Too Pissed For a Clever Headline

The FISA Court and statute is no longer the exclusive governing authority for how surveillance can be conducted in America. It’s wide fucking open now.

Oh, and telecoms get immunity.

Fucked over retroactively and going forward. Nice job Reid and the rest of you fucking clowns.

And a special “Fuck You!” to Hillary for making sure she got a 21-day jump on building her Texas sandbag wall and skipping the vote altogether.

Also, Debbie Stabenow is now twelve feet down she is so fucking dead to me.

Much more on this to come. Trust me.

A Fucking Clue for the Democrats...

The reason Congress' approval numbers are spiraling down the bowl, is NOT because you are "weak on terror" or "don't support thr troops" it's because you refuse to fucking stand up to the Administration and the GOP and refuse to do anything of substance to slow down the slow and steady destruction of Constitutional Democracy.

The confirmation of an Attorney General who thinks torture is fine and dandy, and the President is above the law is just the latest in a long list of failures. It's not even what I would call a "disappointment", because it was inevitable.

I actually wish we never regained the Congress. At least the Republicans knew they were rubber-stamp, and didn't pretend otherwise.

You guys are a fucking joke.

There is much more to write on this, but I'm not sure I have the energy. Nor is there any point.

--

Recovering Republican and would-be Conservative John Cole joined the Democratic Party this week. Sorry I won't be there to welcome you, John. I am leaving. I will stay long enough to vote for Chris "The Only Guy Who Remembers the Constitution" Dodd in MI's primary and then I am out.

Losers

Grabbed a copy of The New York Times on my way into the building today (working at a college has a few perks—free NYT is one). I was curious how they were going to treat yesterday's failures in the Senate. Would they give it proper placement? And, would they treat it as a blanket Senate action (like most media seem to be doing) or as Republican obstructionism?

The story and headline was front-page, above-the-fold, upper right corner (in descending order of size/boldness):

EFFORT TO SHIFT COURSE IN IRAQ FAILS IN SENATE
----------------------------------
G.O.P. MINORITY PREVAILS
----------------------------------
Vote Ends Democratic Bid to Alter Leave Plan for Troops

Not perfect, but at least they addressed two major points without having to read the details of the story. In fact, given the strategy actually employed by the Democrats, they cannot complain about this story much. The NYT notes right up front that a GOP minority blocked the bill, and that it was a Democratic plan. I'd have preferred a headline like "GOP Minority Blocks Democrat's Plan to Stop Screwing the Troops" but saying an effort was made and failed was better than some lines I've seen. Let's read on (emphasis mine):

A proposal that Democrats put forward as their best chance of changing the course of the Iraq war died on the Senate floor on Wednesday, as Republicans stood firmly with President Bush.

With other war initiatives seemingly headed for the same fate, Senate Democrats, who only two weeks ago proclaimed September to be the month for shifting course in Iraq, conceded that they had little chance of success.

They said their strategy would now focus on portraying Republicans as opposing any change and on trying to chip away support for the White House as the war continued.

The proposal that failed Wednesday fell 4 votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster and would have required that troops be given as much time at home as they had spent overseas before being redeployed.

There were 56 votes in favor, including 6 Republicans — one fewer than the 7 Republicans who joined the Democrats in July, when the measure, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, also fell 4 votes short

First of all, stop "conceding." Period. Ahead of time…After the fact…Fuck that noise. That's a giant "we don't really mean it" signal to Bush and the GOP—and your own constituents.

The key here is above in bold—this is where the Democrat's own strategy fails them—twice. Not only do they lose the vote, they lose the news cycle as well. While it's made clear in this story Republicans are at fault for the bill "dying on the floor" this was never really brought to a vote. This was NOT and up-or-down vote on the proposal, it was a vote to end debate. The Republicans won despite being outvoted by 13, because the Democrats let them. I've already covered this ground:

Because Reid isn't making the Republicans "filibuster" anything. He counts heads and has a cloture vote, which brings debate to an end artificially, and they move on to the next item. Bullshit. MAKE. THEM. ACTUALLY. FILIBUSTER. Make these assholes actually go to the podium and speak. I don't care if they argue their positions or read the phone book, make them earn it. Reid is letting them off easy with an "implied" filibuster. Fuck that.

That's exactly what happened here. All that happened was the Democrats fell short of the 60 votes to prevent a filibuster and end debate. What does Harry Reid do? Throws up his hands and calls it a day. THAT IS FUCKING BULLSHIT! Caving because the Republicans say they are going to prevent the vote and continue debate is exactly what Reid and the Dems should want. As I said in June, MAKE. THEM. ACTUALLY. FILIBUSTER.

Want to cut past the non-stop O.J. coverage and make sure everyone knows what's happening? Make Republicans take to the podium for 24 hours and explain why they don't want the troops to have time at home. Nobody even knows what the fuck happened yesterday.

Oh, and what else happened yesterday? That's right…the Republicans did the exact same thing regarding upholding Habeus Corpus. The NY Times didn't even fit that on the front page. Toast has that one covered.

Why the hell is Reid scheduling these votes on the same day? And what two votes could possibly be more important than restoring a bedrock principle of democracy dating back to the Magna Carta and, short of ending the war, at least making sure troops get to come home for a decent amount of time between tours?

Another consequence of this fake filibuster shit? Creating the impression that it takes 60 votes to pass legislation. It doesn't. It takes 50+1. The Republicans have hijacked the process, and Reid has let them. All the public knows now is "56 votes falls short." It doesn't—56 votes is fucking bipartisan support with room to spare. Reid IS working with a majority! He even had 7 Republicans cross over! If Bush and 40 Republican partisans and one chinless dickweed want to work hard to screw the country, they can do it. But Reid is letting them have it without breaking a sweat.

What unfolded yesterday convinces me the Democrats are NOT serious about any of this shit. None of it. Yesterday was not a "defeat," it was a revelation. It was Congress, the democratic leadership in particular, exposed.

Only one thing will change my mind, Harry—Bring it back. Attach it to the Defense Bill. Force the vote. Make the Republicans filibuster, and then make them vote. Pass the bill and make Bush veto it. Only then will I "concede" defeat, because we don't have the 2/3's to overturn a veto. but by the time that happens the Republicans own it. The Republicans filibustered it. The Republican President vetoed it. It's on them. But barring that, Reid is letting them get away with it.

Next fall do you think anybody is going to remember what happened yesterday? That the Democrats did anything at all? No. Even the next day, most people never heard about it, and those that did, just heard, "Senate Blocks Troop Leave Bill" They lost the vote, lost the news cycle, lost the public's opinion, failed the troops, failed to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, and they fucked their own electoral strategy.

All in a day's work.

MORE, BECAUSE I'M NOT ANGRY ENOUGH YET:

“It means that Congress will not intervene in the foreseeable future,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Independent who has voted with the Republicans on war issues. “The fact that it didn’t get enough votes says that Congress doesn’t have the votes to stop this strategy of success from going forward.”

Strategy of success? Fuck you, Joe. And I hereby give Chris Dodd one-day immunity to come down the hall and beat the shit out of you for your Habeus vote, you GOP sell-out. Your ass should be booted from every fucking committee for your two votes yesterday.

For now, the failed Webb proposal is the closest Democrats have come to bipartisan legislation that would force Mr. Bush to change his strategy. And with Republicans solidly behind the plan outlined by Mr. Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, Democrats have retreated to a firm antiwar stance.

They are no longer entertaining the kind of compromise measures that some Democrats had proposed this month as an attempt to woo Republican defectors, and they said they would instead seek opportunities to hold votes that would more starkly contrast Republican support for the president with Democrats’ demands for withdrawal.

“The Republican leadership and the White House is getting them all to march in line,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who ranks third in the party leadership. “But it is marching further and further away from where America is. We just keep at it. It’s all we can do.”

"Retreat to a firm stance?" Whatever the hell that is. This is "all you can do," Chuck? Not by a fucking long shot. It's what you have determined is prudent for the election, which is as disgraceful as any action the Republicans have taken. You've decided that proposing DOA legislation and losing cloture votes to "starkly contrast" distinctions is a way to govern. It's not. It's a cop-out and it's a way to cover your asses and that's it.

Oh, and what's the first thing on today's agenda? A resolution to condemn MoveOn.org's stupid Petraeus ad. If that passes I think I'll just shoot myself in the head.

Fuck you guys. I'm done.

UPDATE: Welcome Benenites, and I added a link to my previous post about Mark Kleiman's Defense Bill plan.

The Executive Torture Order

Op-Ed in today's Washington Post...

War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions
By General P.X. Kelley (ret.) and Robert F. Turner

One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.

[...] This is not just about avoiding "torture." The article expressly prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever" any acts of "violence to life and person" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency."

In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse."

[...] To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.

[...] In a letter to President James Madison in March 1809, Jefferson observed: "It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side." Our leaders must never lose sight of that wisdom.

Don't these Reaganite pussies know 9/11 changed everything?

[h/t Sullivan]

Law and Orders

A great column at Slate.com that discusses how DOJ lawyers should advise an Administration...

The proper role for presidential lawyers is actually quite clear... The Constitution explicitly commands the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and it is up to the attorney general and, under his direction, DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel to provide the analytical expertise the president needs to ensure the legality of his administration's actions. Presidential lawyers should operate first and foremost as stewards of the rule of law and our constitutional democracy. Their legal advice must reflect an accurate and principled view of the law, not just plausible, ends-driven rationalizations. And in order to do that with any effectiveness, they must be allowed to tell the president "no."

The Constitution? Isn't that one of those "quaint" documents we now ignore? The Bush Administration has so clearly used the DOJ as a resource to seek out and rationalize any justification possible for what it wants to do rather than as a source of objective legal analysis. They have replaced or driven out anyone (even Ashcroft) who ever dared to raise a question, never mind an objection.

The Department of Justice is supposed to work for the People and even moreso, The Constitution. Congress should NEVER have alllowed the President to appoint his personal lawyer to head that Agency. This was all so predictible. Time for Congress to undo it's own mistake and reassert the Rule of Law.

Time to impeach Gonzalez. It might be a little while, I can wait to see how the Miers and Taylor subpoenas play out, and whether they get Rove under oath or not, but the endgame has to be the same. Gonzalez has to go, and it is increasingly clear that impeachment is the only way that will happen.