoon Springsteen

... "On the Streets of Philadelphia" edition.

This is a little early, because it's a long watch. Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Springsteen headlined a "Get Out the Vote" rally in Philadelphia, to encourage a last push for voter registration before the deadline.

As described by Backstreets.com -

After the introduction by a wisecracking Governor Ed Rendell, Springsteen and his acoustic took the stage for a seven-song, 45-minute set that opened with "The Promised Land." "Great to be here in my home away from home, Philly," Bruce told the crowd -- a huge turnout on this Ben Franklin Parkway esplanade -- adding later, "I tried this four years ago... this time, we'll win it!"

Songs included the relevant-as-ever "The Ghost of Tom Joad," the invitation of "Thunder Road," the determined rallying cries of "No Surrender" and "The Rising," and for fun, "a song I played many, many times at the old Main Point," "Does This Bus Stop at 82nd Street."
...

Toward the end of the set, the crowd broke into a spontaneous "Yes we can" chant, Bruce adding some percussion on his guitar before offering up one more, a regular from the '85 stadium tour, Woody Guthrie's stirring "This Land is Your Land." And one final message to the throng of voters in Philly: "It's up to you now."

The video (from a local television station's site) is about forty minutes long. So, I suggest that you make your self comfortable, perhaps procure a tasty beverage for yourself, and enjoy the show.

Click here to start (there's an ad, then the show).

I especially like the way he used one of his oldest songs, "Does This Bus Stop at 82nd Street", with special emphasis on this line -

The Daily News asks her for the dope
She says "Man, the dope's that there's STILL HOPE!"

Oh, and there was a speech, which is on the video. This is the text, courtesy of BruceSpringsteen.net -

"I am glad to be here today for this voter registration drive and for Barack Obama, the next President of the United States.

"I've spent 35 years writing about America, its people, and the meaning of the American Promise. The Promise that was handed down to us, right here in this city from our founding fathers, with one instruction: Do your best to make these things real. Opportunity, equality, social and economic justice, a fair shake for all of our citizens, the American idea, as a positive influence, around the world for a more just and peaceful existence. These are the things that give our lives hope, shape, and meaning. They are the ties that bind us together and give us faith in our contract with one another.

"I've spent most of my creative life measuring the distance between that American promise and American reality. For many Americans, who are today losing their jobs, their homes, seeing their retirement funds disappear, who have no healthcare, or who have been abandoned in our inner cities. The distance between that promise and that reality has never been greater or more painful.

"I believe Senator Obama has taken the measure of that distance in his own life and in his work. I believe he understands, in his heart, the cost of that distance, in blood and suffering, in the lives of everyday Americans. I believe as president, he would work to restore that promise to so many of our fellow citizens who have justifiably lost faith in its meaning. After the disastrous administration of the past 8 years, we need someone to lead us in an American reclamation project. In my job, I travel the world, and occasionally play big stadiums, just like Senator Obama. I've continued to find, wherever I go, America remains a repository of people's hopes, possibilities, and desires, and that despite the terrible erosion to our standing around the world, accomplished by our recent administration, we remain, for many, a house of dreams. One thousand George Bushes and one thousand Dick Cheneys will never be able to tear that house down.

"They will, however, be leaving office, dropping the national tragedies of Katrina, Iraq, and our financial crisis in our laps. Our sacred house of dreams has been abused, looted, and left in a terrible state of disrepair. It needs care; it needs saving, it needs defending against those who would sell it down the river for power or a quick buck. It needs strong arms, hearts, and minds. It needs someone with Senator Obama's understanding, temperateness, deliberativeness, maturity, compassion, toughness, and faith, to help us rebuild our house once again. But most importantly, it needs us. You and me. To build that house with the generosity that is at the heart of the American spirit. A house that is truer and big enough to contain the hopes and dreams of all of our fellow citizens. That is where our future lies. We will rise or fall as a people by our ability to accomplish this task. Now I don't know about you, but I want that dream back, I want my America back, I want my country back.

"So now is the time to stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, roll up our sleeves, and come on up for the rising."

Overreacting

In Washington State, they have a wiretap law which says that every party to a telephone conversation has to consent, before the call is intercepted or recorded. In a recent case, a mother whose daughter was friends with a robbery suspect, was asked by the local police to keep an eye out for any evidence against the suspect. When the suspect called the daughter, the mother listened in on the conversation, and provided testimony at the suspect's trial which helped to convict him. The appeals court ruled that the mother's testimony could not be used. As reported in the press:

Attorneys for the state argued that minors should have a reduced expectation of privacy because parents have an absolute right to monitor phone calls coming into the family home. The attorneys cited provisions in federal wiretap law which are less restrictive than Washington's law and allow parents to tape and listen to their children's conversations.

"The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now," wrote Justice Tom Chambers in the court's opinion.

The local sheriff, Bill Cumming, was quoted as stating that the decision was only about trial evidence based on listening in on a child's telephone call: "The ruling will likely not result in parents being prosecuted for snooping, Cumming said. But it prohibits courts and law enforcement from using the fruits of such snooping."

Sounds fairly reasonable, with the court applying the law as written, on the issue of the admission of evidence in a criminal case. Well, it's not so simple if you're Bill O'Reilly and his Talking Points:

So let's get this straight. If you suspect your child is dealing with a criminal, a dope dealer, a mugger, a molester, you can't eavesdrop on that child's conversations. That's now the law in Washington state, which has become a model for progressive activism.

~ snip ~

So don't try to find out what your kids are up to on the computer or on the telephone. Children must have privacy in these matters, so 14-year- old girls can deal with 17-year-old criminals.

Now why is this happening? As with the Christmas controversy, which I explain in my column this week on billoreilly.com, there's much more to this than just a legal decision. If you study all [the] state dominated societies from the Soviet Union, to Nazi Germany, to Red China to Cuba, you will see those governments try to diminish parental power because it's easier to mold young minds when state-sanctioned values don't compete with traditional parenting.

Public schooling in America is now devoid of any moralizing or spiritual emphasis. The Pledge of Allegiance being the last holdout. So if the progressives can succeed in eroding parental influence at home, it becomes much easier to influence American children to embrace a secular point of view. That's what's going on here.

And once again, the courts are helping the Progressives. It is simply chilling to realize that you cannot monitor behavior of your children. Judges in Washington state have decided that even if your kid is dealing with a criminal, you have no right to be pro-active.— Incredible and dangerous.

Now, anybody who spends any time actually finding out about what happened, knows that this entire tirade is a lot of hot air. Unfortunately, there are too many people who do not get the facts, only the tirades. Mr. O'Reilly makes his living by scaring his viewers about the vast conspiracy between the public schools and the courts, in order to prepare young minds to be more compliant with secular state domination (or something like that).

Of course, one could argue that lack of accurate information is more likely to harm our citizens, young and old, but people don't give you shows on Fox in order to talk like that.

And When You Realize How They Tricked You This Time

Well, earlier this evening the "Military Commission" (a.k.a. Torture-and-no-Habeas-Corpus Act of 2006) passed the Senate. As reported here -

All Republicans but one (Chafee) voted in favor. Democrats voting in favor included Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow.

Look at all the Democrats going along with this. As Professor Balkin wrote, when noting that the Democrats had given up the chance to filibuster the bill:

So let me get this straight: The Democrats give up the chance at filibustering one of the worst bills in recent memory because they were afraid that the President would paint them as soft on terrorism.

After the bill passes, the President plans to paint them as soft on terrorism.

What a spineless, worthless lot the Democrats in the Senate are. They deserve every lost Senate and House seat that comes from this.

I wouldn't go that far, but it's discouraging when we thought the whole point was to take a principled stand. This bill gives the President "discretion" to decide what's permissible - gee, four years ago they gave him "discretion" to decide whether it was necessary to invade Iraq, and that worked out just great. This year, they actually have a legitimate point, which they should have tried to make. Now, what can they say? As Professor Balkin wrote the day before:

The Democrats may think that if they let this pass, they are guaranteed to pick up more seats in the House and Senate. But they will actually win less seats this way. For they will have proved to the American people that they are spineless and opportunistic-- that, when faced with a genuine choice and a genuine challenge, they can keep neither our country nor our values safe.

The current bill, if passed, will give the Executive far more dictatorial powers to detain, prosecute, judge and punish than it ever enjoyed before. Over the last 48 hours, it has been modified in a hundred different ways to increase executive power at the expense of judicial review, due process, and oversight. And what is more, the bill's most outrageous provisions on torture, definition of enemy combatants, secret procedures, and habeas stripping, are completely unnecessary to keep Americans safe. Rather, they are the work of an Executive branch that has proven itself as untrustworthy as it is greedy: always pushing the legal and constitutional envelope, always seeking more power and less accountability.

As a voter in New Jersey, I'm particularly disappointed in Senators Lautenberg and Menendez. I honestly thought that we didn't have to keep an eye on these guys, and that they wouldn't knuckle under to the political threats. Instead, they joined with the Bushists to vote for a bill that was posted purely for political reasons. The Bushistas cared less about whether the bill was sound, constitutional, or responsible - they clearly just wanted something that would allow them to attack Democrats as being "soft" on terrorism. And who cares what they have to authorize, in order to be able to do that.

So, Senators Menendez and Lautenberg, as well as the other Yes-voting Democrats, have linked arms with their equally feckless colleagues across the aisle to sing their little ditty about committing unspeakable acts on the Constitution (not to mention the detainees) -

Rape!
R-a-a-a-pe!
Raa-aa-aa-pe!

A pretty rape!
A literary rape!

Just try to see it.
And you will soon agree, señors,
Why
Invite regret,
When you can get the sort of rape
You'll never ever forget.

You understand?
I understand.
It's very grand.
It's very grand.
It's done with drums and a great big brass band!
Yeah!

Just try to see it.
I see it!
I see it!
And you will soon si,si señors,
Why
Invite regret,
When you can get the sort of rape
You'll never ever forget.

So why be stingy?
It depends on what you pay!
The kids will love it.
It depends on what you

Ra-aa-aa-pe!
Ole

(Lyrics from The Fantasticks)

Everybody's Got a Secret, Sonny ...

... and the Governor of my state, New Jersey, had one heck of a secret, which he told us about today. The full text is at this link (courtesy of Curmudgeon at Mapleberry Blog, so you don't have to register at the New York Times to read it). It's a personal tragedy, more than anything else - a tragedy not because he's gay, but because he has felt the need to try to live his life being something that he's not. I was particularly struck by two phrases in the Governor's speech (which, love him or hate him, has to be regarded as a powerfully direct statement):

But because of my resolve, and also thinking that I was doing the right thing, I forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself, a reality which is layered and layered with all the, quote, good things, and all the, quote, right things of typical adolescent and adult behavior.
...

It makes little difference that as governor I am gay. In fact, having the ability to truthfully set forth my identity might have enabled me to be more forthright in fulfilling and discharging my constitutional obligations.

That's really the tragic part, isn't it? In both his personal, and professional lives, he felt the need to subordinate who he really was, to present a different face to the world. It's a personal tragedy, because of the effect this will have (especially given the very public nature of this disclosure) on the lives of his wife and daughters. And, it's political tragedy, in light of the fact that he may well have compromised his principles as part of his effort to keep his secret.

And, unfortunately, this is a political tragedy which some may try to exploit, not just in New Jersey but throughout the country. Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog has realized the potential national use (or abuse) in Governor McGreevey's personal tragedy:

First of all, the GOP is about to make him John Kerry's running mate. Not all over the country, mind you -- you won't hear gay-bashing at the faux-moderate convention -- but on talk radio and the Internet, and probably above the radar as well, albeit in code words. And I'm sure they'd love to turn the guy who plans to sue him into the next Paula Jones. If they can make an even barely plausible case that he's truly a wronged gay lover, then all bets are off -- they can play this everywhere; they can play it as outrage at abuse of power for the swing voters while working the homophobia and aren't-Democrats-freaks? angle for everyone else.

They're certainly going to play McGreevey's decision to hang on until November as a sleazy Democratic trick -- and now the various nonsexual scandals of the McGreevey years (scroll down to paragraph 14 in this story for a brief summary) will go national. McGreevey may even bump the Swift boat Kerry haters from their spot at the top of the Fox News charts.

Unfortunately, that's an all-too-plausible scenario. And do you want to know the real funny thing about that?

It's this - I don't think any of the mainstream Republicans would want McGreevey to resign earlier, so that there was a gubernatorial election this November. That's because there's only one guy who's up and ready to go with a campaign on short notice: Bret Schundler, his opponent in the 2001 election, chair of an organization called "Empower the People", and who has been gearing up for the 2005 election. Mr. Schundler is still the favorite of conservative New Jersey Republicans - but, this being New Jersey, a lot of the Republicans (especially those in office) are more moderate. For the Republican establishment, if the choice is a quick election which Mr. Schundler is ready for, or an election next year, I think they'd choose the latter.

So, if it is true that the national Republicans will be using Governor McGreevey's situation to attack the Democrats, I think New Jersey's Republicans have their own little secret - and are happy to wait until next year for the gubernatorial election.

"We Keep Pretending That There's Nothing WrongBut There's A Code Of Silence And It Can't Go On"

It's been on my mind for a while, which you may have gathered from the things I've posted here. I guess it started a couple of months ago, after I attended a talk by Scott Ritter. As I wrote at the time -

When asked what people should do, his answer was very simple - do something. Get out there. Make a statement. Don't wait for the Republicans, for the Democrats, for the New York Times, or for anyone else to talk straight. If more people did that, who knows what could happen?

Anyway, I bought a couple of copies of his new book (to read and to pass on), and took his admonition to heart. We all need to get out and make our voices heard - and no matter how many people we may reach, it helps to keep passing it on.

It continued when I reflected on the 30th anniversary of the death of John Lennon, and I had this thought -

We can let a performer (or any person) inspire us, but we can't let them be a replacement for us. If we just sit around remembering someone, who once sang "War is over, if you want it", and do nothing else, we're really not keeping him alive, are we?

Just the other day, I was moved by the words written by Mr. Paul Schroeder, who used to live, and who raised his late son (a Marine who died in Iraq), here in my community. He wrote at the conclusion of his essay:

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

In short, silence is not neutral, now. If you are not heard, you may as well be endorsing what is happening. I was reminded of that yet again today, reading a transcript of Howard Dean on CNN -

BLITZER: About a month ago, Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee spoke out, urging his fellow Democrats, including yourself, to restrain themselves in criticizing the president's position on Iraq. Listen to what Lieberman said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that, in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What do you think? Is that advice good advice from Senator Lieberman?

DEAN: No. This president has lacked credibility almost from the day he took office because of the way he took office.

He's not reached out to other people. He's shown he's willing to abuse his power. He's not consulted others. And he's not interested in consulting any others.

And I think, frankly, that Joe is absolutely wrong, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a wrong direction.

And, finally, this evening I found myself reading an address by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered April 4, 1967 at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City, entitled "A Time to Break Silence". He was discussing the war in Vietnam, but his words are as applicable to our present times -

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

(By the way, you can listen to that address at this link.)

So, to sum up - I feel that there are so many reminders out there that to be silent is to aquiesce. As I've said before, if you approve of what is happening, that is your right. If you do not, then you can't just sit there. Learn about what is going on, make a statement in some way, and contribute to the growing clamor.

You know what to do, so just go and do it.

Jersey Girl?

Michelle Malkin, a feature performer on Fox Bigotry News, has a post on her blog (entitled N.J. & SLEAZE: PERFECT TOGETHER) about some political doings in my state of New Jersey. She notes two items - the steering of 9-11 funds to Democratic districts, and a loan (converted to a gift) from Senator Jon Corzine (now the Democratic candidate for Governor), to a woman who he used to date (and who heads a state workers' union).

As to the former, it should be investigated. Although, it just so happens that the "Democratic districts" are the places which have the international airport, the seaport, the oil and chemical plants, the financial areas which the Administration identified as targets last summer, and the immigrant neighborhoods which are of more interest to the FBI than the typical suburban cul-de-sac. Query - where else would this money be spent?

As to the latter, the Repubican gubernatorial candidate has jumped all over this. Despite the fact that one may wonder why a candidate giving money to someone qualifies as "sleaze" (I thought it was supposed to work the other way around), the Senator apparently reported the gift on his taxes, didn't keep it a secret, and had no dealings with the woman or her union during the time they were dating. I know Republicans love a sex scandal (or, as the Capitol Steps would say, "a skex sandal"), but this particular item may have some "skex", but not really any "sandal".

Normally, I would not bother to address a tawdry subject such as this, but I was drawn to Ms. Malkin's approach to these stories. In addition to the obligatory "Perfect Together" reference, she adds in her post -

They don't call my native state the Armpit of America for nothing.

Now, let's leave aside the fact that the "Google" search she links to produces sites which question, make fun of, or otherwise treat ironically the title, "Armpit of America". Her reference brought to mind what I believe was the last time Ms. Malkin focused on her "native state" - the murder of an Egyptian Christian family in Jersey City. Before the perpetrators were arrested, Ms. Malkin gleefully stoked the flames of racial and religious hatred, asserting that this Christian family was the victim of Muslim assasins. In fact, while during the investigation local officials cautioned people not to jump to conclusions, she mocked them and accused them of some sort of "political correctness" for not pursuing the "jihadists" who she concluded had committed the crime. Even when the truth came out, she continued to imply that there were legitimate unanswered questions.

The discredited story line in the tragedy of the Armanious family, was consistent with Ms. Malkin's whole body of work. Her book last year, in which she attempted to justify the unjustifiable race-based internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is simply the most extreme example of an obvious attempt to gain the favor of the bigots of this world in exchange for a paycheck.

In any event, she seems ashamed of her Jersey roots. Fortunately, I am a Jerseyan born, raised, and now resident by choice. Therefore, by the power vested in me as a True Jerseyan (or is it "Jerseyite?"), I hereby relieve Ms. Malkin of any connection to the Garden State. Believe me, we're much better off without being associated with her brand of opportunistic bigotry.

And, if she ever stops by here - "You're welcome!"